FR-1997-03-18.pdf - US Government Publishing Office

fede

ral r

egiste

r

1

TuesdayMarch 18, 1997Vol. 62 No. 52

Pages 12739–12914

3–18–97

Now Available Online

Code of Federal Regulationsvia

GPO Access(Selected Volumes)

Free, easy, online access to selected Code of FederalRegulations (CFR) volumes is now available via GPOAccess, a service of the United States Government PrintingOffice (GPO). CFR titles will be added to GPO Accessincrementally throughout calendar years 1996 and 1997until a complete set is available. GPO is taking steps sothat the online and printed versions of the CFR will bereleased concurrently.

The CFR and Federal Register on GPO Access, are theofficial online editions authorized by the AdministrativeCommittee of the Federal Register.

New titles and/or volumes will be added to this onlineservice as they become available.

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr

For additional information on GPO Access products,services and access methods, see page II or contact theGPO Access User Support Team via:

★ Phone: toll-free: 1-888-293-6498

★ Email: [email protected]

II

2

Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 52 / Tuesday, March 18, 1997

FEDERAL REGISTER Published daily, Monday through Friday,(not published on Saturdays, Sundays, or on official holidays),by the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives andRecords Administration, Washington, DC 20408, under the FederalRegister Act (49 Stat. 500, as amended; 44 U.S.C. Ch. 15) andthe regulations of the Administrative Committee of the FederalRegister (1 CFR Ch. I). Distribution is made only by theSuperintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,Washington, DC 20402.

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 and 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 Officeof the Federal Register the day before they are published, unlessearlier filing is requested by the issuing agency.

The seal of the National Archives and Records Administrationauthenticates this issue of the Federal Register as the official serialpublication established under the Federal Register Act. 44 U.S.C.1507 provides that the contents of the Federal Register shall bejudicially noticed.

The Federal Register is published in paper, 24x microfiche andas an online database through GPO Access, a service of the U.S.Government Printing Office. The online edition of the FederalRegister on GPO Access is issued under the authority of theAdministrative Committee of the Federal Register as the officiallegal equivalent of the paper and microfiche editions. The onlinedatabase is updated by 6 a.m. each day the Federal Register ispublished. The database includes both text and graphics fromVolume 59, Number 1 (January 2, 1994) forward. Free publicaccess is available on a Wide Area Information Server (WAIS)through the Internet and via asynchronous dial-in. Internet userscan access the database by using the World Wide Web; theSuperintendent of Documents home page address is http://www.access.gpo.gov/suldocs/, by using local WAIS clientsoftware, or by telnet to swais.access.gpo.gov, then login as guest,(no password required). Dial-in users should use communicationssoftware and modem to call (202) 512–1661; type swais, then loginas guest (no password required). For general information aboutGPO Access, contact the GPO Access User Support Team bysending Internet e-mail to [email protected]; by faxing to (202)512–1262; or by calling toll free 1–888–293–6498 or (202) 512–1530 between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern time, Monday–Friday,except for Federal holidays.

The annual subscription price for the Federal Register paperedition is $555, or $607 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 $220. Six monthsubscriptions are available for one-half the annual rate. The chargefor individual copies in paper form is $8.00 for each issue, or$8.00 for each group of pages as actually bound; or $1.50 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 or MasterCard. 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: 60 FR 12345.

SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COPIES

PUBLICSubscriptions:

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

General online information 202–512–15301–888–293–6498

Single 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

For other telephone numbers, see the Reader Aids section at the end ofthis issue.

NOW AVAILABLE ONLINE

The January 1997 Office of the Federal Register DocumentDrafting Handbook

Free, easy, online access to the newly revised January 1997Office of the Federal Register Document Drafting Handbook(DDH) is now available at:

http://www.nara.gov/nara/fedreg/ddh/ddhout.html

This handbook helps Federal agencies to prepare documentsfor publication in the Federal Register.

For additional information on access, contact the Office ofthe Federal Register’s Technical Support Staff.

Phone: 202–523–3447

E-mail: [email protected]

Contents Federal Register

III

Vol. 62, No. 52

Tuesday, March 18, 1997

Agricultural Marketing ServiceNOTICESAgency information collection activities:

Proposed collection; comment request, 12788–12789

Agricultural Research ServiceNOTICESAgency information collection activities:


Agriculture DepartmentSee Agricultural Marketing ServiceSee Agricultural Research ServiceSee Commodity Credit CorporationSee Farm Service Agency

Air Force DepartmentNOTICESMeetings:

Scientific Advisory Board, 12806

Coast GuardRULESRegattas and marine parades:

Miami Super Boat Race, 12750–12751NOTICESDrawbridge operations:

LaCrosse, WI; Canadian Pacific Railroad drawbridgeacross Upper Mississippi River; public hearing,12872

Environmental statements; availability, etc.:Incineration of solid waste aboard U.S. Coast Guard

cutters, 12872–12873

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

Commodity Credit CorporationNOTICESAgency information collection activities:


Comptroller of the CurrencyNOTICESNational banks:

Preemption determinations—Rhode Island; marketing insurance products to bank

customers, 12883–12884

Customs ServiceNOTICESAgency information collection activities:


Defense DepartmentSee Air Force DepartmentSee Navy DepartmentNOTICESTravel per diem rates, civilian personnel; changes, 12801–

12806

Drug Enforcement AdministrationNOTICESApplications, hearings, determinations, etc.:

Bigelsen, Harvey, M.D., 12839–12840Hsu, Yu-to, M.D., 12840–12842Tecca, Donald P., M.D., 12842–12847Thorn, Anne Lazar, M.D., 12847–12848

Education DepartmentNOTICESAgency information collection activities:

Proposed collection; comment request, 12817–12818Submission for OMB review; comment request, 12818

Employment and Training AdministrationNOTICESAdjustment assistance:

Burwood Products Co., 12852Burwood Products Co. et al., 12852–12853Gruen Marketing Corp., 12853Hasbro, Inc., et al., 12853–12854Kingstree Knits, 12854

Agency information collection activities:Proposed collection; comment request, 12854–12855

NAFTA transitional adjustment assistance:Printpack et al., 12855–12856R&S Dress Manufacturing Co., 12856Van Leer Containers, Inc., 12856

Energy DepartmentSee Federal Energy Regulatory CommissionNOTICESGrants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.:

Savannah River Site, history, 12818–12819Reports; availability, etc.:

Privatization Working Group—Harnessing the market, opportunities and challenges of

privatization; recommendations and commentsrequest, 12819–12820

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act; intergovernmentalconsultation; policy statement, 12820–12821

Environmental Protection AgencyPROPOSED RULESClean Air Act:

State operating permits program—Virginia, 12778–12787

NOTICESCommittees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.:

Science Advisory Board, 12829Food Quality Protection Act; implementation:

Pesticides regulation; implementation plan availability,12829–12830

Grants, State and local assistance:Drinking water state revolving fund program; final

allotment results (1997 FY), 12900–12903

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

IV Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 52/ Tuesday, March 18, 1997 / Contents

Farm Credit AdministrationNOTICESMeetings; Sunshine Act, 12830

Farm Service AgencyNOTICESWarehouses; licensed, and cancellations and/or

terminations; lists availability, 12791

Federal Aviation AdministrationRULESAirworthiness directives:

Boeing, 12739–12740British Aerospace, 12740–12743

Class E airspace, 12743PROPOSED RULESAirworthiness directives:

AlliedSignal Inc., 12774–12776de Havilland, 12768–12771Jetstream, 12771–12774

Class D airspace, 12892–12898NOTICESExemption petitions; summary and disposition, 12873Meetings:

RTCA, Inc., 12873–12874Passenger facility charges; applications, etc.:

Pellston Regional Airport, MI, 12874

Federal Communications CommissionRULESCommon carrier services:

Microwave relocation for C, D, E, and F blocks; voluntarynegotiation period shortening, etc., 12752–12759

NOTICESRulemaking proceedings; petitions filed, granted, denied,

etc., 12830–12831

Federal Energy Regulatory CommissionNOTICESHydroelectric applications, 12826–12828Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:

Eastern Shore Natural Gas Co., 12821–12822Equitrans, L.P., 12822Gulf States Transmission Corp., 12822Koch Gateway Pipeline Co., 12822–12823KO Transmission Co., 12822Louisiana Nevada Transit Co., 12823Mississippi River Transmission Corp., 12823Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America, 12823Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co., 12823–12824Petal Gas Storage Co., 12824Shell Gas Pipeline Co., 12825Southern Natural Gas Co., 12825Trunkline Gas Co., 12825Warren Transportation, Inc., 12825–12826Williams Natural Gas Co., 12826

Federal Highway AdministrationNOTICESIntelligent Transportation Systems program:

Advanced rural transportation systems strategic plan;inquiry, 12874–12883

Federal Reserve SystemNOTICESMeetings; Sunshine Act, 12831

Food and Drug AdministrationNOTICESHuman drugs:

Patent extension; regulatory review perioddeterminations—

BAYTRIL, 12831–12832Medical devices:

Immunotoxicity testing framework; draft guidanceavailability, 12832–12833

Meetings:Investigational biological products—

Clinical holds monitoring; oversight committee, 12833–12834

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

CaliforniaHewlett-Packard Co.; computer and related electronic

products manufacturing and distribution facilities,12792

Solectron Corp.; electronic/computer/telecommunication equipment plant, 12791

GeorgiaYamaha Motor Manufacturing Corp. of America; all-

terrain vehicle manufacturing plant, 12792–12793South Carolina, 12793

General Services AdministrationNOTICESEnvironmental statements; availability, etc.:

San Francisco, CA; Federal Building, 12831

Health and Human Services DepartmentSee Food and Drug AdministrationSee Health Care Financing AdministrationSee Public Health Service

Health Care Financing AdministrationNOTICESAgency information collection activities:

Submission for OMB review; comment request, 12834–12835

Interior DepartmentSee Land Management BureauSee National Park ServiceSee Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement OfficeNOTICESIntergovernmental review of agency programs and

activities, 12835–12836

International Trade AdministrationNOTICESAntidumping:

Dynamic random access memory semiconductors of onemegabit and above from—

Korea, 12794–12799Antidumping and countervailing duties:

Administrative review requests, 12793–12794Export trade certificates of review, 12799–12800

Justice DepartmentSee Drug Enforcement AdministrationSee Justice Programs Office

VFederal Register / Vol. 62, No. 52/ Tuesday, March 18, 1997 / Contents

Justice Programs OfficeNOTICESGrants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.:

State criminal alien assistance program, 12848–12851

Labor DepartmentSee Employment and Training AdministrationSee Pension and Welfare Benefits AdministrationNOTICESAgency information collection activities:

Submission for OMB review; comment request, 12852

Land Management BureauNOTICESMeetings:

Powder River Regional Coal Team, 12836Public land orders:

Michigan, 12836–12837Survey plat filings:

Oregon/Washington, 12837

Legal Services CorporationRULESLegal assistance eligibility:

Maximum income levels, 12751–12752

Management and Budget OfficeNOTICESBudget rescissions and deferrals

Cumulative reports, 12864–12866

National Archives and Records AdministrationSee National Historical Publications and Records

Commission

National Historical Publications and Records CommissionNOTICESNational Historical Publications and Records Commission

Strategic plan; comment request, 12857–12858

National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationRULESPacific Halibut Commission, International:

Pacific halibut fisheries—Catch sharing plans, 12759–12767

NOTICESMeetings:

North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 12800Permits:

Marine mammals, 12801

National Park ServiceNOTICESConcession contract negotiations:

Bryce Canyon National Park, UT; guided horse rides,12837

Meetings:National Preservation Technology and Training Board,

12837–12838National Register of Historic Places:

Pending nominations, 12838–12839

National Science FoundationNOTICESMeetings:

Education and Human Resources Advisory Committee,12858

Real and Harmonic Analysis in Math Sciences Panel,12858

Undergraduate Education Special Emphasis Panel, 12858

National Transportation Safety BoardNOTICESMeetings; Sunshine Act, 12858

Navy DepartmentNOTICESPrivacy Act:

Systems of records, 12806–12817

Nuclear Regulatory CommissionNOTICESMeetings; Sunshine Act, 12861Memorandums of understanding:

Energy Department; Hanford tank waste remediationsystem privatization activities; cooperation andsupport for demonstration phase (Phase I), 12861–12864

Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:Entergy Operations, Inc., 12858–12859Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., 12859–12860

Office of Management and BudgetSee Management and Budget Office

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

Panama Canal CommissionRULESHealth, sanitation, and communicable disease surveillance;

and radio communication:Disinfecting vessels requirement; technical amendments;

correction, 12751

Pension and Welfare Benefits AdministrationNOTICESMeetings:

Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans AdvisoryCouncil, 12856–12857

Public Health ServiceSee Food and Drug AdministrationRULESFellowships, internships, training:

Health services research, evaluation, demonstration, anddissemination projects; peer review of grants andcontracts, 12906–12914

NOTICESMeetings:

B vitamins; second Food and Nutrition Board workshop,12835

Securities and Exchange CommissionRULESSecurities:

Securities Exchange Act of 1934; section 10A reportingrequirements, 12743–12750

NOTICESSelf-regulatory organizations; proposed rule changes:

National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., 12866–12871

Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:Medeva PLC, 12866

VI Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 52/ Tuesday, March 18, 1997 / Contents

State DepartmentNOTICESMeetings:

Eastern Europe and the Independent States of the FormerSoviet Union Advisory Committee, 12871

Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement OfficePROPOSED RULESPermanent program and abandoned mine land reclamation

plan submissions:Indiana

Correction, 12776Virginia, 12776–12778

NOTICESAgency information collection activities:

Proposed collection; comment request, 12839

Surface Transportation BoardNOTICESRailroad services abandonment:

Idaho Northern & Pacific Railroad Co., 12883

Trade Representative, Office of United StatesNOTICESWorld Trade Organization:

Financial services negotiations under General Agreementon Trade in Services, 12871–12872

Transportation DepartmentSee Coast GuardSee Federal Aviation AdministrationSee Federal Highway AdministrationSee Surface Transportation Board

Treasury DepartmentSee Comptroller of the CurrencySee Customs ServiceNOTICESAgency information collection activities:

Submission for OMB review; comment request, 12883

Separate Parts In This Issue

Part IIDepartment of Transportation; Federal Aviation

Administration, 12892–12898

Part IIIEnvironmental Protection Agency, 12900–12903

Part IVHealth and Human Services Department; Public Health

Service, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research,12906–12914

Reader AidsAdditional information, including a list of public laws,telephone numbers, reminders, and finding aids, appears inthe Reader Aids section at the end of this issue.

Electronic Bulletin BoardFree Electronic Bulletin Board service for Public Lawnumbers, Federal Register finding aids, and a list ofdocuments on public inspection is available on 202–275–1538 or 275–0920.

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. 62, No. 52 / Tuesday, March 18, 1997 / Contents

14 CFR39 (2 documents) ...........12739,

1274071 (2 documents) ............12743Proposed Rules:39 (3 documents) ...........12768,

12771, 1277471.....................................12892

17 CFR210...................................12743240...................................12743

30 CFRProposed Rules:914...................................12776946...................................12776

33 CFR100...................................12750

35 CFR61.....................................12751

40 CFRProposed Rules:70.....................................12778

42 CFR67.....................................12906

45 CFR1611.................................12751

47 CFR24.....................................12752101...................................12752

50 CFR300...................................12759

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

12739

Vol. 62, No. 52


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 96–NM–67–AD; Amendment39–9966; AD 97–06–09]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; BoeingModel 737–300, –400, and –500 SeriesAirplanes

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

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts anew airworthiness directive (AD),applicable to certain Boeing Model 737–300, –400, and –500 series airplanes.This AD requires replacing certainaileron/rudder trim control moduleswith an improved module that containsan improved rudder trim switch thatprecludes the problems of stickingassociated with the existing switch. Thisamendment is prompted by reports ofsticking conditions in the rudder trimswitch. The actions specified by this ADare intended to prevent such sticking,which could result in uncommandedmovement of the rudder and consequentdeviation of the airplane from its setcourse.DATES: Effective April 21, 1997.

The incorporation by reference ofcertain publications listed in theregulations is approved by the Directorof the Federal Register as of April 21,1997.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:Hania Younis, Aerospace Engineer,Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft CertificationOffice, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,Washington; telephone (206) 227–2764;fax (206) 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 737–300, –400, and –500 seriesairplanes was published in the FederalRegister on October 3, 1996 (61 FR51624). That action proposed to requirereplacing the aileron/rudder trimcontrol module P8–43 with an improvedmodule that precludes the problemsassociated with sticking that wereidentified in the existing module.

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

Support for the ProposalTwo commenters support the

proposed AD.

Request To Clarify Description ofReplacement Module

One commenter requests that theFAA’s description of the replacementmodule be revised to make it morespecific. This commenter points out thatthe Summary and Discussion sections ofthe preamble to the notice described thereplacement module as a ‘‘new modelthat contains an improved rudder trimswitch to reduce internal friction.’’However, the commenter states that thenew module incorporates a switch thatis of an entirely different design and,therefore, accomplishes more than justreduce friction. The new switch is muchsimpler in design and is, therefore, morereliable; the simpler design alsoeliminates multiple causes of stickingthat have been identified in the existingswitch. The commenter suggests that thedescription of the new module includethis information.

The FAA concurs that thecommenter’s description is morespecific. The FAA has revised thedescriptive language in the appropriateportions of this preamble to the final

rule to include the commenter’ssuggested wording.

Request to Clarify Description of UnsafeCondition

This same commenter requests thatthe FAA’s description of the unsafecondition, which appeared in theDiscussion section of the preamble tothe notice, be revised. The commenterpoints to a sentence in that section thatstated, ‘‘If the trim switch sticks, it maybe prevented form returning to thecenter position.’’ The commenter statesthat this sentence would be moreaccurate if stated as ‘‘If the trim switchsticks, it may be prevented fromreturning to the center position whenthe switch knob is released.’’

The FAA does not concur. The FAAdoes acknowledge that the majority ofincidents prompting this AD actionhave involved switches that did notreturn to the center position when theswitch knob was released. However,according to the manufacturer, it ispossible that rudder pedals would berequired to control rudder movement;i.e., it is possible that even returning theswitch to the center position manuallymay not be effective. Therefore, thecommenter’s proposed wording wouldnot be accurate for all possible failurescenarios.

Request to Change Proposed ActionsAltogether

One commenter, a non-U.S. operator,requests that the proposal be revised byeliminating the proposed actionsaltogether because they will ‘‘onlygenerate additional maintenance costswithout affecting safety positively.’’Instead, the commenter suggests that theFAA propose requiring (1) a clearancecheck between the rudder trim knob andthe control panel, and (2) restrictions onfood and beverages in the cockpit. Thiscommenter maintains that the maincause of rudder trim runaways is due tointerference between the rudder trimknob and the control panel, and, in mostcases, this interference is the result ofdirt (i.e., dust and food) collectingbeneath the knob and contaminating theswitches. In light of this, the commenterconsiders that requiring a gap check anda cleaning task would be a better courseof action.

The FAA does not concur. While agap check and cleaning task would beeffective in removing contaminationonce it occurs, the newly designed

12740 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 52 / Tuesday, March 18, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

module required by this AD will preventcontamination of the switch. Therefore,it eliminates the potential for thecircumstances prompting the unsafecondition from developing, and doesnot impose additional restrictions orcleaning requirements.

ConclusionAfter careful review of the available

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

Cost ImpactThere are approximately 1,159 Boeing

Model 737–300, –400, and –500 seriesairplanes of the affected design in theworldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that537 airplanes of U.S. registry will beaffected by this AD, that it will takeapproximately 3 work hours perairplane to accomplish the requiredactions, and that the average labor rateis $60 per work hour. Required partswill cost approximately $1,063 perairplane. Based on these figures, the costimpact of the AD on U.S. operators isestimated to be $667,491, or $1,243 perairplane.

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.

Regulatory ImpactThe regulations adopted herein will

not 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, inaccordance with Executive Order 12612,it is determined that this final rule doesnot have sufficient federalismimplications to warrant the preparationof a Federalism Assessment.

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.

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESSDIRECTIVES

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended byadding the following new airworthinessdirective:97–06–09 Boeing: Amendment 39–9966.

Docket 96–NM–67–AD.Applicability: Model 737–300, –400, and

–500 series airplanes; as listed in BoeingAlert Service Bulletin 737–27A1198, datedJune 6, 1996; 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 (b) of this AD.The request should include an assessment ofthe effect of the modification, alteration, orrepair on the unsafe condition addressed bythis AD; and, if the unsafe condition has notbeen eliminated, the request should includespecific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unlessaccomplished previously.

To prevent sticking conditions in therudder trim switch, which could result inuncommanded movement of the rudder andconsequent deviation of the airplane from itsset course, accomplish the following:

(a) Within 2 years after the effective dateof this AD, replace the aileron/rudder trimcontrol module P8–43 having part number(P/N) 69–73703–5 or 69–73703–6 with a newaileron/rudder trim control module having P/N 69–73703–8, in accordance with BoeingAlert Service Bulletin 737–27A1198, datedJune 6, 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, SeattleAircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA,Transport Airplane Directorate. Operatorsshall submit their requests through anappropriate FAA Principal MaintenanceInspector, who may add comments and thensend it to the Manager, Seattle ACO.

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

(c) Special flight permits may be issued inaccordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane toa location where the requirements of this ADcan be accomplished.

(d) The replacement shall be done inaccordance with Boeing Alert ServiceBulletin 737–27A1198, dated June 6, 1996.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.

(e) This amendment becomes effective onApril 21, 1997.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on March10, 1997.Darrell M. Pederson,Acting Manager, Transport AirplaneDirectorate, Aircraft Certification Service.[FR Doc. 97–6541 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 96–NM–26–AD; Amendment39–9969; AD 97–06–12]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; BritishAerospace Model BAe 146 and Avro146–RJ Series Airplanes

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

SUMMARY: This amendment supersedestwo existing airworthiness directives(AD), applicable to British AerospaceModel BAe 146 and Avro 146–RJ seriesairplanes, that currently requireinspections to detect cracking of theupper main fitting of the nose landinggear (NLG), and replacement or repair ofcracked parts, if necessary. Thoseactions were prompted by reports ofcracking in the main fittings of the NLG.This amendment requires that, forcertain airplanes, the inspections beaccomplished at reduced intervals. Thisamendment is prompted by the resultsof new analyses of the cracking thatwere conducted by the manufacturer ofthe NLG. The actions specified by thisAD are intended to prevent failure of themain fitting, which could lead tocollapse of the NLG during landing.DATES: Effective April 21, 1997.

12741Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 52 / Tuesday, March 18, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

The incorporation by reference ofBritish Aerospace Service Bulletin S.B.32–131, Revision 3, dated October 18,1995, as listed in the regulations, isapproved by the Director of the FederalRegister as of April 21, 1997.

The incorporation by reference ofBritish Aerospace Service Bulletin S.B.32–131, Revision 2, dated July 10, 1993,as listed in the regulations, wasapproved previously by the Director ofthe Federal Register as of April 6, 1995(60 FR 12413, March 7, 1995).

The incorporation by reference ofBritish Aerospace Service Bulletin S.B.32–131, Revision 1, dated November 12,1992, as listed in the regulations, wasapproved previously by the Director ofthe Federal Register as of October 7,1993 (58 FR 47036, September 7, 1993).

The incorporation by reference ofBritish Aerospace Service Bulletin S.B.32–131, dated December 6, 1991, aslisted in the regulations, was approvedpreviously by the Director of the FederalRegister as of January 12, 1993 (57 FR57883, December 8, 1992).ADDRESSES: The service informationreferenced in this AD may be obtainedfrom British Aerospace Holding, Inc.,Avro International Aerospace Division,P.O. Box 16039, Dulles InternationalAirport, Washington DC 20041–6039.This information may be examined atthe Federal Aviation Administration(FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate,Rules Docket, 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: TimBackman, Aerospace Engineer,Standardization Branch, ANM–113,FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,Washington 98055–4056; telephone(206) 227–2797; fax (206) 227–1149.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Aproposal to amend part 39 of the FederalAviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39)by superseding AD 93–17–04,amendment 39–8674 (58 FR 47036,September 7, 1993), and AD 95–04–06,amendment 39–9158 (60 FR 12413,March 7, 1995), which are applicable toBritish Aerospace Model BAe 146 andAvro 146–RJ series airplanes, waspublished in the Federal Register onOctober 18, 1996 (61 FR 54366). Theaction proposed to supersede AD 93–17–04 and AD 95–04–06 to continue torequire either eddy current or ultra highsensitivity penetrant inspections todetect cracking of the upper main fittingof the nose landing gear (NLG), andreplacement or repair of cracked parts,if necessary. It also proposed to requirethat inspections of certain airplanes

equipped with specific NLG’s beconducted at reduced intervals.

Interested persons have been affordedan 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 52 Model

BAe 146 and Model Avro 146–RJ seriesairplanes of U.S. registry that will beaffected by this proposed AD.

The inspections that are currentlyrequired by AD 93–17–04 and AD 95–04–06, and retained in this proposal,take approximately 3 work hours perairplane to accomplish, at an averagelabor rate of $60 per work hour. Basedon these figures, the cost impact of thepreviously required actions on U.S.operators is estimated to be $9,360, or$180 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

Although this amendment adds nonew actions, the associated costs forsome operators will increase somewhatsince certain inspections will berequired to be performed morefrequently.

The cost impact figures discussedabove are based on assumptions that nooperator has yet accomplished any ofthe requirements of this AD action, andthat no operator would accomplishthose actions in the future if this ADwere not adopted.

Regulatory ImpactThe regulations adopted herein will

not 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, inaccordance with Executive Order 12612,it is determined that this final rule doesnot have sufficient federalismimplications to warrant the preparationof a Federalism Assessment.

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 is

contained 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 39Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Incorporation by reference,Safety.

Adoption of the AmendmentAccordingly, pursuant to the

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



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

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

removing amendment 39–8674 (58 FR47036, September 7, 1993) andamendment 39–9158 (60 FR 12413,March 7, 1995), by adding a newairworthiness directive (AD),amendment 39–9969, to read as follows:

97–06–12 British Aerospace RegionalAircraft Limited, Avro International:Amendment 39–9969. Docket 96–NM–26–AD. Supersedes AD 93–17–04, amendment39–8674; and AD 95–04–06, amendment 39–9158.

Applicability: Model BAe 146 and Avro146–RJ series airplanes, 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 (f) of this AD. Therequest should include an assessment of theeffect of the modification, alteration, or repairon the unsafe condition addressed by thisAD; and, if the unsafe condition has not beeneliminated, the request should includespecific proposed actions to address it.


To prevent failure of the main fitting,which could lead to collapse of the noselanding gear (NLG) during landing,accomplish the following:

Restatement of Continuing Requirements(a) For Model BAe 146 series airplanes on

which NLG part number 200876002,200876004, or 201138002 has been installed:

(1) Prior to the accumulation of 16,000total landings or within 30 days after October


7, 1993 (the effective date of AD 93–17–04,Amendment 39–8674), whichever occurslater, conduct an eddy current or ultrasensitivity penetrant inspection of the NLG,in accordance with British Aerospace ServiceBulletin S.B. 32–131, dated December 6,1991; Revision 1, dated November 12, 1992;Revision 2, dated July 10, 1993; or Revision3, dated October 18, 1995. Repeat theinspection thereafter at intervals not toexceed 8,000 landings.

(2) If cracking is detected during anyinspection required by this paragraph, priorto further flight, replace the currentlyinstalled NLG with a new or serviceable unit,or repair the crack, in accordance with amethod approved by the Manager,Standardization Branch, ANM–113, FAA,Transport Airplane Directorate. Afterreplacement or repair, repeat the inspectionat intervals not to exceed 8,000 landings.

(b) For Model Avro 146–RJ series airplaneson which NLG part number 200876002,200876004, or 201138002 has been installed:

(1) Prior to the accumulation of 16,000total landings or within 30 days after April6, 1995 (the effective date of AD 95–04–06,Amendment 39–9158), whichever occurslater, conduct an eddy current or ultrasensitivity penetrant inspection of the NLG,in accordance with British Aerospace ServiceBulletin S.B. 32–131, dated December 6,1991; Revision 1, dated November 12, 1992;Revision 2, dated July 10, 1993; or Revision3, dated October 18, 1995. Repeat theinspection thereafter at intervals not toexceed 8,000 landings.

(2) If cracking is detected during anyinspection required by this paragraph, priorto further flight, replace the currentlyinstalled NLG with a new or serviceable unit,or repair the crack, in accordance with amethod approved by the Manager,Standardization Branch, ANM–113, FAA,Transport Airplane Directorate. Afterreplacement or repair, repeat the inspectionat intervals not to exceed 8,000 landings.

(c) For Model BAe 146 series airplanes onwhich NLG part number 200876001 or200876003 has been installed:

(1) Prior to the accumulation of 4,000 totallandings or within 30 days after October 7,1993 (the effective date of AD 93–17–04,Amendment 39–8674), whichever occurslater, conduct an eddy current or ultra highsensitivity penetrant inspection of the NLG,in accordance with British Aerospace Service

Bulletin S.B. 32–131, dated December 6,1991; Revision 1, dated November 12, 1992;Revision 2, dated July 10, 1993; or Revision3, dated October 18, 1995. Repeat theinspection thereafter at intervals not toexceed 4,000 landings until the inspectionrequired by paragraph (e) of this AD isaccomplished.

(2) If cracking is detected during anyinspection required by this paragraph, priorto further flight, replace the currentlyinstalled NLG with a new or serviceable unit,or repair the crack, in accordance with amethod approved by the Manager,Standardization Branch, ANM–113, FAA,Transport Airplane Directorate. Afterreplacement or repair, repeat the inspectionat intervals not to exceed 4,000 landings untilthe inspection required by paragraph (e) ofthis AD is accomplished.

(d) For Model Avro 146–RJ series airplaneson which NLG part number 200876001 or200876003 has been installed:

(1) Prior to the accumulation of 4,000 totallandings or within 30 days after April 6, 1995(the effective date of AD 95–04–06,Amendment 39–9158), whichever occurslater, conduct an eddy current or ultra highsensitivity penetrant inspection of the NLG,in accordance with British Aerospace ServiceBulletin S.B. 32–131, dated December 6,1991; Revision 1, dated November 12, 1992;Revision 2, dated July 10, 1993; or Revision3, dated October 18, 1995. Repeat theinspection thereafter at intervals not toexceed 4,000 landings until the inspectionrequired by paragraph (e) of this AD isaccomplished.

(2) If cracking is detected during anyinspection required by this paragraph,prior to further flight, replace thecurrently installed NLG with a new orserviceable unit, or repair the crack, inaccordance with a method approved bythe Manager, Standardization Branch,ANM–113, FAA, Transport AirplaneDirectorate. After replacement or repair,repeat the inspection at intervals not toexceed 4,000 landings until theinspection required by paragraph (e) ofthis AD is accomplished.

New Requirements(e) For Model BAe 146 and Avro 146–RJ

series airplanes on which NLG part number

200876001 or 200876003 has been installed:Within 2,000 landings from the immediatelypreceding inspection conducted inaccordance with paragraph (c) or (d) of thisAD, or within 3 months after the effectivedate of this AD, whichever occurs later,accomplish the following:

(1) Conduct an eddy current or ultra highsensitivity penetrant inspection of the NLG,in accordance with British Aerospace ServiceBulletin S.B. 32–131, Revision 3, datedOctober 18, 1995. Repeat the inspectionthereafter at intervals not to exceed 2,000landings. Accomplishment of this inspectionterminates the requirements of paragraph (c)and (d) of this AD.

Note 2: The British Aerospace servicebulletin references a Messier-Dowty ServiceBulletin 145–32–109, Revision 2, datedAugust 2, 1995, as an additional source ofservice information.

(2) If cracking is detected during anyinspection required by this paragraph, priorto further flight, replace the currentlyinstalled NLG with a new or serviceable unit,or repair the crack, in accordance with amethod approved by the Manager,Standardization Branch, ANM–113. Afterreplacement or repair, repeat the inspectionat intervals not to exceed 2,000 landings.

(f) An alternative method of compliance oradjustment of the compliance time thatprovides an acceptable level of safety may beused if approved by the Manager, Manager,Standardization Branch, ANM–113, FAA,Transport Airplane Directorate. Operatorsshall submit their requests through anappropriate FAA Principal MaintenanceInspector, who may add comments and thensend it to the Manager, StandardizationBranch, ANM–113.

Note 3: Information concerning theexistence of approved alternative methods ofcompliance with this AD, if any, may beobtained from the Standardization Branch,ANM–113.

(g) Special flight permits may be issued inaccordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane toa location where the requirements of this ADcan be accomplished.

(h) The inspections shall be done inaccordance with the following BritishAerospace service bulletins:

Service bulletin number Revision level Date

S.B. 32–131 ............................................................. (Original) .................................................................. December 6, 1991.S.B. 32–131 ............................................................. Revision 1 ................................................................ November 12, 1992.S.B. 32–131 ............................................................. Revision 2 ................................................................ July 10, 1993.S.B. 32–131 ............................................................. Revision 3 ................................................................ October 18, 1995.

The incorporation by reference (IBR) of certain of these service bulletins was approved previously by the Director of the FederalRegister in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51, as follows:

Service bulletin number/revision IBR approval date Federal Register citation

S.B. 32–131, (original) ............................................. January 12, 1993 ..................................................... (57 FR 57883, December 8, 1992).S.B. 32–131, Revision 1 .......................................... October 7, 1993 ....................................................... (58 FR 47036, September 7, 1993).S.B. 32–131, Revision 2 .......................................... April 6, 1995 ............................................................ (60 FR 12413, March 7, 1995).

The incorporation by reference of British Aerospace Service Bulletin S.B. 32–131, Revision 3, dated October 18, 1995, is approvedby the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of any of these service bulletins


may be obtained from British Aerospace Holding, Inc., Avro International Aerospace Division, P.O. Box 16039, Dulles InternationalAirport, Washington DC 20041–6039. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,Renton, Washington; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC.

(i) This amendment becomes effective onApril 21, 1997.


14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. 96–ACE–22]

Amendment to Class E Airspace,Alliance, NE

AGENCY: Federal AviationAdministration, DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation ofeffective date.

SUMMARY: The direct final rule,published on January 14, 1997, amendsthe Class E airspace area at AllianceMunicipal Airport, Alliance, NE. TheFederal Aviation Administration hasdeveloped a Standard InstrumentApproach Procedure (SIAP) based onthe Global Positioning System. Theeffect of the direct final rule is toprovide additional controlled airspacefor aircraft departing AllianceMunicipal Airport.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 22, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Kathy Randolph, Air Traffic Division,Operations Branch, ACE–530C, FederalAviation Administration, 601 East 12thStreet, Kansas City, MO 64106,telephone: (816) 426–3408.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAApublished the direct final rule with arequest for comments in the FederalRegister on January 14, 1997 (62 FR1828). The FAA uses the direct finalrulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where the FAAbelieves that there will be no adversepublic comment. This direct final ruleadvised the public that no adversecomments were anticipated, and thatunless a written adverse comment, or awritten notice of intent to submit suchas adverse comment, was receivedwithin the comment period, theregulation would become effective onMay 22, 1997. No adverse commentswere received, and thus this documentconfirms that this final rule will becomeeffective on that date.

Issued in Kansas City, MO, on February 26,1997.Herman J. Lyons, Jr.,Manager, Air Traffic Division, Central Region.[FR Doc. 97–6399 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. 96–ACE–24]

Amendment to Class E Airspace,Sidney, NE

AGENCY: Federal AviationAdministration, DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation ofeffective date.

SUMMARY: The direct final rule,published on January 14, 1997, amendsthe Class E airspace area at SidneyMunicipal Airport, Sidney, NE. TheFederal Aviation Administration hasdeveloped a Standard InstrumentApproach Procedure (SIAP) based onthe Global Positioning System. Theeffect of the direct final rule is toprovide additional controlled airspacefor aircraft departing Sidney MunicipalAirport.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 22, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Kathy Randolph, Air Traffic Division,Operations Branch, ACE–530C, FederalAviation Administration, 601 East 12thStreet, Kansas City, MO 64106,telephone: (816) 426–3408.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAApublished the direct final rule with arequest for comments in the FederalRegister on January 14, 1997 (62 FR1827). The FAA uses the direct finalrulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where the FAAbelieves that there will be no adversepublic comment. This direct final ruleadvised the public that no adversecomments were anticipated, and thatunless a written adverse comment, or awritten notice of intent to submit suchan adverse comment, was receivedwithin the comment period, theregulation would become effective onMay 22, 1997. No adverse commentswere received, and thus this documentconfirms that this final rule will becomeeffective on that date.

Issued in Kansas City, MO, on February 26,1997.Herman J. Lyons, Jr.,Manager, Air Traffic Division, Central Region.[FR Doc. 97–6398 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGECOMMISSION

17 CFR Parts 210 and 240

[Release No. 34–38387; IC–22553; FR–49;File No. S7–20–96]

RIN 3235–AG70

Implementation of Section 10A of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934

AGENCY: Securities and ExchangeCommission.ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Securities and ExchangeCommission (‘‘Commission’’ or ‘‘SEC’’)is adopting revisions to its rules toimplement the reporting requirementsin section 10A of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (the ‘‘ExchangeAct’’). Section 10A requires, amongother things, that the auditor of anissuer’s financial statements report tothe issuer’s board of directors certainuncorrected illegal acts of the issuer,and that the issuer notify theCommission that it has received such areport. If the issuer fails to provide thatnotice, the auditor is required by section10A to furnish directly to theCommission the report given to theBoard. The amendments to theCommission’s Exchange Act Rulesimplement those reportingrequirements. The Commission also isadopting revisions to Regulation S–X toconform the definition of ‘‘audit’’ in thatregulation with the wording in section10A.EFFECTIVE DATE: The rule revisions areeffective April 17, 1997.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Robert E. Burns or W. Scott Bayless, at(202) 942–4400, Office of the ChiefAccountant, Mail Stop 11–3, orKathleen Clarke, at (202) 942–0724,Division of Investment Management,Mail Stop 10–6, Securities andExchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street,NW., Washington, DC 20549.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: TheCommission is adopting amendments toits Exchange Act Rules, 17 CFR 240, byadding Rule 10A–1, and Regulation S–X, 17 CFR 210, by revising Rule 1–02.


1 Because section 10A applies to audits under theExchange Act, it and Rule 10A–1 apply to auditsof the financial statements of foreign private issuersthat are required under that Act.

2 Section 10A(f) defines the term ‘‘illegal act’’broadly to mean ‘‘an act or omission that violatesany law, or any rule or regulation having the forceof law.’’ This definition is consistent generally withStatement on Auditing Standards No. 54, ‘‘IllegalActs by Clients,’’ ¶ 2 (January 1, 1989), AU § 317.02,which states, ‘‘the term illegal acts * * * refers toviolations of laws or governmental regulations.’’

3 For the purpose of this release, the term‘‘auditor’’ refers to any independent public orcertified public accountant who is performing orhas performed an audit of a registrant’s financialstatements and whose audit report has or will befiled with the Commission in accordance with thefederal securities laws or the Commission’sregulations. See, e.g., sections 12(b)(1) (J) and (K),13(a)(2), and 17(e) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C.78l(b)(1) (J) and (K), 78m(a)(2), and 78q(e), and theCommission’s Regulation S–X, 17 CFR § 210. Theterm ‘‘independent accountant’’ is used in theregulatory text in order to be consistent withexisting provisions in Regulation S–X.

4 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 37594,Investment Company Act Release No. 22162, FileNo. S7–20–96 (August 22, 1996) [61 FR 45730] (the‘‘Proposing Release’’).

5 Section 10A(a) (1), (2), and (3).6 In February 1941, the Commission amended

Rule 2–02 of Regulation S–X, 17 CFR § 210.2–02,to require that the independent accountant state inhis or her report ‘‘whether the audit was made inaccordance with generally accepted auditingstandards * * *’’ Accounting Series Release No. 21(February 5, 1941). In this release, the Commissiondefined ‘‘generally accepted auditing standards’’ tomean the application of ‘‘generally recognizednormal auditing procedures’’ with professionalcompetence by properly trained persons. TheCommission defined ‘‘generally recognized normalauditing procedures’’ to be those normallyemployed by skilled accountants and thoseprescribed by authoritative bodies dealing with thesubject of auditing, such as accounting societies andgovernmental bodies having jurisdiction in the area.Id. Following this addition to the Commission’srules, the relevant professional committee at thetime, the Committee on Auditing Procedure, begana study to determine which auditing standardsshould be included within ‘‘GAAS.’’ In 1948, themembership of the predecessor organization to theAmerican Institute of Certified Public Accountants(‘‘AICPA’’) approved ten standards as constitutingGAAS. See, AICPA, Codification of Statements onAuditing Standards, AU § 150.02. These tenstandards are supplemented by Statements onAuditing Standards, which currently are issued bythe Auditing Standards Board of the AICPA.

7 Currently effective Statements on AuditingStandards are published by the American Instituteof Certified Public Accountants in the Codificationof Statements on Auditing Standards. Provisions inthe Codification are designated as ‘‘AU §l.’’ Forstandards addressing those procedures mandated bysection 10A, see SAS 54, ‘‘Illegal Acts by Clients’’(January 1, 1989), AU § 317; SAS 45, ‘‘RelatedParties’’ (September 30, 1983), AU § 334; and SAS59, 64, and 77 reprinted in ‘‘The Auditor’sConsideration of an Entity’s Ability to Continue asa Going Concern’’ (January 1, 1989), AU § 341. Seealso SAS 53, ‘‘The Auditor’s Responsibility toDetect and Report Errors and Irregularities’’(January 1, 1989), AU § 316. The ASB recentlyadopted a revision to SAS 53, which will beentitled ‘‘Consideration of Fraud in a FinancialStatement Audit’’ and designated as SAS 82. Thisnew standard should be published in Spring 1997and will be applicable to the audits of 1997financial statements.

8 The ASB’s 15 members serve on a part-timebasis and are appointed for one year terms that maybe extended for up to three years.

9 Section 10A(b)(1)(A). See, SAS 54, ¶¶ 10–15,AU § 317.10-.15. Paragraph 11 of SAS 54 sets forthadditional audit procedures that might be necessaryonce the auditor becomes aware of a possible illegalact.

10 Section 10A(b)(1)(B). See, SAS 54, ¶ 17, AU§ 317.17.

11 See, SAS 54, ¶¶ 10 and 17, AU § 317.10 and.17.

12 The addition of this time period reflects theoriginal legislative efforts in this area to provide anearlier warning to the SEC of registrants’ potentialillegal acts than may occur under the current Form8-K procedures, see note 20 infra, and in auditreports. See H.R. Rep. No. 102–890, 102d Cong., 2dSess. 3 (1992), which contained the predecessorlegislation to Section 10A and stated:

This legislation amends the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934 (Exchange Act) to improve frauddetection and disclosure with respect to publiccompanies by codifying auditing standards incertain specified areas and by providing amechanism for earlier warning to the Securities andExchange Commission of certain illegal acts byregistrants.

I. BackgroundTitle III to the Private Securities

Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the‘‘Reform Act’’), Public Law No. 104–67,enacted on December 22, 1995, addedsection 10A to the Exchange Act. Asdiscussed below, section 10A requiresthat each audit under the Exchange Act 1

include procedures regarding thedetection of illegal acts, theidentification of related partytransactions, and the evaluation of theissuer’s ability to continue as a goingconcern. Section 10A also codifiescertain professional auditing standardsregarding the detection of illegal acts 2

by issuers and imposes expandedobligations on auditors 3 to report in atimely manner certain uncorrectedillegal acts to an issuer’s board ofdirectors. It further requires the issuer,or if the issuer fails to do so then theauditor, to provide informationregarding the illegal act to theCommission.

On August 22, 1996, the Commissionpublished for comment proposedrevisions to its rules to implement thereporting requirements set forth insection 10A and to amend the definitionof ‘‘audit’’ in Regulation S–X to conformwith the provisions of that section.4 TheProposing Release contains a discussionof each paragraph of section 10A.Interested parties may wish to refer tothe Proposing Release for additionalbackground information.

More specifically, section 10A(a)provides that each audit required by theExchange Act of issuers’ financialstatements include, ‘‘in accordance withgenerally accepted auditing standards,as may be modified or supplemented

from time to time by theCommission—’’

1. Procedures designed to providereasonable assurance of detecting illegalacts that would have a direct andmaterial effect on the determination offinancial statement amounts;

2. Procedures designed to identifyrelated party transactions that arematerial to the financial statements orotherwise require disclosure therein;and

3. An evaluation of whether there issubstantial doubt about the issuer’sability to continue as a going concernduring the ensuing fiscal year.5

Certain procedures in each of thesethree areas already are required bygenerally accepted auditing standards(‘‘GAAS’’) 6 in the United States and arefurther codified in the Statements onAuditing Standards (‘‘SAS’’) 7 adoptedby the Auditing Standards Board(‘‘ASB’’), the senior technical body forauditing matters of the American

Institute of Certified Public Accountants(‘‘AICPA’’). 8

In addition to the requirement insection 10A(a) that auditors performprocedures designed to enhance thedetection of fraudulent financialreporting, section 10A(b) containsprovisions that would require an auditorto report directly to the Commissioncertain detected illegal acts if the issuerfails to do so.

Under section 10A(b), if, whileconducting the audit of the issuer’sfinancial statements, the auditorbecomes aware of informationindicating that an illegal act (whether ornot material to the financial statements)has occurred or may have occurred,then the auditor would be required, inaccordance with GAAS, ‘‘as may bemodified or supplemented from time totime by the Commission,’’ to determinewhether it is ‘‘likely’’ that an illegal acthas occurred and, if so, its possibleeffect on the financial statements(including any contingent monetaryeffects, such as fines, penalties, anddamages).9 The auditor would berequired to inform the issuer’smanagement of the illegal act ‘‘as soonas practicable.’’ In addition, the auditormust assure him/herself that the issuer’sboard of directors is adequatelyinformed, by management or otherwise,of any detected illegal act.10

Although GAAS contains proceduresfor similar notification of illegal acts tomanagements and boards of directors,11

section 10A(b) contains the additionalrequirement that these notificationsoccur ‘‘as soon as practicable.’’ 12

After the auditor determines that theaudit committee or the board ofdirectors has been adequately informedof an illegal act and the auditor reaches


13 The auditor should consider both thequantitative and qualitative materiality of the act,including contingent liabilities that might becreated by the illegal act. See, e.g., SAS 54, ¶ 13,AU § 317.13, and SAS 47, ‘‘Audit Risk andMateriality in Conducting an Audit,’’ ¶ 6 (June 30,1984), AU § 312.06.

14 See, SAS 58, ‘‘Reports on Audited FinancialStatements,’’ ¶ 10 (January 1, 1989), AU § 508.10,for a general discussion of the circumstances thatmay require the auditor to depart from the standardreport and the types of opinions, other than thestandard report, that may be expressed by theauditor in various circumstances.

15 Section 10A(b)(2) (A), (B), and (C). Seegenerally, SAS 54, ¶¶ 18–22, AU § 317.18–.22.

16 For documentation requirements under GAAS,see, e.g., SAS 54, ¶ 17, AU § 317.17, and SAS 61,‘‘Communication with Audit Committees,’’ ¶ 3(January 1, 1989), AU § 380.03.

17 Section 10A(b)(3).18 Section 10A(b)(4).

19 For the effect of illegal acts on the audit report,see, SAS 53, ¶¶ 26 and 27, AU § 316.26 and .27, andSAS 54, ¶¶ 18–21, AU § 317.18–.21. See generally,SAS 58, 64, and 79 reprinted in Reports on AuditedFinancial Statements (January 1, 1989), whichdescribes the standard report and the variousopinions that may be reflected in the auditor’sreport. SAS 58, ¶¶ 7–10, AU § 508.07–.10.

20 Item 4 of Form 8–K, 17 CFR § 249.308, Item 304of Regulation S–K, 17 CFR § 229.304, and Item 304of Regulation S–B, 17 CFR § 228.304. In summary,these provisions state that a registrant must file aForm 8–K, providing the information required byitem 4 of that form, within five business days of thedate that the registrant’s auditor (or an independentaccountant upon whom the auditor expressedreliance in its audit report regarding a significantsubsidiary) resigns, declines to stand for re-election,or is dismissed, and within five business days of thedate a new auditor is engaged. The registrant is toask the former auditor to provide the registrant witha letter indicating whether the former auditor agreeswith the disclosures in the Form 8–K that reportsthe termination of the audit engagement and, if not,the respects in which the auditor disagrees. Thisletter is to be filed with the Commission as anexhibit by amendment to the registrant’s Form8–K within 10 business days of the date that theForm 8–K was filed.

The registrant’s Form 8–K must state, amongother things: whether the former auditor resigned,was dismissed, or declined to stand for re-electionand the date thereof; whether the auditor modifiedhis or her report on the registrant’s financialstatements for either of the last two fiscal years and,if so, the nature of the modification; whether thedecision to change auditors was recommended orapproved by the audit committee or board ofdirectors; whether, in connection with the audits ofthe financial statements for the two most recentfiscal years, and any subsequent interim period,there were any disagreements between the auditorand the registrant on any matter of accountingprinciples or practices, auditing scope or procedure,or financial statement disclosure. The Form 8–Kalso must provide disclosure of any instance withinthe applicable time period where the former auditoradvised the registrant that (1) The internal controlsnecessary for the registrant to develop reliablefinancial statements did not exist, (2) informationhad come to the auditor’s attention that led him orher no longer to be able to rely on management’srepresentations, or that made the auditor unwillingto be associated with the registrant’s financialstatements, (3) there was a need to expandsignificantly the scope of the audit and, due to theauditor’s resignation or for any other reason, thescope was not expanded, or (4) information hadcome to the auditor’s attention affecting thereliability of past audit reports or financialstatements and the issue had not been resolved tothe auditor’s satisfaction prior to the auditor’sresignation, dismissal, or declination to stand for re-election.

21 Sub-item 77K of FormN–SAR, 17 CFR § 274.101, requires investmentcompanies filing Form N–SAR to provide theinformation required by item 4 of Form 8–K. Sub-item 77K of Form N–SAR notes thatnotwithstanding the requirements in Form 8–K tofile more frequently, registrants need only file suchinformation semi-annually in accordance with therequirements of Form N–SAR.

22 Testimony of Richard C. Breeden, Chairman,U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,Concerning H.R. 574, The Financial FraudDetection and Disclosure Act, Before theSubcommittee on Telecommunications and Financeof the House Committee on Energy and Commerce,103d Cong., 1st Sess., 32 (February 18, 1993).

23 Id., at 32 n. 36.24 Id., at 31.25 Rule 10A–1(c). See also 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7),

which exempts from disclosure certain ‘‘records orinformation compiled for law enforcementpurposes.’’

26 See 17 CFR § 200.83.

three specified conclusions, the auditoris required by section 10A(b)(2) toreport those conclusions directly to theboard of directors ‘‘as soon aspracticable.’’ The three conclusions setforth in section 10A(b)(2) that trigger theauditor’s obligation to report to theboard are that:

1. The illegal act has a materialeffect 13 on the issuer’s financialstatements,

2. Senior management has not taken,and the board of directors has notcaused senior management to take,timely and appropriate remedial actionswith respect to the illegal act, and

3. The failure to take remedial actionis reasonably expected to warrant eithera departure from the auditor’s standardaudit report,14 when made, or theauditor’s resignation from the auditengagement.15

If the board of directors receives areport that the auditor has reached theseconclusions, then the board has onebusiness day to notify the Commissionthat it received such a report. If theauditor does not receive a copy of theboard’s notice to the Commission withinthat one business day period, then bythe end of the next business day theauditor is required to furnish directly tothe Commission a copy of the reportgiven to the board (or thedocumentation of any oral report 16).17

The auditor’s resignation from the auditengagement does not negate theauditor’s obligation to furnish his or herreport to the Commission in thesecircumstances.18

II. Discussion of Rule Amendments

A. Rule 10A–1.Rule 10A–1 is based on the premise

that the notices and reports undersection 10A are to assist theCommission in performing itsenforcement responsibilities and,therefore, will be non-public. Disclosure

to the public of issuers’ illegal acts willcontinue to be made in modified auditreports 19 or, when the auditor hasresigned, been dismissed, or elected notto stand for re-election, on Form 8–K 20

under the Exchange Act and on FormN–SAR 21 under the Investment

Company Act of 1940 (the ‘‘InvestmentCompany Act’’), among others.

In testifying on prior bills thatcontained the same reportingrequirements, the Commission stated,‘‘[W]e anticipate that reports filed undersection 10A would be confidential andexempt from disclosure under theFreedom of Information Act.’’ 22 TheCommission further noted,

Premature disclosure of the issuer andauditor reports could, among other things,interfere with the Commission’sinvestigation, deprive the issuer or otherpersons of the right to a fair trial or impartialadjudication, constitute an unwarrantedinvasion of privacy, or disclose a confidentialsource. In addition, issuer and auditorreports under Section 10A might containconfidential commercial or financialinformation exempt from disclosure underFOIA Exemption 4, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4).23

The Commission’s testimony alsostates that the direct reportingprovisions in the bill might provide anearlier warning of certain illegal actsthat could allow the Commission tobegin enforcement investigations at anearlier date.24

Accordingly, Rule 10A–1 providesthat section 10A notices provided by theboard and reports submitted by theauditor will be non-public and exemptfrom disclosure under the Freedom ofInformation Act (‘‘FOIA’’) to the sameextent as the Commission’s investigativerecords.25

Commentators responding to theProposing Release supported theposition that reports and notices undersection 10A should be non-public. Somesuggested, however, that proposed Rule10A–1 was unclear as to the availabilityof FOIA exemptions, in addition to theexemptions for investigative records, forthe information contained in thesenotices and reports. An instruction hasbeen added to Rule 10A–1(c), therefore,specifically to notify issuers andauditors that they may apply forconfidential treatment under additionalFOIA exemptions in accordance withthe Commission’s normal procedures.26

Despite the confidential nature of thereports under section 10A, thesereporting requirements should improvethe quality of public disclosures in


27 Rule 10A–1(a).28 Rule 10A–1(b).29 See 17 CFR § 240.24c–1.30 Rule 10A–1 (a) and (b).31 The phone number for OCA’s facsimile

machine currently is (202) 942–9656. Such phonenumbers, however, are subject to change withoutnotice and registrants and auditors should verifythe accuracy of the number before use.

32 A similar provision applies to auditors ofbroker-dealers. See Rule 17a–5(h)(2) under theExchange Act, 17 CFR § 240.17a–5(h)(2), whichstates that if, during the course of audit or interimwork, the auditor determines that any materialinadequacies exist in the accounting system,internal accounting control, procedures forsafeguarding securities, or certain other practicesand procedures, then the auditor shall call thoseinadequacies to the attention of the chief financialofficer of the broker-dealer, who has the obligationto notify the Commission and the designatedexamining authority within 24 hours thereafter. Ifthe auditor does not receive a copy of that noticewithin that 24 hour period, or if the auditordisagrees with the statements in the notice, then theauditor must inform the Commission and thedesignated examining authority of the materialinadequacy within the next 24 hours.

33 SAS 54, ¶ 17, AU § 317.17.34 Section 10A(c) limits auditors’ liability in

private rights of action for ‘‘any finding, conclusion,or statement expressed in a report made pursuantto paragraph (3) or (4) of subsection (b), includingany rule promulgated pursuant thereto’’; paragraphs(3) and (4) of subsection (b) set forth the issuer andauditor reporting obligations.

35 In addition, one of the membershiprequirements of the SEC Practice Section of theAICPA is that members notify registrants in writingof the cessation of an auditor-client relationship.The member also is required to send a copy of thatnotification to the Commission’s Office of the ChiefAccountant.

36 See SAS 54, ¶ 2, AU § 317.02, discussed supranote 2.

Forms 8–K and N–SAR and in auditreports on issuers’ financial statements,because it is unlikely that issuers andauditors will make public disclosuresthat are incompatible with theconfidential reports made to theCommission. Also, the direct reportingrequirements in section 10A should giveauditors additional leverage to promptmanagement to correct illegal acts andto make appropriate adjustments intheir financial statements.

Rule 10A–1 designates theCommission’s Office of the ChiefAccountant (‘‘OCA’’) as the appropriateoffice to receive the notice provided byany issuer under section 10A(b)(3) 27

and any reports provided by auditorsunder section 10A(b)(3) or 10A(b)(4).28

No commentators objected to OCA asthe designated party to receive thesenotices and reports. OCA expeditiouslywill forward copies of the notice orreport to all appropriate offices anddivisions within the Commission. Thenotice or report may be provided toother authorities, as appropriate.29

Delivery of the notice or report toOCA may occur under Rule 10A–1 inany manner, provided the notice orreport is received by OCA within thestatutory time period.30 Currently, themost timely manner of delivery may bethrough submission of a facsimile,31

telegraph, or personal delivery. Issuersshould be aware that providing suchinformation on the Edgar filing system,however, may result in the informationbecoming available to the public. In thefuture, procedures may be developed forissuers and auditors to deliverconfidential information directly toOCA via electronic mail. Rule 10A–1would permit use of such means ofdelivery.32

Rule 10A–1(a) also sets forth therequired contents for a issuer’s notice tothe Commission. This notice must be inwriting and identify the issuer and theauditor, and state the date the auditormade its report to the board. Under therule proposal, the issuer also wouldprovide a summary of the report. Thesummary would describe the act and thepotential impact of that act on theissuer’s financial statements. Thisinformation is consistent with therequirement under GAAS that theauditor’s communication with theissuer’s audit committee ‘‘shoulddescribe the act, the circumstances of itsoccurrence, and the effect on thefinancial statements.’’ 33 Onecommentator suggested that issuershave the option of providing either thesummary of the independentaccountant’s report, as proposed, ordirectly providing that report to OCA.This commentator noted, however, thatif an issuer submits the independentaccountant’s report to OCA a questionmay arise regarding the availability tothe independent auditor of the section10A(c) protection against civil liabilityfor the findings, conclusions, orstatements in his or her report.34 Asadopted, Rule 10A–1 incorporates thecommentator’s suggestion and permitsissuers the option of providing either asummary of the independentaccountant’s report or a copy of thatreport. To clarify the application of thesection 10A(c) safe harbor, Rule 10A–1now provides that the safe harboravailable to auditors shall apply notonly when the report is furnished toOCA by the auditor but also when it isprovided by the issuer.

As had been proposed, Rule 10A–1(a)also specifically permits an issuer toinclude additional information with therequired notice to the Commissionregarding the issuer’s view of, andresponse to, the section 10A report ithas received from the auditor.

Regarding reports filed by auditors,Rule 10A–1(b) specifies that if the reportdoes not identify clearly both the issuerand the auditor, then the auditor mustattach that information to the reportsubmitted to OCA.

Rule 10A–1 makes clear thatproviding the notice or report inaccordance with section 10A and Rule10A–1 does not, in any way, affect theobligations of the issuer and the auditor

to file and make all applicable publicdisclosures required by theCommission’s rules, including, withoutlimitation, Forms 8–K and N–SAR, andof the auditor to comply with GAASreporting requirements.35 Similarly,Rule 10A–1 states that the confidentialnature of the notice and the report to theCommission does not diminish anissuer’s or auditor’s obligations to makefull disclosures required by theCommission’s rules, forms, reports, ordisclosure items, or by applicableprofessional standards.

In response to the Proposing Release,the Commission received additionalcomments requesting it to interpret oramend certain additional provisions ofsection 10A. For example, somecommentators suggested that theCommission amend the statutorydefinition of ‘‘illegal act’’ to follow moreclosely the definition in the auditingliterature.36 Another commentatorrecommended that auditors be requiredto report all illegal acts to the board ofdirectors (as opposed to management),not merely those acts that are materialto the financial statements. Onecommentator suggested that theCommission extend the protection forauditors against civil liability found insection 10A(c) for statements in reportssubmitted to the Commission undersection 10A(b), to statements made bythe auditor in additional documents andin other contexts. Commentators alsorequested that the Commission extendthe one-business-day reporting periodsin the statute to five business days. Suchcomments, however, are beyond thescope of this rulemaking proceedingand, in some cases, request that theCommission promulgate rules contraryto the statutory mandate of section 10A.

B. Rule 1–02(d)The Commission is adopting the

proposed amendment to conform thedefinition of ‘‘Audit (or examination)’’in Rule 1–02(d) of Regulation S–X withsection 10A. The amendment notes thataudits of the financial statements ofCommission issuers should beperformed ‘‘in accordance withgenerally accepted auditing standards,as may be modified or supplemented bythe Commission.’’ The purpose of thisamendment is to alert auditors andissuers to the possibility that additional


37 See Report by the Subcommittee on Oversightand Investigations of the House Committee onInterstate and Foreign Commerce, FederalRegulation and Regulatory Reform, 94th Cong., 2dSess., 38 (October 1976), which states, in part, thatthe Commission had not then ‘‘exercised fully itsstatutory authority to remedy deficiencies ingenerally accepted auditing standards’’; Report onthe Activity of the Committee on Energy andCommerce for the 100th Congress, House Report100–1114, 100th Cong., 2d Sess., 364 (Dec. 23,1988), which states, ‘‘As the primary Agencyresponsible for administering the Federal securitieslaws disclosure requirements, the SEC has broadauthority to establish auditing and accountingrequirements for public companies andindependent audit firms’’; and Testimony ofRichard C. Breeden, Chairman, U.S. Securities andExchange Commission, Concerning H.R. 547, TheFinancial Fraud Detection and Disclosure Act,Before the Subcommittee on Telecommunicationsand Finance of the House Committee on Energy andCommerce, 103rd Cong., 1st Sess., 26–27 (Feb. 18,1993), which states, in part, ‘‘The Commission [is]prepared, should it prove necessary to fulfill itsstatutory mandate, to establish separate auditingstandards that supplement or supplant ASBstandards for SEC registrants.* * * In the same waythe Commission has final authority over theestablishment of new financial standards by theFASB, so too the Commission has final authorityover the establishment of auditing standards toprotect the public interest.’’

38 See, e.g., § 13(b)(1) of the Exchange Act, 15U.S.C. 78m(b)(1), which states, ‘‘The Commissionmay prescribe, in regard to reports made pursuantto this title, the form or forms in which the requiredinformation shall be set forth.* * *’’

39 Items 25, 26, and 27 of Schedule A to theSecurities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. 77aa (25), (26) and(27), and § 17(e) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78q,expressly require that audited financial statementsbe filed with the Commission. Sections 12(b)(1) (J)and (K) and 13(a)(2) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C.78l and 78m, among others, authorize theCommission to require the filing of financialstatements that have been audited by independentaccountants. The Commission requires that certainfinancial statements be audited. See, e.g., Article 3of Regulation S–X, 17 CFR § 210–3–01 et seq.

40 See, e.g., § 19(a) of the Securities Act of 1933,15 U.S.C. 77s(a), and § 3(b) of the Exchange Act, 15U.S.C. 78c(b).

41 See generally James F. Strother, TheEstablishment of Generally Accepted AccountingPrinciples and Generally Accepted AuditingStandards, 28 Vand. L. Rev. 201, 225 (1975), whichstates, ‘‘The Commission’s powers with regard toauditing are considerable, even though it lacks theexpress authority to prescribe auditing standardsand procedures that it has in the case of accountingprinciples.’’

In the past, the Commission has not found itnecessary formally to exercise its implied power toset auditing standards. In the mid-1970s, however,the Commission proposed certain procedures forauditors’ reviews of interim financial statements.See Securities Act Release No. 5579 (April 17,1975), Accounting Series Release No. 177(September 10, 1975), Securities Act Release No.5612 (September 10, 1975). This rulemaking did notgo forward when the predecessor to the ASB actedto establish similar review procedures, andCommission action became unnecessary.

42 See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 369, 104th Cong., 1stSess., 47 (Nov. 28, 1995), which states, in part, ‘‘TheConference Committee does not intend to affect theCommission’s authority in areas not specificallyaddressed by this provision.’’

43 The Statement of Managers, The PrivateSecurities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, states, at22, ‘‘The Conference Committee intends for the SECto have discretion, however, to determine theappropriateness and timeliness of the private sectorresponse. The SEC should act promptly if requiredby the public interest or for the protection ofinvestors.’’

44 See sections 13(a) and 15(d) of the ExchangeAct, 15 U.S.C. 78m(a) and 78o(d), and section 30(a)of the Investment Company Act, 15 U.S.C. 80a–29(a). Form N–SAR requires investment companiesto file information with the Commission about theiroperations, including audited financial information.Rule 30a–1 under the Investment Company Act, 17CFR § 270.30a–1, provides that investmentcompanies filing annual reports on Form N–SARare deemed to have satisfied the reportingrequirements of sections 13(a) and 15(d) under theExchange Act and section 30(a) under theInvestment Company Act.

audit procedures, beyond those requiredby GAAS, may be required by theCommission in certain circumstances.

Some commentators objected to theproposed revision of Rule 1–02(d) onthe ground that the Commission’sstatutory authority to modify orsupplement GAAS is limited to thethree circumstances expressly set forthin section 10A; i.e., illegal acts, relatedparty transactions, and going concernevaluations.

On the contrary, it has long beenrecognized by Congress and theCommission, that the Commission hasbroad authority to establish auditingrequirements for public companies andtheir independent audit firms.37 Thisimplied authority is based on, amongother things, (1) the Commission’sauthority to prescribe the reports to befiled with it,38 (2) the provisions in thesecurities laws that require, or grant theCommission the authority to require,that certain financial statements be‘‘certified * * * by independent publicaccountants’’ 39 and the Commission’s

authority to define technical and tradeterms such as ‘‘certified,’’ 40 and (3) theCommission’s authority to ensure thatthe representations in audit reports andthe procedures behind those reportsfulfill their statutory function.41 Inenacting the Reform Act, Congressclearly intended to preserve theCommission’s existing impliedauthority regarding auditing standards,as evidenced by both the preservationclause in section 10A(e) and theConference Committee Report.42

In any event, the revision to Rule1–02(d) is not intended to change thesubstantive scope of the Commission’sauthority to set auditing standards, or toresolve any dispute that may arise overthe scope of that authority in particularcircumstances. Instead, this amendmentis intended to provide adequate and fairnotice to all parties concerned that theCommission, as well as appropriateprofessional authorities, may issueguidance to be considered and adheredto in the performance of audits underthe Exchange Act.

As a general matter, the Commissionplans to continue its practice of lookingto the private sector standard settingbodies designated by the accountingprofession to provide leadership inestablishing and improving GAAS.Currently, the Commission staff worksclosely with the ASB. The staff, amongother things, attends ASB meetings,reviews and provides the ASB withcomments on draft Statements onAuditing Standards, and has periodicmeetings with ASB representatives todiscuss items on the ASB agenda andother matters of mutual concern.

The Commission has no presentintention to write any new auditing

standards unless it determines that theASB, or any subsequently establishedstandard setting organization, is unableor unwilling to address a significantauditing issue in an appropriate andtimely manner. The Commission willexercise its discretion in determiningthe appropriateness and timeliness ofthe private sector response, consideringthe nature of the issue and other factors.Should Commission action be deemednecessary, the Commission will actpromptly when required by the publicinterest or for the protection ofinvestors.43

III. Investment Companies

Section 10A and Rule 10A–1 apply toall audits required pursuant to theExchange Act, including those preparedon behalf of investment companies,which, among others, have reportingobligations under the Exchange Act.44

In the proposing release, theCommission requested commentregarding whether the reportingrequirements under Rule 10A–1 shouldbe modified to reflect the specificoperations of investment companies. Nocommentators, however, addressed thistopic. Accordingly, the Commission hasdetermined that Rule 10A–1 will beadopted as proposed.

IV. Required Findings RegardingImpact on Competition

In the Proposing Release, theCommission requested comments onwhether the proposed amendments, ifadopted, would have an adverse impacton competition or would impose aburden on competition that is neithernecessary nor appropriate in furtheringthe purposes of the Securities Act of1933 and the Exchange Act. Onecommentator addressed this issue,indicating that the reporting provisionsof proposed Rule 10A–1 would not addto any such burden that might beimposed by section 10A, especially in


45 15 U.S.C. 78w(a).

light of the non-public nature of thereports to be filed under the Rule.

The Commission has considered theproposed amendments in light of itsresponsibilities under section 23(a) ofthe Exchange Act 45 and concluded thatthe burdens on competition, if any, arenecessary and appropriate infurtherance of the purposes of theExchange Act, particularly section 10A.

V. Cost/Benefit AnalysisThe costs of complying with Rule

10A–1, which is intended to carry outthe purposes of new section 10A of theExchange Act, are expected to be deminimis. Such costs for an issuer mayinclude converting the information inthe auditor’s report to the board into anotice that conforms to the rule anddelivering that notice, via facsimile orotherwise, to OCA. Costs for the auditormay include assuring that the report tothe board identifies the issuer, asrequired by the proposed rule, and thecost of delivering that report, viafacsimile or otherwise, to OCA.

Benefits of compliance with Rule10A–1 include an earlier warning to theCommission of possible illegal acts byissuers and potential improvements inpublic disclosures in Forms 8–K and N–SAR regarding changes in issuers’auditors and in audit reports that aremodified due to issuers’ illegal acts.

Commentators specifically addressingthe issue indicated either that theanticipated benefits of Rule 10A–1outweigh the associated costs, or thatthe minimal reporting requirementsunder Rule 10A–1 would not add to anyburdens imposed by section 10A of theExchange Act.

VI. Summary of Final RegulatoryFlexibility Analysis

A Final Regulatory FlexibilityAnalysis (‘‘FRFA’’) concerning Rule10A–1 has been prepared in accordancewith 5 U.S.C. 604. The FRFA notes thatthe rule is intended to implement thereporting requirements of section 10A ofthe Exchange Act as mandated byCongress. The rule will not impose anyreporting requirements additional tothose imposed by section 10A.

As discussed more fully in the FRFA,the rule will affect small entities, asdefined by the Commission’s rules, butonly in the same manner as otherentities. By statute, most issuers that fitthe Commission’s definitions of smallentities are subject to a one-year delayin the effective date of section 10A,which makes section 10A (andaccordingly Rule 10A–1) applicable toannual reports for any period beginning

on or after January 1, 1997 (instead ofJanuary 1, 1996).

Regarding issuers, approximately1,100 Exchange Act reportingcompanies satisfy the Commission’sdefinition of ‘‘small business;’’ as ofDecember 1995, approximately 5,200broker-dealers were classified as smallentities; and as of August 1995,approximately 1,770 active registeredinvestment companies were consideredsmall entities. Although some smallauditors may be subject to the Rule10A–1 reporting requirements, there isno specific definition of the term ‘‘smallauditor’’ and information regardingauditors’ revenues, earnings, and similardata is not publicly available.

There is no reliable way ofdetermining how many small issuers orauditors will be required to file section10A reports or notices each yearconcerning illegal acts so as to becomesubject to Rule 10A–1. It is expected,however, that OCA will receive very fewissuer notices each year and even fewerauditor reports (which are filed only ifan issuer fails to fulfill its reportingobligation).

The FRFA notes that alternatives forproviding different means ofcompliance for small entities or forexempting small entities from the rulewould be inconsistent with the statutoryrequirements of section 10A. The cost ofcomplying with the rule should be deminimus, even for small entities,because the reporting requirementsunder section 10A and the rule arebased on existing GAAS requirements.Moreover, the statute essentiallyrequires only an earlier warningregarding matters that would otherwisebe disclosed in Forms 8–K and N–SARand in audit reports on issuers’ financialstatements.

The Commission received nocomments on the Initial RegulatoryFlexibility Analysis (‘‘IRFA’’) preparedin connection with the proposingrelease, and no comment lettersspecifically addressed to the IRFA. Twocommentators indicated that theanticipated benefits of Rule 10A–1outweigh the associated costs, and thatthe minimal reporting requirements ofRule 10A–1 would not materially add tothe burdens Congress chose to imposeby enacting section 10A.

A copy of the analysis may beobtained by contacting Robert E. Burns,Chief Counsel, Office of the ChiefAccountant, U.S. Securities andExchange Commission, Mail Stop 11–3,450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.20549.

VII. Paperwork Reduction ActAs set forth in the Proposing Release,

proposed Rule 10A–1 contains‘‘collection of information’’requirements within the meaning of thePaperwork Reduction Act of 1995 [44U.S.C. 3501 et seq.]. An agency may notconduct or sponsor, and a person is notrequired to respond to, a collection ofinformation unless it displays a validOMB control number. Accordingly, theCommission submitted the proposedrules to the Office of Management andBudget (‘‘OMB’’) for review inaccordance with 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), andOMB approved that collection andassigned it control number 3235–0468.This is the final notice regarding thecollection of information under Rule10A–1.

The Supporting Statement to thePaperwork Reduction Act submissionnoted that Rule 10A–1 is intended toimplement the reporting requirementsfound in recently enacted section 10A ofthe Exchange Act, and that the rule isexpected to have a negligible effect onthe annual reporting and cost burden ofCommission registrants. As discussedabove, the notice to be provided by theissuer would contain the minimumamount of information necessary toidentify the issuer and the auditor,indicate the date the auditor providedthe report to the board of directors asspecified in section 10A, andsummarize the report given to the board.The summary would be based oninformation required to be given to theboard of directors under GAAS. Theauditor’s report, furnished only in theevent that the issuer does not fulfill itsreporting responsibilities, would consistonly of the report given to the board ofdirectors and, if necessary, additionalinformation to identify clearly the issuerand the auditor.

Potential respondents are entitieswith reporting obligations under theExchange Act and their auditors,although it is anticipated that thereporting requirements under section10A rarely will be triggered. On thoserare occasions when the reportingrequirement is triggered, it is estimatedthat the total recordkeeping andreporting burden, beyond that directlyrequired by the statute, would notexceed one hour per respondent.

As notices must be filed by an issuerwithin one day of receiving a reportfrom its auditor, and the auditor mustfile its report (if necessary) the next day,there are essentially no recordkeeping orretention requirements.

Filing the notices and reports, whennecessary, is required by section 10A ofthe Exchange Act and therefore is


mandatory. As explained above,however, the notices and reports will bekept confidential while the Commissionhas an enforcement interest in theinformation contained in those noticesand reports. In addition, requests forconfidential treatment of suchinformation may be made under 17 CFR200.83.

The Commission received nocomments in response to its request forcomments, pursuant to 44 U.S.C.3506(c)(2)(B), concerning: whether theproposed collection of information isnecessary for the proper performance ofthe function of the Commission,including whether the information shallhave practical utility; the accuracy ofthe Commission’s estimate of theburden of the proposed collection ofinformation; the quality, utility, andclarity of the information to becollected; and whether the burden ofcollection of information on those whoare to respond, including through theuse of automated collection techniquesor other forms of informationtechnology, may be minimized.

List of Subjects

17 CFR Part 210Accounting, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Securities.

17 CFR Part 240Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Securities.In accordance with the foregoing,

Title 17, Chapter II of the Code ofFederal Regulations is amended asfollows:

PART 210—FORM AND CONTENT OFAND REQUIREMENTS FOR FINANCIALSTATEMENTS, SECURITIES ACT OF1933, SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACTOF 1934, PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDINGCOMPANY ACT OF 1935, INVESTMENTCOMPANY ACT OF 1940, ANDENERGY POLICY ANDCONSERVATION ACT OF 1975

1. The authority citation for Part 210is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77s,77z–2, 77aa(25), 77aa(26), 78j–1, 78l, 78m,78n, 78o(d), 78u–5, 78w(a), 78ll(d), 79e(b),79j(a), 79n, 79t(a), 80a–8, 80a–20, 80a–29,80a–30, 80a–37(a), unless otherwise noted.

2. By revising § 210.1–02(d) to read asfollows:

§ 210.1–02 Definitions of terms used inRegulation S–X (17 CFR part 210).* * * * *

(d) Audit (or examination). The termaudit (or examination), when used inregard to financial statements, means anexamination of the financial statements

by an independent accountant inaccordance with generally acceptedauditing standards, as may be modifiedor supplemented by the Commission,for the purpose of expressing an opinionthereon.* * * * *

PART 240—GENERAL RULES ANDREGULATIONS, SECURITIESEXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

3. The authority citation for Part 240is revised to read in part as follows:

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77c, 77d, 77g, 77j,77s, 77z–2, 77eee, 77ggg, 77nnn, 77sss, 77ttt,78c, 78d, 78f, 78i, 78j, 78j–1, 78k, 78k–1, 78l,78m, 78n, 78o, 78p, 78q, 78s, 78u–5, 78w,78x, 78ll(d), 79q, 79t, 80a–20, 80a–23, 80a–29, 80a–37, 80b–3, 80b–4, and 80b–11, unlessotherwise noted.* * * * *

4. By adding an undesignated centerheading and § 240.10A–1 following§ 240.10(b)–21 to read as follows:Reports Under Section 10A

§ 240.10A–1 Notice to the CommissionPursuant to Section 10A of the Act.

(a)(1) If any issuer with a reportingobligation under the Act receives areport requiring a notice to theCommission in accordance with section10A(b)(3) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78j–1(b)(3), the issuer shall submit suchnotice to the Commission’s Office of theChief Accountant within the timeperiod prescribed in that section. Thenotice may be provided by facsimile,telegraph, personal delivery, or anyother means, provided it is received bythe Office of the Chief Accountantwithin the required time period.

(2) The notice specified in paragraph(a)(1) of this section shall be in writingand:

(i) Shall identify the issuer (includingthe issuer’s name, address, phonenumber, and file number assigned to theissuer’s filings by the Commission) andthe independent accountant (includingthe independent accountant’s name andphone number, and the address of theindependent accountant’s principaloffice);

(ii) Shall state the date that the issuerreceived from the independentaccountant the report specified insection 10A(b)(2) of the Act, 15 U.S.C.78j–1(b)(2);

(iii) Shall provide, at the election ofthe issuer, either:

(A) A summary of the independentaccountant’s report, including adescription of the act that theindependent accountant has identifiedas a likely illegal act and the possibleeffect of that act on all affected financialstatements of the issuer or those related

to the most current three-year period,whichever is shorter; or

(B) A copy of the independentaccountant’s report; and

(iv) May provide additionalinformation regarding the issuer’s viewsof and response to the independentaccountant’s report.

(3) Reports of the independentaccountant submitted by the issuer tothe Commission’s Office of the ChiefAccountant in accordance withparagraph (a)(2)(iii)(B) of this sectionshall be deemed to have been madepursuant to section 10A(b)(3) or section10A(b)(4) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78j–1(b)(3) or 78j–1(b)(4), for purposes of thesafe harbor provided by section 10A(c)of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78j–1(c).

(4) Submission of the notice inparagraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of thissection shall not relieve the issuer fromits obligations to comply fully with allother reporting requirements, including,without limitation:

(i) The filing requirements of Form 8–K, § 249.308 of this chapter, and FormN–SAR, § 274.101 of this chapter,regarding a change in the issuer’scertifying accountant and

(ii) The disclosure requirements ofitem 304 of Regulation S–B or item 304of Regulation S–K, §§ 228.304 or229.304 of this chapter.

(b)(1) Any independent accountantfurnishing to the Commission a copy ofa report (or the documentation of anyoral report) in accordance with section10A(b)(3) or section 10A(b)(4) of theAct, 15 U.S.C. 78j–1(b)(3) or 78j–1(b)(4),shall submit that report (ordocumentation) to the Commission’sOffice of the Chief Accountant withinthe time period prescribed by theappropriate section of the Act. Thereport (or documentation) may besubmitted to the Commission’s Office ofthe Chief Accountant by facsimile,telegraph, personal delivery, or anyother means, provided it is received bythe Office of the Chief Accountantwithin the time period set forth insection 10A(b)(3) or 10A(b)(4) of theAct, 15 U.S.C. 78j–1(b)(3) or 78j–(b)(4),whichever is applicable in thecircumstances.

(2) If the report (or documentation)submitted to the Office of the ChiefAccountant in accordance withparagraph (b)(1) of this section does notclearly identify both the issuer(including the issuer’s name, address,phone number, and file numberassigned to the issuer’s filings with theCommission) and the independentaccountant (including the independentaccountant’s name and phone number,and the address of the independentaccountant’s principal office), then the


independent accountant shall place thatinformation in a prominent attachmentto the report (or documentation) andshall submit that attachment to theOffice of the Chief Accountant at thesame time and in the same manner asthe report (or documentation) issubmitted to that Office.

(3) Submission of the report (ordocumentation) by the independentaccountant as described in paragraphs(b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section shall notreplace, or otherwise satisfy the needfor, the newly engaged and formeraccountants’ letters under items304(a)(2)(D) and 304(a)(3) of RegulationS–K, §§ 229.304(a)(2)(D) and229.304(a)(3) of this chapter,respectively, and under items304(a)(2)(D) and 304(a)(3) of RegulationS–B, §§ 228.304(a)(2)(D) and228.304(a)(3) of this chapter,respectively, and shall not limit, reduce,or affect in any way the independentaccountant’s obligations to comply fullywith all other legal and professionalresponsibilities, including, withoutlimitation, those under generallyaccepted auditing standards and therules or interpretations of theCommission that modify or supplementthose auditing standards.

(c) A notice or report submitted to theOffice of the Chief Accountant inaccordance with paragraphs (a) and (b)of this section shall be deemed to be aninvestigative record and shall be non-public and exempt from disclosurepursuant to the Freedom of InformationAct to the same extent and for the sameperiods of time that the Commission’sinvestigative records are non-public andexempt from disclosure under, amongother applicable provisions, 5 U.S.C.552(b)(7) and § 200.80(b)(7) of thischapter. Nothing in this paragraph,however, shall relieve, limit, delay, oraffect in any way, the obligation of anyissuer or any independent accountant tomake all public disclosures required bylaw, by any Commission disclosureitem, rule, report, or form, or by anyapplicable accounting, auditing, orprofessional standard.

Instruction to Paragraph (c)Issuers and independent accountants

may apply for additional bases forconfidential treatment for a notice,report, or part thereof, in accordancewith § 200.83 of this chapter. Thatsection indicates, in part, that anyperson who, pursuant to anyrequirement of law, submits anyinformation or causes or permits anyinformation to be submitted to theCommission, may request that theCommission afford it confidentialtreatment by reason of personal privacy

or business confidentiality, or for anyother reason permitted by Federal law.

By the Commission.Dated: March 12, 1997.

Margaret H. McFarland,Deputy Secretary.[FR Doc. 97–6712 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 8010–01–P


Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[CGD07 97–008]

RIN 2115–AE46

Special Local Regulations; MiamiBeach, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.ACTION: Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY: Special local regulations arebeing adopted for the Miami Super BoatRace. The event will be held on April20, 1997, 1000 feet off the Miami Beachshore from 12:30 p.m. EDT (EasternDaylight Time) until 3:30 p.m. Theregulations are needed to provide for thesafety of life on navigable waters duringthe event.EFFECTIVE DATE: These regulationsbecome effective at 11:30 a.m. andterminate at 4:30 p.m. EDT on April 20,1997.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:QMC T.E. Kjerulff, Coast Guard GroupMiami, Florida at (305) 535–4448.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Inaccordance with 5 U.S.C. 553, goodcause exists for making theseregulations effective withoutpublication of a notice of proposedrulemaking. Final environmental repliesconcerning these regulations were onlyreceived in this office in early February.Publishing a NPRM and delaying itseffective date would be contrary tonational safety interests, sinceimmediate action is needed to minimizepotential danger to the public due to anexpected large concentration ofparticipant and spectator craft.

Discussion of Regulations

Super Boat International ProductionsInc., is sponsoring a high speed powerboat race with approximately thirty-five(35) race boats, ranging in length from24 to 50 feet, participating in the event.There will be approximately twohundred (200) spectator craft. The racewill take place in the Atlantic Ocean1,000 feet off the Miami Beach shorefrom Miami Beach Clock Tower to

Atlantic Heights. The race boats will becompeting at high speeds withnumerous spectator craft in the area,creating an extra or unusual hazard inthe navigable waterways.

Regulatory EvaluationThis regulation is not a significant

regulatory action under section 3(f) ofExecutive Order 12866 and does notrequire an assessment of potential costsand benefits under section 6(a)(3) of thatorder. It has been exempted from reviewby the Office of Management andBudget under that order. It is notsignificant under the regulatory policiesand procedures of the Department ofTransportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040;February 26, 1979). The Coast Guardexpects the economic impact of thisproposal to be so minimal that a fullRegulatory Evaluation under paragraph10e of the regulatory policies andprocedures of DOT is unnecessary.Entry into the regulated area isprohibited for only 5.0 hours on the dayof the event.

Small EntitiesUnder the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Coast Guardmust consider whether this rule willhave a significant economic impact ona substantial number of small entities.‘‘Small entities’’ include independentlyowned and operated businesses that arenot dominant in their field and thatotherwise qualify as ‘‘small businessconcerns’’ under section 3 of the SmallBusiness Act (15 U.S.C. 632).

The Coast Guard certifies undersection 605(b) of the RegulatoryFlexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.),that this rule will not have a significanteconomic impact on a substantialnumber of small entities because theregulations will only be in effect for atotal of 5 hours in a limited area.

Collection of InformationThese regulations contain no

collection of information requirementsunder the Paperwork Reduction Act (44U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

FederalismThis action has been analyzed in

accordance with the principles andcriteria contained in Executive Order12612, and it has been determined thatthe rulemaking does not have sufficientfederalism implications to warrant thepreparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Environmental AssessmentThe Coast Guard has considered the

environmental impact of this actionconsistent with Section 2.B. ofCommandant Instruction M16475.1B. In


accordance with that section,specifically sections 2.B.4 and 2.B.5,this action has been environmentallyassessed (EA completed), and the CoastGuard has determined that it will notsignificantly affect the quality of thehuman environment. An environmentalassessment and finding of no significantimpact have been prepared and areavailable for inspection and copyingfrom QMC T.E. Kjerulff, Coast GuardGroup Miami, Florida, (305) 535–4448.


Marine safety, Navigation (water),Reporting and recordkeepingrequirements, Waterways.

Temporary Regulations

In consideration of the foregoing, part100 of title 33, Code of FederalRegulations, is amended as follows:

PART 100—[AMENDED]


Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233, 49 CFR 1.46 and33 CFR 100.35.

2. A temporary section 100.35T–07–007 is added to read as follows:

§ 100.35T–07–007 Miami Beach, FL.(a) Regulated Area.(1) A regulated area is established by

a line joining the following points:25°46′.3 N, 080°07′.85 W; thence to,25°46′.3 N, 080°06′.82 W; thence to,25°51′.3 N, 080°06′.2 W; thence to,25°51′.3 N, 080°07′.18 W; thence along

the shoreline to the starting point.All coordinates reference Datum:NAD 1983.

(2) A spectator area is established inthe vicinity of the regulated area forspectator traffic and is defined by a linejoining the following points, beginningfrom:25°51′.3 N, 080°06′.15 W; thence to,25°51′.3 N, 080°05′.85 W; thence to,25°46′.3 N, 080°06′.55 W; thence to,25°46′.3 N, 080°06′.77 W; and back to

the starting point. All coordinatesreference Datum: NAD 1983.

(3) A buffer zone of 300 feet separatesthe race course and the spectator areas.

(b) Special local regulations.(1) Entry into the regulated area by

other than event participants isprohibited unless otherwise authorizedby the Patrol Commander. At thecompletion of scheduled races anddeparture of participants from theregulated area, traffic may resumenormal operations. At the discretion ofthe Patrol Commander, betweenscheduled racing events, traffic may bepermitted to resume normal operations.

(2) A succession of not fewer than 5short whistle or horn blasts from apatrol vessel will be the signal for anyand all vessels to take immediate stepsto avoid collision. The display of anorange distress smoke signal from apatrol vessel will be the signal for anyand all vessels to stop immediately.

(3) Spectators are required to maintaina safe distance from the race course atall times.

(c) Effective date. These regulationsbecome effective at 11:30 a.m. andterminate at 4:30 p.m. EDT on April 20,1997.

Dated: March 3, 1997.R.C. Olsen, Jr.,Acting Captain U.S. Coast Guard,Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District.[FR Doc. 97–6735 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–14–M

PANAMA CANAL COMMISSION

35 CFR Part 61

RIN 3207–AA35

Health, Sanitation and CommunicableDisease Surveillance; Correction

AGENCY: Panama Canal Commission.ACTION: Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY: The Panama CanalCommission published in the FederalRegister of July 11, 1996, a document toeliminate the requirement fordisinfecting vessels under certainconditions as set out by the WorldHealth Organization (WHO).DATES: March 18, 1997.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: J. M.Ebernez, Director of Admeasurement,Marine Bureau, Panama CanalCommission, telephone in Balboa,Republic of Panama, 011/507–272–4567, or Ruth Huff, Assistant to theSecretary for Commission Affairs, Officeof the Secretary, Panama CanalCommission, International Square, 1825I Street NW, Suite 1050, Washington,DC 20006–5402, (Telephone: (202) 634–6441).SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ThePanama Canal Commission published adocument in the July 11, 1996, FederalRegister, (61 FR 36497) section§ 61.155(e) was incorrect. On page36497, in the third column, paragraph(e) should read as follows:

§ 61.155 Vessels; yellow fever.

* * * * *(e) The disinfecting required under

paragraph (a) of this section shall not berequired when the index of Aedesaegypti in Panama exceeds the 1.0 index

level established by the World HealthOrganization (WHO).

Dated: March 13, 1997.John A. Mills,Secretary, Panama Canal Commission.[FR Doc. 97–6787 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3640–04–P

LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION

45 CFR Part 1611

Eligibility: Income Level for IndividualsEligible for Assistance

AGENCY: Legal Services Corporation.ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Legal ServicesCorporation (‘‘Corporation’’) is requiredby law to establish maximum incomelevels for individuals eligible for legalassistance. This document updates thespecified income levels to reflect theannual amendments to the FederalPoverty Guidelines as issued by theDepartment of Health and HumanServices.EFFECTIVE DATE: March 18, 1997.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Victor M. Fortuno, General Counsel,Legal Services Corporation, 750 FirstStreet NE., Washington, DC 20002–4250; 202–336–8810.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section1007(a)(2) of the Legal ServicesCorporation Act (‘‘Act’’), 42 U.S.C.2996f(a)(2), requires the Corporation toestablish maximum income levels forindividuals eligible for legal assistance,and the Act provides that otherspecified factors shall be taken intoaccount along with income.

Section 1611.3(b) of the Corporation’sregulations establishes a maximumincome level equivalent to one hundredand twenty-five percent (125%) of theFederal Poverty Guidelines. Since 1982,the Department of Health and HumanServices has been responsible forupdating and issuing the PovertyGuidelines.

The revised figures for 1997 set outbelow are equivalent to 125% of thecurrent Poverty Guidelines as set out at62 FR 10856 (March 10, 1997).


Legal services.

PART 1611—ELIGIBILITY

1. The authority citation for Part 1611continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 1006(b)(1), 1007(a)(1)Legal Services Corporation Act of 1974, 42U.S.C. 2996e(b)(1), 2996f(a)(1), 2996f(a)(2).


2. Appendix A of Part 1611 is revisedto read as follows:

APPENDIX A OF PART 1611—LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION 1997 POVERTY GUIDELINES*

Size of family unit

All statesbut Alaskaand Ha-

waii 1

Alaska 2 Hawaii 3

1 ...................................................................................................................................................................... $9,863 $12,338 $11,3382 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 13,263 16,588 15,2503 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 16,663 20,838 19,1634 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 20,063 25,088 23,0755 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 23,463 29,338 26,9886 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 26,863 33,588 30,9007 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 30,263 37,838 34,8138 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 33,663 42,088 38,725

* The figures in this table represent 125% of the poverty guidelines by family size as determined by the Department of Health and HumanServices.

1 For family units with more than eight members, add $3,400 for each additional member in a family.2 For family units with more than eight members, add $4,250 for each additional member in a family.3 For family units with more than eight members, add $3,913 for each additional member in a family.

Dated: March 13, 1997.Victor M. Fortuno,General Counsel.[FR Doc. 97–6830 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 7050–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONSCOMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 24 and 101

[WT Docket No. 95–157; FCC 97–48]

Plan for Sharing the Costs ofMicrowave Relocation

AGENCY: Federal CommunicationsCommission.ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: By this Second Report andOrder, the Commission amends certainaspects of the microwave relocationrules, which were first established inthe Emerging Technologies proceedingand were modified and clarified in theFirst Report and Order and FurtherNotice of Proposed Rule Making in thisdocket. Specifically, the Commissionadjusts the relocation timetables for thebroadband PCS C, D, E, and F blocks byshortening the voluntary negotiationperiod applicable to each block for non-public safety incumbents by one year.This change will facilitate the relocationprocess for the most recently licensedPCS blocks and will create incentivesfor all parties to enter into earlynegotiations. The Commission does notalter the timetable for public safetyincumbents in the broadband PCS C, D,E, and F blocks. In addition, theCommission permits microwaveincumbents to participate in the cost-sharing program adopted in the FirstReport and Order. The cost-sharing

program currently allows PCS licenseeswho relocate microwave incumbents toobtain reimbursement rights and collectreimbursement under the cost-sharingplan from later-entrant PCS licenseesthat benefit from the relocation.EFFECTIVE DATE: May 19, 1997.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Michael Hamra, WirelessTelecommunications Bureau, (202) 418–0620.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is asynopsis of the Second Report andOrder, adopted February 13, 1997 andreleased February 27, 1997. Thecomplete text of this Second Report andOrder is available for inspection andcopying during normal business hoursin the FCC Reference Center, Room 230,1919 M Street, NW., Washington, DC,and also may be purchased from theCommission’s copy contractor,International Transcription Service, at(202) 857–3800, 2100 M Street, NW.,Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.

I. Background

1. In the Emerging Technologiesproceeding, ET Docket No. 92–9, 57 FR49020 (October 29, 1992) theCommission reallocated the 1850–1990,2110–2150, and 2160–2200 MHz bandsfrom private and common carrier fixedmicrowave services to emergingtechnology services. In that proceedingthe Commission established theprocedures for relocating 2 GHzmicrowave incumbents to availablefrequencies in higher bands or to othermedia. These procedures are intendedto encourage incumbents to negotiaterelocation agreements with emergingtechnology licensees or manufacturersof unlicensed devices to accelerate thedeployment of emerging technologies.

2. The relocation process establishedin that proceeding provided twonegotiation periods that must expirebefore an emerging technology licenseemay request involuntary relocation ofthe incumbent. The first is a fixed two-year period for voluntary negotiations—three years for public safety incumbents,e.g., police, fire, and emergency medicallicensees—commencing with theCommission’s acceptance of long form(Form 600) applications for emergingtechnology services. During that timeperiod, the emerging technologyproviders and microwave licensees maynegotiate any mutually acceptablerelocation agreement. Such negotiationsare strictly voluntary. At any timefollowing the conclusion of thevoluntary negotiation period, theemerging technology licensee mayinitiate a one-year mandatorynegotiation period—two years for publicsafety licensees. During this period theparties are required to negotiate in goodfaith. If the parties fail to reach anagreement during these periods, theemerging technology provider mayrequest involuntary relocation of theexisting facility. As a condition ofrelocation, however, the emergingtechnology licensee is required to paythe cost of relocating the incumbent toa comparable facility.

3. In the Commission’s First Reportand Order in WT Docket 95–157, 61 FR29679 (June 12, 1996) the Commissionadopted a cost-sharing formula thatallows a PCS licensee who relocates anincumbent microwave system to obtainreimbursement rights and collectreimbursement from later-entrant PCSlicensees that benefit from therelocation under a cost-sharing planadministered by the industry. TheCommission also addressed concerns


raised by PCS licensees thatnegotiations during the voluntary periodfor the A and B blocks were notprogressing as fast as they should andwere potentially delaying thedeployment of PCS service to thepublic. The Commission decided thataltering the timetable for A and B blocknegotiation periods at that time wouldnot be in the public interest becauseongoing negotiations were likely to beinterrupted, while parties re-assessedtheir positions to the detriment of theprocess and ultimately, the publicinterest. In the Further Notice ofProposed Rule Making (Further NPRM)61 FR 24470 (May 15, 1996)accompanying the First Report andOrder, however, the Commission soughtcomment on a proposal to shorten thevoluntary negotiation period andlengthen the mandatory negotiationperiod for the D, E, and F blocks and onwhether these same changes shouldapply to the C block.

4. In the Further NPRM, theCommission also considered whether toallow microwave incumbents who paytheir own relocation expenses toparticipate in the cost-sharing planadopted in the First Report and Orderunder certain conditions. To furtherexpedite clearing of the band, theCommission tentatively concluded thatincumbents should be permitted torelocate their own links and obtainreimbursement rights pursuant to thecost-sharing plan.

II. Discussion

A. Voluntary and MandatoryNegotiation Periods for D, E, and FBlocks

5. The comments of both PCSlicensees and microwave incumbentshave confirmed that most incumbentsare willing to negotiate reasonablerelocation agreements during thevoluntary negotiation period. As manyPCS licensees argue, however, thecurrent length of the voluntary periodunnecessarily provides opportunities forsome incumbents to demand excessivepremiums from PCS licensees after theyhave invested substantial amounts atauction and face competitive pressure toconstruct their systems and enter themarket, particularly on 10 MHz blockswhere PCS licensees have limitedflexibility to build around incumbents.In addition, because of the staggeredtiming of PCS licensing, D, E, and Fblock licensees who are unable tonegotiate voluntary agreements cannotinitiate mandatory negotiations for morethan a year after their A and B blockcompetitors have begun suchnegotiations. Thus, the current rules

give the A and B block licensees asignificant ‘‘head start’’ in the relocationprocess.

6. The Commission agrees thatshortening the voluntary period for non-public safety incumbents in the D, E,and F blocks by one year will spurvoluntary negotiations and speed thedeployment of PCS services to thepublic. This modification will alsoenhance competitive parity by reducingthe A and B block licensees’ head startin the relocation process. The voluntaryperiod for the A and B block licenseesexpires on April 5, 1997 (with respectto non-public safety incumbents), atwhich point A and B block licenseesmay begin mandatory negotiations.Shortening the voluntary period for D,E, and F blocks will help licensees inthose blocks to initiate mandatorynegotiations a year earlier than underthe current rules, providing somecompensation for the fact that the D, E,and F block voluntary negotiationperiod commenced approximatelytwenty-one months after the A and Bblock voluntary negotiation period. TheA and B block voluntary negotiationperiod commenced April 5, 1995. TheD, E, and F block voluntary negotiationperiod will commence January 30, 1997,when long forms are filed. TheCommission therefore amends the rulesand shortens the voluntary negotiationperiod for the D, E, and F blocks by oneyear for non-public safety incumbents.

7. The Commission concludes thatshortening the voluntary negotiationperiod for non-public safety incumbentsin the D, E, and F blocks at this juncturewill not adversely affect suchincumbents. The Commission notes thatmicrowave incumbents have been onnotice since October 1992 that they willbe required to relocate to alternativespectrum. Moreover, the Commission’sexperience with voluntary negotiationsin the A and B blocks indicates thatmost incumbents who are motivated toenter into voluntary agreements arewilling to do so early in the voluntaryperiod and do not require prolongednegotiations to reach an agreement.Under the timetables adopted here, D, E,and F block incumbents will continue tohave a reasonable window for voluntarynegotiations and may continue tonegotiate in the mandatory negotiationperiod. Moreover, if parties aresuccessfully negotiating an agreementduring the voluntary negotiation periodand believe that more time is needed,they may agree to postponecommencement of the mandatoryperiod. Finally, shortening of thevoluntary period does not alter theCommission’s fundamental policy thatincumbents must be made whole for the

reasonable expense of being relocated tocomparable facilities, regardless ofwhether relocation occurs in thevoluntary period, the mandatory period,or as a result of involuntary relocation.

8. While the Commission adopts it’sproposal to shorten the voluntarynegotiation period for non-public safetyincumbents in the D, E, and F blocks,the Commission concludes it isunnecessary to lengthen the one-yearmandatory negotiation period. Becausethe D, E, and F blocks are 10 MHzblocks, there are fewer links to relocatethan in the 30 MHz A, B, and C blocks.In addition, no additional time shouldbe required for mandatory negotiation inthe D, E, and F blocks because many ofthe links will have been relocated by A,B, and C block licensees by the time theD, E, and F block licensees commencenegotiations. The Commission isencouraged, from our discussions withindustry, by the speed with whichrelocation agreements are beingnegotiated and believe that a total of twoyears, (one year voluntary and one yearmandatory) is sufficient toaccommodate negotiations betweennon-public safety incumbents and D, E,and F block licensees. Lengthening themandatory negotiation period by oneyear, on the other hand, will do little toaccomplish the Commission’s objectiveof speeding the deployment of PCSservices to the public. The Commissionalso do not believe that non-publicsafety incumbents will be harmed by ashorter combined negotiation periodbecause in conjunction with thesechanges, the Commission is providingmicrowave incumbents more flexibilityto self-relocate by permitting them toparticipate in the Commission’s cost-sharing plan (see, infra, ¶ 22).Consequently, the Commission declinesto increase the amount of time in themandatory period needed to completethe relocation process for these blocks.

9. The Commission declines to alterthe voluntary or mandatory negotiationperiods for public safety incumbents inthe D, E, and F blocks. Under theCommission’s current rules, publicsafety incumbents in the 2 GHz band aredistinguished from non-public safety 2GHz incumbents in that they have athree-year voluntary and a two-yearmandatory negotiation period. TheCommission has given public safetyincumbents more time to negotiate andrelocate because of the importance ofensuring a seamless transition forfacilities that support vital emergencyservices such as police, fire, andemergency medical treatment. Inaddition, the longer negotiationtimetable reflects the fact that publicsafety agencies typically operate under


greater budgetary constraints and longerplanning cycles than non-public safetyentities. For example, the LA Sheriff’sDepartment notes that replacing its 2GHz simulcast mobile network entails alengthy review and approval process inwhich numerous county personnel mustparticipate at all stages. APCO contendsthat for public safety agencies, therelocation process requires significantcommitment of scarce agency time andresources to ensure that vital emergencycommunications will not becompromised or disrupted. TheCommission agrees that these continueto be significant concerns thatdistinguish public safety incumbentsfrom other incumbents. TheCommission further concludes thatthere is insufficient support in therecord for modifying the negotiationtimetable for public safety incumbentsat this time. Even prior to thecommencement of negotiations, manypublic safety agencies have begun toplan for relocation in reliance on theexisting rules. Because changing therules could disrupt this process, andbecause of the vital importance ofproviding the public with reliableemergency communications, theCommission concludes that the currentrelocation timetable for public safetyagencies in the D, E, and F blocksshould be retained.

10. The Commission does not believethat retaining the current relocationrules for public safety incumbents willadversely affect PCS licensees in the D,E, and F blocks. Because public safetyincumbents account for fewer than 20percent of the microwave facilities in allPCS blocks, PCS licensees will be ableto clear most of their spectrum underthe shorter timetable applicable to non-public safety licensees. In addition, theCommission’s experience after twenty-one months of voluntary negotiations inthe A and B blocks indicates that mostpublic safety incumbents in thoseblocks have entered into voluntarynegotiations with PCS licensees and arecooperating in the relocation process.Based on this experience, theCommission anticipates that publicsafety agencies in the D, E, and F blockswill not wait until the conclusion of thevoluntary period to begin negotiationsrequested by D, E, and F block licenseesand will make good-faith efforts tocomplete the relocation process in areasonable time. Because theCommission believes that the currentrules fairly balance the interests of PCSlicensees and public safety incumbents,the Commission concludes that furtheralteration to the voluntary or mandatory

negotiation periods for public safetyincumbents is unnecessary.

B. Voluntary and MandatoryNegotiation Periods for C Block

11. The C block winners arepotentially at a greater disadvantagecompared to A and B block winnersunder the current voluntary negotiationtimetable. Currently the voluntarynegotiation period for non-public safetyincumbents and A and B block licenseeswill expire April 5, 1997, whereas theequivalent voluntary negotiation periodfor C block will expire May 22, 1998.The C block winners are smallbusinesses that do not have financialresources similar to their A and B blockcompetitors. The C block is anentrepreneurs block that restrictedeligibility to applicants with grossrevenues of less than $125 million ineach of the last two years and totalassets of less than $500 million at thetime the applicants’ short-formapplication (Form 175) was filed. It isnot as feasible for a small business topay premiums to acceleratenegotiations. The purpose of the specialC block bidding rules is to encouragesmall business participation in PCS. TheCommission believes an extendedvoluntary negotiation period couldhinder or deter small businesses fromeffectively participating in the PCSbusiness because it increases thelikelihood that they will incur start-upbusiness expenses such as relocationpremiums and related costs due toextended negotiations. TheCommunications Act requires theCommission to eliminate market entrybarriers for entrepreneurs and smallbusinesses. The Commission believesthat modifying the negotiation periodswill eliminate market entry barrierspursuant to Section 257 of theCommunications Act and will assistsmall businesses in C block to deployservice to the consumer faster. TheCommission concludes that thesefactors are sufficiently compelling tojustify modification of the voluntarynegotiation period for non-public safetyincumbents, even though negotiationshave commenced. The Commissiontherefore shortens the voluntarynegotiation period for C block to oneyear for non-public safety incumbents,which will cause it to terminate on May22, 1997.

12. Similar to the Commission’sdecision not to extend the mandatorynegotiation period in the D, E, and Fblocks, the Commission also concludethat it is unnecessary to extend themandatory negotiation period for non-public safety incumbents in the C block.As in the case of the D, E, and F blocks,

the Commission believe that noadditional time is required formandatory negotiations in the C blockbecause many C block links will havebeen relocated by A and B blocklicensees by the time C block licenseescommence mandatory negotiations. TheCommission also believes that acombined two-year negotiation periodwill be sufficient for negotiationsbetween C block licensees and non-public safety incumbents, whereaslengthening the mandatory period byone year could delay the deployment ofPCS services to the public. Also,microwave incumbents will have greaterflexibility in the relocation processbecause the Commission is permittingthem to participate in the Commission’scost-sharing plan (see, infra, ¶ 22). Inaddition, by retaining the one-yearmandatory negotiation period for Cblock, the Commission achieves greatersymmetry with the negotiations periodfor A and B blocks: the earliest that themandatory negotiation period for Cblock will expire is now May 22, 1998for non-public safety incumbents—approximately the same time as the Aand B block mandatory negotiationperiods, which in most cases shouldexpire April 5, 1998. This will creategreater parity between C blockentrepreneurs and their A and B blockcompetitors in terms of clearing theband and offering service to the public.

13. The Commission declines to alterthe voluntary or mandatory negotiationperiods for public safety incumbents inthe C block for the same reasons theCommission has articulated for the D, E,and F blocks. As modified, thevoluntary negotiation period for the Cblock will expire on May 22, 1997 fornon-public safety incumbents—approximately the same time as the Aand B block voluntary negotiationperiods, which end April 5, 1997. Thevoluntary negotiation period for publicsafety incumbents in the C block willremain unchanged and will end May 22,1999—approximately one year after thevoluntary negotiation period for publicsafety incumbents in the A and B blockvoluntary negotiation periods end,which is April 5, 1998.

C. Microwave Incumbent Participationin Cost-Sharing Plan

14. The Commission adopts it’stentative conclusion from the FurtherNotice of Proposed Rule Making, topermit microwave incumbents thatrelocate themselves to obtainreimbursement rights and collectreimbursement under the Commission’scost-sharing plan from subsequent PCSlicensees that would have interferedwith the relocated link had it not been


moved. The Commission agrees withPCS licensees and microwaveincumbents who argue that incumbentparticipation will accelerate therelocation process by promoting system-wide relocations. Incumbentparticipation will also give microwaveincumbents the option of avoiding time-consuming negotiations, allowing forfaster clearing of the 2 GHz band insome instances. The Commissionbelieves that promoting system-widerelocation in this way may even reducethe overall cost of clearing the 2 GHzband.

15. In concluding that microwaveincumbents should be allowed toparticipate in cost-sharing, theCommission agrees with commentersthat some safeguards are needed toensure that voluntarily relocatingmicrowave incumbents do not seekreimbursement for unreasonableexpenses. The Commission thereforewill impose the same restrictions onreimbursement of incumbents thatapply to PCS licensees. These includethe limitations under the cost-sharingplan on links for which reimbursementmay be sought, and the monetary cap onthe amount a relocator may bereimbursed for the relocation of eachindividual microwave link.

16. The Commission also concludesthat the cost-sharing formula, whenapplied to microwave incumbents,should include depreciation. First, amicrowave incumbent who voluntarilyrelocates itself may obtain benefits itwould not realize if it waited to berelocated by a PCS licensee. Earlyrelocation by the incumbent on avoluntary basis provides more optionsfor obtaining alternative spectrum, morecontrol over the relocation process, andreduces uncertainty about furtheroperations. Depreciation ensures thatthe self-relocation pays for thesebenefits rather than passing them on toa PCS licensee who otherwise wouldnot have relocated the incumbent untillater. Second, the Commission observedin the First Report and Order thatdepreciation creates an incentive for therelocator to minimize costs because itsown share of the cost is not depreciated.The Commission concludes that thiselement of the cost-sharing plan appliesequally to microwave incumbents whorelocate themselves. Therefore, theCommission retains depreciation as anincentive for microwave incumbentswho relocate themselves to minimizetheir relocation costs.

17. Finally, the Commissionconcludes that microwave incumbentswho self-relocate should be required toprovide independent verification oftheir relocation costs. Although the cost-

sharing plan already requires allrelocators to keep documents of allexpenses, the Commission believe thisadditional safeguard is appropriate inthe case of incumbents seekingreimbursement. In the case of anincumbent who self-relocates, it may bedifficult for subsequent PCS licensees toverify the incumbent’s costs todetermine whether they arecompensable under the cost-sharingplan. Therefore, any incumbent seekingreimbursement under the cost-sharingplan must submit to the clearinghousean independent third party appraisal ofits compensable relocation costs. Theappraisal should be based on the actualcost of replacing the incumbent’s systemwith comparable facilities, and shouldexclude the cost of any equipmentupgrades that would not bereimbursable under the cost-sharingplan.

III. Conclusion18.The changes the Commission

makes to the timetables for thevoluntary and mandatory negotiationperiods for the broadband PCS C, D, E,and F blocks will facilitate negotiationsbetween microwave incumbents andPCS licensees. Allowing microwaveincumbents to participate in the cost-sharing plan will also encourage morerapid system relocation and will reducerelocation costs. As a result of thesechanges, PCS licensees will be able tospeed their deployment of service to thepublic.

IV. Procedural Matters

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act

As required by Section 603 of theRegulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 603(RFA), an Initial Regulatory FlexibilityAnalysis (IRFA) was incorporated in theNotice of Proposed Rule Making in WTDocket No. 95–157. The Commissionsought written comments on theproposals in the NPRM, including theIRFA. The Commission’s FinalRegulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA)in this Order conforms to the RFA, asamended by the Contract With AmericaAdvancement Act of 1996.

Need for and Purpose of the Action:This Second Report and Order (i)shortens the voluntary negotiationperiod for all non-public safetymicrowave incumbents in the C, D, E,and F blocks by one year, (ii) allows themicrowave incumbents who self-relocate to obtain reimbursement rightsand collect reimbursement under thecost-sharing formula. The changesadopted herein will facilitate the rapidrelocation of microwave facilities in the2 GHz band and will accelerate the

deployment of PCS services to thepublic.

Summary of Significant Issues Raisedby the Public Comments in Response tothe Initial Regulatory FlexibilityAnalysis: No comments were submittedin response to the IRFA. However, twocommenters to the Further Notice ofProposed Rule Making, raised an issuethat might affect small business entities.The commenters, American PetroleumInstitute (API) and the American PublicPower Association (APPA) argued thatshortening the voluntary negotiationperiods would disrupt and impose asignificant burden on microwaveincumbent businesses by forcing themto negotiate an agreement during ashorter voluntary negotiation period.Both commenters believe that without atwo-year voluntary negotiation period,incumbents will be forced to negotiateduring the mandatory negotiationperiod. The Commission does notbelieve that successful negotiations willbe forced into the mandatorynegotiation period. If successfulnegotiations are occurring, parties mayagree not to commence with themandatory negotiation period and maycontinue to negotiate successfullythroughout a voluntary negotiationperiod.

Description and Estimate of theNumber of Small Entities To WhichRule Will Apply: For purposes of thisOrder, the Small BusinessAdministration (SBA) has defined asmall business for Standard IndustrialClassification (SIC) category 4813(Telephone Communications ExceptRadiotelephone) to be a small entitywhen it has fewer than 1,500employees.

Estimates for Broadband PCSServices: The broadband PCS spectrumis divided into six frequency blocksdesignated A through F. As set forth in47 CFR 24.720(b), the Commission hasdefined small businesses in the C and Fblock auctions to mean a firm that hadaverage gross revenues of less than $40million in the three previous calendaryears. The Commission’s definition of asmall business has been approved bythe SBA.

The Commission has auctionedbroadband PCS licenses in the A, B, C,D, E, and F blocks. The Commissiondoes not have sufficient data todetermine how many small businessesbid successfully for licenses in the Aand B blocks. There are 81 non-defaulting winning bidders that qualifyas small entities in the C block PCSauctions. Based on this information, theCommission conclude that the numberof broadband PCS licensees affected bythe decisions in this Order includes, at


a minimum, the 81 non-defaultingwinning bidders that qualified as smallentities in the C block broadband PCSauction.

The D, E, and F block auction closedJanuary 14, 1997, but presently therehave been no licenses awarded for theD, E, and F block auctions. Therefore,there are no small businesses providingthese services. However, there were 125winning bidders and the Commissionanticipates a total of 1,479 licenses willbe awarded in the D, E, and F blocks.Participation in the F block was limitedto entrepreneurs with under $125million in average gross revenues overthe past three years. More than 40percent of the licenses in the D, E, andF blocks were won by 93 smallbusinesses. The Commission estimatethat most, if not all, of the smallbusinesses will be awarded licenses.

Estimates for Microwave Services: Dueto the nature of this private service, theCommission does not have a definitionfor small business with respect tomicrowave services. Therefore, theCommission will utilize the SBA’sdefinition applicable to radiotelephonecompanies—i.e. an entity with less than1,500 persons. The Census Bureaureports that there were 1,176 suchcompanies in operation for at least oneyear at the end of 1992. Also, theFederal Communication Commission’sOffice of Engineering and Technologydeveloped a study in 1992 that providesstatistical data for all microwaveincumbents in 1850 MHz to 1990 MHzbands. Specifically, the study finds thatin the 1850 MHz to 1990 MHz, localgovernments, including public safetyentities have 168 licensees; petroleumcompanies have 67 licenses; powercompanies have 164 licenses; railroadcompanies have 18 licenses; and allother microwave incumbents in thisband have 143 licenses. However, theCommission does not have specificstatistics that determine how many ofthese companies are small businesses.In addition, this Second Report andOrder only affects microwaveincumbents in PCS blocks C, D, E, andF. Therefore, this Second Report andOrder does not affect all microwaveincumbents in the 1850 MHz to 1990MHz band.

However, the Commission recognizesthat a number of microwave incumbentshave already relocated due to thecurrent negotiations of A, B, and C blockPCS licensees. The Commission cannotdetermine at this time how manylicensees have moved. The Commissiontherefore is unable to estimate thenumber of microwave service providersthat qualify under the SBA’s definition.

Description, Projected Reporting,Record keeping and Other ComplianceRequirements: In this Second Reportand Order the Commission allowsmicrowave incumbents who voluntarilyrelocate their links to obtainreimbursement from subsequent PCSlicensees under the cost-sharing plan.Microwave incumbents that participatein the cost-sharing plan will be requiredto submit documentation itemizing theamount spent for the actual cost ofrelocating the links. The voluntarilyrelocating microwave incumbent willalso be required to submit anindependent third party appraisal of itscompensable costs. See, supra, IV., C,paragraph 27.

Significant Alternatives and StepsTaken By Agency to MinimizeSignificant Economic Impact on aSubstantial Number of Small EntitiesConsistent with Stated Objectives: In theFurther Notice of Proposed Rule Makingthe Commission sought comment onadjusting the negotiation periods for theD, E, and F blocks by shortening thevoluntary negotiation period andlengthening the mandatory negotiationperiod by the corresponding amount.The Commission also sought commenton whether the same adjustmentsshould be made in the C block. ThisSecond Report and Order shortens thevoluntary negotiation period for the C,D, E, and F blocks by one year andlengthens the mandatory negotiationperiod for C block by one year. TheCommission did not lengthen themandatory negotiation period for the D,E, and F blocks because these are 10MHz blocks and have fewer links torelocate than in the 30 MHz blocks thatC block has. These alterations weremade to diminish the opportunity of afew incumbents that were delayingnegotiations by demanding excessivepremiums from PCS licensees duringthe voluntary negotiation periods.

Commenters to the Further NPRMgenerally indicated that microwaveincumbents were negotiatingsuccessfully during the voluntarynegotiation period and did not requireprolonged negotiations to reachagreement. The Commission believesthat these changes do not affect anincumbent’s ability to negotiate anagreement during the voluntarynegotiation period. If parties aresuccessfully negotiating an agreementduring the voluntary negotiation period,they may agree that more time isneeded, thereby agreeing to postponethe commencement of the mandatorynegotiation period. See, supra, IV., A,paragraph 13.

These alterations will accelerate thedeployment of PCS services to the

consumer and still guarantee microwaveincumbents full compensation forrelocating.

Report to Congress: The Commissionshall send a copy of this FinalRegulatory Flexibility Analysis with thisSecond Report and Order in a report toCongress pursuant to Section 251 of theSmall Business Regulatory EnforcementFairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C.801(a)(1)(A). A copy of this RegulatoryFlexibility Analysis will also bepublished in the Federal Register.

B. AuthorityAuthority for issuance of this Second

Report and Order is contained in theCommunications Act, Sections 4(i), 7,303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), and 332, 47U.S.C. 154(i), 157, 303(c), 303(f), 303(g),303(r), 332, as amended.

C. Ordering ClausesAccordingly, it is ordered That Parts

24 and 101 of the Commission’s rulesare amended as set forth below and willbecome effective May 19, 1997.

It is further ordered That theRegulatory Flexibility Analysis, asrequired by Section 604 of theRegulatory Flexibility Act, and as setforth herein is Adopted.

It is further ordered That the Secretaryshall send a copy of this Second Reportand Order to the Chief Counsel forAdvocacy of the Small BusinessAdministration.

D. Further Information

For further information concerningthis proceeding, contact Michael Hamra,Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,Commercial Wireless Division at (202)418–0620.

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 24

Personal communications services,Radio.

47 CFR Part 101

Fixed microwave services, Radio.Federal Communications CommissionWilliam F. Caton,Acting Secretary.

Rule ChangesParts 24 and 101 of Chapter I of Title

47 of the Code of Federal Regulationsare amended as follows:

Part 24 of Chapter 1 of Title 47 of theCode of Federal Regulations is amendedas follows:

PART 24—PERSONALCOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES



Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303,309 and 332, unless otherwise noted.

2. Section 24.5 is amended by addingthe definition for ‘‘VoluntarilyRelocating Microwave Incumbent’’ inalphabetical order to read as follows:

§ 24.5 Terms and definitions.

* * * * *Voluntarily Relocating Microwave

Incumbent. A microwave incumbentthat voluntarily relocates its licensedfacilities to other media or fixedchannels.

3. Section 24.239 is revised to read asfollows:

§ 24.239 Cost-sharing requirements forbroadband PCS.

Frequencies in the 1850–1990 MHzband listed in § 101.147(c) of thischapter have been allocated for use byPCS. In accordance with proceduresspecified in §§ 101.69 through 101.81 ofthis chapter, PCS entities (both licensedand unlicensed) are required to relocatethe existing Fixed Microwave Services(FMS) licensees in these bands ifinterference to the existing FMSoperations would occur. All PCSentities who benefit from spectrumclearance by other PCS entities or avoluntarily relocating microwaveincumbent, must contribute to suchrelocation costs. PCS entities maysatisfy this requirement by entering intoprivate cost-sharing agreements oragreeing to terms other than thosespecified in § 24.243. However, PCSentities are required to reimburse otherPCS entities or voluntarily relocatingmicrowave incumbents that incurrelocation costs and are not parties tothe alternative agreement. In addition,parties to a private cost-sharingagreement may seek reimbursementthrough the clearinghouse (as discussedin § 24.241) from PCS entities that arenot parties to the agreement. The cost-sharing plan is in effect during allphases of microwave relocationspecified in § 101.69 of this chapter.


§ 24.243 The cost-sharing formula.

A PCS relocator who relocates aninterfering microwave link, i.e. one thatis in all or part of its market area andin all or part of its frequency band or avoluntarily relocating microwaveincumbent, is entitled to pro ratareimbursement based on the followingformula:

RN = ×− ( )[ ]C

N

Tm120

120

(a) RN equals the amount ofreimbursement.

(b) C equals the actual cost ofrelocating the link. Actual relocationcosts include, but are not limited to,such items as: Radio terminalequipment (TX and/or RX—antenna,necessary feed lines, MUX/Modems);towers and/or modifications; back-uppower equipment; monitoring or controlequipment; engineering costs (design/path survey); installation; systemstesting; FCC filing costs; site acquisitionand civil works; zoning costs; training;disposal of old equipment; testequipment (vendor required); spareequipment; project management; priorcoordination notification under§ 101.103(d) of this chapter; site leaserenegotiation; required antennaupgrades for interference control; powerplant upgrade (if required); electricalgrounding systems; Heating Ventilationand Air Conditioning (HVAC) (ifrequired); alternate transportequipment; and leased facilities. C alsoincludes voluntarily relocatingmicrowave incumbent’s independentthird party appraisal of its compensablerelocation costs and incumbenttransaction expenses that are directlyattributable to the relocation, subject toa cap of two percent of the ‘‘hard’’ costsinvolved. C may not exceed $250,000per link, with an additional $150,000permitted if a new or modified tower isrequired.

(c) N equals the number of PCSentities that would have interfered withthe link. For the PCS relocator, N = 1.For the next PCS entity that would haveinterfered with the link, N=2, and so on.

(d) Tm equals the number of monthsthat have elapsed between the monththe PCS relocator obtainsreimbursement rights and the monththat the clearinghouse notifies a later-entrant of its reimbursement obligation.A PCS relocator obtains reimbursementrights on the date that it signs arelocation agreement with a microwaveincumbent.

5. Section 24.245 is amended byrevising paragraphs (a) and (b) to readas follows:

§ 24.245 Reimbursement under the cost-sharing plan.

(a) Registration of reimbursementrights. (1) To obtain reimbursement, aPCS relocator must submitdocumentation of the relocationagreement to the clearinghouse withinten business days of the date arelocation agreement is signed with anincumbent.

(2) To obtain reimbursement, avoluntarily relocating microwaveincumbent must submit documentation

of the relocation to the clearinghousewithin ten business days of the date thatrelocation occurs.

(b) Documentation of expenses. Oncerelocation occurs, the PCS relocator orthe voluntarily relocating microwaveincumbent, must submit documentationitemizing the amount spent for itemslisted in § 24.243(b). The voluntarilyrelocating microwave incumbent, mustalso submit an independent third partyappraisal of its compensable relocationcosts. The appraisal should be based onthe actual cost of replacing theincumbent’s system with comparablefacilities and should exclude the cost ofany equipment upgrades or itemsoutside the scope of § 24.243(b). ThePCS relocator or the voluntarilyrelocating microwave incumbent, mustidentify the particular link associatedwith appropriate expenses (i.e., costsmay not be averaged over numerouslinks). If a PCS relocator pays amicrowave incumbent a monetary sumto relocate its own facilities, the PCSrelocator must estimate the costsassociated with relocating theincumbent by itemizing the anticipatedcost for items listed in § 24.243(b). If thesum paid to the incumbent cannot beaccounted for, the remaining amount isnot eligible for reimbursement. A PCSrelocator may submit receipts or otherdocumentation to the clearinghouse forall relocation expenses incurred sinceApril 5, 1995.* * * * *

6. Section 24.247 is amended byrevising the introductory text ofparagraph (a) to read as follow:

§ 24.247 Triggering a reimbursementobligation.

(a) Licensed PCS. The clearinghousewill apply the following test todetermine if a PCS entity preparing toinitiate operations must pay a PCSrelocator or a voluntarily relocatingmicrowave incumbent in accordancewith the formula detailed in § 24.243:* * * * *

7. Section 24.249 is amended byrevising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 24.249 Payment issues.(a) Timing. On the day that a PCS

entity files its prior coordination notice(PCN) in accordance with § 101.103(d)of this chapter, it must file a copy of thePCN with the clearinghouse. Theclearinghouse will determine if anyreimbursement obligation exists andnotify the PCS entity in writing of itsrepayment obligation, if any. When thePCS entity receives a written copy ofsuch obligation, it must pay directly tothe PCS relocator or the voluntarilyrelocating microwave incumbent the


amount owed within thirty days, withthe exception of those businesses thatqualify for installment payments. Abusiness that qualifies for an installmentpayment plan must make its firstinstallment payment within thirty daysof notice from the clearinghouse.UTAM’s first payment will be due thirtydays after its reimbursement obligationis triggered as described in § 24.247(b).* * * * *

PART 101—FIXED MICROWAVESERVICES


Authority: 47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 303, unlessotherwise noted.


§ 101.69 Transition of the 1850–1990 MHz,2110–2150 MHz, and 2160–2200 MHz bandsfrom the fixed microwave services topersonal communications services andemerging technologies.

Fixed Microwave Services (FMS)frequencies in the 1850–1990 MHz,2110–2150 MHz, and 2160–2200 MHzbands listed in §§ 101.147(c), (d) and (e)have been allocated for use by emergingtechnology (ET) services, includingPersonal Communications Services(PCS). The rules in this section providefor a transition period during which ETlicensees may relocate existing FMSlicensees using these frequencies toother media or other fixed channels,including those in other microwavebands.

(a) ET licensees may negotiate withFMS licensees authorized to usefrequencies in the 1850–1990 MHz,2110–2150 MHz, and 2160–2200 MHzbands, for the purpose of agreeing toterms under which the FMS licenseeswould:

(1) Relocate their operations to otherfixed microwave bands or other media;or alternatively

(2) Accept a sharing arrangement withthe ET licensee that may result in anotherwise impermissible level ofinterference to the FMS operations.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph(c) of this section, FMS operations in the1850–1990 MHz, 2110–2150 MHz, and2160–2200 MHz bands, with theexception of public safety facilitiesdefined in § 101.77, will continue to beco-primary with other users of thisspectrum until two years after the FCCcommences acceptance of applicationsfor ET services (voluntary negotiationperiod), and until one year after an ETlicensee initiates negotiations forrelocation of the fixed microwavelicensee’s operations (mandatory

negotiation period). In the 1910–1930MHz band allocated for unlicensed PCS,FMS operations will continue to be co-primary until one year after UTAM, Inc.initiates negotiations for relocation ofthe fixed microwave licensee’soperations. Except as provided inparagraph (c) of this section, publicsafety facilities defined in § 101.77 willcontinue to be co-primary in thesebands until three years after theCommission commences acceptance ofapplications for an emerging technologyservice (voluntary negotiation period),and until two years after an emergingtechnology service licensee or anemerging technology unlicensedequipment supplier or representativeinitiates negotiations for relocation ofthe fixed microwave licensee’soperations (mandatory negotiationperiod). If no agreement is reachedduring either the voluntary ormandatory negotiation periods, an ETlicensee may initiate involuntaryrelocation procedures. Underinvoluntary relocation, the incumbent isrequired to relocate, provided that theET licensee meets the conditions of§ 101.75.

(c) Voluntary and mandatorynegotiation periods for PCS C, D, E, andF blocks are defined as follows:

(1) Non-public safety incumbents willhave a one-year voluntary negotiationperiod and a one-year mandatorynegotiation period; and

(2) Public safety incumbents will havea three-year voluntary negotiationperiod and a two-year mandatorynegotiation period.

10. Section 101.71 is revised to readas follows:

§ 101.71 Voluntary negotiations.

During the voluntary negotiationperiod, negotiations are strictlyvoluntary and are not defined by anyparameters. However, if the parties havenot reached an agreement within oneyear after the commencement of thevoluntary period for non-public safetyentities, or within three years after thecommencement of the voluntary periodfor public safety entities, the FMSlicensee must allow the ET licensee if itso chooses to gain access to the existingfacilities to be relocated so that anindependent third party can examinethe FMS licensee’s 2 GHz system andprepare an estimate of the cost and thetime needed to relocate the FMSlicensee to comparable facilities. The ETlicensee must pay for any such estimate.

11. Section 101.73 is amended byrevising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 101.73 Mandatory negotiations.(a) If a relocation agreement is not

reached during the voluntary period, theET licensee may initiate a mandatorynegotiation period. This mandatoryperiod is triggered at the option of theET licensee, but ET licensees may notinvoke their right to mandatorynegotiation until the voluntarynegotiation period has expired.* * * * *

12. Section 101.77 is amended byrevising the section heading andparagraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 101.77 Public safety licensees in the1850–1990 MHz, 2110–2150 MHz, and 2160–2200 MHz bands.

(a) Public safety facilities are subjectto the three-year voluntary and two-yearmandatory negotiation period, except asotherwise defined in paragraph101.69(c). In order for public safetylicensees to qualify for extendednegotiation periods, the departmenthead responsible for system oversightmust certify to the ET licenseerequesting relocation that:

(1) The agency is a licensee in thePolice Radio, Fire Radio, EmergencyMedical, Special Emergency RadioServices, or that it is a licensee of otherpart 101 facilities licensed on a primarybasis under the eligibility requirementsof part 90, subparts B and C; and

(2) The majority of communicationscarried on the facilities at issue involvesafety of life and property.* * * * *

13. Section 101.79 is amended byrevising the section heading andparagraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 101.79 Sunset provisions for licensees inthe 1850–1990 MHz, 2110–2150 MHz, and2150–2160 MHz bands.

(a) FMS licensees will maintainprimary status in the 1850–1990 MHz,2110–2150 MHz, and 2160–2200 MHzbands unless and until an ET licenseerequires use of the spectrum. ETlicensees are not required to payrelocation costs after the relocation rulessunset (i.e. ten years after the voluntaryperiod begins for the first ET licenseesin the service). Once the relocation rulessunset, an ET licensee may require theincumbent to cease operations, providedthat the ET licensee intends to turn ona system within interference range ofthe incumbent, as determined by TIABulletin 10-F of any standard successor.ET licensee notification to the affectedFMS licensee must be in writing andmust provide the incumbent with noless than six months to vacate thespectrum. After the six-month noticeperiod has expired, the FMS licenseemust turn its license back into the


Commission, unless the parties haveentered into an agreement which allowsthe FMS licensee to continue to operateon a mutually agreed upon basis.* * * * *

14. Section 101.81 is amended byrevising the section heading and theintroductory paragraph to read asfollows:

§ 101.81 Future licensing in the 1850–1990MHz, 2110–2150 MHz, and 2160–2200 MHzbands.

After April 25, 1996, all majormodifications and extensions to existingFMS systems in the 1850–1990 MHz,2110–2150 MHz, and 2160–2200 MHzbands will be authorized on a secondarybasis to ET systems. All othermodifications will render the modifiedFMS license secondary to EToperations, unless the incumbentaffirmatively justifies primary status andthe incumbent FMS licensee establishesthat the modification would add to therelocation costs of ET licensees.Incumbent FMS licensees will maintainprimary status for the followingtechnical changes:* * * * *[FR Doc. 97–6751 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration

50 CFR Part 300

[Docket No. 961217359–7050–02; I.D.121196B]

RIN 0648–AJ11

Pacific Halibut Fisheries; CatchSharing Plans

AGENCY: National Marine FisheriesService (NMFS), National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA),Commerce.ACTION: Annual management measuresand approval of catch sharing plans.

SUMMARY: The Assistant Administratorfor Fisheries, NOAA (AA), on behalf ofthe International Pacific HalibutCommission (IPHC), publishes annualmanagement measures promulgated asregulations by the IPHC and approvedby the Secretary of State governing thePacific halibut fishery. The AA alsoannounces the approval ofmodifications to the Catch Sharing Planfor Area 2A, and implementingregulations for 1997. These actions areintended to enhance the conservation ofPacific halibut stocks in order to help

rebuild and sustain them at an adequatelevel in the northern Pacific Ocean andBering Sea.EFFECTIVE DATE: March 15, 1997.ADDRESSES: NMFS Alaska Region, 709W. 9th St., P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK99802–1668; or NMFS NorthwestRegion, 7600 Sand Point Way NE,Seattle, WA 98115–0070.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: JoeScordino, 206–526–6143 or Jay Ginter,907–586–7228.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The IPHChas promulgated regulations governingthe Pacific halibut fishery in 1997,under the Convention between theUnited States and Canada for thePreservation of the Halibut Fishery ofthe North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea(Convention), signed at Ottawa, Ontario,on March 2, 1953, as amended by aProtocol Amending the Convention(signed at Washington, D.C., on March29, 1979). The IPHC regulations havebeen approved by the Secretary of Stateof the United States under section 4 ofthe Northern Pacific Halibut Act(Halibut Act, 16 U.S.C. 773–773k).Pursuant to regulations at 50 CFRsection 300.62, the approved IPHCregulations setting forth the 1997 IPHCannual management measures arepublished in the Federal Register toprovide notice of their effectiveness,and to inform persons subject to theregulations of the restrictions andrequirements.

The IPHC held its annual meeting onJanuary 27–30, 1997, in Victoria, BritishColumbia, and adopted regulations for1997. The substantive changes to theprevious IPHC regulations (61 FR 11337,March 20, 1996) include: (1) New catchlimits for all areas; (2) elimination of thecommercial IPHC license requirementfor U.S. vessels fishing in Alaska; (3)allowance for possessing halibut frommultiple fishing areas onboard thevessel under specified conditions; (4)elimination of the requirement tomaintain halibut log informationseparate from other records onboard thevessel; and (5) opening dates for theArea 2A commercial directed fishery.

In addition, this action implementsCatch Sharing Plans (Plans) forregulatory Areas 2A and 4. These Planswere developed respectively by thePacific Fishery Management Council(PFMC) and the North Pacific FisheryManagement Council (NPFMC) underauthority of the Halibut Act. Section 5of the Halibut Act (16 U.S.C. 773c)provides that the Secretary of Commerce(Secretary) shall have generalresponsibility to carry out the HalibutConvention (Convention) between theUnited States and Canada, and that the

Secretary shall adopt such regulationsas may be necessary to carry out thepurposes and objectives of theConvention and the Halibut Act. TheSecretary’s authority has been delegatedto the AA. Section 5 of the Halibut Act(16 U.S.C. 773c(c)) also authorizes theRegional Fishery Management Councilhaving authority for the geographic areaconcerned to develop regulationsgoverning the Pacific halibut catch inU.S. Convention waters that are inaddition to, but not in conflict with,regulations of the IPHC. Pursuant to thisauthority, NMFS requested the PFMCand NPFMC to allocate halibut catchesshould such allocation be necessary.

Catch Sharing Plan for Area 2A

The PFMC has prepared annual Planssince 1988 to allocate the halibut catchlimit for Area 2A among treaty Indian,non-Indian commercial, and non-Indiansport fisheries in and off Washington,Oregon, and California. In 1995, NMFSimplemented a Council-recommendedlong-term Plan (60 FR 14651, March 20,1995), which was revised in 1996 (61 FR11337, March 20, 1996). The Planallocates 35 percent of the Area 2A totalallowable catch (TAC) to Washingtontreaty Indian tribes in Subarea 2A–1,and 65 percent to non-Indian fisheriesin Area 2A. The allocation to non-Indian fisheries is divided into 3 shares,with the Washington sport fishery(north of the Columbia River) receiving36.6 percent, the Oregon/Californiasport fishery receiving 31.7 percent, andthe commercial fishery receiving 31.7percent. The commercial fishery isfurther divided into 2 sectors; a directed(traditional longline) commercial fisherythat is allocated 85 percent of the non-Indian commercial harvest, and 15percent for harvests of halibut caughtincidental to the salmon troll fishery.The directed commercial fishery in Area2A is confined to southern Washington(south of 46°5′18′′ N. lat.), Oregon andCalifornia. The Plan also divides thesport fisheries into seven geographicareas each with separate allocations,seasons, and bag limits.

For 1997, PFMC recommendedchanges to the Plan to restructure theMay and August seasons in the OregonCentral Coast subarea sport fishery(Cape Falcon to Florence north jetty)from a quota managed to a fixed-lengthseason fishery. A complete descriptionof the PFMC recommended changes tothe Plan and implementing regulationswas published in the Federal Registeron January 3, 1997 (62 FR 382) with arequest for public comments. Nocomments were received on theproposed changes to the Plan, and


NMFS hereby approves the changes tothe Plan.

The Plan for the Oregon sportfisheries is modified to read as follows:

Oregon Central Coast Subarea

If the Area 2A TAC is 388,350 lb (176.2 mt)and greater, this subarea extends from CapeFalcon to the Siuslaw River at the Florencenorth jetty (44°0′08′′ N. lat.) and is allocated88.4 percent of the Oregon/California sportallocation, which is 18.21 percent of the Area2A TAC. If the Area 2A TAC is less than388,350 lb (176.2 mt), this subarea extendsfrom Cape Falcon to the California borderand is allocated 95.4 percent of the Oregon/California sport allocation. The structuringobjectives for this subarea are to provide twofixed-length periods of fishing opportunity inMay and in August in productive deeperwater areas along the coast, principally forcharterboat and larger private boat anglers,and provide a period of fishing opportunityin the summer for nearshore waters for smallboat anglers. Fixed-length seasons will beestablished preseason for the May andAugust openings and will not be modifiedinseason. The average catch per day observedin the previous 3 years in May and Augustwill be used to estimate the number of opendays for each fixed season. ODFW willmonitor landings and provide a post-seasonestimate of catch within 2 weeks of the endof the fixed season. If sufficient catchremains for an additional day of fishing afterthe May season or the August season,openings will be provided in May andAugust respectively. Potential additionalopen dates for both the May and Augustseasons will be announced preseason. If adecision is made inseason to allow fishing onone or more of these additional dates, noticeof the opening will be announced on theNMFS hotline (206) 526–6667 or (800) 662–9825. No halibut fishing will be allowed onthe additional dates unless the opening datehas been announced on the NMFS hotline.Any poundage remaining unharvested in thesubquotas from earlier seasons will be addedto the next season. The daily bag limit for allseasons is two halibut per person, one witha minimum 32-inch (81.3-cm) size limit andthe second with a minimum 50-inch (127.0cm) size limit. ODFW will sponsor a publicworkshop shortly after the IPHC annualmeeting to develop recommendations toNMFS on the opening dates for each seasoneach year. The three seasons for this subareaare as follows.

1. The first season is an all-depth fisherythat begins in mid-May and is allocated 68percent of the subarea quota. Fixed seasondates will be established preseason based onprojected catch per day and number of daysto achievement of the subquota for this firstseason. No inseason adjustments will bemade, except that additional opening days(established preseason) may be allowed ifany quota for this season remainsunharvested. The fishery will be open 2 daysper week (Friday and Saturday) if the seasonis for 4 or fewer fishing days. The fishery willbe open 3 days per week (Thursday throughSaturday) if the season is for 5 or morefishing days.

2. The second season opens the dayfollowing closure of the first season, only inwaters inside the 30-fathom (55 m) curve,and continues daily until 7 percent of thesubarea quota is taken, or until early August,whichever is earlier.

3. The last season is a coastwide (CapeFalcon to Oregon/California border) all-depthfishery that begins in early August and isallocated 25 percent of the subarea quota.Fixed season dates will be establishedpreseason based on projected catch per dayand number of days to achievement of thecombined Oregon subarea quotas south ofCape Falcon. No inseason adjustments willbe made, except that additional opening days(established preseason) may be allowed ifquota remains unharvested. The fishery willbe open 2 days per week (Friday andSaturday).

Oregon South Coast Subarea

If the Area 2A TAC is 388,350 lb (176.2 mt)and above, this subarea extends from theSiuslaw River at the Florence north jetty(44°01′08′′ N. lat.) to the California border(42°00′00′′ N. lat.) and is allocated 7.0percent of the Oregon/California sportallocation, which is 1.44 percent of the Area2A TAC. If the Area 2A TAC is less than388,350 lb (176.2 mt), this subarea will beincluded in the Oregon Central Coastsubarea. The structuring objective for thissubarea is to create a south coastmanagement zone designed to accommodatethe needs of both charterboat and privateboat anglers in this area where weather andbar crossing conditions very often do notallow scheduled fishing trips. The first andsecond seasons will be managed for a quota,and a fixed-length season will be establishedpreseason for the August coastwide season(Cape Falcon to Oregon/California border).The average catch per day observed in theprevious 3 years fisheries in August will beused to estimate the number of days for thefixed season. Additional open dates may beallowed after the August fixed-length seasonif sufficient quota remains for an additionalday of fishing. Potential additional opendates will be announced preseason. If adecision is made inseason to allow fishing onone or more of these additional dates, noticeof the opening will be announced on theNMFS hotline (206) 526–6667 or (800) 662–9825. No halibut fishing will be allowed onthe additional dates unless the opening datehas been announced on the NMFS hotline.Any poundage remaining unharvested in thesubquotas from earlier seasons will be addedto the next season. The daily bag limit for allseasons is two halibut per person, one witha minimum 32-inch (81.3 cm) size limit andthe second with a minimum 50-inch (127.0cm) size limit. ODFW will sponsor a publicworkshop shortly after the IPHC annualmeeting to develop recommendations toNMFS on the opening dates for each seasoneach year. The three seasons for this subareaare as follows:

1. The first season is an all-depth fisherythat begins in May and continues at least 3days per week (dependent on TAC) until 80percent of the subarea quota is taken.

2. The second season opens the dayfollowing closure of the first season, only in

waters inside the 30-fathom (55 m) curve,and continues daily until the subarea quotais estimated to have been taken, or earlyAugust, whichever is earlier.

3. The last season is a coastwide (CapeFalcon to Oregon/California border) all-depthfishery that begins in early August. Fixedseason dates will be established preseasonbased on projected catch per day and numberof days to achievement of the combinedOregon subarea quotas south of Cape Falcon.No inseason adjustments will be made,except that additional opening days(established preseason) may be allowed ifquota remains unharvested. The fishery willbe open 2 days per week (Friday andSaturday).

Copies of the complete Plan for Area2A as modified are available from theNMFS Northwest Regional Office (seeADDRESSES).

In accordance with the Plan, theOregon Department of Fish and Wildlife(ODFW) and the WashingtonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW) held public workshops (afterthe IPHC set the Area 2A quota) onFebruary 3 and 4, 1997, respectively, todevelop recommendations on theopening dates and weekly structure ofthe sport fisheries. ODFW and WDFWsent NMFS a letter on February 7 and11, 1997, respectively, advising on theoutcome of the workshop and providedrecommendations on the opening datesand season structure for the sportfisheries in the Washington insidewaters area, the Washington north coastarea, the Oregon central coast area, andthe Oregon south coast area. Theseasonal structuring of the sportfisheries in other areas are stipulated inthe Plan. NMFS has approved therecommended opening dates and seasonstructuring provided by ODFW andWDFW and implemented the sportfishery structuring established in thePlan for 1997 as described herein.

Catch Sharing Plan for Area 4

The NPFMC developed a Plan in 1996for allocating the Area 4 catch limitestablished by the IPHC among subareas4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E. This Plan wasadopted by the Secretary and firstimplemented in 1996 (61 FR 11337,March 20, 1996) and remains in effectuntil amended by action of the NPFMC.No changes were recommended by theCouncil for 1997. The 1997 catch limitsestablished by the IPHC for the Area 4subareas, and published at section 10 ofthe following regulations, are consistentwith the Plan.

The 1997 Pacific halibut fisheryregulations are identical to thoserecommended by the IPHC andapproved by the Secretary of State asfollows.


1997 Pacific Halibut FisheryRegulations

1. Short TitleThese regulations may be cited as the

Pacific Halibut Fishery Regulations.

2. Interpretation(1) In these Regulations,(a) Authorized officer means any State,

Federal, or Provincial officer authorized toenforce these regulations including, but notlimited to, the National Marine FisheriesService (NMFS), Canada’s Department ofFisheries and Oceans (DFO), Alaska Divisionof Fish and Wildlife Protection (ADFWP),and the United States Coast Guard (USCG);

(b) Charter vessel means a vessel used forhire in sport fishing for halibut, but notincluding a vessel without a hired operator;

(c) Commercial fishing means fishing theresulting catch of which either is or isintended to be sold or bartered;

(d) Commission means the InternationalPacific Halibut Commission;

(e) Daily bag limit means the maximumnumber of halibut a person may take in anycalendar day from Convention waters;

(f) Fishing means the taking, harvesting, orcatching of fish, or any activity that canreasonably be expected to result in thetaking, harvesting, or catching of fish,including specifically the deployment of anyamount or component part of setline gearanywhere in the maritime area;

(g) Fishing period limit means themaximum amount of halibut that may beretained and landed by a vessel during onefishing period;

(h) Land, with respect to halibut, meansthe offloading of halibut from the catchingvessel;

(i) License means a halibut fishing licenseissued by the Commission pursuant tosection 3;

(j) Maritime area, in respect of the fisheriesjurisdiction of a Contracting Party, includeswithout distinction areas within and seawardof the territorial sea or internal waters of thatParty;

(k) Operator, with respect to any vessel,means the owner and/or the master or otherindividual on board and in charge of thatvessel;

(l) Overall length of a vessel means thehorizontal distance, rounded to the nearestfoot, between the foremost part of the stemand the aftermost part of the stern (excludingbowsprits, rudders, outboard motor brackets,and similar fittings or attachments);

(m) Person includes an individual,corporation, firm, or association;

(n) Regulatory area means an area referredto in section 6;

(o) Setline gear means one or morestationary, buoyed, and anchored lines withhooks attached;

(p) Sport fishing means all fishing otherthan commercial fishing and treaty Indianceremonial and subsistence fishing;

(q) Tender means any vessel that buys orobtains fish directly from a catching vesseland transports it to a port of landing or fishprocessor;

(2) In these Regulations, all bearings aretrue and all positions are determined by the

most recent charts issued by the NationalOcean Service or the Canadian HydrographicService.

(3) In these Regulations all weights shall becomputed on the basis that the heads of thefish are off and their entrails removed.

3. Licensing Vessels(1) No person shall fish for halibut from a

vessel, nor possess halibut on board a vessel,used either for commercial fishing or as acharter vessel in Area 2A unless theCommission has issued a license valid forfishing in Area 2A in respect of that vessel.

(2) A license issued for a vessel operatingin Area 2A shall be valid only for operatingeither as a charter vessel or a commercialvessel, but not both.

(3) A license issued for a vessel operatingin the commercial fishery in Area 2A shallbe valid only for either the directedcommercial fishery during the fishingperiods specified in paragraph (2) of section7 or the incidental catch fishery during thesalmon troll fishery specified in paragraph(3) of section 7, but not both.

(4) No person shall fish for halibut from avessel used as a charter vessel, nor possesshalibut on board such vessel, unless theCommission has issued a license valid forfishing in Area 2B in respect of that vessel.

(5) No person shall fish for halibut from avessel, nor possess halibut on board a vessel,used as a charter vessel in Areas 2C, 3A, 3B,4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E, unless theCommission has issued a license valid forfishing in those areas in respect of thatvessel.

(6) A license issued in respect of a vesselreferred to in paragraphs (1), (4), and (5) ofthis section must be carried on board thatvessel at all times and the vessel operatorshall permit its inspection by any authorizedofficer.

(7) The Commission shall issue a license inrespect of a vessel, without fee from its officein Seattle, Washington, upon receipt of acompleted, written, and signed ‘‘Applicationfor Vessel License for the Halibut Fishery’’form.

(8) A vessel operating in the directedcommercial fishery in Area 2A must have its‘‘Application for Vessel License for theHalibut Fishery’’ form postmarked no laterthan 11:59 P.M. on April 30, or on the firstweekday in May if April 30 is a Saturday orSunday.

(9) A vessel operating in the incidentalcommercial fishery during the salmon trollseason in Area 2A must have its‘‘Application for Vessel License for theHalibut Fishery’’ form postmarked no laterthan 11:59 P.M. on March 31, or the firstweekday in April if March 31 is a Saturdayor Sunday.

(10) Application forms may be obtainedfrom any authorized officer or from theCommission.

(11) Information on ‘‘Application forVessel License for the Halibut Fishery’’ formmust be accurate.

(12) The ‘‘Application for Vessel Licensefor the Halibut Fishery’’ form shall becompleted and signed by the vessel owner.

(13) Licenses issued under this sectionshall be valid only during the year in whichthey are issued.

(14) A new license is required for a vesselthat is sold, transferred, renamed, or re-documented.

(15) The license required under thissection is in addition to any license, howeverdesignated, that is required under the laws ofCanada or any of its Provinces or the UnitedStates or any of its States.

(16) The United States may suspend,revoke, or modify any license issued underthis section under policies and procedures inTitle 15, Code of Federal Regulations, Part904.

4. Inseason Actions(1) The Commission is authorized to

establish or modify regulations during theseason after determining that such action:

(a) Will not result in exceeding the catchlimit established preseason for eachregulatory area;

(b) Is consistent with the Conventionbetween the United States of America andCanada for the Preservation of the HalibutFishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean andBering Sea, and applicable domestic law ofeither Canada or the United States; and

(c) Is consistent, to the maximum extentpracticable, with any domestic catch sharingplans developed by the United States orCanadian governments.

(2) Inseason actions may include, but arenot limited to, establishment or modificationof the following:

(a) Closed areas;(b) Fishing periods;(c) Fishing period limits;(d) Gear restrictions;(e) Recreational bag limits;(f) Size limits; or(g) Vessel clearances.(3) Inseason changes will be effective at the

time and date specified by the Commission.(4) The Commission will announce in-

season actions under this section byproviding notice to major halibut processors;Federal, State, United States treaty Indian,and Provincial fishery officials; and themedia.

5. Application(1) These Regulations apply to persons and

vessels fishing for halibut in, or possessinghalibut taken from, waters off the west coastof Canada and the United States, includingthe southern as well as the western coasts ofAlaska, within the respective maritime areasin which each of those countries exercisesexclusive fisheries jurisdiction as of March29, 1979.

(2) Sections 6 to 20 apply to commercialfishing for halibut.

(3) Section 21 applies to the United Statestreaty Indian tribal fishery in Area 2A–1.

(4) Section 22 applies to sport fishing forhalibut.

(5) Sections 23 and 24 apply to fishing inArea 2A.

(6) These regulations do not apply tofishing operations authorized or conductedby the Commission for research purposes.

6. Regulatory AreasThe following areas shall be regulatory

areas for the purposes of the Convention:(1) Area 2A includes all waters off the

states of California, Oregon, and Washington;


(2) Area 2B includes all waters off BritishColumbia;

(3) Area 2C includes all waters off Alaskathat are east of a line running 340° true fromCape Spencer Light (58°11′57′′ N. lat.,136°38′18′′ W. long.) and south and east ofa line running 205° true from said light;

(4) Area 3A includes all waters betweenArea 2C and a line extending from the mostnortherly point on Cape Aklek (57°41′15′′ N.lat., 155°35′00′′ W. long.) to Cape Ikolik(57°17′17′′ N. lat., 154°47′18′′ W. long.), thenalong the Kodiak Island coastline to CapeTrinity (56°44′50′′ N. lat., 154°08′44′′ W.long.), then 140° true;

(5) Area 3B includes all waters betweenArea 3A and a line extending 150° true fromCape Lutke (54°29′00′′ N. lat., 164°20′00′′ W.long.) and south of 54°49′00′′ N. lat. inIsanotski Strait;

(6) Area 4A includes all waters in the Gulfof Alaska west of Area 3B and in the BeringSea west of the closed area defined in section9 that are east of 172°00′00′′ W. long. andsouth of 56°20′00′′ N. lat.;

(7) Area 4B includes all waters in theBering Sea and the Gulf of Alaska west ofArea 4A and south of 56°20′00′′ N. lat.;

(8) Area 4C includes all waters in theBering Sea north of Area 4A and north of theclosed area defined in section 9 which areeast of 171°00′00′′ W. long., south of58°00′00′′ N. lat., and west of 168°00′00′′ W.long.;

(9) Area 4D includes all waters in theBering Sea north of Areas 4A and 4B, northand west of Area 4C, and west of 168°00′00′′W. long.;

(10) Area 4E includes all waters in theBering Sea north and east of the closed areadefined in section 9, east of 168°00′00′′ W.long., and south of 65°34′00′′ N. lat.

7. Fishing Periods

(1) The fishing periods for each regulatoryarea apply where the catch limits specifiedin section 10 have not been taken.

(2) Each fishing period in the Area 2Adirected fishery south of 46°53′18′′ N. lat.shall begin at 0800 hours and terminate at1800 hours local time on July 8, July 22,August 5, August 19, September 2, andSeptember 16 unless the Commissionspecifies otherwise.

(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (2), andparagraph (7) of section 10, an incidentalcatch fishery is authorized during salmontroll seasons in Area 2A. Vesselsparticipating in the salmon troll fishery inArea 2A may retain halibut caughtincidentally during authorized periods, inconformance with the annual salmonmanagement measures announced in theFederal Register. The notice also will specifythe ratio of halibut to salmon that may beretained during this fishery.

(4) The fishing period in Areas 2B, 2C, 3A,3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E shall begin at1200 hours local time on March 15 andterminate at 1200 hours local time onNovember 15 unless the Commissionspecifies otherwise.

(5) All commercial fishing for halibut inAreas 2A, 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and4E shall cease at 1200 hours local time onNovember 15.

8. Closed Periods(1) No person shall engage in fishing for

halibut in any regulatory area other thanduring the fishing periods set out in section7 in respect of that area.

(2) No person shall land or otherwise retainhalibut caught outside a fishing periodapplicable to the regulatory area where thehalibut was taken.

(3) Subject to paragraphs (7), (8), (9), and(10) of section 18, these Regulations do notprohibit fishing for any species of fish otherthan halibut during the closed periods.

(4) Notwithstanding paragraph (3), noperson shall have halibut in his/herpossession while fishing for any otherspecies of fish during the closed periods.

(5) No vessel shall retrieve any halibutfishing gear during a closed period if thevessel has any halibut on board.

(6) A vessel that has no halibut on boardmay retrieve any halibut fishing gear duringthe closed period after the operator notifiesan authorized officer or representative of theCommission prior to that retrieval.

(7) After retrieval of halibut gear inaccordance with paragraph (6) of this section,the vessel shall submit to a hold inspectionat the discretion of the authorized officer orrepresentative of the Commission.

(8) No person shall retain any halibutcaught on gear retrieved under paragraph (6)of this section.

(9) No person shall possess halibut aboarda vessel in a regulatory area during a closedperiod unless that vessel is in continuoustransit to or within a port in which thathalibut may be lawfully sold.

9. Closed Area

(1) All waters in the Bering Sea north of54°49′00′′ N. lat. in Isanotski Strait that areenclosed by a line from Cape Sarichef Light(54°36′00′′ N. lat., 164°55′42′′ W. long.) to apoint at 56°20′00′′ N. lat., 168°30′00′′ W.long.; thence to a point at 58°21′25′′ N. lat.,163°00′00′′ W. long.; thence to StrogonofPoint (56°53′18′′ N. lat., 158°50′37′′ W. long.);and then along the northern coasts of theAlaska Peninsula and Unimak Island to thepoint of origin at Cape Sarichef Light areclosed to halibut fishing and no person shallfish for halibut therein or have halibut in his/her possession while in those waters exceptin the course of a continuous transit acrossthose waters.

(2) In Area 2A, all waters north of PointChehalis, WA (46°53′18′′ N. lat.) are closed tothe directed commercial halibut fishery.

10. Catch Limits

(1) The total allowable catch of halibut tobe taken during the halibut fishing periodsspecified in section 7 shall be limited to theweight expressed in pounds or metric tonsshown in the following table:

Regulatory areaCatch limits

Pounds Metric tons

2A ...................... 144,235 652B ...................... 12,500,000 5,6692C ...................... 10,000,000 4,5353A ...................... 25,000,000 11,3383B ...................... 9,000,000 4,082

Regulatory areaCatch limits

Pounds Metric tons

4A ...................... 2,940,000 1,3334B ...................... 3,480,000 1,5784C ...................... 1,160,000 5264D ...................... 1,160,000 5264E ...................... 260,000 118

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of thissection, the catch limit in Area 2A shall bedivided between a directed halibut fishery tooperate south of 46°53′18′′ N. lat. during thefishing periods set out in paragraph 2 ofSection 7 and an incidental halibut catchfishery during the salmon troll fishery inArea 2A described in paragraph 3 of Section7. In season actions to transfer catch betweenthese fisheries may occur in conformancewith the Catch Sharing Plan for Area 2A.

(a) The catch limit in the directed halibutfishery is 122,600 lb (55.6 mt).

(b) The catch limit in the incidental catchfishery during the salmon troll fishery is21,635 lb (9.8 mt).

(3) The Commission shall determine andannounce to the public the date on which thecatch limit for Area 2A will be taken and thespecific dates during which the directedfishery will be allowed in Area 2A.

(4) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), Area 2Bwill close only when all Individual VesselQuotas assigned by Canada’s Department ofFisheries and Oceans are taken, or November15, whichever is earlier.

(5) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), Areas2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E will closeonly when all Individual Fishing Quotas andall Community Development Quotas issuedby the National Marine Fisheries Servicehave been taken, or November 15, whicheveris earlier.

(6) If the Commission determines that thecatch limit specified for Area 2A inparagraph (1) would be exceeded in anunrestricted 10-hour fishing period asspecified in paragraph (2) of section 7, thecatch limit for that area shall be consideredto have been taken unless fishing periodlimits are implemented.

(7) When under paragraphs (3) or (6) of thissection the Commission has announced adate on which the catch limit for Area 2Awill be taken, no person shall fish for halibutin that area after that date for the rest of theyear, unless the Commission has announcedthe reopening of that area for halibut fishing.

11. Fishing Period Limits

(1) It shall be unlawful for any vessel toretain more halibut than authorized by thatvessel’s license in any fishing period forwhich the Commission has announced afishing period limit.

(2) The operator of any vessel that fishesfor halibut during a fishing period whenfishing period limits are in effect must, uponcommencing an offload of halibut to acommercial fish processor, completelyoffload all halibut on board said vessel to thatprocessor and ensure that all halibut isweighed and reported on State fish tickets.

(3) The operator of any vessel that fishesfor halibut during a fishing period whenfishing period limits are in effect must, upon


commencing an offload of halibut other thanto a commercial fish processor, completelyoffload all halibut on board said vessel andensure that all halibut are weighed andreported on State fish tickets.

(4) The provisions of paragraph (3) are notintended to prevent retail over-the-side salesto individual purchasers so long as all thehalibut on board is ultimately offloaded andreported.

(5) When fishing period limits are in effect,a vessel’s maximum retainable catch will bedetermined by the Commission based on

(a) The vessel’s overall length in feet andassociated length class;

(b) The average performance of all vesselswithin that class; and

(c) The remaining catch limit.(6) Length classes are shown in the

following table:

Overall length Vesselclass

1–25 ................................................... A26–30 ................................................. B31–35 ................................................. C36–40 ................................................. D41–45 ................................................. E46–50 ................................................. F51–55 ................................................. G56– + .................................................. H

(7) Fishing period limits in Area 2A applyonly to the directed halibut fishery referredto in paragraph (2) of section 7.

12. Size Limits

(1) No person shall take or possess anyhalibut that

(a) With the head on, is less than 32 inches(81.3 cm) as measured in a straight line,passing over the pectoral fin from the tip ofthe lower jaw with the mouth closed, to theextreme end of the middle of the tail, asillustrated in the schedule; or

(b) With the head removed, is less than 24inches (61.0 cm) as measured from the baseof the pectoral fin at its most anterior pointto the extreme end of the middle of the tail,as illustrated in the schedule.

(2) No person shall possess on board avessel a halibut that has been mutilated, orotherwise disfigured in any manner thatprevents the determination of whether thehalibut complies with the size limitsspecified in this section, except that:

(a) This paragraph shall not prohibit thepossession on board a vessel of halibutcheeks cut from halibut caught by personsauthorized to process the halibut on board inaccordance with NMFS regulationspublished at Title 50 Code of FederalRegulations, part 679; and

(b) No person shall possess a filletedhalibut on board a vessel.

(3) No person on board a vessel fishing for,or tendering, halibut caught in Area 2A shallpossess any halibut that has had its headremoved.

13. Careful Release of Halibut

All halibut that are caught and are notretained shall be immediately released andreturned to the sea with a minimum of injuryby

(a) Hook straightening outboard of theroller;

(b) Cutting the gangion near the hook; or(c) Carefully removing the hook by twisting

it from the halibut with a gaff.

14. Vessel Clearance in Area 4(1) The operator of any vessel that fishes

for halibut in Areas 4A, 4B, 4C, or 4D mustobtain a vessel clearance before fishing inany of these areas, and before the unloadingof any halibut caught in any of these areas,unless specifically exempted in paragraphs(9), (12), (13), (14), or (15).

(2) The vessel clearance required underparagraph (1) prior to fishing in Area 4A maybe obtained only at Dutch Harbor or Akutan,Alaska, from an authorized officer of theUnited States, a representative of theCommission, or a designated fish processor.

(3) The vessel clearance required underparagraph (1) prior to fishing in Area 4B mayonly be obtained at Nazan Bay on AtkaIsland, Alaska, from an authorized officer ofthe United States, a representative of theCommission, or a designated fish processor.

(4) The vessel clearance required underparagraph (1) prior to fishing in Area 4C or4D may be obtained only at St Paul or St.George, Alaska, from an authorized officer ofthe United States, a representative of theCommission, or a designated fish processorby VHF radio and allowing the personcontacted to confirm visually the identity ofthe vessel.

(5) The vessel operator shall specify thespecific regulatory area in which fishing willtake place.

(6) Before unloading any halibut caught inArea 4A, a vessel operator may obtain theclearance required under paragraph (1) onlyin Dutch Harbor or Akutan, Alaska, bycontacting an authorized officer of the UnitedStates, a representative of the Commission, ora designated fish processor.

(7) Before unloading any halibut caught inArea 4B, a vessel operator may obtain theclearance required under paragraph (1) onlyin Nazan Bay on Atka Island, either in personor by contacting an authorized officer of theUnited States, a representative of theCommission, or a designated fish processorby VHF radio and allowing the personcontacted to confirm visually the identity ofthe vessel.

(8) Before unloading any halibut caught inArea 4C or 4D, a vessel operator may obtainthe clearance required under paragraph (1)only in St. Paul, St. George, Dutch Harbor, orAkutan, Alaska, either in person or bycontacting an authorized officer of the UnitedStates, a representative of the Commission, ora designated fish processor. The clearancesobtained in St. Paul or St. George, Alaska,can be obtained by VHF radio and allowingthe person contacted to confirm visually theidentity of the vessel.

(9) Any vessel operator who complies withthe requirements in Section 17 for possessinghalibut on board a vessel that was caught inmore than one regulatory area in Area 4 isexempt from the clearance requirements ofparagraph (1) of this section, but mustcomply with the following requirements:

(a) The operator of the vessel must obtaina vessel clearance prior to fishing in Area 4

in either Dutch Harbor, Akutan, St. Paul, St.George, or Nazan Bay on Atka Island bycontacting an authorized officer of the UnitedStates, a representative of the Commission, ora designated fish processor. The clearanceobtained in St. Paul, St. George, or Nazan Bayon Atka can be obtained by VHF radio andallowing the person contacted to confirmvisually the identity of the vessel. Thisclearance will list the Areas in which thevessel will fish; and

(b) Before unloading any halibut from Area4, the vessel operator must obtain a vesselclearance from Dutch Harbor, Akutan, St.Paul, St. George, or Nazan Bay on Atka Islandby contacting an authorized officer of theUnited States, a representative of theCommission, or a designated fish processor.The clearance obtained in St. Paul, St.George, or Nazan Bay on Atka Island can beobtained by VHF radio and allowing theperson contacted to confirm visually theidentity of the vessel.

(10) Vessel clearances shall be obtainedbetween 0600 and 1800 hours, local time.

(11) No halibut shall be on board the vesselat the time of the clearances required priorto fishing in Area 4.

(12) Any vessel that is used to fish forhalibut only in Area 4A and lands its totalannual halibut catch at a port within Area 4Ais exempt from the clearance requirements ofparagraph (1).

(13) Any vessel that is used to fish forhalibut only in Area 4B and lands its totalannual halibut catch at a port within Area 4Bis exempt from the clearance requirements ofparagraph (1).

(14) Any vessel that is used to fish forhalibut only in Area 4C and lands its totalannual halibut catch at a port within Area 4Cis exempt from the clearance requirements ofparagraph (1).

(15) Any vessel that is used to fish forhalibut only in Areas 4D and 4E and landsits total annual halibut catch at a port withinAreas 4D, 4E, or the closed area defined insection 9, is exempt from the clearancerequirements of paragraph (1).

15. Logs(1) The operator of any vessel that has an

overall length of 26 feet (7.9 meters) orgreater shall keep an accurate log of allhalibut fishing operations including the date,locality, amount of gear used, and totalweight of halibut taken daily in each locality.The log can be recorded in the groundfishdaily fishing logbooks provided by NMFS.

(2) The log referred to in paragraph (1)shall be:

(a) Maintained on board the vessel;(b) Updated not later than 24 hours after

midnight local time for each day fished andprior to the offloading or sale of halibut takenduring that fishing period;

(c) Retained for a period of two years bythe owner or operator of the vessel;

(d) Open to inspection by an authorizedofficer or any authorized representative of theCommission upon demand; and

(e) Kept on board the vessel when engagedin halibut fishing, during transits to port oflanding, and for five (5) days followingoffloading halibut.

(3) The poundage of any halibut that is notsold, but is utilized by the vessel operator,


his/her crew members, or any other personfor personal use, shall be recorded in thevessel’s log within 24-hours of offloading.

(4) No person shall make a false entry ina log referred to in this section.

16. Receipt and Possession of Halibut(1) No person shall receive halibut from a

United States vessel that does not have onboard the license required by section 3.

(2) No person shall offload halibut from avessel unless the gills and entrails have beenremoved prior to offloading.

(3) A commercial fish processor whopurchases or receives halibut directly fromthe owner or operator of a vessel that wasengaged in halibut fishing must weigh andrecord all halibut on board said vessel at thetime offloading commences and record onState fish tickets or Federal catch reports thedate, locality, name of vessel, HalibutCommission license number (United States),the name(s) of the person(s) from whom thehalibut was purchased; and the scale weightobtained at the time of offloading of allhalibut on board the vessel including thepounds purchased; pounds in excess of IFQs,IVQs, or fishing period limits; poundsretained for personal use; and poundsdiscarded as unfit for human consumption.

(4) No person shall make a false entry ona State fish ticket or a Federal catch orlanding report referred to in paragraph (3).

(5) A copy of the fish tickets or catchreports referred to in paragraph (3) shall be;

(a) retained by the person making them fora period of three years from the date the fishtickets or catch reports are made; and

(b) open to inspection by an authorizedofficer or any authorized representative of theCommission.

(6) No person shall possess any halibut thathe/she knows to have been taken incontravention of these Regulations.

(7) When halibut are delivered to otherthan a commercial fish processor the recordsrequired by paragraph (3) shall be maintainedby the operator of the vessel from which thathalibut was caught, in compliance withparagraph (5).

(8) It shall be unlawful to enter a HalibutCommission license number on a State fishticket for any vessel other than the vesselactually used in catching the halibut reportedthereon.

17. Fishing Multiple Regulatory Areas(1) Except as provided in this section, no

person shall possess at the same time onboard a vessel halibut caught in more thanone regulatory area.

(2) Halibut caught in Regulatory Areas 2C,3A, and 3B may be possessed on board avessel at the same time providing theoperator of the vessel:

(a) Has a NMFS-certified observer on boardwhen required by NMFS regulationspublished at Title 50 Code of FederalRegulations, section 679.7(f)(4); and

(b) Can identify the regulatory area inwhich each halibut on board was caught byseparating halibut from different areas in thehold, tagging halibut, or by other means.

(3) Halibut caught in Regulatory Areas 4A,4B, 4C, and 4D may be possessed on boarda vessel at the same time providing theoperator of the vessel:

(a) Has a NMFS-certified observer on boardthe vessel when halibut caught in differentregulatory areas are on board; and

(b) Can identify the regulatory area inwhich each halibut on board was caught byseparating halibut from different areas in thehold, tagging halibut, or by other means.

(4) Halibut caught in Regulatory Areas 4A,4B, 4C, and 4D may be possessed on boarda vessel when in compliance with paragraph(3) and if halibut from Area 4 are on boardthe vessel, the vessel can have halibut caughtin Regulatory Areas 2C, 3A, and 3B on boardif in compliance with paragraph (2).

18. Fishing Gear

(1) No person shall fish for halibut usingany gear other than hook and line gear.

(2) No person shall possess halibut takenwith any gear other than hook and line gear.

(3) No person shall possess halibut whileon board a vessel carrying any trawl nets orfishing pots capable of catching halibut.

(4) All setline or skate marker buoyscarried on board or used by any United Statesvessel used for halibut fishing shall bemarked with one of the following:

(a) The vessel’s name;(b) The vessel’s state license number; or(c) The vessel’s registration number.(5) The markings specified in paragraph (4)

shall be in characters at least four inches inheight and one-half inch in width in acontrasting color visible above the water andshall be maintained in legible condition.

(6) All setline or skate marker buoyscarried on board or used by a Canadianvessel used for halibut fishing shall be

(a) Floating and visible on the surface ofthe water; and

(b) Legibly marked with the identificationplate number of the vessel engaged incommercial fishing from which that setline isbeing operated.

(7) No person on board a vessel from whichsetline gear was used to fish for any speciesof fish anywhere in Area 2A during the 72-hour period immediately before the openingof a halibut fishing period shall catch orpossess halibut anywhere in those watersduring that halibut fishing period.

(8) No vessel from which setline gear wasused to fish for any species of fish anywherein Area 2A during the 72-hour periodimmediately before the opening of a halibutfishing period may be used to catch orpossess halibut anywhere in those watersduring that halibut fishing period.

(9) No person on board a vessel from whichsetline gear was used to fish for any speciesof fish anywhere in Areas 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A,4B, 4C, 4D, or 4E during the 72-hour periodimmediately before the opening of thehalibut fishing season shall catch or possesshalibut anywhere in those areas until thevessel has removed all of its setline gear fromthe water and has either:

(a) Made a landing and completelyoffloaded its entire catch of other fish; or

(b) Submitted to a hold inspection by anauthorized officer.

(10) No vessel from which setline gear wasused to fish for any species of fish anywherein Areas 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, or4E during the 72-hour period immediatelybefore the opening of the halibut fishing

season may be used to catch or possesshalibut anywhere in those areas until thevessel has removed all of its setline gear fromthe water and has either:

(a) Made a landing and completelyoffloaded its entire catch of other fish; or

(b) Submitted to a hold inspection by anauthorized officer.

19. Retention of Tagged Halibut

(1) Nothing contained in these Regulationsprohibits any vessel at any time fromretaining and landing a halibut that bears aCommission tag at the time of capture, if thehalibut with the tag still attached is reportedat the time of landing and made available forexamination by a representative of theCommission or by an authorized officer.

(2) After examination and removal of thetag by a representative of the Commission oran authorized officer, the halibut.

(a) May be retained for personal use; or(b) May be sold if it complies with the

provisions of section 12, Size Limits.

20. Supervision of Unloading and Weighing

The unloading and weighing of halibutmay be subject to the supervision ofauthorized officers to assure the fulfillmentof the provisions of these Regulations.

21. Fishing by United States Treaty IndianTribes

(1) Halibut fishing in subarea 2A–1 bymembers of United States treaty Indian tribeslocated in the State of Washington isgoverned by these regulations and 50 CFR300.64.

(2) Subarea 2A–1 includes all waters offthe coast of Washington that are north of46°53′18′′ N. lat. and east of 125°44′00′′ W.long., and all inland marine waters ofWashington.

(3) Commercial fishing for halibut by treatyIndians is permitted only in subarea 2A–1with hook-and-line gear from March 15through November 15, or until 230,000pounds (104.3 mt) is taken, whichever occursfirst.

(4) Ceremonial and subsistence fishing forhalibut by treaty Indians in subarea 2A–1 ispermitted with hook-and-line gear fromJanuary 1 through December 31, and isestimated to take 15,000 pounds (6.8 mt).

22. Sport Fishing for Halibut

(1) No person shall engage in sport fishingfor halibut using gear other than a single linewith no more than two hooks attached; or aspear.

(2) In all waters off Alaska.(a) The sport fishing season is from

February 1 to December 31;(b) The daily bag limit is two halibut of any

size per day per person.(3) In all waters off British Columbia.(a) The sport fishing season is from

February 1 to December 31;(b) The daily bag limit is two halibut of any

size per day per person.(4) In all waters off California, Oregon, and

Washington.(a) The total allowable catch of halibut

shall be limited to 166,530 lb (75.5 mt) inwaters off Washington and 144,235 lb (65.4mt) in waters off Oregon and California;


(b) The sport fishing subareas, subquotas,fishing dates, and daily bag limits are asfollows, except as modified under theinseason actions in Section 23. All sportfishing in Area 2A (except for fish caught inthe North Washington coast area and landedinto Neah Bay) is managed on a ‘‘port oflanding’’ basis, whereby any halibut landedinto a port counts toward the quota for thearea in which that port is located, and theregulations governing the area of landingapply, regardless of the specific area of catch.

(i) In Puget Sound and the U.S. waters inthe Strait of Juan de Fuca, east of a line fromthe lighthouse on Bonilla Point on VancouverIsland, British Columbia (48°35′44′′ N. lat.,124°43′00′′ W. long.) to the buoy adjacent toDuntze Rock (48°24′55′′ N. lat., 124°44′50′′W. long.) to Tatoosh Island lighthouse(48°23′30′′ N. lat., 124°44′00′′ W. long.) toCape Flattery (48°22′55′′ N. lat., 124°43′42′′W. long.), there is no quota. This area ismanaged by setting a season that is projectedto result in a catch of 46,628 lb (21.2 mt).

(A) The fishing season is May 22 throughAugust 10, 5 days a week (Thursday throughMonday).

(B) The daily bag limit is one halibut of anysize per day per person.

(ii) In the area off the north Washingtoncoast, west of the line described in paragraph(d)(2)(i) of this section and north of theQueets River (47°31′42′′ N. lat.), the quota forlandings into ports in this area is 96,088 lb(43.6 mt). Landings into Neah Bay of halibutcaught in this area will be governed by thisparagraph.

(A) The fishing seasons are:(1) Commencing May 1 and continuing 5

days a week (Tuesday through Saturday)until 81,088 lb (36.8 mt) are estimated tohave been taken and the season is closed bythe Commission, or until June 30, whicheveroccurs first.

(2) Commencing July 1 and continuing 5days a week (Tuesday through Saturday)until the overall area quota of 96,088 lb (43.6mt) are estimated to have been taken and thearea is closed by the Commission, or untilSeptember 30, whichever occurs first.


(C) A portion of this area about 19 nm (35km) southwest of Cape Flattery is closed tosport fishing for halibut. The closed area iswithin a rectangle defined by these fourcorners: 48°18′00′′ N. lat., 125°11′00′′ W.long.; 48°18′00′′ N. lat., 124°59′00′′ W. long.;48°04′00′′ N. lat., 125°11′00′′ W. long.; and,48°04′00′′ N. lat., 124°59′00′′ W. long.

(iii) In the area between the Queets River,WA and Leadbetter Point, WA (46°38′10′′ N.lat.), the quota for landings into ports in thisarea is 20,483 lb (9.3 mt).

(A) The fishing season commences on May1 and continues every day until 19,483 lb(8.8 mt) are estimated to have been taken andthe season is closed by the Commission.Immediately following this closure, theseason reopens in the area from the QueetsRiver south to 47°00′00′′ N. lat. and east of124°40′00′′ W. long. for 7 days per week until20,483 lb (9.3 mt) are estimated to have beentaken and the area is closed by theCommission, or until September 30,whichever occurs first.


(C) The northern offshore portion of thisarea west of 124°40′00′′ W. long. and northof 47°10′00′′ N. lat. is closed to sport fishingfor halibut.

(iv) In the area between Leadbetter Point,WA and Cape Falcon, OR (45°46′00′′ N. lat.),the quota for landings into ports in this areais 6,215 lb (2.8 mt).

(A) The fishing season commences on May1, and continues every day throughSeptember 30, or until 6,215 lb (2.8 mt) areestimated to have been taken and the area isclosed by the Commission, whichever occursfirst.

(B) The daily bag limit is one halibut witha minimum overall size limit of 32 inches(81.3 cm).

(v) In the area off Oregon between CapeFalcon and the Siuslaw River at the Florencenorth jetty (44°01′08′′ N. lat.), the quota forlandings into ports in this area is 127,504 lb(57.8 mt).

(A) The fishing seasons are:(1) The first season is open on May 8, 9,

10, 15, 16, 17, 23 and 24. The projected catchfor this season is 86,703 lb (39.3 mt). Ifsufficient unharvested catch remains for anadditional days fishing, the season willreopen. Dependent on the amount ofunharvested catch available, the seasonreopening dates will be June 7, then June 6,then June 14, and then June 13. If a decisionis made inseason by NMFS to allow fishingon one or more of these additional dates,notice of the opening will be announced onthe NMFS hotline (206) 526–6667 or (800)662–9825. No halibut fishing will be allowedon the additional dates unless the openingdate has been announced on the NMFShotline.

(2) The second season commences May 25and continues every day through July 31, inthe area inside the 30-fathom (55 m) curvenearest to the coastline as plotted on NationalOcean Service charts numbered 18520,18580, and 18600, or until 8,925 lb (4.1 mt)or the subarea quota is estimated to havebeen taken (except that any poundageremaining unharvested after the earlierseason will be added to this season) and theseason is closed by the Commission,whichever is earlier; and

(3) The third season is open on August 1,2, and 9 or until the combined quotas for thesubareas described in paragraphs (v) and (vi)of this section totaling 137,600 lb (62.4 mt)are estimated to have been taken and the areais closed by the Commission, whichever isearlier. If the harvest during these openingsdoes not achieve the 137,600 lb (62.4 mt)quota, and sufficient unharvested quotaremains for additional days fishing, theseason will reopen. Dependent on theamount of unharvested catch available, theseason reopening dates will be August 23,then August 22, then August 30, and thenAugust 29. If a decision is made inseason byNMFS to allow fishing on one or more ofthese additional dates, notice of the openingwill be announced on the NMFS hotline(206) 526–6667 or (800) 662–9825. Nohalibut fishing will be allowed on theadditional dates unless the opening date hasbeen announced on the NMFS hotline.

(B) The daily bag limit is two halibut, onewith a minimum overall size limit of 32inches (81.3 cm) and the second with aminimum overall size limit of 50 inches(127.0 cm).

(vi) In the area off Oregon between theSiuslaw River at the Florence north jetty andthe California border (42°0′00′′ N. lat.), thequota for landings into ports in this area is10,096 lb (4.6 mt).

(A) The fishing seasons are:(1) The first season opens May 8 and

continues 3 days a week (Thursday throughSaturday) until 8,077 lb (3.7 mt) areestimated to have been taken and the seasonis closed by the Commission;

(2) The second season opens the dayfollowing the closure of the season inparagraph (vi)(A)(1) of this section, andcontinuing every day through July 31, in thearea inside the 30-fathom (55 m) curvenearest to the coastline as plotted on NationalOcean Service charts numbered 18520,18580, and 18600, or until a total of 2,019 lb(0.9 mt) or the area quota is estimated to havebeen taken (except that any poundageremaining unharvested after the earlierseason will be added to this season) and theseason is closed by the Commission,whichever is earlier; and

(3) The third season is open on August 1,2, and 9 or until the combined quotas for thesubareas described in paragraphs (v) and (vi)of this section totaling 137,600 lb (62.4 mt)are estimated to have been taken and the areais closed by the Commission, whichever isearlier. If the harvest during these openingsdoes not achieve the 137,600 lb (62.4 mt)quota, and sufficient unharvested quotaremains for additional days fishing, theseason will reopen. Dependent on theamount of unharvested catch available, theseason reopening dates will be August 23,then August 22, then August 30, and thenAugust 29. If a decision is made inseason byNMFS to allow fishing on one or more ofthese additional dates, notice of the openingwill be announced on the NMFS hotline(206) 526–6667 or (800) 662–9825. Nohalibut fishing will be allowed on theadditional dates unless the opening date hasbeen announced on the NMFS hotline.

(B) The daily bag limit is two halibut, onewith a minimum overall size limit of 32inches (81.3 cm) and the second with aminimum overall size limit of 50 inches(127.0 cm).

(vii) In the area off the California coast,there is no quota. This area is managed ona season that is projected to result in a catchof less than 3,750 lb (1.7 mt).

(A) The fishing season will commence onMay 1, and continue every day throughSeptember 30.

(B) The daily bag limit is one halibut witha minimum overall size limit of 32 inches(81.3 cm).

(C) The Commission shall determine andannounce closing dates to the public for anyarea in which the subquotas in this Sectionare estimated to have been taken.

(D) When the Commission has determinedthat a subquota under paragraph (4)(b) of thissection is estimated to have been taken, andhas announced a date on which the seasonwill close, no person shall sport fish for


halibut in that area after that date for the restof the year, unless a reopening of that areafor sport halibut fishing is scheduled inaccordance with the Catch Sharing Plan forArea 2A, or announced by the Commission.

(5) Any minimum overall size limitpromulgated under IPHC or NMFSregulations shall be measured in a straightline passing over the pectoral fin from the tipof the lower jaw with the mouth closed, tothe extreme end of the middle of the tail.

(6) No person shall fillet, mutilate, orotherwise disfigure a halibut in any mannerthat prevents the determination of minimumsize or the number of fish caught, possessed,or landed.

(7) The possession limit for halibut in thewaters off the coast of Alaska is two daily baglimits.

(8) The possession limit for halibut in thewaters off the coast of British Columbia isthree halibut.

(9) The possession limit for halibut in thewaters off Washington, Oregon, andCalifornia is the same as the daily bag limit.

(10) The possession limit for halibut onland in Area 2A north of Cape Falcon, OR istwo daily bag limits.

(11) The possession limit for halibut onland in Area 2A south of Cape Falcon, ORis one daily bag limit.

(12) Any halibut brought aboard a vesseland not immediately returned to the sea witha minimum of injury will be included in thedaily bag limit of the person catching thehalibut.

(13) No person shall be in possession ofhalibut on a vessel while fishing in a closedarea.

(14) No halibut caught by sport fishingshall be offered for sale, sold, traded, orbartered.

(15) No halibut caught in sport fishingshall be possessed on board a vessel whenother fish or shellfish aboard the said vesselare destined for commercial use, sale, trade,or barter.

(16) The operator of a charter vessel shallbe liable for any violations of theseregulations committed by a passenger aboardsaid vessel.

23. Flexible Inseason Management Provisionsin Area 2A

(1) The Regional Director, NMFSNorthwest Region, after consultation with theChairman of the Pacific Fishery ManagementCouncil, the Commission Executive Director,and the Fisheries Director(s) of the affectedstate(s), is authorized to modify regulationsduring the season after determining that suchaction:

(A) Is necessary to allow allocationobjectives to be met; and

(B) Will not result in exceeding the catchlimit established preseason for each area.

(2) Flexible inseason managementprovisions include, but are not limited to, thefollowing:

(A) Modification of sport fishing periods;(B) Modification of sport fishing bag limits;(C) Modification of sport fishing size

limits; and(D) Modification of sport fishing days per

calendar week.(3) Notice procedures.

(A) Actions taken under this section willbe published in the Federal Register.

(B) Actual notice of inseason managementactions will be provided by a telephonehotline administered by the NorthwestRegion, NMFS, at 206–526–6667 or 800–662–9825 (May through September) and by U.S.Coast Guard broadcasts. These broadcasts areannounced on Channel 16 VHF-FM and 2182kHz at frequent intervals. Theannouncements designate the channel orfrequency over which the notice to marinerswill be immediately broadcast. Sinceprovisions of these regulations may bealtered by inseason actions, sport fishersshould monitor either the telephone hotlineor U.S. Coast Guard broadcasts for currentinformation for the area in which they arefishing.

(4) Effective dates.(A) Any action issued under this section is

effective on the date specified in thepublication or at the time that the action isfiled for public inspection with the Office ofthe Federal Register, whichever is later.

(B) If time allows, NMFS will invite publiccomment prior to the effective date of anyinseason action filed with the FederalRegister. If the Regional Director determines,for good cause, that an inseason action mustbe filed without affording a prior opportunityfor public comment, public comments will bereceived for a period of 15 days after theaction in the Federal Register.

(C) Any inseason action issued under thissection will remain in effect until the statedexpiration date or until rescinded, modified,or superseded. However, no inseason actionhas any effect beyond the end of the calendaryear in which it is issued.

(5) Availability of data. The RegionalDirector will compile, in aggregate form, alldata and other information relevant to theaction being taken and will make themavailable for public review during normaloffice hours at the Northwest Regional Office,NMFS, Fisheries Management Division, 7600Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA.

24. Fishery Election in Area 2A(1) A vessel that fishes in Area 2A may

participate in only one of the following threefisheries in Area 2A:

(a) The recreational fishery under Section22;

(b) The commercial directed fishery forhalibut during the fishing period(s)established in Section 7; or

(c) The incidental catch fishery during thesalmon troll fishery as authorized in Section7.

(2) No person shall fish for halibut in therecreational fishery in Area 2A under Section22 from a vessel that has been used duringthe same calendar year for commercialhalibut fishing in Area 2A or that has beenissued a permit for the same calendar year forthe commercial halibut fishery in Area 2A.

(3) No person shall fish for halibut in thedirected halibut fishery in Area 2A duringthe fishing periods established in Section 7from a vessel that has been used during thesame calendar year for the incidental catchfishery during the salmon troll fishery asauthorized in Section 7.

(4) No person shall fish for halibut in thedirected commercial halibut fishery in Area

2A from a vessel that, during the samecalendar year, has been used in therecreational halibut fishery in Area 2A or thatis licensed for the recreational halibut fisheryin Area 2A.

(5) No person shall retain halibut in thesalmon troll fishery in Area 2A as authorizedunder Section 7 taken on a vessel that, duringthe same calendar year, has been used in therecreational halibut fishery in Area 2A, orthat is licensed for the recreational halibutfishery in Area 2A.

(6) No person shall retain halibut in thesalmon troll fishery in Area 2A as authorizedunder Section 7 taken on a vessel that, duringthe same calendar year, has been used in thedirected commercial fishery during thefishing periods established in Section 7 forArea 2A or that is licensed to participate inthe directed commercial fishery during thefishing periods established in Section 7 inArea 2A.

25. Previous Regulations Superseded

These regulations shall supersede allprevious regulations of the Commission, andthese regulations shall be effective eachsucceeding year until superseded.

Classification

IPHC Regulations

Because approval by the Secretary ofState of the IPHC regulations is a foreignaffairs function, Jensen v. NationalMarine Fisheries Service, 512 F.2d 1189(9th Cir. 1975), 5 U.S.C. 553 of theAdministrative Procedure Act (APA)does not apply to this notice of theeffectiveness and content of the IPHCregulations. Because notice of proposedrulemaking is not required, thepreparation of a regulatory flexibilityanalysis is not required. Because priornotice and an opportunity for publiccomment are not required to beprovided for this rule by 5 U.S.C. § 553,or any other law, the analyticalrequirements of the RegulatoryFlexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. § 601 et seq.,are not applicable.

Plan for Area 2A

The revisions to the Plan andimplementing regulations are notsignificant and fall within the scope ofthe 1995 Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review prepared bythe PFMC for the long term Plan. TheAssistant General Counsel forLegislation and Regulation has certifiedto the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of theSmall Business Administration that thisaction will not have a significanteconomic impact on a substantialnumber of small entities. As a result,regulatory flexibility analysis was notprepared. This action has beendetermined to be not significant forpurposes of E.O. 12866.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773–773k.


Dated: March 12, 1997.Rolland A. Schmitten,Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,National Marine Fisheries Service.[FR Doc. 97–6755 Filed 3–13–97; 3:16 pm]BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

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

12768

Vol. 62, No. 52




14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 96–NM–73–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; de HavillandModel DHC–8–100 and –300 SeriesAirplanes

AGENCY: Federal AviationAdministration, DOT.ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes thesupersedure of an existing airworthinessdirective (AD), applicable to all deHavilland Model DHC–8–100 and –300series airplanes, that currently requiresan inspection to detect discrepanciesand damage of the low fuel pressureswitch adapter/snubber (located on eachengine fuel heater), and replacement, ifnecessary. That AD also requires aninspection to detect gaps or openings ineach nacelle and engine-mountedfirewall area, and in certain weatherseals in the nacelles; and correction ofdiscrepancies. The proposed AD wouldrequire certain new modifications to thenacelles that will minimize the passageof flammable fluid through the zones ofthe nacelle of each engine. The actionsspecified by the proposed AD areintended to prevent the spread of firethrough these zones in the event of anexplosion during flight, and consequentstructural damage to the airplane.DATES: Comments must be received byApril 25, 1997.ADDRESSES: Submit comments intriplicate to the Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), TransportAirplane Directorate, ANM–103,Attention: Rules Docket No. 96–NM–73–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.

The service information referenced inthe proposed rule may be obtained fromBombardier, Inc., Bombardier RegionalAircraft Division, Garratt Boulevard,Downsview, Ontario, Canada M3K 1Y5.This information may be examined atthe FAA, Transport AirplaneDirectorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,Renton, Washington.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Richard Fiesel, Aerospace Engineer,Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE–171, FAA, New York AircraftCertification Office, Engine andPropeller Directorate, 10 Fifth Street,Third Floor, Valley Stream, New York11581; telephone (516) 256–7504; fax(516) 568–2716.

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 notice may be changed in lightof the comments received.

Comments are specifically invited onthe overall regulatory, economic,environmental, and energy aspects ofthe proposed rule. All commentssubmitted will be available, 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 noticemust submit a self-addressed, stampedpostcard on which the followingstatement is made: ‘‘Comments toDocket Number 96–NM–73–AD.’’ Thepostcard will be date stamped andreturned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMsAny person may obtain a copy of this

NPRM by submitting a request to theFAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,ANM–103, Attention: Rules Docket No.

96–NM–73–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

DiscussionOn July 15, 1992, the FAA issued AD

92–13–11, amendment 39–8281 (57 FR37872, August 21, 1992), applicable toall de Havilland Model DHC–8–100 and–300 series airplanes, which requiresrepetitive inspections to detectdiscrepancies of the low fuel pressureswitch adapter/snubber (located on eachengine fuel heater), and replacement ofdiscrepant parts. The installation of deHavilland Modification 8/1208 isprovided as an optional terminatingaction for these repetitive inspections.AD 92–13–11 also requires aninspection for gaps and openings thatcould allow flammable fluids to passthrough the firewall areas of each enginenacelle; an inspection of the presenceand condition of weather seals aroundcertain access panels to each nacelle;and the application or reapplication ofsealant to discrepant areas. Therequirements of that AD are intended toprevent an in-flight explosion and firewithin the zones of the nacelle.

Actions Since Issuance of Previous ADSince the issuance of that AD, the

manufacturer has developed severalmodifications that are intended tocorrect discrepancies within the nacelleso that an engine fire can be containedwithin this area. These additionalmodifications will further minimize thespread of fire through these zoneswhich, if not contained, could causestructural damage to the airplane.

Explanation of Relevant ServiceInformation

Bombardier, the manufacturer of thisairplane model, has issued 5 deHavilland Dash 8 service bulletinspertaining to modifications that areintended to prevent the spread of firethrough the zones of the nacelle.

1. Service Bulletin S/B No. 8–54–12,dated January 27, 1989, describesprocedures for modifying the firewallsof the lower cowlings by installing newangle-gasket assemblies; and applyingsealant to gaps and openings in thisarea. This modification seals areaswhere latch fittings penetrate thefirewalls of the lower cowlings; theseareas are potential paths for flammablefluid to travel within the nacelle.

2. Service Bulletin S.B. 8–54–25,Revision ‘A,’ dated July 29, 1994,

12769Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 52 / Tuesday, March 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules

describes procedures for conducting aninspection of the upper access panels ofeach nacelle for the presence andcondition of weather sealing, andapplication or reapplication of sealant,if necessary. It also describes proceduresfor conducting an inspection of thefirewall areas of each nacelle for gapsand openings at lap joints, betweenbolts, and at carry-through fittings andgrommets; and the application ofsealant, if necessary. Furthermore, thisservice bulletin describes procedures forapplying exterior labels on these accesspanels so that maintenance personnelwill be notified of the requirement toapply sealant whenever these panels arere-installed.

3. Service Bulletin S.B. 8–54–30,Revision ‘B,’ dated February 5, 1993,describes procedures for modifying eachnacelle by replacing Camloc receptaclesmade of silicon bronze with receptaclesof stainless steel. The replacementreceptacles are able to withstand highertemperatures than those now beingused.

4. Service Bulletin S.B. 8–54–31,dated March 8, 1994, describesprocedures for conducting anotherinspection of the firewall areas of eachnacelle for gaps and openings after themodification described in ServiceBulletin S.B. 8–54–30 has beeninstalled. This service bulletin alsodescribes procedures for applyingadditional sealant to these areas.

5. Service Bulletin S.B. 8–71–19,Revision ‘B,’ dated February 24, 1995,describes procedures for replacing thedoor seals of the cowlings withimproved seals.

Transport Canada Aviation classifiedthese service bulletins as mandatory andissued Canadian airworthiness directiveCF–94–10R1, dated March 7, 1995, inorder to assure the continuedairworthiness of these airplanes inCanada.

FAA’s Conclusions

This airplane model is manufacturedin Canada and is type certificated foroperation in the United States under theprovisions of § 21.29 of the FederalAviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29)and the applicable bilateralairworthiness agreement. Pursuant tothis bilateral airworthiness agreement,Transport Canada Aviation has kept theFAA informed of the situation describedabove. The FAA has examined thefindings of Transport Canada Aviation,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 wouldsupersede AD 92–13–11. It wouldcontinue to require the actions currentlyrequired by that AD, and would add arequirement that the following actionsbe performed on each engine nacelle:

• Installation of new angle-gasketassemblies on the firewalls of the lowercowlings, and application of sealant togaps and openings in these areas;

• Inspection of the upper accesspanels of each nacelle for the presenceand condition of weather sealing, andapplication or reapplication of sealant,if necessary;

• Inspection of the firewall areas forgaps and openings at lap joints, betweenbolts, and at carry-through fittings andgrommets; and the application ofsealant, if necessary;

• Modification of the nacelle byreplacing Camloc receptacles made ofsilicon bronze with receptacles ofstainless steel;

• Application of additional sealant tothe firewall areas after the Camlocreceptacles have been replaced; and

• Replacement of the seals on thecowling doors with improved seals.

These actions would be required to beaccomplished in accordance with theapplicable service bulletins describedpreviously.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 100 deHavilland Model DHC–8–100 and -300series airplanes of U.S. registry thatwould be affected by this proposed AD.

Each inspection of the low fuelpressure switch adapter/snubber that iscurrently required by AD 92–13–11takes approximately 4 work hours perairplane to accomplish, at an averagelabor rate of $60 per work hour. Basedon these figures, the cost impact of thiscurrently required inspection on U.S.operators is estimated to be $24,000, or$240 per airplane, per inspection.

The inspection for gaps or openings ineach nacelle, engine-mounted firewallarea, and certain nacelle weather sealsthat is currently required by AD 92–13–11 takes approximately 12 work hoursper airplane to accomplish, at anaverage labor rate of $60 per work hour.Based on these figures, the cost impactof this currently required inspection onU.S. operators is estimated to be$72,000, or $720 per airplane.

The installation of new angle-gasketassemblies that is proposed in this new

AD would take approximately 2 workhours per airplane to accomplish, at anaverage labor rate of $60 per work hour.Required parts would be provided bythe manufacturer at no cost to operators.Based on these figures, the cost impactof this proposed action on U.S.operators is estimated to be $12,000, or$120 per airplane.

The inspection of the upper accesspanels and firewalls of both nacelles,and the application of labels, that isproposed in this new AD would takeapproximately 7 work hours perairplane to accomplish, at an averagelabor rate of $60 per work hour.Required parts would costapproximately $43 per airplane. Basedon these figures, the cost impact of theseproposed actions on U.S. operators isestimated to be $46,300, or $463 perairplane.

The replacement of the Camlocreceptacles with improved receptaclesthat is proposed in this new AD wouldtake approximately 8 work hours perairplane to accomplish, at an averagelabor rate of $60 per work hour.Required parts would costapproximately $15 per airplane. Basedon these figures, the cost impact of thisproposed action on U.S. operators isestimated to be $49,500, or $495 perairplane.

The inspection and application ofadditional sealant to the firewalls of thenacelles that is proposed in this new ADwould take approximately 4 work hoursper airplane to accomplish, at anaverage labor rate of $60 per work hour.The cost of required parts is estimatedto be minimal. Based on these figures,the cost impact of these proposedactions on U.S. operators is estimated tobe $24,000, or $240 per airplane.

The replacement of the seals on thecowling doors that is proposed in thisnew AD would take approximately 4work hours per airplane to accomplish,at an average labor rate of $60 per workhour. Required parts would be providedat no cost to operators or would cost$1,270, depending on the kit required.Based on these figures, the cost impacton U.S. operators of this proposedaction is estimated to be between$24,000 and $151,000, or between $240and $1,510 per airplane, depending onthe kit required.

The cost impact figures discussedabove are based on assumptions that nooperator has yet accomplished any ofthe current or proposed requirements ofthis AD action, and that no operatorwould accomplish those actions in thefuture if this AD were not adopted.

12770 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 52 / Tuesday, March 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Regulatory Impact

The regulations proposed hereinwould not have substantial direct effectson the States, on the relationshipbetween the national government andthe States, or on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities among thevarious levels of government. Therefore,in accordance with Executive Order12612, it is determined that thisproposal would not have sufficientfederalism implications to warrant thepreparation of a Federalism Assessment.

For the reasons discussed above, Icertify that this proposed regulation (1)is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’under Executive Order 12866; (2) is nota ‘‘significant rule’’ under the DOTRegulatory Policies and Procedures (44FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) ifpromulgated, will not have a significanteconomic impact, positive or negative,on a substantial number of small entitiesunder the criteria of the RegulatoryFlexibility Act. A copy of the draftregulatory evaluation prepared for thisaction is contained in the Rules Docket.A copy of it may be obtained bycontacting the Rules Docket at thelocation provided under the captionADDRESSES.


Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviationsafety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to theauthority delegated to me by theAdministrator, the Federal AviationAdministration proposes to amend part39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations(14 CFR part 39) as follows:



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

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

removing amendment 39–8281 (57 FR37872, August 21, 1992), and by addinga new airworthiness directive (AD), toread as follows:De Havilland, Inc.: Docket 96–NM–73–AD.

Supersedes AD 92–13–11, Amendment39–8281.

Applicability: All Model DHC–8–100 and-300 series airplanes, certificated in anycategory.

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 (h) 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 the spread of fire through thezones of each nacelle, in the event of anexplosion during flight, and consequentstructural damage to the airplane, accomplishthe following:

Note 2: The requirements of paragraphs (a)and (b) of this AD are restatements of thesame paragraphs that appeared in AD 92–13–11, amendment 39–8281. These paragraphsrequire no additional action by operatorswho have already completed the specifiedactions.

(a) For airplanes having serial numbers 3through 248, inclusive, on whichModification No. 8/1208 has not yet beenaccomplished, accomplish the following:

(1) Within 30 days after September 8, 1992(the effective date of AD 92–13–11,amendment 39–8281), remove and inspectthe low fuel pressure switch adapter/snubberlocated on each engine fuel heater for damageto threads, indication of over-torque, and forproper seating, in accordance with theaccomplishment instructions of de HavillandAlert Service Bulletin A8–73–14, Revision B,dated April 24, 1992. If the adapter/snubberis damaged or if evidence of over-torque ispresent, prior to further flight, replace theadapter/snubber with a serviceable part, inaccordance with that service bulletin.

(2) Thereafter, at any time in which the lowfuel pressure switch adapter/snubberassembly is removed, accomplish theinspection of the assembly as described inparagraph (a)(1) of this AD.

(3) Installation of Modification 8/1208, inaccordance with de Havilland ServiceBulletin 8–28–15, Revision A, dated April 17,1992, constitutes terminating action for theinspections required by paragraphs (a)(1) and(a)(2) of this AD.

(b) For all Model DHC–8–100 and –300series airplanes: Within 30 days afterSeptember 8, 1992 (the effective date of AD92–13–11, amendment 39–8281), accomplishthe procedures specified in paragraphs (b)(1)and (b)(2) of this AD.

(1) Inspect the nacelle vertical firewallsection, firewall extension, and enginemounted firewall (reference: MaintenanceManual section 71–30–00) for gaps andopenings that could permit flammable fluidto pass through. Gaps and openings may befound at lap joints, between bolts, and atcarry-through fittings and grommets. If gapsare found, prior to further flight, seal the gapsusing PR812, Pro-Seal 700, or other approvedfirewall sealants (reference: MaintenanceManual section 20–21–20). Allow the sealantto cure for at least 4 hours prior to furtherflight.

(2) Inspect access panels 419AT and429AT as specified in DHC–8 Maintenance

Manual [section 40–10, pages 12 and 14](reference: Illustrated Parts Catalog 54–30–00, Figure 5, Items 410 and 420) for thepresence and condition of the weather seal inthe gap between the panels and the adjacentstructure. If the gap is not sealed, prior tofurther flight, seal the panels using PR1422,PR1435, or other sealant specified in theDHC–8 Maintenance Manual, section 20–21–16. A release agent, applied prior to sealing,also may be used as specified in DHC–8Maintenance Manual, section 20–21–19.Allow the sealant or release agent to cure forat least 4 hours, prior to further flight.

(c) For airplanes having serial numbers 3through 137, inclusive, on whichModification No. 8/1126 has not beeninstalled: Within 1 year after the effectivedate of this AD, seal the firewall of the lowercowling of each engine by installing angle-gasket assemblies and applying sealant, inaccordance with de Havilland ServiceBulletin S/B No. 8–54–12, dated January 27,1989.

(d) For airplanes having serial numbers 003through 331, inclusive, on whichModification No. 8/1885 has not beeninstalled: Within 1 year after the effectivedate of this AD, accomplish the proceduresspecified in paragraphs (d)(1), (d)(2), and(d)(3) of this AD in accordance with deHavilland Service Bulletin S.B. 8–54–25,Revision ‘A,’ dated July 29, 1994.

(1) Inspect the vertical firewall section,firewall extension, and engine-mountedfirewall of the upper structure of eachnacelle, including the lap joints betweenbolts and at carry-through fittings andgrommets, to detect gaps and openingsthrough which flammable fluid could pass,in accordance with the service bulletin. Ifany gap or opening is detected, prior tofurther flight, seal the gap or opening, inaccordance with the service bulletin.

(2) Inspect the upper access panels of eachnacelle to detect the presence and conditionof sealant in any gap between each panel andits adjacent structure, in accordance with theservice bulletin. If there is no sealant or thesealant is discrepant, prior to further flight,apply or replace sealant, as applicable, inaccordance with the service bulletin.

(3) Apply exterior labels and protectivecoatings to each access panel of the left andright nacelle in accordance with the servicebulletin.

(e) For airplanes having serial numbers 003through 332, inclusive, on whichModification No. 8/1887 has not beeninstalled: Within 1 year after the effectivedate of this AD, replace the Camlocreceptacles in each nacelle with stainlesssteel receptacles, and apply additionalsealant to the firewall of each nacelle, inaccordance with de Havilland ServiceBulletin S.B. 8–54–30, Revision ‘B,’ datedFebruary 5, 1993.

(f) For airplanes having serial numbers 003through 357, inclusive, on whichModification No. 8/1996 has not beeninstalled: Within 1 year after the effectivedate of this AD, inspect the forward andrearward faces of the firewall, firewallextension, and engine mounted firewall ofthe lower structure of each nacelle for anygap or opening at lap joints, between bolts,


and at carry-through fittings and grommetsthrough which flammable fluid could pass,in accordance with de Havilland ServiceBulletin S.B. 8–54–31, dated March 8, 1994.If any gap or opening is detected, prior tofurther flight, apply sealant in accordancewith the service bulletin.

(g) For airplanes having serial numbers 003through 369, inclusive, on whichModification No. 8/2001 has not beeninstalled: Within 1 year after the effectivedate of this AD, replace the existing seals onthe cowling doors of each nacelle withimproved seals, in accordance with deHavilland Service Bulletin S.B. 8–71–19,Revision ‘B,’ dated February 24, 1995.

(h) An alternative method of compliance oradjustment of the compliance time thatprovides an acceptable level of safety may beused if approved by the New York AircraftCertification Office (ACO), FAA, Engine andPropeller Directorate. Operators shall submittheir requests through an appropriate FAAPrincipal Maintenance Inspector, who mayadd comments and then send it to theManager, New York ACO.

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

(i) 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.


14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 95–CE–53–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; JetstreamAircraft Limited HP137 Mk1, JetstreamSeries 200, and Jetstream Model 3101Airplanes


SUMMARY: This document proposes tosupersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)82–20–04 R1, which currently requiresrepetitively inspecting the main landinggear (MLG) hinge fitting, support angles,and attachment bolts on BritishAerospace (currently known asJetstream Aircraft Limited (JAL)) HP137Mk1 and Jetstream series 200 airplanes,and repairing or replacing any part thatis cracked beyond certain limits. TheFederal Aviation Administration’s

policy on aging commuter-class aircraftis to eliminate or, in certain instances,reduce the number of certain repetitiveshort-interval inspections whenimproved parts or modifications areavailable. The proposed action wouldrequire installing improved design MLGfittings, as terminating action for therepetitive inspections that are currentlyrequired by AD 82–20–04 R1, andwould incorporate the Jetstream Model3101 airplanes into the Applicability ofthe AD. The actions specified in theproposed AD are intended to preventstructural failure of the MLG caused byfatigue cracking, which could result inloss of control of the airplane duringlanding operations.DATES: Comments must be received onor before June 6, 1997.ADDRESSES: Submit comments intriplicate to the FAA, Central Region,Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel,Attention: Rules Docket No. 95–CE–53–AD, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street,Kansas City, Missouri 64106. Commentsmay be inspected at this locationbetween 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Mondaythrough Friday, holidays excepted.

Service information that applies to theproposed AD may be obtained fromJetstream Aircraft Limited, PrestwickInternational Airport, Ayrshire, KA92RW, Scotland; telephone (44–292)79888; facsimile (44–292) 79703; orJetstream Aircraft Inc., Librarian, P.O.Box 16029, Dulles International Airport,Washington, D.C. 20041–6029;telephone (703) 406–1161; facsimile(703) 406–1469. This information alsomay be examined at the Rules Docket atthe address above.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.Tom Rodriguez, Program Manager,Brussels Aircraft Certification Division,FAA, Europe, Africa, and Middle EastOffice, c/o American Embassy, B–1000Brussels, Belgium; telephone (32 2)508.2715; facsimile (32 2) 230.6899; orMr. S.M. Nagarajan, Project Officer,Small Airplane Directorate, AircraftCertification Service, FAA, 1201Walnut, suite 900, Kansas City, Missouri64106; telephone (816) 426–6932;facsimile (816) 426–2169.



participate in the making of theproposed rule by submitting suchwritten data, views, or arguments asthey may desire. Communicationsshould identify the Rules Docketnumber and be submitted in triplicate tothe address specified above. Allcommunications received on or beforethe closing date for comments, specified

above, will be considered before takingaction on the proposed rule. Theproposals contained in this notice maybe changed in light of the commentsreceived.

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 report thatsummarizes 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 noticemust submit a self-addressed, stampedpostcard on which the followingstatement is made: ‘‘Comments toDocket No. 95–CE–53–AD.’’ Thepostcard will be date stamped andreturned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMsAny person may obtain a copy of this

NPRM by submitting a request to theFAA, Central Region, Office of theAssistant Chief Counsel, Attention:Rules Docket No. 95–CE–53–AD, Room1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City,Missouri 64106.

DiscussionThe FAA has determined that reliance

on critical repetitive inspections onaging commuter-class airplanes carriesan unnecessary safety risk when adesign change exists that couldeliminate or, in certain instances,reduce the number of those criticalinspections. In determining whatinspections are critical, the FAAconsiders (1) the safety consequences ifthe known problem is not detectedduring the inspection; (2) theprobability of the problem not beingdetected during the inspection; (3)whether the inspection area is difficultto access; and (4) the possibility ofdamage to an adjacent structure as aresult of the problem.

These factors have led the FAA toestablish an aging commuter-classaircraft policy that requiresincorporating a known design changewhen it could replace a criticalrepetitive inspection. With this policyin mind, the FAA conducted a reviewof existing AD’s that apply to JALHP137 Mk1, Jetstream series 200, andJetstream Models 3101 airplanes.Assisting the FAA in this review were(1) Jetstream Aircraft Limited (JAL); (2)the Regional Airlines Association(RAA); (3) the Civil Aviation Authority


(CAA) for the United Kingdom; and (4)several operators of the affectedairplanes.

From this review, the FAA identifiedAD 82–20–04 R1, Amendment 39–4586,as one to which the FAA’s aging aircraftpolicy applies, and which should besuperseded with a new AD that wouldrequire a modification that wouldeliminate the need for short-interval andcritical repetitive inspections. AD 82–20–04 R1 currently requires repetitivelyinspecting the main landing gear (MLG)hinge fitting, support angles, andattachment bolts on British Aerospace(currently known as JAL) HP137 Mk1and Jetstream series 200 airplanes, andrepairing or replacing any part that iscracked beyond certain limits.

Relevant Service InformationThe following service information is

relevant to this subject:—British Aerospace Jetstream

Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB)No. 7/5, which includes proceduresfor inspecting the left main landinggear hinge attachment nuts to theauxiliary and aft spars for signs ofrelevant movement between the nutsand hinge fitting on HP137 Mk1 andJetstream series 200 airplanes. ThisMSB incorporates the followingeffective pages:

Pages Revisionlevel Date

2 and 4 ....... OriginalIssue.

March 31, 1982.

1 and 3 ....... Revision 1 .. May 23, 1988.

—British Aerospace MSB No. 7/8,which includes procedures forinspecting the MLG hinge fitting forcracks, and repairing cracked hingefittings on HP137 Mk1 and Jetstreamseries 200 airplanes. This MSBincorporates the following effectivepages:


2, 5, 6, 7,and 8.

Revision 2 .. January 6,1983.

1, 3, and 4 Revision 3 .. May 23, 1988.

—Jetstream Alert Service Bulletin (ASB)32–A–JA 850127, which includesprocedures for inspecting the MLGhinge fitting and support angle forcracks on Jetstream Model 3101airplanes. This ASB incorporates thefollowing effective pages:


5 through 14 OriginalIssue.

April 17, 1985.


1 through 4 Revision 2 .. November 11,1994.

—Jetstream Service Bulletin (SB) 57–JM5218, which includes procedures forinstalling improved design MLGfittings, part number (P/N) 1379133B1and 1379133B2 (Modification 5218)on HP137 Mk1, Jetstream series 200,and certain Jetstream Model 3101airplanes. This SB incorporates thefollowing effective pages:


3, 5, 6, 7, 8,9, 11, 12,17, 18,19, 21,22, 23,24, 27,28, 29,30, and31.

Revision 1 .. September 29,1987.

25 and 26 ... Revision 2 .. August 24,1988.

10 and 20 ... Revision 3 .. January 29,1990.

1, 2, 4, 13,14, 15,and 16.

Revision 4 .. October 31,1990.

The FAA’s DeterminationBased on its aging commuter-class

aircraft policy and after reviewing allavailable information, including thereferenced service information, the FAAhas determined that AD action shouldbe taken to (1) require the incorporationof Modification 5218 on the affectedairplanes, as terminating action for therepetitive short-interval inspectionsrequired by AD 82–20–04 R1; and (2)prevent structural failure of the MLGcaused by fatigue cracking, which couldresult in loss of control of the airplaneduring landing operations.

Explanation of the Provisions of theProposed AD

Since an unsafe condition has beenidentified that is likely to exist ordevelop in other JAL HP137 Mk1,Jetstream series 200, and JetstreamModel 3101 airplanes of the same typedesign, the FAA is proposing tosupersede AD 82–20–04 R1 with a newAD. The proposed AD would (1) retainthe requirement of repetitivelyinspecting the MLG hinge fitting,support angles, and attachment bolts,and repairing or replacing any part thatis cracked; (2) incorporate the JetstreamModel 3101 airplanes into theApplicability of the AD; and (3) requirethe installation of improved design MLGfittings, part number (P/N) 1379133B1

and 1379133B2 (Modification 5218), asterminating action for the repetitiveinspections. Accomplishment of theproposed actions would be inaccordance with the service bulletinsreferenced previously.

Differences Between the Proposed AD,CAA for the United Kingdom AD, andExisting AD 82–20–04 R1

AD 82–20–04 R1 allows continuedflight if cracks are found in the MLGhinge fitting support angles thatpropagate no further than the toolingholes. The applicable service bulletinspecifies replacement of the supportangles only if cracks are foundexceeding this limit, as does CAA AD015–05–85. The proposed AD, ifadopted, would not allow continuedflight if any crack is found. FAA policyis to disallow airplane operation whenknown cracks exist in primary structure,unless the ability to sustain ultimateload with these cracks is proven. Themain landing gear is considered primarystructure, and the FAA has not receivedany analysis to prove that ultimate loadcan be sustained with cracks in thisarea.

Cost ImpactThe FAA estimates that 71 airplanes

in the U.S. registry would be affected bythe proposed AD, that it would takeapproximately 271 workhours(inspections: 61 workhours; installation:210 workhours) per airplane toaccomplish the proposed actions, andthat the average labor rate isapproximately $60 an hour. Parts toaccomplish the proposed AD areprovided by the manufacturer at no costto the owners/operators of the affectedairplanes. Based on these figures, thetotal cost impact of the proposed AD onU.S. operators is estimated to be$1,154,460 or $16,260 per airplane. Thisfigure only takes into account the costof the initial inspections and inspection-terminating modification and does nottake into account the cost of repetitiveinspections. The FAA has no way ofdetermining the number of repetitiveinspections each HP137 Mk1, Jetstreamseries 200, and Jetstream Model 3101airplane owner/operator would incur.

This figure is also based on thepresumption that no affected airplaneoperator has accomplished the proposedinstallation. This action wouldeliminate the repetitive inspectionsrequired by AD 82–20–04 R1. The FAAhas no way of determining the operationlevels of each individual owner/operator of the affected airplanes, andsubsequently cannot determine therepetitive inspection costs that would beeliminated by the proposed action. The


FAA estimates these costs to besubstantial over the long term.

In addition, JAL has informed theFAA that parts have been distributed toowners/operators that would equipapproximately 39 of the affectedairplanes. Presuming that each set ofparts has been installed on an affectedairplane, the cost impact of theproposed modification upon the publicwould be reduced $634,140 from$1,154,460 to $520,320.

Regulatory Flexibility Determinationand Analysis

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980(RFA) was enacted by Congress toensure that small entities are notunnecessarily or disproportionallyburdened by government regulations.The RFA requires government agenciesto determine whether rules would havea ‘‘significant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entities,’’and, in cases where they would,conduct a Regulatory FlexibilityAnalysis in which alternatives to therule are considered. FAA Order2100.14A, Regulatory Flexibility Criteriaand Guidance, outlines FAA proceduresand criteria for complying with theRFA. Small entities are defined as smallbusinesses and small not-for-profitorganizations that are independentlyowned and operated or airportsoperated by small governmentaljurisdictions. A ‘‘substantial number’’ isdefined as a number that is not less than11 and that is more than one-third of thesmall entities subject to a proposed rule,or any number of small entities judgedto be substantial by the rulemakingofficial. A ‘‘significant economicimpact’’ is defined by an annualized netcompliance cost, adjusted for inflation,which is greater than a threshold costlevel for defined entity types.

FAA Order 2100.14A, RegulatoryFlexibility Criteria and Guidance,defines a small entity as ‘‘a smallbusiness or small not-for-profitorganization which is independently-owned and operated and has no morethan a specified number of employees oraircraft.’’ For operators of aircraft forhire (those entities that are affected by14 CFR parts 121, 127, and 135), the sizethreshold specified in FAA Order2100.14A is nine aircraft.

There are only nine differentoperators of JAL HP137 Mk1, Jetstreamseries 200, and Jetstream Model 3101airplanes. Of these nine, only fouroperate less than nine airplanes.Because four is a number that is lessthan 11 and the rulemaking official hasnot determined this number to besubstantial, the proposed AD would not

significantly affect a number of smallentities.

A copy of the full Cost Analysis andRegulatory Flexibility Determination forthe proposed action may be examined atthe FAA, Central Region, Office of theAssistant Chief Counsel, Attention:Rules Docket No. 95–CE–53–AD, Room1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City,Missouri.

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) 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 has been placed in the RulesDocket. A copy of it may be obtained bycontacting the Rules Docket at thelocation provided under the captionADDRESSES.







Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended byremoving Airworthiness Directive (AD)

82–20–04 R1, Amendment 39–4468, andadding a new AD to read as follows:Jetstream Aircraft Limited: Docket No. 95–

CE–53–AD. Supersedes 82–20–04 R1,Amendment 39–4468.

Applicability: The following model andserial number airplanes, certificated in anycategory, that do not have improved designMLG fittings, part number (P/N) 1379133B1and 1379133B2 (Modification 5218),installed in accordance with JetstreamService Bulletin (SB) 57–JM 5218:

Model Serial Nos.

HP137 Mk1 ............... All serial numbers.Jetstream Series 200 All serial numbers.Jetstream 3101 ......... 601 through 695.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplaneidentified in the preceding applicabilityprovision, regardless of whether it has beenmodified, altered, or repaired in the areasubject to the requirements of this AD. Forairplanes that have been modified, altered, orrepaired so that the performance of therequirements of this AD is affected, theowner/operator must request approval for analternative method of compliance inaccordance with paragraph (f) of this AD. Therequest should include an assessment of theeffect of the modification, alteration, or repairon the unsafe condition addressed by thisAD; and, if the unsafe condition has not beeneliminated, the request should includespecific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated afterthe effective date of this AD, unless alreadyaccomplished.

To prevent structural failure of the MLGcaused by fatigue cracking, which couldresult in loss of control of the airplane duringlanding operations, accomplish thefollowing:

Note 2: The compliance times of this ADare presented in landings. If the total numberof airplane landings is not kept or isunknown, hours time-in-service (TIS) may beused by multiplying the total number ofairplane hours TIS by 0.75.

(a) For the HP137 Mk1 and Jetstream series200 airplanes, within the next 50 landingsafter the effective date of this AD or within200 landings after the last inspectionrequired by AD 82–20–04 R1 (superseded bythis AD), whichever occurs first, andthereafter at intervals not to exceed 200landings, accomplish the following inaccordance with British AerospaceMandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 7/5,which incorporates the following pages:


2 and 4 ....... OriginalIssue.

March 31, 1982.

1 and 3 ....... Revision 1 .. May 23, 1988.

(1) Inspect the MLG hinge attachment nutsto auxiliary and aft spars on both the left andright MLG for signs of fuel leakage or signsof relative movement between the nuts andhinge fitting.


(2) If any signs of fuel leakage or relativemovement between the nuts and hinge fittingare found, prior to further flight, resecure theMLG hinge fitting to auxiliary spar inaccordance with actions 3.8 through 3.15 ofBritish Aerospace MSB No. 7/5.

(b) Upon accumulating 4,000 landings orwithin the next 50 landings after the effectivedate of this AD, whichever occurs later, andthereafter at intervals not to exceed 400landings, inspect the MLG hinge supportangles for cracks in accordance with thefollowing, as applicable:

(1) For the HP137 Mk1 and Jetstream series200 airplanes: British Aerospace MSB 7/8,which incorporates the following effectivepages:


2, 5, 6, 7,and 8.

Revision 2 .. January 6,1983.

1, 3, and 4 Revision 3 .. May 23, 1988.

(2) For the Jetstream Model 3101 airplanes:Jetstream Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) 32–A–JA 850127, which incorporates the followingeffective pages:


5 through 14 OriginalIssue.

April 17, 1985.

1 through 4 Revision 2 .. November 11,1994.

(c) Install improved design MLG fittings,part number (P/N) 1379133B1 and1379133B2 (Modification 5218). Perform thisinstallation at the compliance time(presented in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) ofthis AD) which occurs first. Accomplish thisinstallation in accordance with JetstreamService Bulletin (SB) 57–JM 5218, whichincorporates the following effective pages:


3, 5, 6, 7, 8,9, 11, 12,17, 18,19, 21,22, 23,24, 27,28, 29,30, and31.

Revision 1 .. September 29,1987.

25 and 26 ... Revision 2 .. August 24,1988.

10 and 20 ... Revision 3 .. January 29,1990.

1, 2, 4, 13,14, 15,and 16.

Revision 4 .. October 31,1990.

(1) Prior to further flight after finding anycrack during an inspection required byparagraph (b) of this AD; or

(2) Upon accumulating 20,000 landings orwithin the next 50 landings after the effectivedate of this AD (whichever occurs later).

(d) Incorporating Modification 5218 asrequired by paragraph (c) of this AD

terminates the repetitive inspectionrequirement of this AD (paragraphs (a) and(b) of this AD).

(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) An alternative method of compliance oradjustment of the initial or repetitivecompliance times that provides an equivalentlevel of safety may be approved by theManager, Brussels Aircraft CertificationDivision, Europe, Africa, Middle East office,FAA, c/o American Embassy, 1000 Brussels,Belgium. The request should be forwardedthrough an appropriate FAA MaintenanceInspector, who may add comments and thensend it to the Manager, Brussels AircraftCertification Division. Alternative methods ofcompliance approved in accordance with AD82–20–04 R1 (superseded by this action) arenot considered approved as alternativemethods of compliance with this AD.

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

(g) All persons affected by this directivemay obtain copies of the document referredto herein upon request to Jetstream AircraftLimited, Manager Product Support,Prestwick Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RWScotland; or Jetstream Aircraft Inc., Librarian,P.O. Box 16029, Dulles International Airport,Washington, DC; or may examine thisdocument at the FAA, Central Region, Officeof the Assistant Chief Counsel, Room 1558,601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri64106.

(h) This amendment supersedes AD 82–20–04 R1, Amendment 39–4468.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March10, 1997.Michael Gallagher,Small Airplane Directorate, AircraftCertification Service.[FR Doc. 97–6716 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–ANE–03]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; AlliedSignalInc. TSCP700–4B and –5 AuxiliaryPower Units


SUMMARY: This document proposes thesupersedure of an existing airworthinessdirective (AD), applicable toAlliedSignal Inc. (formerly AirResearchand Garrett) TSCP700–4B and –5 SeriesAuxiliary Power Units, that currently

requires restretching the first stage lowpressure compressor (LPC) tie rods, orreplacing affected disks at or before8,000 cycles since new (CSN). Thisaction would eliminate the option ofrestretching the tie rods, and wouldrequire removing from service affecteddisks, replacing them with serviceableparts, and establishing a life limit of8,000 CSN for affected disks. Thisproposal is prompted by a report of afirst stage LPC disk rim separation dueto low cycle fatigue on an APU that hadits tie rods restretched in accordancewith the current AD. The actionsspecified by the proposed AD areintended to prevent first stage LPC diskrim separation due to low cycle fatigue,which could result in an uncontainedAPU failure and damage to the aircraft.DATES: Comments must be received byMay 19, 1997.ADDRESSES: Submit comments intriplicate to the Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), New EnglandRegion, Office of the Assistant ChiefCounsel, Attention: Rules Docket No.97–ANE–03, 12 New England ExecutivePark, Burlington, MA 01803–5299.Comments may also be sent via theInternet using the following address: ‘‘[email protected]’’. Commentssent via the Internet must contain thedocket number in the subject line.Comments may be inspected at thislocation between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30p.m., Monday through Friday, exceptFederal holidays.

The service information referenced inthe proposed rule may be obtained fromAlliedSignal Aerospace, Attn: DataDistribution, M/S 64–3/2101–201, P.O.Box 29003, Phoenix, AZ 85038–9003;telephone (602) 365–2493, fax (602)365–5577. This information may beexamined at the FAA, New EnglandRegion, Office of the Assistant ChiefCounsel, 12 New England ExecutivePark, Burlington, MA.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Robert Baitoo, Aerospace Engineer, LosAngeles Aircraft Certification Office,FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA90712–4137; telephone (310) 627–5245;fax (310) 627–5210.



participate in the making of theproposed rule by submitting suchwritten data, views, or arguments asthey may desire. Communicationsshould identify the Rules Docketnumber and be submitted in triplicate tothe address specified above. Allcommunications received on or before


the closing date for comments, specifiedabove, will be considered before takingaction on the proposed rule. Theproposals contained in this notice maybe changed in light of the commentsreceived.

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 noticemust submit a self-addressed, stampedpostcard on which the followingstatement is made: ‘‘Comments toDocket Number 97–ANE–03.’’ Thepostcard 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, New England Region, Office of theAssistant Chief Counsel, Attention:Rules Docket No. 97–ANE–03, 12 NewEngland Executive Park, Burlington, MA01803-5299.

Discussion

On October 31, 1988, the FederalAviation Administration (FAA) issuedairworthiness directive AD 88–24–07,Amendment 39–6062 (53 FR 46439,November 17, 1988), applicable toAlliedSignal Inc. (formerly AirResearchand Garrett) TSCP700–4B and –5 seriesauxiliary power units (APUs), to requirerestretching the tie rods, or replacingaffected disks at or before 8,000 cyclessince new (CSN). That action wasprompted by reports of compressor tierod separation in the event of disk rimseparation. That condition, if notcorrected, could result in compressor tierod separation in the event of disk rimseparation, which could result in anuncontained APU failure and damage tothe aircraft.

Since the issuance of that AD, theFAA has received a report that a firststage LPC disk, installed on an APUwith restretched tie rods in accordancewith AD 88–24–07, experienced anuncontained disk rim separation at9,408 CSN and caused aircraft damage.The FAA has therefore determined thatit is necessary to eliminate the tie rodrestretching option and institute the lifelimit of 8,000 CSN for all affected disks.

The FAA has reviewed and approvedthe technical contents of AlliedSignalService Bulletin (SB) No. TSCP700–49–7266, dated June 16, 1996, thatdescribes procedures for calculatingwhen to remove from service affecteddisks, and describes procedures forremoving from service affected disks,and replacing them with serviceableparts.

Since an unsafe condition has beenidentified that is likely to exist ordevelop on other products of this sametype design, the proposed AD wouldsupersede AD 88–24–07 to eliminate theoption of restretching the tie rods, andrequire removing from service affecteddisks in accordance with a schedulederived from calculations in the SB,replacing affected disks with serviceableparts, and establishing a life limit of8,000 CSN for affected disks.

The FAA estimates that 100 APUsinstalled on aircraft of U.S. registrywould be affected by this proposed AD,that it would take no additional workhours per APU to accomplish theproposed actions if the actions areaccomplished during APU overhaul, 8work hours to accomplish the proposedactions if the actions are notaccomplished during APU overhaul,and that the average labor rate is $60 perwork hour. Based on these figures, andthat the work would not be performedduring overhaul, the total cost impact ofthe proposed AD on U.S. operators isestimated to be $48,000.


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.







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

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended byremoving amendment 39–6062 (53 FR46439, November 17, 1988) and byadding a new airworthiness directive toread as follows:AlliedSignal Inc.: Docket No. 97–ANE–03.

Supersedes AD 88–24–07, Amendment39–6062.

Applicability: AlliedSignal Inc. (formerlyAirResearch and Garrett) TSCP700–4B and–5 auxiliary power units (APUs), with firststage low pressure compressor (LPC) disks,Part Number (P/N) 3606429–1, installed onbut not limited to Airbus A300 series, andMcDonnell Douglas DC–10 and KC–10(military) series aircraft.

Note 1: This airworthiness directive (AD)applies to each APU identified in thepreceding applicability provision, regardlessof whether it has been modified, altered, orrepaired in the area subject to therequirements of this AD. For APUs that havebeen modified, altered, or repaired so that theperformance of the requirements of this ADis affected, the owner/operator must requestapproval 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 the unsafecondition has not been eliminated, therequest should include specific proposedactions to address it.


To prevent first stage LPC disk rimseparation due to low cycle fatigue, whichcould result in an uncontained APU failureand damage to the aircraft, accomplish thefollowing:

(a) Remove from service first stage LPCdisks, P/N 3606429–1, in accordance withthe schedule derived from calculations inparagraph C.(3) of AlliedSignal ServiceBulletin (SB) No. TSCP700–49–7266, datedJune 16, 1996, and the removal proceduresdescribed in the AccomplishmentInstructions of that SB, and replace withserviceable parts.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (a),this AD establishes a life limit of 8,000 cycles


since new (CSN) for first stage LPC disks, P/N 3606429–1.

(c) The definition of a disk cycle may befound in the applicable AlliedSignal Inc.APU Component Maintenance Manual.

(d) Except as provided in paragraph (e) ofthis AD, no alternative replacement timesmay be approved for first stage LPC disks, P/N 3606429–1.

(e) 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. Therequest should be forwarded through anappropriate FAA Principal MaintenanceInspector, who may add comments and thensend it to the Manager, Los Angeles AircraftCertification Office.

Note 2: Information concerning theexistence of approved alternative methods ofcompliance with this airworthiness directive,if any, may be obtained from the Los AngelesAircraft Certification Office.

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

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, onFebruary 25, 1997.James C. Jones,Acting Manager, Engine and PropellerDirectorate, Aircraft Certification Service.[FR Doc. 97–6745 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamationand Enforcement

30 CFR Part 914

[SPATS No. IN–138–FOR; Amendment No.95–3 II]

Indiana Regulatory Program

AGENCY: Office of Surface MiningReclamation and Enforcement (OSM),Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.

SUMMARY: OSM is correcting errors inthe SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section,under II. Description of the ProposedAmendment, for a proposed ruleannouncing receipt of a proposedamendment to the Indiana regulatoryprogram that was published onTuesday, February 18, 1997 (62 FR7192).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Charles F. McDaniel, Acting Director,Indianapolis Field Office, Telephone:(317) 226–6700.


II. Description of the ProposedAmendment

On page 7192 of the February 18,1997, Federal Register, the followingcorrections are made:

1. In the second column, under 2. 310IAC 12–3–131 Small OperatorAssistance; Eligibility for Assistance,beginning in the fourth line, the words‘‘by redesignating subsections (20(A)’’should read ‘‘by redesignatingsubsections (2)(B) as (2)(A)’’.

2. In the third column, under 4. 310IAC 12–3–132.5 Small OperatorAssistance; Application Approval andNotice, the two paragraphs under thisheading were included in the discussionof this proposed regulation revision inerror. The following information shouldhave been included in the discussion:

Indiana proposes to clarify theapplication approval and noticerequirements for its small operatorassistance program.

3. In the third column, under 5. 310IAC 12–3–133 Small OperatorAssistance; Program Services and DataRequirements, the following twoparagraphs should have been includedin the discussion of this proposedregulation revision following theexisting text:

Indiana proposes to add newsubsection (c) to allow data collectionand analysis to proceed concurrentlywith the development of mining andreclamation plans by the operator.

Indiana proposes to add newsubsection (d) to require that datacollected under its small operatorassistance program be made available tothe public and that the programadministrator develop procedures forinterstate coordination and exchange ofdata.

Dated: March 10, 1997.Brent Wahlquist,Regional Director, Mid-Continent RegionalCoordinating Center.[FR Doc. 97–6753 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

30 CFR Part 946

[VA–104–FOR]

Virginia Abandoned Mine LandReclamation Program

AGENCY: Office of Surface MiningReclamation and Enforcement (OSM),Interior.ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening ofcomment period.

SUMMARY: OSM is opening the publiccomment period on a proposed

amendment to the Virginia AbandonedMine Land Reclamation (AMLR)Program (hereinafter referred to as theVirginia Program) under the surfaceMining Control and Reclamation Act of1977 (SMCRA), 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.,as amended. In response to commentsfrom OSM and others, the State revisedand resubmitted the AMLR planamendment. The proposed amendmentis intended to streamline Virginia’s totalAMLR plan to be consistent with theFederal regulations.

DATES: Written comments must bereceived on or before 4:00 p.m. on April2, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments shouldbe mailed or hand-delivered to Mr.Robert A. Penn, Director, Big Stone GapField Office at the first address listedbelow.

Copies of the Virginia program, theproposed AMLR plan amendment(including revisions and supplementarysubmittals), and all written commentsreceived in response to the proposedamendment will be available for publicreview at the addresses listed belowduring normal business hours, Mondaythrough Friday, excluding holidays:

Office of Surface Mining Reclamationand Enforcement, Big Stone Gap FieldOffice, Powell Valley SquareShopping Center, 1941 Neeley Road,Suite 201, Compartment 116, BigStone Gap, Virginia 24219,Telephone: (540) 523–4303.

Virginia Division of Mined LandReclamation, P.O. Drawer 900, BigStone Gap, Virginia 24219,Telephone: (703) 523–8100.

Each requester may receive, free ofcharge, one copy of the proposedamendment by contacting the OSM BigStone Gap Field Office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.Robert A. Penn, Director, Big Stone GapField Office, Telephone: (540) 523–4303.


I. Background on the Virginia Program

On December 15, 1981, the Secretaryof the Interior conditionally approvedthe Virginia program. Background onthe Virginia program, including theSecretary’s findings, the disposition ofcomments, and the conditions ofapproval can be found in the December15, 1981 Federal Register (46 FR 61085–61115). Subsequent actions concerningthe conditions of approval and AMLRprogram amendments are identified at300 CFR 946.20 and 946.25.


II. Discussion of the ProposedAmendment

By letter received February 29, 1996(Administrative Record No. VA–871),the Virginia Division of Mined LandReclamation (DMLR) submitted aproposed amendment to the VirginiaProgram. This amendment is intendedto revise and streamline Virginia’s totalAMLR plan to more closely parallel theFederal state reclamation planinformation requirements of 30 CFR884.13.

The proposed revisions to the AMLRplan concern: The purpose of the Statereclamation program; ranking andselection; coordination with otherprograms; land acquisition, managementand disposal; reclamation on privateland; rights of entry; publicparticipation policies; organization;staffing policies; purchasing andprocurement; accounting system;location of known or suspected eligibleland and water; description of problemsoccurring on lands and waters (map);reclamation proposals; economic base;aesthetic, historic or cultural, andrecreation values; and endangered andthreatened plant, fish, wildlife andhabitat. The primary purpose of theamendment is to incorporate the 1990amendments to SMCRA, and the AMLRprovisions of the Energy Policy Act of1992, Pub. L. 102–486, 106 Stat. 2776(1992).

OSM announced receipt of theproposed amendment in the March 18,1996, Federal Register (61 FR 10919),and in the same document opened thepublic comment period and provided anopportunity for a public hearing on theadequacy of the proposed amendment.The public comment period closed onApril 17, 1996. No hearing wasrequested, so none was held.

During its review of the amendment,OSM identified concerns relating tovarious sections of the proposed planand provided draft comments to theState (Administrative Record NumberVA–898). OSM representatives met withDMLR representatives on October 31,1996, and November 4, 1996, to resolvecomments included in the draft listprepared by OSM (AdministrativeRecord Number VA–899).

On November 19, 1996, OSMconducted a telephone conference withDMLR representatives to further resolveissues included in the draft issues list.OSM representatives met with DMLRrepresentatives on November 20, 1996,to continue to resolve issues in the draftissues list. The results of the November19, 1996, teleconference and theNovember 20, 1996, meeting, includingthe changes proposed by the DMLR to

be made to the Virginia plan submittal,are documented in the VirginiaAdministrative Record Number VA–900. In addition, VA–900 containscopies of the forms (Lien Waiver, Rightof Entry, Claim of Lien, and AMLComplaint Investigation) that the DMLRuses to implement the Virginia program.These forms are considered by OSM tobe part of the Virginia plan submittal.

On December 5, 1996, OSMconducted a telephone conference withDMLR representatives to resolve theremaining issues. The results of thattelephone conference are documented atAdministrative Record Number VA–901.

On December 10, 1996, Virginiasubmitted draft language to the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) toaddress USFWS comments made onApril 4, 1996 (Administrative RecordNumber VA–904).

On January 7, 1997, the USFWSrecommended further modifications tothe endangered and threatened speciessection of the proposed AMLR planamendment wording (AdministrativeRecord Number VA–905).

On February 6, 1997, OSM providedUSFWS with Virginia’s AMLR planlanguage that was revised in response toUSFWS comments on endangered andthreatened species (AdministrativeRecord Number VA–906).

On February 10, 1997 (AdministrativeRecord Number VA–907), OSM metwith DMLR to discuss changes made tothe AMLR plan amendment by Virginiato address OSM’s comments on theamendment that were identified inOSM’s draft issues list (AdministrativeRecord Number FA–898).

On February 7, 1997, USFWSconfirmed that DMLR’s draft wordingchanges to the endangered andthreatened species section of theproposed AMLR plan amendment nowincludes the modifications proposed byUSFWS (Administrative Record NumberVA–908).

On February 10, 1997, the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)confirmed that draft wordingmodifications to the proposed VirginiaAMLR plan amendment received fromDMLR on November 20, 1996, resolveEPA’s identified concerns(Administrative Record Number VA–909).

On February 14, 1997, OSM proposedwording changes to DMLR to resolveOSM concerns regarding sentencesadded to the proposed AMLR planamendment by DMLR related toremining (Administrative RecordNumber VA–910).

On February 27, 1997, DMLR agreedto modify AMLR plan wording to

resolve OSM concerns regardingsentences added to the proposed AMLRplan amendment by DMLR related toremining (Administrative RecordNumber VA–911).

By electronic mail correspondencedated March 5, 1997, (AdministrativeRecord Number VA–912), Virginiasubmitted a revised copy of theproposed AMLR plan that contains thechanges made to resolve the issuesidentified by OSM, the USFWS, and theEPA. The full text of the revisedproposed AMLR plan amendmentsubmitted by Virginia is available forpublic inspection at the addresses listedabove. The Director now seeks publiccomment on whether the proposedamendment is no less effective than theFederal regulations. If approved, theamendment will become part of theVirginia program.

III. Public Comment ProceduresIn accordance with the provisions of

30 CFR 884.15, OSM is now seekingcomment on whether the amendmentproposed by Virginia satisfies theapplicable requirements for theapproval of State AMLR programamendments. If the amendment isdeemed adequate, it will become part ofthe Virginia program.

Written CommentsWritten comments should be specific,

pertain only to the issues proposed inthis rulemaking, and includeexplanations in support of thecommenter’s recommendations.Comments received after the timeindicated under DATES or at locationsother than the Big Stone Gap FieldOffice will not necessarily beconsidered in the final rulemaking orincluded in the Administrative Record.

VI. Procedural Determinations

Executive Order 12866This rule is exempted from review by

the Office of Management and Budget(OMB) under Executive Order 12866(Regulatory Planning and Review).

Executive Order 12988The Department of the Interior has

conducted the reviews required bysection 3 of Executive Order 12988(Civil Justice Reform) and hasdetermined that, to the extent allowedby law, this rule meets the applicablestandards of subsections (a) and (b) ofthat section. However, these standardsare not applicable to the actual languageof State and Tribal abandoned mineland reclamation plans and revisionsthereof since each such plan is draftedand adopted by a specific State or Tribe,not by OSM. Decisions on proposed


State and Tribal abandoned mine landreclamation plans and revisions thereofsubmitted by a State or Tribe are basedon a determination of whether thesubmittal meets the requirements ofTitle IV of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1231–1243) and the Federal regulations at 30CFR Parts 884 and 888.

National Environmental Policy Act

No environmental impact statement isrequired for this rule since agencydecisions on proposed State and Tribalabandoned mine land reclamation plansand revisions thereof are categoricallyexcluded from compliance with theNational Environmental Policy Act (42U.S.C. 4332) by the Manual of theDepartment of the Interior [516 DM 6,appendix 8, paragraph 8.4B(29)].

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not containinformation collection requirements thatrequire approval by OMB under thePaperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.3507 et seq.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior hasdetermined that this rule will not havea significant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entitiesunder the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The State submittalwhich is the subject of this rule is basedupon Federal regulations for which aneconomic analysis was prepared andcertification made that such regulationswould not have a significant economiceffect upon a substantial number ofsmall entities. Accordingly, this rulewill ensure that existing requirementsestablished by SMCRA or previouslypromulgated by OSM will beimplemented by the State. In making thedetermination as to whether this rulewould have a significant economicimpact, the Department relied upon thedata and assumptions in the analyses forthe corresponding Federal regulations.

Unfunded Mandates

This rule will not impose a cost of$100 million or more in any given yearon any governmental entity or theprivate sector.


Intergovernmental relations, Surfacemining, Underground mining.

Dated: March 10, 1997.Ronald C. Recker,Acting Regional Director, AppalachianRegional Coordinating Center.[FR Doc. 97–6752 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[AD–FRL–5710–8]

Clean Air Act Interim Approval ofOperating Permits Program;Commonwealth of Virginia

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA).ACTION: Proposed interim approval.

SUMMARY: EPA proposes interimapproval of the Commonwealth ofVirginia’s Operating Permits Program,which Virginia submitted in response toFederal statutory and regulatorydirectives that States adopt programsproviding for the issuance of operatingpermits to all major stationary sourcesand to certain other sources. EPA isproposing interim approval of Virginia’ssubmittal because Virginia’s programsubstantially meets the requirements forapproval set forth at 40 Code of FederalRegulations (CFR) Part 70, but stillrequires some revisions to fully meetthose requirements. The requiredrevisions which Virginia will have tomake before EPA could grant fullapproval are discussed in this notice.DATES: Comments on this proposedaction must be received in writing byApril 17, 1997. Comments should beaddressed to the contact indicatedbelow.ADDRESSES: Copies of the State’ssubmittal and other supportinginformation used in developing theproposed interim approval are availablefor inspection during normal businesshours at the following locations: (1) U.S.EPA Region III; Air, Radiation, & ToxicsDivision; 841 Chestnut Building;Philadelphia, PA 19107, and (2) VirginiaDepartment of Environmental Quality;629 East Main Street, Richmond,Virginia 23219.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RayChalmers, 3AT23; U.S. EPA Region III;Air, Radiation, & Toxics Division; 841Chestnut Building; Philadelphia, PA19107. (215) 566–2061.


I. Introduction

A. Submittal and Review Requirements

As required under Title V of the 1990Clean Air Act Amendments (sections501–507 of the Clean Air Act (CAA)),EPA has promulgated rules whichdefine the minimum elements of anapprovable State operating permitsprogram and the correspondingstandards and procedures by which the

EPA will approve, oversee, andwithdraw approval of State operatingpermits programs (see 57 FR 32250 (July21, 1992)). These rules are codified at 40Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part70. Title V directs States to develop, andsubmit to EPA, programs for issuingthese operating permits to all majorstationary sources and to certain othersources.

The CAA directs States to developand submit these programs to EPA byNovember 15, 1993, and requires EPA toapprove or disapprove each programwithin one year after receiving thesubmittal. The EPA’s program reviewoccurs pursuant to section 502 of theCAA and the part 70 regulations, whichtogether outline criteria for approval ordisapproval. Where a programsubstantially, but not fully, meets therequirements of section 502 of the CAAand Part 70, EPA may grant the programinterim approval for a period of up to2 years. If EPA has not fully approveda program by November 15, 1995, or bythe end of an interim program, it mustestablish and implement a Federalprogram.

Due in part to pending litigation overseveral aspects of the Part 70 rulepromulgated on July 21, 1992, Part 70 isin the process of being revised. Whenthe final revisions to Part 70 arepromulgated, the requirements of therevised Part 70 will redefine EPA’scriteria for the minimum elements of anapprovable State operating permitsprogram and the correspondingstandards and procedures by which EPAwill review State operating permitsprogram submittals. Until the date onwhich the revisions to Part 70 arepromulgated, the currently effective July21, 1992, version of Part 70 shall beused as the basis for EPA review.

B. Federal Oversight and PotentialSanctions

If EPA were to finalize this proposedinterim approval, it would extend fortwo years following the effective date ofthe final interim approval. During theinterim approval period, Virginia wouldbe protected from sanctions, and EPAwould not be obligated to promulgate,administer and enforce a Federalpermits program for theCommonwealth. Permits issued under aprogram with interim approval have fullstanding with respect to part 70, and theone year time period for submittal ofpermit applications by subject sourcesbegins upon the effective date of interimapproval, as does the three year timeperiod for processing the initial permitapplications.

Following final interim approval, ifVirginia failed to submit a complete


corrective program for full approval bythe date six months before expiration ofthe interim approval, EPA would berequired to start an 18 month clock formandatory sanctions. If Virginia thenfailed to submit a corrective programthat EPA found complete before theexpiration of the 18 month period, EPAwould be required to apply one of thesanctions in section 179(b) of the CAA,which would remain in effect until EPAdetermined that Virginia had remediedthe deficiency by submitting a completecorrective program. Moreover, if theAdministrator found a lack of good faithon the part of Virginia, both sanctionsunder section 179(b) would be requiredto apply after the expiration of the 18month period until the Administratordetermined that Virginia had come intocompliance. In any case, if, six monthsafter application of the first sanction,Virginia still had not submitted acorrective program that EPA foundcomplete, a second sanction would berequired.

If, following final interim approval,EPA were to disapprove Virginia’scomplete corrective program, EPAwould be required to apply one of thesection 179(b) sanctions on the date 18months after the effective date of thedisapproval, unless prior to that dateVirginia had submitted a revisedprogram and EPA had determined thatit corrected the deficiencies thatprompted the disapproval. Moreover, ifthe Administrator found a lack of goodfaith on the part of Virginia, bothsanctions under section 179(b) would berequired to apply after the expiration ofthe 18 month period until theAdministrator determined that Virginiahad come into compliance. In all cases,if, six months after EPA applied the firstsanction, Virginia had not submitted arevised program that EPA haddetermined corrected the deficienciesthat prompted disapproval, a secondsanction would be required.

In addition, discretionary sanctionsmay be applied where warranted anytime after the end of an interim approvalperiod if Virginia has not timelysubmitted a complete correctiveprogram or EPA has disapproved asubmitted corrective program.Moreover, if EPA has not granted fullapproval to Virginia’s program by theexpiration of the interim approval, EPAmust promulgate, administer andenforce a Federal permits program forVirginia after the interim approvalexpires.

II. Description of Virginia’s SubmittalVirginia submitted an operating

permits program to EPA on November12, 1993, pursuant to the requirements

of Title V. The submittal includedregulations, an Attorney General’sopinion, a program description,permitting program documentation, andother required elements. On January 14,1994, Virginia submitted asupplemental letter pertaining toenhanced monitoring. EPA disapprovedthat submittal in a Federal Registernotice published on December 5, 1994(59 FR 62324).

EPA disapproved the submittalbecause it did not provide citizens withadequate judicial standing to challengepermits, did not prevent the defaultissuance of permits, did not containregulations which were still in effect,did not cover the proper universe ofsources, did not ensure that permitswould include all applicablerequirements, and did not correctlydelineate permit provisions enforceableonly by Virginia. In addition, EPAidentified numerous other deficienciesthat Virginia would need to correct tomeet the federal requirements for a fullyapprovable program, although theseother deficiencies were not bases for thedisapproval action. These other issueswere what EPA calls ‘‘interim approvalissues’’—deficiencies that wouldprevent granting full approval to theState’s program, but that leave theprogram qualified for interim approvalbecause they don’t cause it to fail to‘‘substantially meet’’ the requirementsof the CAA.

On January 9, 1995, Virginiasubmitted revised regulations and arevised Attorney General’s opinion asamendments to its original program, andasked that EPA approve the revisedprogram. On January 17, 1995, Virginiasubmitted an additional copy of therevised regulations (the versionpublished in the Virginia Register).Finally, on May 17, 1995, Virginia againamended its program by submittingrevised statutory language and anamended Attorney General’s opinion.The revisions addressed many of thedisapproval bases and other deficienciesEPA had previously identified.However, Virginia did not submitrevised judicial standing provisions.Virginia did not revise these provisionsbecause it believed its judicial standingprovisions were adequate and had suedEPA to contest EPA’s conclusion thatthey were not.

EPA proposed disapproval ofVirginia’s revised submittal in a FederalRegister notice published on September19, 1995 (60 FR 48435). EPA proposeddisapproval because Virginia still didnot provide citizens with adequatejudicial standing to challenge permits,because Virginia did not assure that allsources required by the CAA to obtain

Title V permits would be required toobtain such permits, and becauseVirginia did not adequately provide forcollection of Title V program fees. EPAalso identified as interim approvalissues the fact that Virginia had definedunits as ‘‘insignificant’’ at far higheremissions levels than those which EPAconsidered ‘‘sound,’’ as well as certainother provisions pertaining toinsignificant activities.

On November 8, 1995, Virginiasubmitted revised Title V operatingpermit regulations to EPA, which theCommonwealth asserted corrected themajor regulatory problems which EPAhad identified in Virginia’s previoussubmittals, and again asked that EPAapprove the State’s program. However,these were emergency regulations ineffect for only one year, and Virginiahad taken no action to revise its judicialstanding provisions to give all affectedcitizens the right to challenge inVirginia’s courts operating permitsissued by Virginia. Moreover, Virginiahad not corrected provisions pertainingto insignificant activities which EPAhad identified as raising interimapproval issues. On September 10 and12, 1996, Virginia again submitted toEPA revised Title V programregulations, this time regulations whichhad been permanently adopted, andonce more asked that EPA approve theState’s Title V program. However,Virginia had still not revised its judicialstanding provisions and had still notcorrected provisions pertaining toinsignificant activities. Since Virginia’sNovember, 1995 and September, 1996submittals did not properly addresspreviously identified deficiencies, EPAdid not propose to take action on thesesubmittals when EPA initially receivedthem.

Virginia has since appropriatelyrevised its judicial standing provisions.After the Fourth Circuit Court ofAppeals affirmed EPA’s disapproval ofVirginia’s program, 80 F.3d 869 (1996),Virginia appealed its case to the U.S.Supreme Court. On January 21, 1997,the Supreme Court decided not to hearVirginia’s case. Virginia had preparedfor the possibility that the Courts mightnot rule in the Commonwealth’s favorby passing a revised judicial standinglaw, acceptable to EPA, which would gointo effect should the Courts not find forVirginia.

On February 6, 1997, Virginiasubmitted to EPA an Attorney General’sopinion affirming that Virginia’sacceptable judicial standing law wouldbe in effect as of February 15, 1997 asa result of the U.S. Supreme Court’sJanuary 21, 1997 denial of Virginia’spetition. The Attorney General’s


opinion also addressed several otherremaining legal issues. In addition, onFebruary 27, 1997, Virginia’sDepartment of Environmental Quality(VADEQ) agreed to commit torecommending revisions to regulatoryrequirements and also agreed to makecertain interpretations of existingregulatory requirements. Theseagreements are discussed below whenrelevant.

As a result of these recent revisions,EPA has determined that Virginia’s TitleV submittal now substantially meets therequirements for approval set forth at 40CFR part 70, and EPA is thereforeproposing interim approval of Virginia’ssubmittal. The portions of the submittalfor which EPA is proposing interimapproval consist of the operating permitand operating permit fee regulationssubmitted on September 10, 1996, theacid rain operating permit regulationssubmitted on September 12, 1996, andother non-regulatory documentation.EPA cannot propose full approvalbecause Virginia must still addresscertain ‘‘interim approval issues,’’ asdiscussed below. Concurrently with thisproposed interim approval, EPA iswithdrawing the proposal to disapproveVirginia’s submittal which EPApublished in the Federal Register onSeptember 19, 1995.

III. Analysis of Virginia’s SubmittalThis section focuses on how Virginia

has corrected the program deficiencieswhich EPA identified in Virginia’sprogram in the proposed disapprovalnotice which EPA published at 60 FR48435 on September 19, 1995, and oncertain other important deficiencieswhich Virginia must still address beforeEPA can fully approve theCommonwealth’s program. Virginia’sfull program submittal, EPA’s TechnicalSupport Document (TSD), whichprovides additional analysis ofVirginia’s submittal, and other relevantmaterials are available as part of thepublic docket.

Virginia’s Title V operating permitprogram submittal substantially, but notfully, meets the requirements of theCAA and of the implementingregulations at 40 CFR Part 70. Virginiahas substantially corrected thedeficiencies which had earlier causedEPA to disapprove and to propose todisapprove Virginia’s programs. Thedeficiencies which EPA identified asbases for disapproval when it publishedits September 19, 1995, Federal Registernotice proposing disapproval ofVirginia’s program were that Virginia’sTitle V program submittal: (1) Did notprovide all citizens with adequatejudicial standing to challenge State

permits; (2) did not assure that allsources required by the CAA to obtainTitle V permits would be required toobtain such permits; and (3) did notcontain an adequate provision forcollection of Title V program fees. EPAdiscusses below the changes Virginiamade in its Title V submittal to correctthese deficiencies. EPA also identifiedother deficiencies during its previousreview, which it identified as interimapproval issues. Virginia has alreadycorrected some of these deficiencies.Discussed below are changes whichVirginia made which adequatelyaddress some of these previouslyidentified deficiencies, as well ascertain additional changes whichVirginia must still make before EPAcould grant full approval to Virginia’sprogram.

A. Deficiencies Corrected

1. Virginia’s Judicial StandingProvisions

A major reason for EPA’s disapprovaland its proposal to disapprove Virginia’searlier Title V operating permit programsubmittals was that Virginia’s law didnot provide interested parties withadequate standing to obtain judicialreview in State court of final Title Vpermit decisions. Virginia’s judicialstanding law restricted the right tojudicial review to those who hadsuffered an actual or imminent injurywhich was an invasion of ‘‘animmediate, pecuniary and substantialinterest which is concrete andparticularized.’’ EPA, and the U.S. Courtof Appeals for the 4th Circuit,concluded that Virginia’s requirementthat a petitioner had to demonstrate a‘‘pecuniary’’ interest was too restrictiveto be approved under Title V. See 80F.3rd 869 (4th Cir., 1996).

After EPA’s position was upheld bythe Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals,Virginia appealed the case to the U.S.Supreme Court. On January 21, 1997,the Supreme Court declined to hearVirginia’s case. To be prepared shouldEPA’s position that Virginia’s judicialstanding provisions were deficient beupheld by the Courts, Virginia hadadopted revised and acceptable judicialstanding provisions, at sections 10.1–1318, 10.1–1457, and 62.1–44.29 of theCode of Virginia, but specified that therevised provisions would becomeeffective only if Virginia’s suit againstEPA was unsuccessful.

The Supreme Court’s refusal to takeVirginia’s appeal has caused Virginia’srevised judicial standing provisions tobecome effective, and Virginia’sstanding provisions are now fullyacceptable. Virginia’s revised standing

law now provides judicial standing toany person who ‘‘meets the standard forjudicial review of a case or controversypursuant to Article III of the UnitedStates Constitution.’’ It further providesthat ‘‘a person shall be deemed to meetsuch standard if (i) such person hassuffered an actual or imminent injurywhich is an invasion of a legallyprotected interest and which is concreteand particularized; (ii) such injury isfairly traceable to the decision of theBoard and not the result of theindependent action of some third partynot before the court; and (iii) suchinjury will likely be redressed by afavorable decision by the court.’’ Thisnew standard is consistent with thestandard for Article III standingarticulated by the Supreme Court inLujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S. Ct.2130 (1992). Consequently, EPA hasdetermined that Virginia’s standingprovisions meet the requirements ofCAA section 502(b)(6) and 40 CFR70.4(b)(3).

2. Applicability Under the OperatingPermits Program

In the original disapproval ofVirginia’s program, EPA identified as abasis for disapproval Virginia’s failureto require issuance of permits to theproper universe of sources required bypart 70. See 59 FR 62325. In addition,in its September 19, 1995, FederalRegister notice proposing disapproval ofVirginia’s previous operating permitprogram submittal, EPA again cited thefact that the submittal did not ensurethe applicability of the Title V operatingpermit program to all sources requiredto be subject to the program under 40CFR 70.3 as a reason for disapprovingthe submittal.

This was because in the applicabilitysections of the earlier version of itsregulations (which were designated assections 120–08–0501 and 120–08–0601) Virginia should have listed all ofthe CAA requirements which triggerTitle V applicability, as they are setforth at 40 CFR 70.3. Instead of meetingthis requirement by listing federal CAAsection 111 and 112 requirements,Virginia inappropriately listed certain ofits own air pollution control regulations,into which it had incorporated federalCAA section 111 and 112 requirements.In the revised regulations it submitted toEPA in September 1996, Virginiacorrectly cited federal CAA section 111and 112 requirements in theapplicability sections of its regulations(now designated as sections 9 VAC 5–80–50 and 9 VAC 5–80–310), thuscorrecting this deficiency. As discussedlater in this notice, Virginia’sregulations regarding applicability


continue to present a minor facialinconsistency with part 70, which EPAdoes not view as an impediment tofuture full approval of theCommonwealth’s program.

3. Permit Fee DemonstrationIn its September 19, 1995, Federal

Register notice EPA cited theinadequacy of the permit fee provisionsin Virginia’s submittal as another reasonfor proposing disapproval of thesubmittal. The deficiency in the feeprovision was that Virginia had not seta minimum fee amount of $25 per tonof emissions, to be adjusted forconsumer price inflation (CPI) using a1989 base year. Virginia revised itsregulations to correct this deficiency.

In its prior notice EPA also identifiedas a concern a statutory limit on theamount of fees which theCommonwealth can collect. Thisstatutory limit, which is found in theVirginia Air Pollution Control Law at§ 10.1–1322 B, appears to create a cap of$25 per ton of emissions, to be adjustedfor inflation using a 1990 base year. EPAstated that the statute should be revisedto specify a base year of 1989. EPAbelieved that unless Virginia made thischange the Commonwealth would notbe able to collect the full fee amountspecified by its regulations because ofthe statutory cap.

Virginia did not change this statutoryprovision. However, Virginia’s AttorneyGeneral provided an assurance that thiscap would not interfere with the State’sability to collect the full amount ofrequired fees. Virginia’s AttorneyGeneral stated that: ‘‘Virginia Code§ 10.1–1322(B) provides that the annualpermit fees ‘shall be adjusted annuallyby the Consumer Price Index asdescribed in § 502 of the federal CleanAir Act.’ ’’ Since Code § 10.1–1322(B)references § 502 and § 502 provides thatadjustment shall be made using 1989 asthe base year, the CPI adjustmentrequired by Code § 10.1–1322(B) alsoemploys a 1989 base year. The referencein Code § 10.1–1322(B) to a 1990 baseyear does not pertain to the CPIadjustment, but refers instead to theyear in which the initial $ 25 per toncharge applies. In keeping with therequirements of section 502 of the CAAas interpreted by EPA and for thispurpose only, the year 1990 runs fromSeptember 1, 1989 through August 31,1990.’’ See Supplement to January 6,1995 Attorney General’s Opinion datedFebruary 6, 1997. Because the fee cap asadjusted by the CPI under the Virginiafee statute is in fact the same as theamount as the fee assessed under theVirginia regulations (i.e., the calculationbegins at $25 per ton and is adjusted by

changes in the CPI since 1989), EPA issatisfied that Virginia will be able toassess fees which meet the presumptiveminimum required under Title V.

4. Other Deficiencies CorrectedIn its September 19, 1995, Federal

Register notice EPA cited several otherdeficiencies in the insignificantactivities provisions in Virginia’ssubmittal which would prevent EPAfrom being able to grant full approval tothe program. Virginia corrected somebut not all of these deficiencies. In thissection EPA discusses the deficiencieswhich Virginia corrected.

In its previous proposed disapprovalnotice, EPA expressed concernregarding the fact that Virginia haddefined as insignificant all emissionsunits with uncontrolled emissions ofless than 10 tons per year of nitrogendioxide, sulfur dioxide, and totalsuspended particulates or particulatematter (PM10), less than seven tons peryear of volatile organic compounds, andless than 100 tons per year of carbonmonoxide (CO). EPA noted that itconsidered these levels too high.Virginia responded to EPA’s concernsby changing its insignificant activityprovisions to define units asinsignificant which had uncontrolledemissions of less than 5 tons per year(TPY) of nitrogen dioxide, sulfurdioxide, total suspended particulates orparticulate matter (PM10), and volatileorganic compounds. EPA considers theexemption level of less than 5 TPY ofuncontrolled emissions of thesepollutants to be acceptable. Virginia didnot change its specification that unitswith uncontrolled CO emissions of lessthan 100 TPY are insignificant. For thereasons discussed in the September 19,1995 Federal Register notice, EPAcontinues to regard this as a deficiencywhich must be corrected before EPAcould grant full approval to Virginia’sprogram. This deficiency is discussedfurther below in the section entitledRemaining Deficiencies.

EPA was also concerned by the factthat under Virginia’s previous rules adetermination of whether or not asource is subject to the operating permitprogram could be made without takinginto account emissions from unitsconsidered to be insignificant. If thetotal emissions from units subject toTitle V requirements were just belowthe levels which would trigger Title Vprogram applicability, failure to takeinto account additional emissions fromunits which are exempt could result ina source avoiding Title V requirementsto which it should have been subject.Virginia corrected this deficiency bystating in Rule 8–5 at 9 VAC 5–80–90,

and in Rule 8–7 at 9 VAC 5–80–440,that ‘‘the emissions from any emissionsunit shall be included in the permitapplication if the omission of thoseemissions units from the applicationwould interfere with the determinationof the applicability of this rule, thedetermination or imposition of anyapplicable requirement, or thecalculation of permit fees,’’ and byincluding a similar statement in Article4 at 9 VAC 5–80–710. Thus, EPA hasdetermined that Virginia has sufficientlycorrected this prior deficiency, and theCommonwealth need take no furtheraction with respect to it before EPAcould grant full approval to Virginia’sprogram.

In addition, EPA was concerned bythe fact that in Appendix W of theCommonwealth’s prior regulations(since redesignated as Article 4) Virginiahad defined as insignificant allpollutant emission units with emissionsless than the section 112(g) de minimislevels set forth at 40 CFR 63.44 or theaccidental release threshold levels setforth at 40 CFR 68.130. See 9 VAC 5–80–720 B 6. EPA noted that these levelswere appropriate in many cases, butwere too high in others. Virginiaadequately addressed this concern byadding the qualifier ‘‘or 1000 poundsper year, whichever is less’’ to thestatement at 9 VAC 5–80–720 B 6.

Furthermore, while not a concern forpurposes of program approval, EPAnotes that the references to emissionunits with emissions at or below thesection 112(g) de minimis levelsestablished in 40 CFR 63.44 now haveno meaning. See 9 VAC 5–80–720 B 5and B 6. Virginia apparently assumedwhen it prepared its regulation that EPAwould finalize the referenced list.However, EPA did not finalize this listand there are now no emissions levels‘‘in 40 CFR 63.44.’’ As a result, emissionunits emitting hazardous air pollutantswhich are not 112(r) pollutants need tobe fully described in application forms.This fact reduces the universe of unitswhich can be considered insignificantunder Virginia’s regulations, but this isnot a concern with respect to EPA’sdecision to approve or disapproveVirginia’s program, because part 70 doesnot require States to define anyparticular units as insignificant.

Finally, EPA also expressed concernwith the fact that in its prior programVirginia had inappropriately included‘‘comfort air conditioning’’ and‘‘refrigeration systems,’’ which aresubject to stratospheric ozone protectionrequirements, in the listing ofinsignificant activities found in Article4. Virginia removed these items from


the list. Thus, this previous deficiencyhas been fully corrected.

B. Remaining Deficiencies (InterimApproval Issues)

As noted above, in its December 5,1994 and September 19, 1995, FederalRegister notices EPA cited several otherdeficiencies in the insignificantactivities provisions in Virginia’ssubmittal as another impediment togranting full approval of the submittal.EPA stated that Virginia would have tocorrect these deficiencies before EPAcould fully approve theCommonwealth’s program. In thissection EPA addresses one insignificantactivity related deficiency whichVirginia did not correct in its revisedprogram, and several additionalinsignificant activity relateddeficiencies which EPA has identifiedin reviewing the Commonwealth’s newprogram since publishing the September1995 proposed disapproval notice.

1. Units Emitting Up To 100 TPY of COInappropriately Considered to beInsignificant

EPA remains concerned that Virginiacontinues to define any emission unitemitting less than 100 TPY of carbonmonoxide (CO) as insignificant. As EPAstated in its September, 1995 proposeddisapproval notice, and as discussedpreviously in this notice, EPA hasdetermined that the 100 TPY emissionslevel is far too high. The Director of theVADEQ has recently informed EPA thatVADEQ will seek to change thisregulation to correct this problem. (Seeletter from VADEQ Director datedFebruary 27, 1997.) Virginia mustcomplete this correction before EPA canfully approve Virginia’s program.

EPA does not consider this deficiencyto be an impediment to interimapproval. Virginia has identified aspecific provision in its regulations thatrequires sources to provide emissionsinformation in permit applications if theomission of that information ‘‘wouldinterfere with the determination of theapplicability of the State’s Title Vprogram, the determination orimposition of any applicablerequirement, or the calculation of fees.’’9 VAC 5–80–90. See also 9 VAC 5–80–710 4. In addition, the majority ofsources in Virginia which have unitsemitting CO are not subject toapplicable requirements for CO. Sourcesthat are subject to CO-relatedrequirements are likely to be subject tofederal standards, such as new sourceperformance standards (NSPS), for thoseunits, and should be aware of thespecific CO-related requirementsapplicable to them. Thus, in the interim

period before Virginia revises itsregulations, EPA believes that thepotential for confusion caused byVirginia’s 100 TPY CO threshold shouldbe minimized, provided theCommonwealth takes care to monitorsource compliance with applicablerequirements. EPA therefore does notbelieve it would be reasonable todisapprove Virginia’s program due tothis deficiency. EPA’s treatment ofVirginia’s high CO threshold isconsistent with how EPA has addressedsimilar problems in other States.

2. Applications Not Required to IncludeSufficient Information To Identify AllApplicable Requirements for EmissionUnits Deemed Insignificant

In connection with its review ofVirginia’s inappropriate designation ofunits emitting up to 100 TPY of CO asinsignificant EPA carefully reviewedVirginia’s ‘‘gatekeeper’’ provisions todetermine whether or not they mightsubstantially address the concerns thisinappropriate designation had raised.‘‘Gatekeeper’’ provisions are meant toassure that all applicable requirementsfor units designated as insignificant areincluded in both applications andpermits, thereby enabling permittingauthorities, reviewing members of thepublic, affected States, and EPA toadequately assess source compliancewith all applicable requirements. Duringthe course of its review EPA identifiedseveral deficiencies with these‘‘gatekeeper’’ provisions.

Virginia’s regulations at 9 VAC 5–80–90 D 1 now require emissionsinformation to be included in permitapplications, even for insignificantactivities, ‘‘if the omission of theseemissions units from the applicationwould interfere with the determinationof the applicability of this rule, thedetermination or imposition of anyapplicable requirement, or thecalculation of permit fees.’’ However,with respect to including all applicablerequirements in applications, EPA notesthat Virginia has inappropriatelyincluded a provision in the applicabilitysection of Rule 8–5, at 9 VAC 5–80–50F, which states that ‘‘[t]he provisions of9 VAC 5–80–90 concerning applicationrequirements shall not apply toinsignificant activities designated in 9VAC 5–80–720 with the exception of therequirements of 9 VAC 5–80–90 D 1 and9 VAC 5–80–710,’’ and that it hasincluded a similar provision in theapplicability section of Rule 8–7, at 9VAC 5–80–360 E. As a result of theseprovisions, sources are required toprovide only emissions information forinsignificant activities, but not anyadditional information, such as that

required by 9 VAC 5–80–90 D.2, E., orF. (which require all informationnecessary to determine applicablerequirements), which might be requiredto identify applicable requirementswhen emissions information alone isnot sufficient. Since many applicablerequirements under the CAA,particularly those relating to 112(d)standards for hazardous air pollutants,could not be identified solely byemissions information, EPA does notbelieve that Virginia’s existing‘‘gatekeeper’’ provision fully meets therequirements of Title V. Specifically, 40CFR 70.5(c) provides that applications‘‘may not omit information needed todetermine the applicability of, or toimpose, any applicable requirement, orto evaluate the fee amount requiredunder the schedule approved pursuantto § 70.9 of this part.’’ (emphasis added).Before EPA can fully approve Virginia’sprogram Virginia must assure that therequirements of § 70.5(c) will be met byappropriately revising the provisions at9 VAC 5–80–50 F and 9 VAC 5–80–360E.

VADEQ agrees that permitapplications must include allinformation required to identifyapplicable requirements, and has agreedto seek revisions to Virginia’sregulations in the future to ensure thatsources provide such information. Inaddition, VADEQ has stated that‘‘[u]nder the provisions of 9 VAC 5–80–90 E 1, the Board (Virginia’s AirPollution Control Board) will requirethat permit applications contain acitation and description of all applicablerequirements including those coveringactivities deemed insignificant under 9VAC 5 Chapter 80, Article 4.’’ (See letterfrom VADEQ Director dated February27, 1997.) In light of this, EPA hasdetermined that Virginia’s programsubstantially meets the requirements ofTitle V with respect to this issue andthat it is appropriate to grant interimapproval of Virginia’s program. This isconsistent with how EPA has treatedsimilar deficiencies in other States.

3. Permits Not Required To IncludeApplicable Requirements for EmissionUnits Deemed Insignificant

With respect to including allapplicable requirements in permits,Virginia Rule 8–5 contains aninappropriate provision at 9 VAC 5–80–110 which states that ‘‘For majorsources subject to this rule, the boardshall include in the permit allapplicable requirements for all emissionunits in the major source except thosedeemed insignificant in Article 4 (9VAC 5–80–710 et. seq.) of this part.’’Virginia’s Rule 8–7 (the acid rain


regulation) essentially repeats thisdeficiency at 9 VAC 5–80–490.A.1.These provisions in Rules 8–5 and 8–7are inadequate because they contain thequalification ‘‘except those deemedinsignificant in Article 4 * * *’’ EPAcannot fully approve Virginia’s programuntil Virginia removes thesequalifications.

VADEQ agrees that the change EPAcalls for above is required and hascommitted to seek this change. Inaddition, VADEQ has stated that ‘‘Inaddition to the provisions of 9 VAC 110A 1, the Board will also include in thepermit those applicable requirementscovering activities deemed insignificantunder 9 VAC 5 Chapter 80, Article 4.’’(See letter from VADEQ Director datedFebruary 27, 1997.) Finally, Virginia’sregulations elsewhere suggest that theCommonwealth’s program inadvertentlycontains the deficiencies identified at 9VAC 5–80–110 A.1 and 5–80–490 A.1.This is suggested by the fact that 9 VAC5–80–110 B.1, 5–80–150 A.4, 5–80–490B.1 and 5–80–510 B 4 require thatpermits ‘‘specify and referenceapplicable emission limitations andstandards, including those [* * *] thatassure compliance with all applicablerequirements’’ and that permits may beissued only if ‘‘the conditions of thepermit provide for compliance with allapplicable requirements.’’ In light ofthis, EPA has determined that Virginia’sprogram substantially meets therequirements of Title V with respect tothis issue and that it is appropriate togrant interim approval of Virginia’sprogram. EPA’s treatment of this issue isconsistent with how it has been treatedin other States.

4. Emergency or Standby Compressors,Pumps, and/or GeneratorsInappropriately Defined as Insignificant

EPA also notes that under 9 VAC 5–80–720 C 4 Virginia designates asinsignificant emissions units ‘‘Internalcombustion powered compressors andpumps used for emergency replacementor standby service, operating at 500hours per year or less, as follows’’ andthen goes on to cite emergencygenerators of various horsepowerratings, depending on whether or notthe generators are gasoline, diesel, ornatural gas powered. EPA believes that9 VAC 5–80–720 C 4 is confusing in thatVirginia first defines emergency orstandby compressors or pumps asinsignificant, and then further qualifiesthe units considered insignificant bydiscussing various sizes of emergencygenerators. VADEQ has agreed to seek toclarify this provision in the revisedregulations Virginia will be submittingin the future. In the interim, VADEQ has

explained to EPA that ‘‘With regard tothe provisions of 9 VAC 5–80–720 C 4regarding the designation of certaininternal combustion poweredcompressors and pumps as insignificantemissions units, the exemption levels(expressed in horsepower) for theemergency generators refer to the size ofthe engines that provide the power tothe compressors and pumps.’’ (See letterfrom VADEQ Director dated February27, 1997.)

EPA notes that engines of the sizesdesignated will likely be large enough totrigger certain NSPS standards, e.g., 40CFR part 60, Subpart Dc—Standards ofPerformance for Small Industrial-Commercial-Institutional SteamGenerating Units, or GG—Standards ofPerformance for Stationary GasTurbines, or be major sources in and ofthemselves. EPA believes that to avoidconfusion any list of insignificantactivities should not contain itemswhich may clearly be subject toapplicable requirements. Accordingly,before EPA can grant full approval tothe Commonwealth’s program, Virginiamust not only clarify its insignificantactivity provision for emergency pumps,compressors, or generators, but mustalso reduce the horsepower sizedesignations sufficiently to exclude anyunit which would likely trigger anapplicable requirement or emitpollutants in major amounts. It isimportant to note that the major sourcethresholds for air pollutants will varydepending on nonattainmentdesignations in the Commonwealth. Forexample, given that there is a seriousozone nonattainment area in northernVirginia, the State’s insignificantactivities will be judged relative to themajor source thresholds of 50 tons/yearfor volatile organic compounds andnitrogen oxides.

EPA took a similar position in itsnotice giving final interim approval toTennessee’s program. See 61 FR 39335(July 29, 1996). In that notice EPA statedthat ‘‘insignificant activities lists shouldavoid the potential for confusion createdwhen an activity that is plainly subjectto an applicable requirement isincluded.’’ 61 FR 39337. EPA required,as an interim approval item, thatTennessee address EPA’s concernsregarding the potential for confusionwhich arose because certain activitiesand emission units were listed asinsignificant which could also besubject to applicable requirements. EPAtook similar positions when it proposedapproval of West Virginia’s program at60 FR 44799 (August 29, 1995), andthen approved that program at 60 FR57352 (November 15, 1995), and whenit proposed approval of Florida’s

program at 60 FR 32292 (June 21, 1995),and then approved that program at 60FR 49343 (September 25, 1995).

5. ‘‘Off-Permit Changes’’ Defined asIncluding Changes Subject toRequirements Under Title IV

In addition to the acid rain regulatoryprovisions cited above that track flawsin Virginia’s main Title V rule, EPA isconcerned with two other provisions inthe Commonwealth’s regulationsrelating to acid rain requirements.Currently, EPA’s Part 70 rule allowssources to make certain so-called ‘‘off-permit’’ changes that are not addressedor prohibited by the permit withoutobtaining a permit revision. See 40 CFR70.4(b)(14). However, this flexibilitydoes not extend to changes that aremodifications under Title I of the CAAor those that are subject to any of theacid rain requirements under Title IV ofthe CAA. 40 CFR 70.4(b)(15). Regardingacid rain requirements, EPA stated in itspreamble to the final part 70 rule that‘‘the allowance trading system providedfor in Title IV will not be feasible unlessthere is an accurate accounting of eachsource’s obligations thereunder in theTitle V permit.’’ 57 FR 32250, 32270(July 21, 1992). Virginia’s regulationsallowing ‘‘off permit’’ changes at 9 VAC5–80–280.C and 5–80–680.C fail toexclude from eligibility changes that aresubject to requirements under Title IV.For the reasons discussed in thepreamble to the final part 70 rule, EPAhas determined that it cannot grant fullapproval to Virginia’s program untilVirginia revises its regulations tocorrectly exclude Title IV changes fromoff-permit eligibility. In the meantime,EPA does not view this deficiency aspreventing Virginia’s program fromsubstantially meeting the requirementsof Title V. Thus, the Commonwealth’sprogram is still eligible for interimapproval.

6. Affirmative Defense ProvisionsDeficient

Part 70 provides that a source mayqualify for an affirmative defense fornoncompliance with a technology basedemission limitation in ‘‘emergency’’situations if certain conditions are met.Section 70.6(g)(1) defines what kind ofsituations may qualify as‘‘emergencies,’’ and § 70.6(g)(3)provides, in part, that the affirmativedefense of emergency shall bedemonstrated through properly signed,contemporaneous operating logs, orother relevant evidence that, ‘‘(iv) thepermittee submitted notice of theemergency to the permitting authoritywithin 2 working days of the time whenemission limitations were exceeded due


to the emergency.’’ Section 70.6(g)(3)further provides that this notice wouldsatisfy the requirement for ‘‘prompt’’reporting of deviations required by§ 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(B).

In its program Virginia uses the term‘‘malfunction’’ instead of emergency.Virginia’s definition of this term isconsistent with how EPA defines‘‘emergency.’’ However, Virginia’soperating permit regulations at 9 VAC5–80–250.B.4 and 5–80–650 provide inpart that ‘‘[f]or malfunctions thatoccurred for one hour or more, thepermittee submitted to the board by thedeadlines established in B.4.a and B.4.b.a notice and a written statementcontaining a description of themalfunction, any steps taken to mitigateemissions, and corrective actions taken.The notice fulfills the requirement of 9VAC 5–80–110 F.2.b. to report promptlydeviations from permit requirements.’’(emphasis added)

Virginia allows sources to claim theaffirmative defense for malfunctionswhich last less than one hour evenwhen the source does not notify theCommonwealth of the malfunction.Thus, Virginia’s affirmative defenseprovision is less stringent than thatrequired under § 70.6(g), and sourcesmay be able to shield themselves fromliability beyond what is allowed underpart 70. EPA cannot grant full approvalto Virginia’s program until Virginiarevises its regulations to correct thisdeficiency. However, EPA does not viewthis deficiency as preventing Virginia’sprogram from substantially meeting therequirements of Title V, since it is oflimited scope and Virginia’s regulationsotherwise comport with § 70.6(g). Thus,the Commonwealth’s program is stilleligible for interim approval.

C. Other EPA Comments

1. Acid Rain Provisions

Virginia submitted Rule 8–7 to requireoperating permits for sources subject toacid rain emission reductionrequirements or limitations. Except forthe deficiencies discussed elsewhere intoday’s notice, EPA has determined thatVirginia’s Rule 8–7 for acid rain sourcesis acceptable.

2. Authority and Commitments forSection 112 Implementation

Section 112 of the CAA requires EPAto control hazardous air pollutantemissions from various categories ofsources by establishing maximumachievable control technology (MACT)standards. Upon request, EPA delegatesthe authority to implement and enforcesection 112 requirements to State andlocal agencies. Virginia requested that

EPA grant Virginia ‘‘delegation ofauthority upon approval of theoperating permit program for all Section112 programs except Section 112(r),prevention of accidental releases.’’ (Seethe VADEQ Director’s 11/12/93 lettersubmitting Virginia’s initial request forapproval of its Title V program.)Virginia demonstrated that it has in Va.Code § 10.1–1322.A. and Rule 8–5 thebroad legal authority to incorporate intopermits and to enforce applicable CAAsection 112 requirements. Virginiasupplemented its broad legal authoritywith a commitment to ‘‘develop thestate regulatory provisions as necessaryto carry out these programs and theresponsibilities under the delegationafter approval of the operating permitprogram and EPA has issued theprerequisite guidance for developmentof these Title III programs.’’ (See theVADEQ Director’s 11/12/93 lettersubmitting Virginia’s initial request forapproval of its Title V program.) (Note:States must meet their responsibilitiesunder the CAA and part 70 withoutrespect to whether or not EPA hasissued ‘‘guidance.’’ Nevertheless, EPA’sview is that it has issued sufficientguidance to enable States to develop allnecessary regulatory provisionspertaining to section 112 requirements(formerly referred to as Title IIIrequirements). With respect to CAAsection 112(r), Virginia has the authorityunder section 9 VAC 5–80–90 1C torequire that an applicant state that thesource has complied with CAA sectionsection 112(r) or state in the complianceplan that the source intends to complyand has set a schedule to do so.

When EPA has not promulgated anapplicable Federal MACT emissionlimitation, section 112(g) of the CleanAir Act requires the Title V permittingauthority (generally a State or localagency responsible for the program) todetermine a MACT emission limitationon a case by case basis. On December27, 1996, EPA promulgated regulationsat 40 CFR part 63 (61 FR 68384,December 27, 1996) (the 112(g) MACTrule) implementing certain provisions insection 112(g). The 112(g) MACT ruleassures that owners or operators of anewly constructed, reconstructed, ormodified major sources of hazardous airpollutants (HAP)(unless they arespecifically exempted) will be requiredto install effective pollution controlsduring the period before EPA canestablish a national MACT standard fora particular industry, provided they arelocated in a State with an approvedTitle V permit program. The rule doesnot require new source MACT formodifications to existing sources.

The 112(g) MACT rule establishesrequirements and procedures for ownersor operators to follow to comply withsection 112(g), and contains guidancefor permitting authorities inimplementing 112(g). Section 112(g)will be in effect in a State or localjurisdiction on the date that thepermitting authority, under Title V,places its implementing program forsection 112(g) into effect. Permittingauthorities have up to 18 months fromthe December 27, 1996, date ofpublication of the 112(g) rule to initiateimplementing programs. After the 18month transition period, if a State orlocal permitting authority is unable toinitiate a section 112(g) program, thereare two options for obtaining a MACTapproval: Either (1) the EPA will issue112(g) determinations for up to oneyear; or (2) the permitting authority willmake 112(g) determinations accordingto procedures specified at 40 CFR 63.43,and will issue a notice of MACTapproval that will become final andlegally enforceable after the EPAconcurs in writing with the permittingauthority’s determination. Requirementsfor permitting authorities are found at40 CFR 63.42.

To place its 112(g) implementingprogram into effect, the chief executiveofficer of the State or local jurisdictionmust certify to EPA that its programmeets all the requirements set forth inthe 112(g) rule, and publish a noticestating that the program has beenadopted and specifying its effectivedate. The program need not be officiallyreviewed or approved by EPA.

3. Deferral of Area SourcesVirginia’s regulations continue to

present a minor facial inconsistencywith part 70’s applicabilityrequirements with respect to permittingof area sources which EPA wishes toclarify in advance. In Virginia Rule 8–5, 9 VAC 5–80–50 D.1 provides that areasources subject to requirementspromulgated under section 111 or 112 ofthe CAA are deferred from theobligation to obtain permits, and thatthe ‘‘decision to require a permit forthese sources shall be made at the timethat a new standard is promulgated andshall be incorporated into [Virginia’sregulations] along with the listing of thenew standard.’’

EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 70.3(b)(2)provide that the decision to exempt areasources that become subject to section111 or 112 standards adopted after July21, 1992, will be made when suchstandards are promulgated. EPAinterprets this language to mean thatunless the new standard explicitlyexempts area sources from Title V


1 Document is defined to include ‘‘field notes,records of observations, findings, opinions,suggestions, conclusions, drafts, memoranda,drawings, photographs, videotape, computer-generated or electronically recorded information,maps, charts, graphs and surveys.’’ Va. Code § 10.1–1198.A.

applicability, these area sources remainsubject to the permitting requirement ofCAA section 502(a) and are required toobtain permits.

EPA was initially concerned thatowners and operators of these areasources might, based on Virginia’sregulations, mistakenly believe they arenot required to obtain permits eitherbecause: (1) EPA may have not made anexplicit decision whether to exemptthem in setting the relevant standard,thus resulting in no ‘‘decision’’ torequire them to obtain a permit beingincorporated into Virginia’s regulationsat the time the standard is incorporated;or (2) Virginia may have not yetincorporated into its regulations therelevant standard, and its associatedimplicit or explicit decision whether toexempt area sources. Regarding the firstpossible reason, EPA believes thatVirginia’s regulations can be reasonablyinterpreted to properly require suchsources to obtain permits, if Virginia’sincorporation of relevant sections 111and 112 standards is treated as havingincorporated both any explicit decisionsto exempt sources from permitting andany explicit or implicit decisions byEPA to subject them to the permittingrequirement. The VADEQ hascommitted to EPA that ‘‘In cases whereEPA has promulgated a standard undersection 111 or section 112 after July 21,1992 and failed to declare whether ornot the facility or source categorycovered by the standard is subject to theTitle V program or not, the Board inmaking decisions under 9 VAC 5–80–90D shall presume that the facility orsource category is subject to the Title Vprogram.’’ (See letter from the Directorof the VADEQ dated February 27, 1997.)Regarding the second possible area ofconfusion, Virginia’s provision does notrequire area sources to obtain permits,even if EPA has explicitly stated in thesubstantive section 111 or section 112rulemaking that they must, unless anduntil Virginia incorporates theunderlying standard into its regulations.Thus, if Virginia does not incorporatethe substantive federal rules into itsregulations, the requirement for thesesources to obtain a permit is nottriggered under Virginia’s program. TheCommonwealth has incorporated allrelevant sections 111 and 112 standardsto date, including any that extend thepermitting requirement to area sources.Thus, the potential for confusion existsonly with respect to section 111 orsection 112 standards EPA promulgatesin the future. EPA notes that Virginiahas procedures for promptincorporation of new federal standards.Since EPA has no reason to believe that

the Commonwealth will not continue totimely incorporate these standards asthey become promulgated, Virginia’sregulations do not in the Agency’s viewpresent an impediment to full approvalregarding this issue. EPA will, of course,in conducting its oversight of Virginia’simplementation of the program, watchfor any indication that delayedincorporation of substantive standardsresults in area sources not gettingpermitted in a timely manner.

4. Audit Immunity and Privilege LawAmong other minimum elements

required for approval of a Stateoperating permits program, the CAAincludes the requirement that thepermitting authority has adequateauthority to assure that sources complywith all applicable CAA requirements aswell as authority to enforce permitsthrough recovery of certain civilpenalties and appropriate criminalpenalties. Sections 502(b)(5) (A) and (E)of the CAA. In addition, Part 70explicitly requires States to have certainenforcement authorities, includingauthority to seek injunctive relief toenjoin a violation, to bring suit torestrain violations imposing animminent and substantial endangermentto public health or welfare, and torecover appropriate criminal and civilpenalties. 40 CFR 70.11. Moreover,section 113(e) of the CAA sets forthpenalty factors for EPA or a court toconsider for assessing penalties for civiland criminal violations of Title Vpermits. EPA is concerned about thepotential impact of some State privilegeand immunity laws on the ability ofsuch States to enforce federalrequirements, including those underTitle V of the CAA.

Virginia has adopted legislation thatwould provide, subject to certainconditions, for an environmentalassessment (audit) ‘‘privilege’’ forvoluntary compliance evaluationsperformed by a regulated entity. Thelegislation further addresses the relativeburden of proof for parties eitherasserting the privilege or seekingdisclosure of documents for which theprivilege is claimed. Virginia’slegislation also provides, subject tocertain conditions, for a penalty waiverfor violations of environmental lawswhen a regulated entity discovers suchviolations pursuant to a voluntarycompliance evaluation and voluntarilydiscloses such violations to theCommonwealth and takes prompt andappropriate measures to remedy theviolations.

Virginia’s Voluntary EnvironmentalAssessment Privilege, Code § 10.1–1198,provides a privilege that protects from

disclosure documents 1 and informationabout the content of those documentsthat are the product of a voluntaryenvironmental assessment. Theprivilege does not extend to documentsor information that are: (1) Generated ordeveloped before the commencement ofa voluntary environmental assessment;(2) that are prepared independently ofthe assessment process; (3) thatdemonstrate a clear, imminent andsubstantial danger to the public healthor environment; or (4) that are requiredby law. Particularly since documentsrequired by Title V of the Act and bypart 70 are documents ‘‘required bylaw,’’ EPA interprets theCommonwealth’s privilege as notextending to Title V requireddocuments. Virginia’s Office of theAttorney General has submitted a legalopinion which supports EPA’sunderstanding that theCommonwealth’s Title V programrequirements for compliancemonitoring, reporting of violations,record keeping, and compliancecertification, together render theprivilege inapplicable to complianceevaluations, at a Title V source, of theCommonwealth’s Title V requirements.

Virginia’s immunity law, Va. Code§ 10.1–1199, provides that ‘‘[t]o theextent consistent with requirementsimposed by federal law,’’ any personmaking a voluntary disclosure ofinformation to a state agency regardinga violation of an environmental statute,regulation, permit, or administrativeorder is granted immunity fromadministrative or civil penalty.

The Office of the Attorney General’slegal opinion states that the phrase ‘‘tothe extent consistent with requirementsimposed by federal law’’ renders thisstatute inapplicable to Title Venforcement. No person can claim or beaccorded immunity from anyenforcement action that involves theCommonwealth’s Title V programbecause to do so would be inconsistentwith the requirements of Title V of thefederal Clean Air Act. Thus, the statuteby its terms cannot apply to sourcesoperating under a Title V permit.’’ Thus,EPA is not listing any conditions onVirginia’s Title V program approval forthis issue because the legislation willnot preclude the Commonwealth fromenforcing its Title V permit programconsistent with the CAA’s requirements.


5. Variance Provision

While not an issue for purposes ofprogram approval, it should be notedthat Virginia has the authority to issuea variance from requirements imposedby Virginia law. The variance provisionat Va. Code § 10.1–1307.C. empowersthe Air Pollution Control Board, after apublic hearing, to grant a local variancefrom any regulation adopted by theboard. EPA regards this provision aswholly external to the programsubmitted for approval under Part 70,and consequently is proposing to takeno action on this provision of Virginialaw. EPA has no authority to approveprovisions of State law, such as thevariance provision referred to, whichare inconsistent with the CAA. EPAdoes not recognize the ability of apermitting authority to grant relief fromthe duty to comply with a federallyenforceable permit, except where suchrelief is consistent with the applicablerequirements of the CAA and is grantedthrough procedures allowed by Part 70.EPA reserves the right to enforce theterms of the permit where thepermitting authority purports to grantrelief from the duty to comply with apermit in a manner inconsistent withthe CAA and Part 70 procedures.

6. Permit Fee Changes

EPA notes that Virginia Rule 8–6includes a provision, at 9 VAC 5–80–40D. and E., which allows Virginia toassess a fee of less than $25 per ton(1989 dollars) adjusted for inflation, ifVirginia determines that it would collectmore money than required to fund itsTitle V program if it assessed the full$25 per ton fee (1989 dollars), adjustedfor inflation. If Virginia chooses in thefuture to collect a fee of less than $25(1989 dollars), adjusted for inflation, itsfee assessment would no longer meetthe requirement for presumed adequacyunder 40 CFR 70.9. Accordingly,Virginia would trigger the requirementsunder 40 CFR 70.9(b)(5) that it provideEPA with a detailed accounting that itsfee schedule meets the requirements of40 CFR 70.9(b)(1).

Before the Commonwealth assesses afee lower than the presumptiveminimum of $25 per ton (1989 dollars),adjusted for inflation, it must obtainEPA approval of such a fee. EPA wouldapprove such a fee if Virginia submitteda detailed accounting showing that thefee would result in the collection ofsufficient funds to run a fully adequateTitle V program. This requirement forEPA approval of any fee lower than thepresumptive minimum is consistentwith the requirements of 40 CFR 70.9,and is implied by 9 VAC 5–80–40 D.,

which states that ‘‘Any adjustmentsmade to the annual permit program feeshall be made within the constraints of40 CFR 70.9.’’

7. Title I ModificationsThe EPA proposed to define ‘‘Title I

modification’’ in the August 31, 1995Operating Permits Program and FederalOperating Permits Program proposedrule. The EPA proposed to define TitleI modification to mean any modificationunder part C and D of Title I or sections111(a)(4), 112(a)(5), or 112(g) of the Actand regulations promulgated pursuantto § 61.07 of part 61. If the definition of‘‘Title I modification’’ is finalized asproposed in the August 31, 1995,proposed rule, the State’s definitionwould be consistent with part 70. If thedefinition of ‘‘Title I modification’’ ischanged from that proposed in theAugust 31, 1995, proposed rule toinclude minor new source reviewchanges, the Commonwealth will needto revise its permit regulation to beconsistent with part 70.

IV. Proposed AactionEPA is proposing to grant interim

approval to the operating permitsprogram submitted by Virginia, and issoliciting public comment on whetheror not such approval is appropriate. Theportions of the submittal for which EPAis proposing interim approval consist ofthe operating permit and operatingpermit fee regulations submitted onSeptember 10, 1996, the acid rainoperating permit regulations submittedon September 12, 1996, and other non-regulatory documentation. If EPA doesgrant such approval, Virginia will berequired to correct all of the remainingdeficiencies in its program which arediscussed earlier in this notice beforeEPA could grant full approval toVirginia’s program. The interimapproval, which would not berenewable, would extend for a period oftwo years. During the interim approvalperiod Virginia would be protected fromsanctions for failure to have a program,and EPA would not be obligated topromulgate a Federal permits programin the Commonwealth. Permits issuedunder a program with interim approvalhave full standing with respect to Part70, and the one year time period forsubmittal of permit applications bysubject sources begins upon interimapproval, as does the three year timeperiod for processing the initial permitapplications.

Requirements for approval, specifiedin 40 CFR 70.4(b), encompass section112(l)(5) requirements for approval of aprogram for delegation of section 112standards as promulgated by EPA as

they apply to Part 70 sources. Section112(l)(5) requires that the State’sprogram contain adequate authorities,adequate resources for implementation,and an expeditious complianceschedule, which are also requirementsunder Part 70. Therefore, EPA is alsoproposing to grant approval undersection 112(l)(5) and 40 CFR 63.91 ofthe State’s program for receivingdelegation of section 112 standards thatare unchanged from Federal standardsas promulgated. This program fordelegations only applies to sourcescovered by the Part 70 program.

V. Sanctions StayedPursuant to section 502(d)(2)(A) of the

CAA, EPA may, at its discretion, applyany of the sanctions in section 179(b) atany time following the effective date ofa final disapproval. The availablesanctions include a prohibition on theapproval by the Secretary ofTransportation of certain highwayprojects or the awarding of certainfederal highway funding, and arequirement that new or modifiedstationary sources or emissions units forwhich a permit is required under Part Dof Title I of the CAA achieve anemissions reductions-to-increases ratioof at least 2-to-1. In addition, EPA isrequired by section 502(d)(2)(B) of theCAA to apply one of the sanctions insection 179(b), as selected by theAdministrator, on the date 18 monthsafter the effective date of a finaldisapproval, unless prior to that date theState had submitted a revised operatingpermits program and EPA haddetermined that it corrected thedeficiencies that prompted the finaldisapproval. Moreover, if theAdministrator finds a lack of good faithon the part of the State, both sanctionsare to apply after the expiration of the18-month period until theAdministrator determines that the Statehas come into compliance. In all cases,if, six months after EPA applies the firstsanction, the State has not submitted arevised program that EPA hasdetermined corrects the disapprovedprogram’s deficiencies, a secondsanction is required. Finally, if EPA hasnot granted full approval to the State’sprogram by November 15, 1995, and theState’s program at that point does nothave interim approval status, EPA mustpromulgate, administer and enforce aFederal permits program for the State onthat date.

EPA first disapproved Virginia’soperating permits program in a FederalRegister notice published on December5, 1994, which became effective onJanuary 5, 1995. As a result, EPA’sauthority to apply discretionary


sanctions to Virginia arose on January 5,1995, and the 18-month period beforewhich EPA is required to applysanctions also began on that date. EPAwas required to apply the first sanctionon July 5, 1996 and the second sanctionon January 5, 1997, unless by thosedates EPA had determined that Virginiahad corrected each of the deficienciesthat prompted EPA’s originaldisapproval. EPA interprets the CAA torequire the Administrator to select byrulemaking which sanction to applyfirst, before mandatory sanctions mayactually be imposed. These sanctionshave not been applied in Virginiabecause EPA has not yet published sucha rule covering deficiencies under TitleV.

EPA’s sanctions policy for applyingsanctions for State Title V OperatingPermits Program largely follows theapproach under Title I of the Act (see 40CFR 52.31, 59 FR 39832 (August 4,1994). Update to Sanctions Policy forState Title V Operating PermitsPrograms, John S. Seitz, Director Officeof Air Quality Planning and Standards,(March 28, 1995).

Based on this proposed approval ofthe Virginia Title V operating permitsprogram, EPA is making an interim finaldetermination by this action that theCommonwealth has corrected thedeficiencies prompting the originaldisapproval of the Virginia Title Voperating permits program. EPA hasdetermined that it is more likely thannot that the Commonwealth hascorrected the deficiencies that promptedthe original disapproval of the Virginiaoperating permits program. This interimfinal determination will stay theimplementation of sanctions unless anduntil either this proposed approval isfinalized or is withdrawn.

Although this action regardingsanctions is effective upon publication,EPA will take comment on this interimfinal determination as well as on EPA’sproposed interim approval of theCommonwealth’s submittal. EPA willpublish a final notice taking intoconsideration any comments receivedon EPA’s proposed action and this

interim final action. EPA hasdetermined that it is appropriate to giveimmediate effect to this interim finaldetermination that Virginia hascorrected its prior disapprovaldeficiencies because it would not be inthe public interest to leave Virginiavulnerable to sanctions pendingfinalization of the proposed approval.See, e.g., 59 FR 39832, 39838 and39849–50 (August 4, 1994).

Today EPA is also providing thepublic with an opportunity to commenton this interim final determination. If,based on any comments on this actionand any comments on EPA’s proposedinterim approval of Virginia’s Title Vsubmittal, EPA determines that theVirginia’s Title V submittal is notapprovable and this final action wasinappropriate, EPA will take furtheraction to disapprove the Title Vsubmittal. If EPA’s proposed approval ofthe Virginia Title V submittal isreversed, then Virginia would remainvulnerable to sanctions under section502(d)(2)(A) of the CAA.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Request for Public Comments

The EPA is requesting comments onthis proposed interim approval. Copiesof the State’s submittal and otherinformation relied upon for theproposed interim approval arecontained in a docket maintained at theEPA Regional Office. The docket is anorganized and complete file of all theinformation submitted to, or otherwiseconsidered by, EPA in the developmentof this proposed interim approval. Theprincipal purposes of the docket are: (1)To allow interested parties a means toidentify and locate documents so thatthey can effectively participate in theapproval process; and (2) to serve as therecord in case of judicial review. TheEPA will consider any commentsreceived by April 17, 1997.

B. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budgethas exempted this action from ExecutiveOrder 12866 review.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The EPA’s actions under section 502of the CAA do not create any newrequirements, but simply addressoperating permits programs submittedto satisfy the requirements of 40 CFRPart 70. Because this action does notimpose any new requirements, it doesnot significantly impact a substantialnumber of small entities.

D. Federal Mandates

Under Section 202 of the UnfundedMandates Reform Act of 1995(’’Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signedinto law on March 22, 1995, EPA mustprepare a budgetary impact statement toaccompany any proposed or final actionthat includes a Federal mandate thatmay result in estimated costs to State,local, or tribal governments in theaggregate; or to the private sector, of$100 million or more. Under section205, EPA must consider the most cost-effective and least burdensomealternative that achieves the objectivesof the rule and is consistent withstatutory requirements. Section 203requires EPA to establish a plan forinforming and advising any smallgovernments that may be significantlyor uniquely impacted by the rule. ThisFederal action proposes to approveVirginia’s pre-existing Title V program,and imposes no new Federalrequirements. Accordingly, this actionwould not impose a federal mandatewhich would result in additional costsfor State, local, or tribal governments, orfor the private sector.


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

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.Dated: March 7, 1997.

W. Michael McCabe,Regional Administrator,Region III.[FR Doc. 97–6826 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTERcontains documents other than rules orproposed rules that are applicable to thepublic. Notices of hearings and investigations,committee meetings, agency decisions andrulings, delegations of authority, filing ofpetitions and applications and agencystatements of organization and functions areexamples of documents appearing in thissection.

Notices Federal Register

12788

Vol. 62, No. 52


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

[Docket No. FV97–925–1 NC]

Notice of Request for Extension andRevision of a Currently ApprovedInformation Collection

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,USDA.ACTION: Notice and request forcomments.

SUMMARY: In accordance with thePaperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44U.S.C. Chapter 35), this noticeannounces the Agricultural MarketingService’s (AMS) intention to request anextension for and revision to a currentlyapproved information collection forGrapes Grown in a Designated Area ofSoutheastern California, MarketingOrder No. 925.DATES: Comments on this notice must bereceived by May 19, 1997 to be assuredof consideration.ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR COMMENTS:Contact Charles L. Rush, MarketingOrder Administration Branch, F & V,AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 96456, room2523-S, Washington, D.C., 20090–6456,or FAX (202) 720–5698; or Rose M.Aguayo, California Marketing FieldOffice, Marketing Order AdministrationBranch, F&V, AMS, USDA, 2202Monterey Street, suite 102B, Fresno,California 93721; telephone: (209) 487–5901, Fax # (209) 487–5906.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:Title: Grapes Grown in a Designated

Area of Southeastern California,Marketing Order 925.

OMB Number: 0581–0109.Expiration Date of Approval: August

31, 1997.Type of Request: Extension and

revision of currently approvedinformation collection.

Abstract: Marketing order programsprovide an opportunity for producers of

fresh fruits, vegetables and specialtycrops, in a specified production area, towork together to solve marketingproblems that cannot be solvedindividually. Order regulations helpensure adequate supplies of high qualityproduct and adequate returns toproducers. Under the AgriculturalMarketing Agreement Act of 1937(AMAA), as amended (7 U.S.C. 601–674), industries enter into marketingorder programs. The Secretary ofAgriculture is authorized to oversee theorder’s operations and issue regulationsrecommended by a committee ofrepresentatives from each commodityindustry.

The information collectionrequirements in this request areessential to carry out the intent of theAMAA, to provide the respondents thetype of service they request, and toadminister the table grape marketingorder program, which has beenoperating since 1984.

The table grape marketing orderauthorizes the issuance of qualityregulations and inspectionrequirements. Regulatory provisionsapply to table grapes shipped withinand outside of the production area,except those specifically exempt. Theorder also has authority for productionand marketing research anddevelopment projects.

The order, and rules and regulationsissued thereunder, authorize theCalifornia Desert Grape AdministrativeCommittee (Committee), the agencyresponsible for local administration ofthe order, to require handlers andgrowers to submit certain information.Much of this information is compiled inaggregate and provided to the industryto assist in marketing decisions.

The Committee has developed formsas a means for persons to file requiredinformation with the Committee relatingto table grape supplies, shipments,dispositions, and other informationneeded to effectively carry out thepurpose of the Act and order. Tablegrapes may be shipped beginning inApril and ending in August, and theseforms are utilized accordingly. A USDAform is used to allow growers to vote onamendments to or continuance of themarketing order. In addition, table grapegrowers and handlers who arenominated by their peers to serve asrepresentatives on the Committee must

file nomination forms with theSecretary.

The forms covered under thisinformation collection require theminimum information necessary toeffectively carry out the requirements ofthe order, and their use is necessary tofulfill the intent of the Act as expressedin the order.

The information collected is usedonly by authorized representatives ofthe USDA, including AMS, Fruit andVegetable Division regional andheadquarter’s staff, and authorizedemployees of the Committee.Authorized Committee employees andthe industry are the primary users of theinformation and AMS is the secondaryuser.

Estimate of Burden: Public reportingburden for this collection of informationis estimated to average 0.078 hours perresponse.

Respondents: Table grape growers andhandlers in the designated productionarea in California.

Estimated Number of Respondents:274.

Estimated Number of Responses perRespondent: 1.850.

Estimated Total Annual Burden onRespondents: 39.58 hours.

Comments are invited on: (1) whetherthe proposed collection of informationis necessary for the proper performanceof the functioning of the table grapemarketing order program, includingwhether the information will havepractical utility; (2) the accuracy of thecollection burden estimate and thevalidity of methodology andassumptions used in estimating theburden of respondents; (3) ways toenhance the quality, utility, and clarityof the information to be collected; and(4) ways to minimize the burden ofcollection of information on those whoare to respond, including the use ofappropriate automated, electronic,mechanical, or other technologicalcollection techniques or other forms ofinformation technology.

Comments should reference OMB No.0581–0109 and Grapes Grown in aDesignated Area of SoutheasternCalifornia Marketing Order No. 925, andbe mailed to USDA in care of Charles L.Rush at the above address. Commentsshould reference the docket number andthe date and page number of this issueof the Federal Register. All commentsreceived will be available for public

12789Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 52 / Tuesday, March 18, 1997 / Notices

inspection during regular businesshours at the same address.

All responses to this notice will besummarized and included in the requestfor OMB approval. All comments willalso become a matter of public record.

Dated: March 12, 1997.Robert C. Keeney,Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.[FR Doc. 97–6784 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

[Docket No. FV97–927–1 NC]


AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,USDA.ACTION: Proposed collection; commentsrequested.

SUMMARY: In accordance with thePaperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44U.S.C. Chapter 35), this noticeannounces the Agricultural MarketingService’s (AMS) intention to request anextension for and revision to a currentlyapproved information collection forWinter Pears Grown in Oregon,Washington, and California, MarketingOrder No. 927.DATES: Comments on this notice must bereceived by May 19, 1997 to be assuredof consideration.ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR COMMENTS:Contact Teresa L. Hutchinson,Marketing Specialist, NorthwestMarketing Field Office, Fruit andVegetable Division, AMS, USDA, 1220SW Third Avenue, Room 369, Portland,OR 97204, Telephone: (503) 326–2055,Fax: (503) 326–7440.


Title: Winter Pears Grown in Oregon,Washington, and California, MarketingOrder 927.

OMB Number: 0581–0089.Expiration Date of Approval:

September 30, 1997.Type of Request: Extension and

revision of a currently approvedinformation collection.

Abstract: Marketing order programsprovide an opportunity for producers offresh fruits, vegetables and specialtycrops, in a specified production area, towork together to solve marketingproblems that cannot be solvedindividually. Order regulations helpensure adequate supplies of high qualityproduct and adequate returns toproducers. Under the AgriculturalMarketing Agreement Act of 1937(AMAA), as amended (7 U.S.C. 601–674), marketing order programs are

established if favored in referendumamong producers. The handling of thecommodity is regulated. The Secretaryof Agriculture is authorized to overseethe order’s operations and issueregulations recommended by acommittee of representatives from eachcommodity industry.

The information collectionrequirements in this request areessential to carry out the intent of theAMAA, to provide the respondents thetype of service they request, and toadminister the winter pear marketingorder program, which has beenoperating since 1939.

The winter pear marketing orderauthorizes the issuance of grade, size,quality, inspection, and reportingrequirements for any variety of winterpear. Currently grade, size, quality, andinspection requirements are not beingused. The marketing order also providesauthority to fund projects involvingproduction research, marketing researchand development, and marketingpromotion, including paid advertising.The order, and rules and regulationsissued thereunder, authorize the WinterPear Control Committee (committee),which is responsible for locallyadministering the program, to requirehandlers and growers to submit certaininformation. Much of the information iscompiled in aggregate and provided tothe industry to assist in marketingdecisions.

The Committee has developed formsas a convenience to persons who arerequired to file information with theCommittee relating to winter pearproduction and supplies, shipments,inventories, and other informationneeded to effectively carry out thepurposes of the AMAA and the order. AUSDA form is used to allow growers tovote on amendments or continuance ofthe marketing order. In addition, winterpear growers and handlers who arenominated by their peers to serve asrepresentatives on the committee mustfile nomination forms with theSecretary.

These forms require the minimuminformation necessary to effectivelycarry out the requirements of the order,and their use is necessary to fulfill theintent of the AMAA as expressed in theorder.

The information collected is usedonly by authorized representatives ofthe USDA, including AMS, Fruit andVegetable Division regional andheadquarter’s staff, and authorizedemployees of the committee. Authorizedcommittee employees and the industryare the primary users of the informationand AMS is the secondary user.

Estimate of Burden: Public reportingburden for this collection of informationis estimated to average 0.7546 hours perresponse.

Respondents: Winter pear producersand for-profit businesses handling freshwinter pears produced in Oregon,Washington, and California.

Estimated Number of Respondents:1,890.

Estimated Number of Responses perRespondent: 2.4714

Estimated Total Annual Burden onRespondents: 3,570 hours.

Comments are invited on: (1) Whetherthe proposed collection of informationis necessary for the proper performanceof the functions of the agency, includingwhether the information will havepractical utility; (2) the accuracy of theagency’s estimate of the burden of theproposed collection of information,including the validity of themethodology and assumptions used; (3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, andclarity of the information to becollected; and (4) ways to minimize theburden of the collection of informationon those who are to respond, includingthrough the use of appropriateautomated, electronic, mechanical, orother technological collectiontechniques or other forms of informationtechnology.

Comments should reference OMB No.0581–0089 and the Winter PearMarketing Order No. 927, and be sent toUSDA in care of Teresa Hutchinson atthe address above. All commentsreceived will be available for publicinspection during regular businesshours at the same address.

All responses to this notice will besummarized and included in the requestfor OMB approval. All comments willbecome a matter of public record.

Dated: March 12, 1997.Robert C. Keeney,Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.[FR Doc. 97–6785 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

Agricultural Research Service

Notice of Intent to Seek Approval toCollect Information

AGENCY: Agricultural Research Service,USDA.ACTION: Notice and request forcomments.

SUMMARY: In accordance with thePaperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub.L. 104–13) and Office of Managementand Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFRpart 1320 (60 FR 44978, August 29,1995), this notice announces the

12790 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 52 / Tuesday, March 18, 1997 / Notices

Agricultural Research Service’s (ARS)intention to request approval for a newinformation collection from applicantsfor Federal financial assistance, in orderto ensure compliance with civil rightslaws and regulations.DATES: Comments on this notice must bereceived by May 22, 1997 to be assuredof consideration.ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR COMMENTS:Contact Gene P. Spory, AssociateDeputy Administrator, FinancialManagement, Agricultural ResearchService, U.S. Department of Agriculture,6303 Ivy Lane, Room 820, Greenbelt,Md. 20770–1433, (301) 344–8106.


Title: Application for ARS funding forgrants and assistance-type cooperativeagreements.

Type of Request: Approval to collectinformation regarding applicants forFederally funded programs.

Abstract: ARS’s Federally assistedprograms consist of the following typesof extramural awards executed underthe requirements of Public Law 95–224,Federal Grant and CooperativeAgreement Act of 1977:

1. Grants and Assistance-TypeCooperative Agreements awarded insupport of basic or applied research.

2. Grants awarded in support ofresearch conferences and symposiums,and other non-research activity.

The U.S. Department of Justice, CivilRights Division, has determined thatARS has the responsibility to collectsuch data from entities that haveapplied or received Federal assistancein the form of grants or assistance-typecooperative agreements in order toensure compliance with Title VI of theCivil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of theEducation Amendments of 1972, andthe Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Together,these acts prohibit discrimination on thebasis of race, color, national origin, sex,or disability in any program receivingFederal financial assistance.

ARS’s data collection duties arepursuant to 28 CFR part 42 §§ 42.401–42.415), which the Department ofJustice references as the legal basisregarding Title VI for all Federalagencies extending Federal assistance.The purpose of part 42 is ‘‘to insure thatFederal agencies which extend financialassistance properly enforce Title VI ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964.’’ Part 42further states that Federal agencieswhich extend financial assistance havethe responsibility to enforce Title VI, inaccordance with the authority underExecutive Order 12250. In addition, theDepartment of Agriculture’s Title VIregulations at 7 CFR 15.5(a) require the

ARS, as the administering agency toconduct compliance reviews of thepractices of recipients of ARS grants andassistance-type cooperative agreementsto determine compliance withrequirements of Title VI.

Furthermore, the Department ofAgriculture is responsible for ensuringcompliance with Title IX pursuant toExecutive Order 12250, 45 CFR 86.1 etseq., and 7 CFR 15a.1 et seq., andcompliance with the Rehabilitation Actpursuant to Executive Order 12250, 28CFR 41.1 et seq., and 7 CFR 15b.1 et seq.

Data requested to assure compliancewith these Civil Rights Acts andregulations include (1) race, ethnic, sex,and disability information on employeesconducting the research, andmembership of planning and advisorybodies, and (2) other informationnecessary to effectively enforce Title VI,Title IX, and the Rehabilitation Act.

Information to be obtained from thepublic includes: Project Proposal;Application for Funding; BudgetInformation; Other Federal FinancialAssistance Support; Research AssuranceStatement; Civil Rights AssuranceCertification; Certification RegardingDebarment and Suspension;Certification Regarding Drug-FreeWorkplace; Certification RequirementsRelated to Lobbying.

Estimate of Burden: Public reportingburden for this collection of informationis estimated to average four hours perset, including the time for reviewinginstructions, searching existing datasources, gathering and maintaining thedata needed, and completing andreviewing the collection of information.

Respondents: Universities, animaland plant research scientists andindividuals who perform researchrelevant to the mission of ARS.

Estimated Number of respondents:200.

Estimated Total Annual Burden onRespondents: 800 hours.

Copies of the information to becollected can be obtained from Gene P.Spory, Associate Deputy Administrator,Financial Management, at (301) 344–8106.

Comments: Comments are invited on(a) whether the proposed collection ofinformation is necessary for the properperformance of the functions of theagency, including whether theinformation will have practical utility;(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimateof the burden of the proposed collectionof information including the validity ofthe methodology and assumptions used;(c) ways to enhance the quality, utility,and clarity of the information to becollected; and (d) ways to minimize theburden on those who are to respond,

such as through the use of appropriateautomated, electronic, mechanical, orother technological collectiontechniques. Comments may be sent toGene P. Spory, Associate DeputyAdministrator, Financial Management,ARS, U.S. Department of Agriculture,6303 Ivy Lane, Room 820, Greenbelt,MD 20770–1433. All responses to thisnotice will be summarized and includedin the request for OMB approval. Allcomments will also become a matter ofpublic record.

Signed at Washington, D.C.Gene P. Spory,Associate Deputy Administrator, FinancialManagement.[FR Doc. 97–6731 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3410–03–M

Commodity Credit Corporation


AGENCY: Commodity Credit Corporation,USDA.ACTION: Notice and request forcomments.

SUMMARY: In accordance with thePaperwork Reduction Act of 1995, thisnotice announces the intention of theCommodity Credit Corporation (CCC) torequest an extension for, and revisionof, an information collection currentlyin effect with respect to the Standardsfor Approval of Warehouses for grain,rice, dry edible beans, and seed.DATES: Comments on this notice must bereceived on or before May 19, 1997 tobe assured consideration.ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR COMMENTS:Contact Steve Closson, Chief, USDA,Farm Service Agency, Warehouse andInventory Division, Storage ContractBranch, STOP 0553, PO Box 2415,Washington, D.C. 20250–2415, (202)720–7434.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:Title: Standards for Approval of

Warehouses, Reporting andRecordkeeping Requirements.

OMB Number: 0560–0009.Expiration Date: June 30, 1997.Type of Request: Extension and

revision of a currently approvedinformation collection.

Abstract: The information collectedunder Office of Management and Budget(OMB) Number 0560–0009, as identifiedabove, allows CCC to effectivelyadminister storage agreements. Theseagreements are authorized by the CCCCharter Act. 15 U.S.C. 714 note. Theforms allow CCC to contract for


warehouse storage and related servicesand to monitor and enforce allprovisions of 7 CFR part 1421. Theseforms are furnished to interestedwarehouse operators or used bywarehouse examiners employed by CCCto secure and record information aboutthe warehouse operator and thewarehouse. The general purpose of theforms is to provide those charged withexecuting contracts for CCC a basis todetermine whether the warehouse andthe warehouse operator meet applicablestandards for a contract and todetermine compliance once the contractis approved.

Estimate of Burden: Public reportingburden for this information collection isestimated to average .67 hours perresponse.

Respondents: Warehouse Operators.Estimated Number of Respondents:

3,130.Estimated Number of Responses per

Respondent: 1.7.Estimated Total Annual Burden on

Respondents: 379,240 hours.Proposed topics for comment include:

(a) Whether the continued collection ofinformation is necessary for the properperformance of the functions of theagency, including whether theinformation will have practical utility;(b) the accuracy of the CCC’s estimate ofburden including the validity of themethodology and assumptions used; (c)enhancing the quality, utility, andclarity of the information collected; or(d) minimizing the burden of thecollection of the information on thosewho are to respond, including throughthe use of appropriate automated,electronic, mechanical, or othertechnological collection techniques orother forms of information technology.Comments should be sent to the DeskOfficer for Agriculture, Office ofInformation and Regulatory Affairs,Office of Management and Budget,Washington, D.C. 20503 and to SteveClosson, Chief, USDA, Farm ServiceAgency, Warehouse and InventoryDivision, Storage Contract Branch,STOP 0553, P.O. Box 2415, Washington,D.C. 20250–2415, (202) 720–7434.

Signed at Washington, DC, on March 7,1997.Bruce R. Weber,Executive Vice President, Commodity CreditCorporation.[FR Doc. 97–6733 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3410–05–P

Farm Service Agency

List of Warehouses and Availability ofList of Cancellations and/orTerminations

AGENCY: Farm Service Agency, USDAACTION: Notice of publication

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given thatthe Farm Service Agency has publisheda list of warehouses licensed under theUnited States Warehouse Act (7 U.S.C.241 et seq.) as of December 31, 1996, asrequired by section 26 of that Act (7U.S.C. 266). A list of cancellations orterminations that occurred duringcalendar year 1996 is also available.Interested parties may obtain a copy ofeither list from the person listed below.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs.Judy Fry, Farm Service Agency,Warehouse and Inventory Division, U.S.Department of Agriculture, STOP: 0553,P.O. Box 2415, 5962-South AgricultureBuilding, Washington, D.C. 20250–2415,telephone: 202–720–3822.

Signed at Washington, D.C., on March 10,1997.Bruce R. Weber,Administrator, Farm Service Agency.[FR Doc. 97–6734 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3410–05–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Docket 12–97]

Foreign-Trade Zone 18, San Jose, CA,Request for Manufacturing Authority,Solectron Corporation Plant(Electronic/Computer/Telecommunication Equipment), SanJose, California

An application has been submitted tothe Foreign-Trade Zones Board (theBoard) by San Jose DistributionServices, operator of FTZ 18, pursuantto § 400.32(b)(1)(ii) of the Board’sregulations (15 CFR part 400),requesting authority on behalf ofSolectron Corporation, to ‘‘kit’’/assemble computer/telecommunicationsubassemblies and products within FTZ18. It was formally filed on March 7,1997.

Solectron Corporation is a contractassembler/manufacturer of computer/telecommunication subassemblies andproducts, specializing in the productionof complex printed circuit boards.Solectron plans to use a site (up to20,000 sq. ft.) within FTZ 18 to conducta range of activities under zoneprocedures as an adjunct to operations

at its Milpitas, California, plant. Therequested scope of authority formanufacturing under zone proceduresparallels the range of activity conductedat the Milpitas plant.

Solectron is proposing to ‘‘kit’’/assemble a variety of computer/telecommunication equipment andsubassemblies within FTZ 18, includingprinted circuit board assemblies,computers and components,telecommunication equipment andcomponents, fax machines and modems.

Foreign components, which willaccount for an estimated 40 to 50percent of material value, may includeprinted circuit boards, conductors,resistors, transmitters, diodes,transistors, capacitors, fuses, circuitbreakers, switches, surge suppressors,motor starters, modems, facsimilemachines and parts, routers andbridgers, computer andtelecommunications equipment parts. Itis estimated that some 40 percent of theFTZ production would be exported.

Zone procedures would exemptSolectron from Customs duty paymentson foreign components used inproduction for export. On domesticsales, the company would be able tochoose the duty rate (duty-free to 8.5%,with most less than 2.7%) that appliesto the finished product. The duty rateson foreign components range from duty-free to 9.8% percent. The applicationindicates that zone procedures willimprove the plant’s internationalcompetitiveness and will help increaseexports.

Public comment is invited frominterested parties. Submissions (originaland 3 copies) shall be addressed to theBoard’s Executive Secretary at theaddress below. The closing period fortheir receipt is May 19, 1997. Rebuttalcomments in response to materialsubmitted during the foregoing periodmay be submitted during the subsequent15-day period to May 2, 1997.

A copy of the request will be availablefor public inspection at the followinglocations:U.S. Department of Commerce, Export

Assistance Center, 5201 GreatAmerican Pkwy., #456, Santa Clara,California 95054

Office of the Executive Secretary,Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room3716, U.S. Department of Commerce,14th and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,Washington, DC 20230Dated: March 10, 1997.

John J. Da Ponte, Jr.,Executive Secretary.[FR Doc. 97–6681 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P


[Docket 14–97]

Foreign-Trade Zone No. 143—Sacramento, CA Area, Application forSubzone Status, Hewlett-PackardCompany (Computers and RelatedElectronic Products), Sacramento, CAArea

An application has been submitted tothe Foreign-Trade Zones Board (theBoard) by the Sacramento-Yolo PortDistrict, grantee of FTZ 143, requestingspecial-purpose subzone status for themanufacturing and distribution facilities(computers, printers, measurementdevices, medical products and relatedproducts) of the Hewlett-PackardCompany (Hewlett-Packard), located inthe Sacramento, California area. Theapplication was submitted pursuant tothe Foreign-Trade Zones Act, asamended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), and theregulations of the Board (15 CFR part400). It was formally filed on March 10,1997.

The Hewlett-Packard facilities arelocated at three sites totaling 569.2 acres(5.9 mil. sq. ft. at completion) in theSacramento, California area:Site 1 (500.2 acres, 1,233,800 sq. ft. plus

2,900,000 sq. ft. proposed)—mainmanufacturing plant, 8000 FoothillsBoulevard, Roseville, California;

Site 2 (26.7 acres, 515,600 sq. ft.)—warehouse/processing facility, 2975–3055–3071 Venture Drive, Lincoln,California;

Site 3 (42.3 acres, 800,000 sq. ft. plus400,000 sq. ft. proposed)—warehouse/processing facility, 2222 East BeamerStreet/ 221 Hanson Way, Woodland,California.The facilities (4,000 employees) are

used for storage, manufacture, anddistribution for import and export ofcomputers and related devices, printers,electronic test and measurementdevices, electronic medical products,and related electronic products andcomponents. A number of componentsare purchased from abroad (anestimated 40% of value onmanufactured products), including:printed circuit boards, silicon wafers,rectifiers, integrated circuits, memorymodules, CD–ROM drives, disk drives,scanners, hard drives, keyboards,monitors/displays (CRT and LCD type),LEDs, speakers, microphones, belts,valves, bearings, plastic materials,industrial chemicals, sensors, filters,resistors, transducers, fuses, plugs,relays, ink cartridges, toner cartridges,switches, fasteners, cards, transformers,DC/electric motors, magnets, modems,batteries, cabinets, power supplies,cables, copper wire, power cords,optical fiber, casters, cases, labels, and

packaging materials (1997 duty range:free—14.2%).

Zone procedures would exemptHewlett-Packard from Customs dutypayments on foreign components usedin export production. On its domesticsales, Hewlett-Packard would be able tochoose the lower duty rate that appliesto the finished products (free—13.2%)for the foreign components noted above.The application indicates that thesavings from zone procedures wouldhelp improve the plant’s internationalcompetitiveness.

In accordance with the Board’sregulations, a member of the FTZ Staffhas been designated examiner toinvestigate the application and report tothe Board.

Public comment on the application isinvited from interested parties.Submissions (original and three copies)shall be addressed to the Board’sExecutive Secretary at the addressbelow. The closing period for theirreceipt is May 19, 1997. Rebuttalcomments in response to materialsubmitted during the foregoing periodmay be submitted during the subsequent15-day period to June 2, 1997.

A copy of the application and theaccompanying exhibits will be availablefor public inspection at each of thefollowing locations:Office of the Executive Secretary,

Foreign-Trade Zones Board, U.S.Department of Commerce, Room3716, 14th and Pennsylvania Avenue,NW., Washington, DC 20230

Office of the Port Director, Sacramento-Yolo Port District, 1251 Beacon Blvd.,Suite 200, West Sacramento, CA95691Dated: March 10, 1997.


[Docket 11–97]

Foreign-Trade Zone 26—Atlanta, GA,Area, Expansion of ManufacturingAuthority–Subzone 26D, YamahaMotor Manufacturing Corporation ofAmerica Plant (All-Terrain Vehicles),Newnan, GA

An application has been submitted tothe Foreign-Trade Zones Board (theBoard) by the Georgia Foreign-TradeZone, Inc., grantee of FTZ 26, requestingon behalf of the Yamaha MotorManufacturing Corporation of America(YMMC), operator of FTZ Subzone 26D,YMMC plant, Newnan, Georgia, anexpansion of the scope of authority toinclude the manufacture of all-terrain

vehicles under FTZ procedures withinSubzone 26D. It was formally filed onMarch 6, 1997.

Subzone 26D was approved by theBoard in 1989 with activity granted forthe manufacture of personal water craftand golf cars (Board Order 433, 54 FR24370, 6–7–89). The manufacturingauthority for golf cars is subject to arestriction that requires privilegedforeign status (19 CFR 146.41) to beelected on all foreign components.

YMMC is now requesting authority toexpand the scope of FTZ authority toinclude the manufacture of four wheel,all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) under FTZprocedures for the U.S. market andexport. The plant’s manufacturing spacewill be increased from 400,000 to540,000 square feet within the 238-acreplant site. The new all-terrain vehicleactivity will involve welding, plasticmolding, painting, and assembly usingdomestic and foreign components.Foreign-sourced components andsubassemblies will compriseapproximately 49 percent of thefinished ATVs material value, andinclude: engines, head/tail lights, wiringharnesses, electrical components, sparkplugs, flanges/spacers/grommets,ignition coils, starter motors, breathers,pulleys, exhaust components,carburetors, axles, pinion gears, brakecomponents, fasteners, shock absorbers,springs, bearings, hoses, gaskets/seals,o-rings, steering gears (duty rate range:free–8.9%). The application indicatesthat 54 percent of the finished ATVs’material value will be U.S. sourcedwithin four years of the launch ofproduction.

FTZ procedures would exemptYMMC from Customs duty payments onthe foreign components used in exportactivity (about 2% of shipments). On itsdomestic sales, the company would beable to elect the duty rate that appliesto finished ATVs (2.5%) for the foreigncomponents noted above. Theapplication indicates that the savingsfrom FTZ procedures would helpimprove the plant’s internationalcompetitiveness.

Public comment on the application isinvited from interested parties.Submissions (original and three copies)shall be addressed to the Board’sExecutive Secretary at the addressbelow. The closing period for theirreceipt is May 19, 1997. Rebuttalcomments in response to materialsubmitted during the foregoing periodmay be submitted during the subsequent15-day period (to June 2, 1997).

A copy of the application will beavailable for public inspection at thefollowing location: Office of theExecutive Secretary, Foreign-Trade


Zones Board, Room 3716, U.S.Department of Commerce, 14th Streetand Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,Washington, DC 20230.

Dated: March 10, 1997.John J. Da Ponte, Jr.,Executive Secretary.[FR Doc. 97–6683 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[Docket 13–97]

Foreign-Trade Zone 21—Charleston,South Carolina Area, Application forExpansion

An application has been submitted tothe Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board(the Board) by the South Carolina StatePorts Authority (SCSPA), grantee of FTZ21, requesting authority to expand itszone in the Charleston, South Carolinaarea, within the Charleston, SouthCarolina Customs port of entry. Theapplication was submitted pursuant tothe provisions of the Foreign-TradeZones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), and the regulations of the Board(15 CFR Part 400). It was formally filedon March 7, 1997.

FTZ 21 was approved on June 12,1975 (Board Order 106, 40 FR 25613, 6/17/75) and expanded on February 28,1995 (Board Order 734, 60 FR 12735, 3/8/95), June 20, 1996 (Board Order 832,61 FR 33491, 6/27/96) and October 23,1996 (Board Order 850, 61 FR 57383,11/6/96). The zone project includes 9general-purpose sites in the coastal areaof South Carolina: Site 1 (134 acres)—Tri-County Industrial Park,Summerville; Site 2 (57 acres)—CainhoyIndustrial Park, Wando; Site 3 (160acres)—Crowfield Corporate Center,Goose Creek; Site 4 (998 acres)—LowCountry Regional Industrial Park, EarlyBranch; Site 5 (2,017 acres)—SCSPA’sterminal complex, Charleston; Site 6 (19acres)—Meadow Street Business Park,Loris; Site 7 (1,782 acres)—Myrtle BeachInternational Airport/former MyrtleBeach U.S. Air Force Base, MyrtleBeach; Site 8 (23 acres)—within WandoPark, Mount Pleasant (expires 12/31/97); and, Site 9 (548 acres)—CharlestonBusiness Park, Charleston. Anapplication is currently pending withthe Board to expand and remove thetime limit for Site 8 within Wando Parkin Mount Pleasant (Docket No. 62–96).

The applicant is now requestingauthority to expand the general-purpose

zone to include four new sites in theNorth Charleston area: Site 10 (105acres)—within the 133-acre AshleyIndustrial Park, 3045 Ashley PhosphateRoad, North Charleston; Site 11 (459acres)—within the 500-acre CharlestonInternational Commerce Park, 5500International Blvd., Charleston; Site 12(1,120 acres, 2 tracts) within thePalmetto Commerce Park, Ladson Road,North Charleston; and, Site 13 (76acres)—North Charleston ConventionCenter complex, 500 Coliseum Drive,North Charleston. No specificmanufacturing requests are being madeat this time. Such requests would bemade to the Board on a case-by-casebasis.

In accordance with the Board’sregulations, a member of the FTZ Staffhas been designated examiner toinvestigate the application and report tothe Board.

Public comment on the application isinvited from interested parties.Submissions (original and 3 copies)shall be addressed to the Board’sExecutive Secretary at the addressbelow. The closing period for theirreceipt is May 19, 1997. Rebuttalcomments in response to materialsubmitted during the foregoing periodmay be submitted during the subsequent15-day period (to June 2, 1997).

A copy of the application andaccompanying exhibits will be availablefor public inspection at each of thefollowing locations:U.S. Department of Commerce, Export

Assistance Center, 81 Mary Street,Charleston, South Carolina 29402

Office of the Executive Secretary,Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room3716, U.S. Department of Commerce,14th and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,Washington, DC 20230Dated: March 10, 1997.


International Trade Administration

Initation of Antidumping andCountervailing Duty AdministrativeReviews and Request for Revocationin Part

AGENCY: Import Administration,International Trade Administration,Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of initiation ofantidumping and countervailing dutyadministrative reviews and request forrevocation in part.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce(the Department) has received requeststo conduct administrative reviews ofvarious antidumping and countervailingduty orders and findings with Februaryanniversary dates. In accordance withthe Department’s regulations, we areinitiating those administrative reviews.The Department also received a requestto revoke one antidumping duty orderin part.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 18, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Holly A. Kuga, Office of AD/CVDEnforcement, Import Administration,International Trade Administration,U.S. Department of Commerce, 14thStreet and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone:(202) 482–4737.


Background

The Department has received timelyrequests, in accordance with 19 CFR353.22(a) and 355.22(a) (1994), foradministrative reviews of variousantidumping and countervailing dutyorders and findings with Februaryanniversary dates. The Department alsoreceived a timely request to revoke inpart the antidumping duty order onmechanical transfer presses from Japan.

Initiation of Reviews

In accordance with sections 19 CFR353.22(c) and 355.22(c), we areinitiating administrative reviews of thefollowing antidumping andcountervailing duty orders and findings.The Department is not initiating anadministrative review of any exportersand/or producers who were not namedin a review request because suchexporters and/or producers were notspecified as required under section353.22(a) (19 CFR 353.22(a)). We intendto issue the final results of these reviewsnot later than February 28, 1998.

Period to be reviewed

ANTIDUMPING DUTY PROCEEDINGSIndia: Forged Stainless Steel Flanges, A–533–809 .......................................................................................................... 2/1/96–1/31/97


Period to be reviewed

Akai Impex, Ltd.Mukand, Ltd.

India: Stainless Steel Bar, A–533–810 .............................................................................................................................. 2/1/96–1/31/97Mukand, Ltd.Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited

Japan: Mechanical Transfer Presses, A–588–810 ............................................................................................................ 2/1/96–1/31/97Aida Engineering, Ltd.Hitachi Zosen CorporationIshikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries

Japan: Melamine, A–588–056 ........................................................................................................................................... 2/1/96–1/31/97Taiyo Ink Manufacturing Co.Nissan Chemical Industries, Ltd.

The People’s Republic of China: Axes/Adzes,* A–570–803 ............................................................................................. 2/1/96–1/31/97Fujian Machinery & Equipment Import & Export CorporationShandong Machinery Import & Export CorporationTianjin Machinery Import & Export Company

The People’s Republic of China: Bars/Wedges,* A–570–803 .......................................................................................... 2/1/96–1/31/97Fujian Machinery & Equipment Import & Export CorporationLiaoning Limeng Group Limited CompanyShandong Machinery Import & Export CorporationTianjin Machinery Import & Export CompanyZibo Tool Factory

The People’s Republic of China: Hammers/Sledges,* A–570–803 .................................................................................. 2/1/96–1/31/97Fujian Machinery & Equipment Import & Export CorporationShandong Machinery Import & Export CorporationTianjin Machinery Import & Export Company

The People’s Republic of China: Picks/Mattocks,* A–570–803 ........................................................................................ 2/1/96–1/31/97Fujian Machinery & Equipment Import & Export CorporationShandong Machinery Import & Export CorporationTianjin Machinery Import & Export Company*All other exporters of hand tools from the People’s Republic of China are conditionally covered by this review.

The People’s Republic of China: Manganese Metal,* A–570–840 ................................................................................... 6/14/95–1/31/97China National Electronics Import & Export Hunan CompanyChina Hunan International Economic Development (Group) CorporationChina Metallurgical I/E Hunan Corp./Hunan Nonferrous Metal

I/E Association Corp.Minmetals Precious & Rare Mineral Import & Export Corporation*All other exporters of manganese metal from the People’s Republic of China are conditionally covered by this

review.The People’s Republic of China: Paint Brushes,* A–570–501 ......................................................................................... 2/1/96–1/31/97

Hebei Animal By-Products I/E Corp.Hunan Provincial Native Produce & Animal By-Products Import & Export Corporation*All other exporters of paint brushes from the People’s Republic of China are conditionally covered by this re-

view.The People’s Republic of China: Certain Cased Pencils, A–570–827 ............................................................................. 12/1/95–11/30/96

Shanghai Foreign Trade Corporation**Shanghai Foreign Trade Corporation was inadvertently identified as subject to administrative review request

(January 17, 1997, (62 FR 2647). As all other exporters of certain cased pencils from the PRC, this companyis conditionally covered by this review.

COUNTERVAILING DUTY PROCEEDINGSNone.

If requested within 30 days of the dateof publication of this notice, theDepartment will determine whetherantidumping duties have been absorbedby an exporter or producer subject toany of these reviews if the subjectmerchandise is sold in the United Statesthrough an importer which is affiliatedwith such exporter or producer.

Interested parties must submitapplications for disclosure underadministrative protective orders inaccordance with 19 CFR 353.34(b) and355.34(b).

These initiations and this notice arein accordance with section 751(a) of theTariff Act of 1930, as amended (19

U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 353.22(c)(1)and 355.22(c)(1).

Dated: March 11, 1997.Jeffrey P. Bialos,Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary forImport Administration.[FR Doc. 97–6684 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

[A–580–812]

Dynamic Random Access MemorySemiconductors of One Megabit orAbove from the Republic of Korea;Preliminary Results of AntidumpingDuty Administrative Review and Noticeof Intent Not to Revoke Order

AGENCY: Import Administration,International Trade Administration,Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results ofantidumping duty administrative reviewand notice of intent not to revoke order.


SUMMARY: In response to requests fromtwo respondents and one U.S. producer,the Department of Commerce (theDepartment) is conducting anadministrative review of theantidumping duty order on dynamicrandom access memory semiconductorsof one megabit or above from theRepublic of Korea. The review coverstwo manufacturers/exporters of thesubject merchandise to the UnitedStates for the period of May 1, 1995through April 30, 1996.

As a result of the review, theDepartment has preliminarilydetermined that no dumping marginsexist for both respondents. We intendnot to revoke the order on DRAMs fromKorea.

If these preliminary results areadopted in our final results ofadministrative review, we will instructthe U.S. Customs Service not to assessantidumping duties. Interested partiesare invited to comment on thesepreliminary results. Parties who submitarguments in this proceeding arerequested to submit with the argument(1) a statement of the issue, and (2) abrief summary of the argument.EFFECTIVE DATE: March 18, 1997.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Thomas F. Futtner, AD/CVDEnforcement Office 4, ImportAdministration, International TradeAdministration, U.S. Department ofCommerce, 14th Street and ConstitutionAvenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230,telephone: (202) 482–3814.


Applicable Statute and RegulationsUnless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references tothe provisions effective January 1, 1995,the effective date of the amendmentsmade to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act)by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act(URAA). In addition, unless otherwiseindicated, all citations to theDepartment’s regulations are to thecurrent regulations, as amended by theinterim regulations published in theFederal Register on May 11, 1995 (60FR 25130).

BackgroundOn May 10, 1993, the Department

published in the Federal Register (58FR 27250) the antidumping duty orderon dynamic random access memorysemiconductors (DRAMs) from theRepublic of Korea. On May 8, 1996, theDepartment published a notice of‘‘Opportunity to Request anAdministrative Review’’ of thisantidumping duty order for the periodof May 1, 1995, through April 30, 1996

(61 FR 20791). We received timelyrequests for review from twomanufacturers/exporters of subjectmerchandise to the United States:Hyundai Electronics Industries, Co.(Hyundai), and LG Semicon Co., Ltd.(LGS, formerly Goldstar Electron Co.,Ltd.). The petitioner, MicronTechnologies Inc., requested anadministrative review of these same twoKorean manufacturers of DRAMs. OnJune 25, 1996, the Department initiateda review of the above Koreanmanufacturers (61 FR 32771). Theperiod of review (POR) for allrespondents was May 1, 1995, throughApril 30, 1996. The Department isconducting this review in accordancewith section 751 of the Act.

In addition, on June 25, 1996, weautomatically initiated an investigationto determine if Hyundai and LGS madesales of subject merchandise below thecost of production (COP) during thePOR based upon the fact that wedisregarded sales found to have beenmade below the COP in the originalless-than-fair-value (LTFV)investigation, which was the mostrecent period for which final resultswere available when this review wasinitiated.

Scope of the ReviewImports covered by the review are

shipments of DRAMs of one megabit orabove from the Republic of Korea(Korea). Included in the scope areassembled and unassembled DRAMs ofone megabit and above. AssembledDRAMs include all package types.Unassembled DRAMs include processedwafers, uncut die and cut die. Processedwafers produced in Korea, butpackaged, or assembled into memorymodules in a third country, are includedin the scope; wafers produced in a thirdcountry and assembled or packaged inKorea are not included in the scope.

The scope of this review includesmemory modules. A memory module isa collection of DRAMs, the sole functionof which is memory. Modules includesingle in-line processing modules (SIPs),single in-line memory modules(SIMMs), or other collections of DRAMs,whether unmounted or mounted on acircuit board. Modules that containother parts that are needed to supportthe function of memory are covered.Only those modules which containadditional items which alter thefunction of the module to somethingother than memory, such as videographics adapter (VGA) boards andcards, are not included in the scope.

The scope of this review also includesvideo random access memorysemiconductors (VRAMS), as well as

any future packaging and assembling ofDRAMs.

The scope of this review also includesremovable memory modules placed onmotherboards, with or without a centralprocessing unit (CPU), unless theimporter of motherboards certifies withthe Customs Service that neither it, nora party related to it or under contract toit, will remove the modules from themotherboards after importation. Thescope of this review does not includeDRAMs or memory modules that arereimported for repair or replacement.

The DRAMs subject to this review areclassifiable under subheadings8542.11.0001, 8542.11.0024,8542.11.0026, and 8542.11.0034 of theHarmonized Tariff Schedule of theUnited States (HTSUS). Also includedin the scope are those removable KoreanDRAMs contained on or withinproducts classifiable under subheadings8471.91.0000 and 8473.30.4000 of theHTSUS. Although the HTSUSsubheadings are provided forconvenience and customs purposes, thewritten description of the scope of thisreview remains dispositive. The POR isMay 1, 1995, through April 30, 1996.

Intent Not To RevokeBoth respondents submitted requests,

in accordance with 19 CFR 353.25(b), torevoke the order covering DRAMs fromKorea.

A threshold question here concernsthe Department’s responsibility inrendering a preliminary determinationon revocation. The Department’sregulations provide that in apreliminary determination onrevocation, the Department ‘‘will * * *include [its decision] whether there is areasonable basis to believe that therequirements for revocation ortermination are met.’’ 19 CFR353.25(c)(2)(iii). In the respondents’’view, the ‘‘reasonable basis’’ standardhas been met once certain evidence onthe record arguably supports a findingthat a ‘‘reasonable basis’’ exists tobelieve that the requirements forrevocation have been met. We disagreewith this approach and believe that theDepartment is obligated to issue apreliminary determination whichprovides parties with its preliminaryview, on the basis of all of theinformation on the record at that time,of whether the revocation requirementshave been met. This provides the partiesnotice of the Department’s initial viewson revocation and affords them theopportunity to present arguments eithersupporting or opposing theDepartment’s preliminarydetermination. See memorandum fromThomas G. Ehr to Robert S. LaRussa,


February 24, 1997. Thus, the questionhere is whether, on the basis of all of theevidence of record, the Department’srequirements for revocation have beenpreliminarily met.

Under the Department’s regulations,the Department may revoke an order inpart if the Secretary concludes that,among other things: (1) ‘‘one or moreproducers or resellers covered by theorder have sold the merchandise at notless than fair value for a period of atleast three consecutive years’; (2) ‘‘[i]t isnot likely that those persons will in thefuture sell the merchandise at less thanfair value * * *’’; and (3) ‘‘theproducers or resellers agree in writing tothe immediate reinstatement of theorder as long as any producer or reselleris subject to the order, if the Secretaryconcludes that the producer or reseller,subsequent to the revocation, sold themerchandise at less than fair value.’’ 19CFR 353.25(a)(1).

In this case, the first and third criteriafor revocation have preliminarily beenmet. The Department has found that thetwo respondents, LGS and Hyundai, didnot sell at less than normal value in thefirst and second reviews under thisorder. Also, in this review, LGS andHyundai have preliminarily been foundnot to have made less than normal valuesales. Further, both respondents havecertified to immediate reinstatement ofthe order pursuant to the third criterionnoted above. Accordingly, the keyquestion here is whether the secondrevocation criteria—the ‘‘no likelihood’’standard—has been met. In consideringthis issue, it is important to note that thestandard for revocation is not whetherthe Department finds that there is alikelihood of future dumping. Rather,the standard is whether the Departmenthas found that ‘‘no likelihood’’ of futuredumping exists.

On the ‘‘no likelihood’’ issue, theDepartment has a considerable factualrecord before it. At the request of theparties, the Department established aprocess for the submission of factualinformation on the issue of whether nolikelihood of future dumping exists.Both the petitioner and respondentshave now made several submissions ofinformation relevant to the likelihoodissue, including various in-deptheconomic analyses. Accordingly, theDepartment has a full record before it onwhich to make a preliminarydetermination on this issue.

As discussed below, on the basis ofthis record, we preliminarily find thatthe evidence of record does not supporta conclusion at this time that there is nolikelihood of future dumping by theKorean respondents. Therefore, on thisbasis, we have preliminarily determined

not to revoke the Korean DRAM order.As this ruling is preliminary, all partieswill have a full opportunity to presentrelevant arguments on the likelihoodissue through briefs and a hearing, ifone is requested.

As a threshold matter, therespondents argue that the Department’spreliminary finding that LGS andHyundai have not made less thannormal value sales for three consecutiveyears is dispositive of the ‘‘nolikelihood’’ issue. We note that thepresence of no dumping for three yearsis germane to whether there is nolikelihood that future dumping willoccur. Indeed, in most cases, this is theonly evidence on the record on the‘‘likelihood’’ issue at the time of theDepartment’s preliminary determinationand, therefore, it often becomesdeterminative of whether theDepartment issues a notice of intent torevoke. In this case, however, as notedabove, the Department has a much fullerrecord on this issue, with a wide rangeof economic information and analysison other factors pertaining torevocation. The Department can, andhas, considered other factors in its ‘‘nolikelihood’’ analysis, such as‘‘conditions and trends in the domesticand home market industries, currencymovements, and the ability of theforeign entity to compete in the U.S.marketplace without LTFV sales.’’ SeeBrass Sheet and Strip from Germany;Final Results of Antidumping DutyAdministrative Review andDetermination Not to Revoke in Part, 61FR 49727 (September 23, 1996) (‘‘BrassSheet and Strip’).

In this case, the Department haspreliminarily examined the relevantmarket circumstances on the basis of thesubmissions of the parties and publiclyavailable information. On the basis ofthis examination, we have preliminaryfound the following: (1) The DRAMmarket is in a year-long downturn, withsteep price declines in the DRAMmarket beginning in January 1996 andcontinued price declines forecasted; (2)the downturn has resulted in declines ofsales and revenues in the DRAM market,growth in DRAM inventories, and theexistence of significant DRAMoversupply; (3) the Korean respondentsand other DRAM producers havecontinued to increase DRAM productionduring the downturn (which mayfurther depress prices during such anoversupply period); (4) the Koreanrespondents will likely continue tomaintain a substantial presence in theU.S. market during various phases of thebusiness cycle (including periods ofsignificant price decline) in light ofsubstantial Korean capacity and large

U.S. demand; and (5) based on theinformation on the record, Koreanpricing in the United States appears,according to price trends, to be at ornear normal value, indicating that onlya slight downward movement in U.S.price will likely result in dumpingmargins.

More specifically, DRAM pricesdeclined severely starting in late 1995,and this decline in prices continuedwell into 1996, after the conclusion ofthe current POR (i.e., April 30, 1996).For example, according to publiclyavailable data, the average U.S. price fora 16 megabyte (MB) DRAM fell fromapproximately $18.00 in May 1996 toapproximately $7.00 in December 1996.Similarly, the average U.S. price for a 4MB DRAM fell from approximately$5.25 in May 1996 to a low ofapproximately $2.00 in December 1996.This represents a 61 percent decline inprices between the end of the thirdperiod of review (April 30, 1996) andDecember 1996. DRAM prices are stillunstable and continue to fall. SinceDRAMs are a commodity product, it isreasonable to expect that Koreanproducers will have to match prevailingmarket prices in the United States.

As prices have fallen, Korean DRAMproducers have continued to increaseDRAM production. Publicly availableinformation indicates that Korea’s threemajor integrated circuit companies(Hyundai, LGS, and SamsungElectronics Co. Ltd.) will increase theirDRAM output by almost 30 percent in1997, despite poor chip forecasts andincreased production in Japan andTaiwan. Although the Korean producershave announced gradual productioncutbacks, there is no evidence that thesecutbacks have occurred. While someindustry projections forecast increaseddemand, the existing DRAM oversupplyis likely to cause prices to remain lowor fall lower in the future.

Given these circumstances, wepreliminarily find that it would bedifficult for the Korean respondents toremain competitive without sellingDRAMs at less than normal value. Thehistory of the DRAM industry is one ofdumping in periods of significantdownturn. Various foreign producerswere found to have dumped in the mid-1980s (see Dynamic Random AccessMemory Devices from Japan, 51 FR15943 (April 29, 1986)), and the Koreanrespondents in this case were found tohave dumped during the period ofdownturn in 1991–1992 during theLTFV investigation. While Koreanrespondents did not dump in the threeconsecutive review periods, most of thisperiod was marked by an expandingDRAM market. DRAMs prices stabilized


in mid-1992, and the industryexperienced growth until late 1995. Thisthird review period ended in April1996, and there has been a continuingdecline in global prices since that time.Further, we note that the price declinein 1996 was more severe than in priordownturns. These market trendsindicate that respondents may havedumped in the post April 1996 period(i.e., a period of continuing industrydownturn) in the absence of the order.A comparison of U.S. market prices toKorean costs and projections of Koreancosts indicates that Korean pricingwould be likely to be at or below normalvalue in the absence of the order. Forthese reasons, we preliminarily find thatthere is no basis to conclude that thereis no likelihood of future dumping byLGS and Hyundai. Therefore, wepreliminarily intend not to revoke theantidumping order on DRAMS fromKorea.

We welcome the views of allinterested parties on this issue. Inparticular, we welcome the views of theparties on the extent to which, incurrent and projected marketcircumstances, the order is constrainingLGS and Hyundai from dumping andthe degree to which dumping would belikely to occur in the absence of theorder.

United States PriceIn calculating U.S. price, the

Department used constructed exportprice (CEP), as defined in section 772(b)of the Act, when the merchandise wasfirst sold to an unaffiliated U.S.purchaser after importation.

We calculated CEP based on packed,ex-U.S. warehouse prices to unrelatedcustomers in the United States. Wemade deductions from the starting price,where appropriate, for discounts,rebates, foreign brokerage and handling,foreign inland insurance, air freight, airinsurance, U.S. duties and direct andindirect selling expenses to the extentthat they are associated with economicactivity in the United States (theseincluded U.S. credit expenses, warrantyexpenses, royalty payments, U.S.commissions, advertising andpromotion expenses, and U.S. indirectselling expenses, including inventorycarrying costs, incurred by respondents’’U.S. subsidiary) in accordance withsections 772(c)(2) and 772(d)(1) of theAct. We added duty drawback, whereapplicable, pursuant to section772(c)(1)(B) of the Act. Pursuant tosection 772(d)(3) of the Act, we reducedthe United States price by the amountof profit to derive the CEP.

For DRAMs that were furthermanufactured into memory modules

after importation, we deducted all valueadded in the United States, pursuant tosection 772(e) of the Act. The valueadded consists of the costs of thematerials, fabrication, and generalexpenses associated with the portion ofthe merchandise further manufacturedin the United States. In determining thecosts incurred to produce the memorymodule, we included materials,fabrication, and general expenses,including selling expenses and interestexpenses, associated with the portion ofthe merchandise further manufacturedin the United States, as well as aproportional amount of profit or lossattributable to the value added. Profit orloss was calculated by deducting fromthe sales price of the memory moduleall production and selling costs incurredby the company for the memorymodule. The total profit or loss was thenallocated proportionately to allcomponents of cost. Only the profit orloss attributable to the value added wasdeducted. No other adjustments wereclaimed or allowed.

Normal ValueIn order to determine whether there

was a sufficient volume of sales ofDRAMs in the home market to serve asa viable basis for calculating NV, wecompared respondents’ volume of homemarket sales of the foreign like productto the volume of U.S. sales of the subjectmerchandise, in accordance withsection 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Becausethe aggregate volume of home marketsales of the foreign like products for allrespondents was greater than fivepercent of the respective aggregatevolume of U.S. sales for the subjectmerchandise, we determined that thehome market provides a viable basis forcalculating NV for all respondents, inaccordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) ofthe Act.

Because LGS made some home marketsales to related parties during the POR,we tested these sales to ensure that, onaverage, the related party sales were at‘‘arms-length.’’ To conduct this test, wecompared the gross unit prices of salesto related and unrelated customers netof all movement charges, direct andindirect selling expenses, value-addedtax and packing. Based on the results ofthat test, we discarded from LGS’ homemarket database all sales made to arelated party where that related partyfailed the ‘‘arm’s-length’’ test.

We disregarded many of Hyundai’sand LGS’ sales found to have been madebelow the COP during the original LTFVinvestigation, the most recent period forwhich final results were available at thetime of the initiation of this review.Accordingly, the Department, pursuant

to section 773(b) of the Act, initiatedCOP investigations of both respondentsfor purposes of this administrativereview.

We calculated COP based on the sumof the costs of materials and fabricationemployed in producing the foreign likeproduct, plus selling, general, andadministrative expenses (SG&A), andthe cost of all expenses incidental toplacing the foreign like product incondition packed ready for shipment, inaccordance with section 773(b)(3) of theAct. We relied on the home market salesand COP information provided byrespondents in the questionnaireresponses.

In accordance with section 773(b)(1)of the Act, in order to determinewhether to disregard home market salesmade at prices below the COP, weexamined whether, within an extendedperiod of time, such sales were made insubstantial quantities, and whether suchsales were made at prices which permitthe recovery of all costs within areasonable period of time.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) ofthe Act, where less than 20 percent ofhome market sales of a given modelwere at prices less than the COP, we didnot disregard any below-cost sales ofthat model because the below-cost saleswere not made in ‘‘substantialquantities.’’ Where 20 percent or moreof home market sales of a given modelwere at prices less than the COP, wedisregarded the below-cost salesbecause we determined that the below-cost sales were made in ‘‘substantialquantities’’ and at prices that would notpermit recovery of all costs within areasonable period of time, in accordancewith section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Ifwe disregarded all contemporaneoussales of a comparison model pursuant tosection 773(b)(1) of the Act, we basednormal value on constructed value (CV).

In accordance with section 773(e) ofthe Act, we calculated CV based onrespondents’ cost of materials andfabrication employed in producing thesubject merchandise, SG&A and profitincurred and realized in connectionwith the production and sale of theforeign like product, and U.S. packingcosts. We used the costs of materials,fabrication, and G&A as reported in theCV portion of the questionnaireresponse. We used the U.S. packingcosts as reported in the U.S. salesportion of respondents’ questionnaireresponses. We based selling expensesand profit on the information reportedin the home market sales portion ofrespondents’ questionnaire responses.See Certain Pasta from Italy; Notice ofPreliminary Determination of Sales atLess Than Fair Value and Postponement


of Final Determination, 61 FR 1344,1349 (January 19, 1996). For sellingexpenses, we used the average of above-cost per-unit HM selling expensesweighted by the total quantity of homemarket sales. For actual profit, we firstcalculated the difference between thehome market sales value and homemarket COP, and divided the differenceby the home market COP. We thenmultiplied this percentage by the COPfor each U.S. model to derive an actualprofit.

For both respondents, the Departmentrelied on the submitted COP and CVinformation. There were no adjustmentsto respondents’ reported COP and CVdata.

For price-to-price comparisons, webased NV on the price at which theforeign like product is first sold forconsumption in the exporting country,in the usual commercial quantities andin the ordinary course of trade, and tothe extent practicable, at the same levelof trade, as defined by section773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. We comparedthe U.S. prices of individualtransactions to the monthly weighted-average price of sales of the foreign likeproduct. We calculated NV based ondelivered prices to unrelated customersand, where appropriate, to relatedcustomers in the home market. Incalculating NV, we made adjustments,where appropriate, for inland freight,inland insurance, discounts, rebates,and Korean brokerage and handlingcharges.

Both respondents only had CEP salesduring the POR. For comparisons to CEPsales, we made deductions to NV, whereappropriate, for home market creditexpenses, advertising expenses, royaltyexpenses, and bank charges inaccordance with section 773(a)(6) of theAct, due to differences in circumstancesof sale. We also reduced NV by packingcosts incurred in the home market, inaccordance with section 773(a)(6)(B)(i)of the Act. In addition, we increased NVfor U.S. packing costs, in accordancewith section 773(a)(6)(A) of the Act. Wealso made further adjustments, whenapplicable, to account for differences inphysical characteristics of themerchandise, in accordance with 19CFR 353.57 of the Department’sregulations. Finally, in accordance withsection 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act, wemade an adjustment for differences inthe circumstances of sale to account forany direct selling expenses associatedwith U.S. sales not deducted under theprovisions of section 772(d)(1) of theAct.

Level of Trade and CEP OffsetAs set forth in section 773(a)(2)(B)(i)

of the Act and in the Statement ofAdministrative Action (SAA)accompanying the Uruguay RoundAgreements Act, at 829–831, to theextent practicable, the Department willcalculate NV based on sales at the samelevel of trade as the U.S. sale. When theDepartment is unable to find sale(s) inthe comparison market at the same levelof trade as the U.S. sale(s), theDepartment may compare sales in theU.S. and foreign markets at a differentlevel of trade.

In order to determine whether sales inthe comparison market are at a differentlevel of trade than the export price orCEP, we examined whether thecomparison sales were at differentstages in the marketing process than theexport price or CEP. We made thisdetermination on the basis of a reviewof the distribution system in thecomparison market, including sellingfunctions, class of customer, and thelevel of selling expenses for each typeof sale. Different stages of marketingnecessarily involve differences inselling functions, but differences inselling functions, even substantial ones,are not alone sufficient to establish adifference in the level of trade.Similarly, while customer categoriessuch as ‘‘distributor’’ and ‘‘wholesaler’’may be useful in identifying differentlevels of trade, they are insufficient inthemselves to establish that there is adifference in the level of trade. SeeCertain Corrosion-Resistant CarbonSteel Flat Products and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Canada:Preliminary Results of AntidumpingDuty Administrative Review, 61 FR51891, 51896 (October 4, 1996).

Secondly, the differences must affectprice comparability as evidenced by apattern of consistent price differencesbetween sales at the different levels oftrade in the market in which normalvalue is determined. When constructedexport price is applicable, section773(a)(7)(B) of the Act establishes theprocedures for making a constructedexport price offset when: (1) NV is at adifferent level of trade, and (2) the dataavailable do not provide an appropriatebasis for a level of trade adjustment.Also, in accordance with section773(a)(7)(B), to qualify for a CEP offset,the level of trade in the home marketmust constitute a more advanced stageof distribution than the level of trade ofthe CEP sales.

In order to identify levels of trade, theDepartment must review informationconcerning marketing stages and sellingfunctions of the manufacturer/exporter.

We reviewed the questionnaireresponses of both respondents toestablish whether there were sales atdifferent levels of trade based onmarketing stages, selling functionsperformed, and services offered to eachcustomer or customer class. For bothrespondents, we identified one level oftrade in the home market with directsales by the parent corporation to thedomestic customer. These direct saleswere made by both respondents tooriginal equipment manufacturers(OEMs) and to distributors. In addition,all sales, whether made to OEMcustomers or to distributors, includedthe same marketing stage and sellingfunctions. For the U.S. market, all salesfor both respondents were reported asCEP sales. The level of trade of the U.S.sales is determined for the sale to theaffiliated importer rather than the resaleto the unaffiliated customer. Weexamined the marketing stage andselling functions performed by theKorean companies for U.S. CEP salesand preliminarily determine that theyare at a different level of trade from theKorean companies’ home market salesbecause the Korean companies engagedin a different marketing stage and hadfewer selling functions for the adjustedCEP sales than for their home marketsales. For instance, the Koreancompanies did not engage in anygeneral promotion, marketing activities,or price negotiations for U.S. sales.

Because we compared CEP sales tohome market sales at a different level oftrade, we examined whether a level oftrade adjustment may be appropriate. Inthis case, both respondents only sold atone level of trade in the home market;therefore, there is no basis upon whicheither respondent can demonstrate aconsistent pattern of price differencesbetween levels of trade. Further, we donot have information which wouldallow us to examine pricing patternsbased on the respondents’ sales of otherproducts and there is no other recordinformation on which such an analysiscould be based. Because the dataavailable do not provide an appropriatebasis for making a level of tradeadjustment but the level of trade in theHM is a more advanced stage ofdistribution than the level of trade of theCEP sales, a CEP offset is appropriate.Both respondents claimed a CEP offset.We applied the CEP offset to normalvalue or constructed value, asappropriate. The level of trademethodology employed by theDepartment in these preliminary resultsof review is based on the facts particularto this review. The Department willcontinue to examine its policy for


making level of trade comparisons andadjustments for its final results ofreview.

Because both respondents made salesat differing levels of trade in the homemarket and in the United States, andbecause we determined it was notpossible to quantify the pricedifferences resulting from the differinglevels of trade, we made a CEP offset toNV for both respondents pursuant tosection 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. The CEPoffset consisted of an amount equal tothe lesser of the weighted-average U.S.indirect selling expenses and U.S.commissions or home market indirectselling expenses. No other adjustmentswere claimed or allowed.

Preliminary Results of the ReviewAs a result of this review, we

preliminarily determine that thefollowing weighted-average dumpingmargins exist for the POR:

Manufacturer/exporter Percentmargin

Hyundai Electronic Industries,Inc .......................................... 0.01

LG Semicon Co., Ltd ................ 0.02

The Department shall determine, andCustoms shall assess, antidumpingduties on all appropriate entries.Individual differences between UnitedStates price and NV may vary from thepercentages stated above. TheDepartment will issue appraisementinstructions directly to Customs. Thefinal results of this review shall be thebasis for the assessment of antidumpingduties on entries of merchandisecovered by the determination and forfuture deposits of estimated duties.

Furthermore, the following depositrequirements will be effective uponcompletion of the final results of theseadministrative reviews for all shipmentsof DRAMs from Korea entered, orwithdrawn from warehouse, forconsumption on or after publicationdate of the final results of theseadministrative reviews, as provided bysection 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cashdeposit rates for Hyundai and LGS,because their weighted-average marginswere de minimis, will be zero percent;(2) for merchandise exported bymanufacturers or exporters not coveredin this review but covered in theoriginal LTFV investigation or aprevious review, the cash deposit willcontinue to be the most recent ratepublished in the final determination orfinal results for which the manufactureror exporter received a company-specificrate; (3) if the exporter is not a firmcovered in this review, a previousreview, or the original investigation, but

the manufacturer is, the cash depositrate will be that established for themanufacturer of the merchandise in thefinal results of the most recent review,or the LTFV investigation; and (4) ifneither the exporter nor themanufacturer is a firm covered in this orany previous reviews, the cash depositrate will be 3.85 percent, the ‘‘all-others’’ rate established in the LTFVinvestigation. These depositrequirements, when imposed, shallremain in effect until publication of thefinal results of the next administrativereview.

Interested parties may requestdisclosure within five days of the dateof publication of this notice, and mayrequest a hearing within ten days of thedate of publication. Any hearing, ifrequested, will be held as early asconvenient for the parties but not laterthan 44 days after the date ofpublication or the first work daythereafter. Case briefs or other writtencomments from interested parties maybe submitted not later than 30 days afterthe date of publication of this notice.Rebuttal briefs and rebuttal comments,limited to issues in the case briefs, maybe filed not later than 37 days after thedate of publication of this notice. TheDepartment will publish the finalresults of this administrative review,including the results of its analysis ofissues raised in any such writtencomments.

This notice serves as a preliminaryreminder to importers of theirresponsibility under 19 CFR 353.26(b) tofile a certificate regarding thereimbursement of antidumping dutiesprior to liquidation of the relevantentries during this review period.Failure to comply with this requirementcould result in the Secretary’spresumption that reimbursement ofantidumping duties occurred and thesubsequent assessment of doubleantidumping duties.

This administrative review and noticeare in accordance with section 751(a)(1)of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1))and 19 CFR 353.22.

Dated: March 10, 1997.Robert S. LaRussa,Acting Assistant Secretary for ImportAdministration.[FR Doc. 97–6679 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

Export Trade Certificate of Review

AGENCY: International TradeAdministration, Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of revocation of ExportTrade Certificate of Review No. 85–00004.

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Commerceissued an export trade certificate ofreview to Trust International ServicesCompany, Inc. Because this certificateholder has failed to file an annual reportas required by law, the Secretary isrevoking the certificate. This noticesummarizes the notification letter sentto Trust International ServicesCompany, Inc.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: W.Dawn Busby, Director, Office of ExportTrading Company Affairs, InternationalTrade Administration, 202/482–5l3l.This is not a toll-free number.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title III ofthe Export Trading Company Act of1982 (’’the Act’’) (Pub. L. 97–290, 15U.S.C. 4011–21) authorizes theSecretary of Commerce to issue exporttrade certificates of review. Theregulations implementing Title III (’’theRegulations’’) are found at 15 CFR part325 (1996). Pursuant to this authority, acertificate of review was issued on May9, 1985 to Trust International ServicesCompany, Inc.

A certificate holder is required by lawto submit to the Department ofCommerce annual reports that updatefinancial and other information relatingto business activities covered by itscertificate (Section 308 of the Act, 15U.S.C. 4018, § 235.14 (a) of theRegulations, 15 CFR 325.14 (a)). Theannual report is due within 45 daysafter the anniversary date of theissuance of the certificate of review(§ 325.14 (b) of the regulations, 15 CFR325.14 (b)). Failure to submit a completeannual report may be the basis forrevocation (§§ 325.10(a) and 325.14(c) ofthe Regulations, 15 CFR 325.10(a) (3)and 325.14(c)).

On April 29, 1996, the Department ofCommerce sent to Trust InternationalServices Company, Inc. a lettercontaining annual report questions witha reminder that its annual report wasdue on June 23, 1996. Additionalreminders were sent on October 28,1996 and on January 3, 1997. TheDepartment has received no writtenresponse from Trust InternationalServices Company, Inc. to any of theseletters.

On February 4, 1997, and inaccordance with § 325.10 (c) (2) of theRegulations, (15 CFR 325.10 (c) (2)), theDepartment of Commerce sent a letterby certified mail to notify TrustInternational Services Company, Inc.that the Department was formallyinitiating the process to revoke itscertificate for failure to file an annual


report. In addition, a summary of thisletter allowing Trust InternationalServices Company, Inc. thirty days torespond was published in the FederalRegister on February 10, 1997 at 62 FR5961. Pursuant to § 325.10(c) (2) of theRegulations (15 CFR 325.10(c) (2)), theDepartment considers the failure ofTrust International Services Company,Inc. to respond to be an admission of thestatements contained in the notificationletter.

The Department has determined torevoke the certificate issued to TrustInternational Services Company, Inc. forits failure to file an annual report. TheDepartment has sent a letter, datedMarch 13, 1997, to notify TrustInternational Services Company, Inc. ofits determination. The revocation iseffective thirty (30) days from the dateof publication of this notice. Any personaggrieved by this decision may appeal toan appropriate U.S. district court within30 days from the date on which thisnotice is published in the FederalRegister (325.10(c) (4) and 325.11 of theRegulations, 15 CFR 324.10(c) (4) and325.11 of the Regulations, 15 CFR325.10(c) (4) and 325.11).

Dated: March 13, 1997.W. Dawn Busby,Director, Office of Export Trading CompanyAffairs.[FR Doc. 97–6796 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P

National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration

[I.D. 031097D]

North Pacific Fishery ManagementCouncil; Meetings

AGENCY: National Marine FisheriesService (NMFS), National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA),Commerce.ACTION: Notice of public committeemeetings.

SUMMARY: Two committees of the NorthPacific Fishery Management Council(Council) will meet in Seattle, WA, inApril. The Improved Retention/Improved Utilization (IR/IU) Committeewill meet April 1, 1997, beginning at8:30 a.m. The Vessel BycatchAccountability (VBA) Committee will

meet April 2–3, 1997, beginning at 9:00a.m. on April 2, continuing into April 3,as necessary.ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held atthe Alaska Fisheries Science Center,7600 Sand Point Way, NE., Building 4,Room 2039, Seattle, WA 98115.

Council address: North PacificFishery Management Council, 605 W.4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK99501–2252.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Chris Oliver, telephone: (907) 271–2809.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. The IR/IU Committee will meet toreview the Proposed Rule forregulations for improved retention andutilization of groundfish in the BeringSea and Aleutian Islands. TheCommittee will also review apreliminary draft of similar regulatorymeasures for Gulf of Alaska groundfishand prepare recommendations for theCouncil.

2. The VBA Committee has beentasked with identifying alternatives tobe addressed in an analysis for aprogram to implement individual vesselbycatch accounting measures.


Special Accommodations

These meetings are physicallyaccessible to people with disabilities.Requests for sign languageinterpretation or other auxiliary aidsshould be directed to Helen Allen, 907–271–2809, at least 5 working days priorto the meeting date.

Dated: March 11, 1997.Bruce Morehead,Acting Director, Office of SustainableFisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.[FR Doc. 97–6706 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

[I.D. 031097C]

Marine Mammals; Permit No. 765(P70E)

AGENCY: National Marine FisheriesService (NMFS), National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA),Commerce.ACTION: Issuance of amendment.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given thatpermit no. 765, issued to Dr. William A.Watkins, Oceanographer Emeritus,Woods Hole Oceanographic, Institution,Woods Hole, MA 02543, to take marinemammals was extended until December31, 1997.ADDRESSES: The amendment and relateddocuments are available for reviewupon written request or by appointmentin the following offices:

Permits Division, Office of ProtectedResources, NMFS, 1315 East-WestHighway, Room 13130 Silver Spring,MD 20910 (301/712–2289); and

Northeast Region, NMFS, OneBlackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA01930–2298 (508/281–9250).SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Thesubject amendment has been issuedunder the authority of the MarineMammal Protection Act of 1972, asamended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), theprovisions of § 216.29 of the RegulationsGoverning the Taking and Importing ofMarine Mammals (50 CFR part 216), theEndangered Species Act of 1973, asamended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.),and the provisions of § 222.25 of theregulations governing the taking,importing, and exporting of endangeredfish and wildlife (50 CFR part 222).

Issuance of this permit as required bythe ESA was based on a finding thatsuch permit: (1) Was applied for in goodfaith; (2) will not operate to thedisadvantage of the endangered specieswhich is the subject of this permit; and(3) is consistent with the purposes andpolicies set forth in section 2 of theESA.

March 7, 1997Ann D. Terbush,Chief, Permits and Documentation Division,Office of Protected Resources, NationalMarine Fisheries Service.[FR Doc. 97–6707 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

Revised Non-Foreign Overseas PerDiem Rates

AGENCY: DoD, Per Diem, Travel andTransportation Allowance Committee.

ACTION: Notice of Revised Non-ForeignOverseas Per Diem Rates.

SUMMARY: The Per Diem, Travel andTransportation Allowance Committee ispublishing Civilian Personnel Per DiemBulletin Number 193. This bulletin listsrevisions in per diem rates prescribedfor U.S. Government employees forofficial travel in Alaska, Hawaii, PuertoRico, the Northern Mariana Islands andpossessions of the United States.Bulletin Number 193 is being publishedin the Federal Register to assure thattravelers are paid per diem at the mostcurrent rates.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 1, 1997.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Thisdocument gives notice of revisions inper diem rates prescribed by the PerDiem Travel and TransportationAllowance Committee for non-foreignareas outside the continental UnitedStates. It supersedes Civilian PersonnelPer Diem Bulletin Number 192.Distribution of Civilian Personnel PerDiem Bulletins by mail wasdiscontinued. Per Diem Bulletinspublished periodically in the FederalRegister now constitute the onlynotification of revisions in per diemrates to agencies and establishmentsoutside the Department of Defense. Formore information or questions about perdiem rates, please contact your localtravel office. The text of the Bulletinfollows:

BILLING CODE 5000–04–M


Dated: March 13, 1997.L.M. Bynum,Alternate OSD Federal Register LiaisonOfficer, Department of Defense.[FR Doc. 97–6747 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 5000–04–C

Department of the Air Force

HQ USAF Scientific Advisory BoardMeeting

The T&E Infrastructure Ad Hoc Studyof the HQ USAF Scientific AdvisoryBoard will meet on April 8–11, 1997 atWright-Patterson AFB OH from 8 a.m. to5 p.m.

The purpose is to receive briefingsand gather information on the Test &Evaluation Study.

The meeting will be closed to thepublic in accordance with Section 552bof Title 5, United States Code,specifically subparagraphs (1) and (4)thereof.

For further information, contact theHQ USAF Scientific Advisory BoardSecretariat at (703) 697–8404.Carolyn A. Lunsford,

Air Force Federal Register LiaisonOfficer.[FR Doc. 97–6788 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3910–01–P

Department of the Navy

Privacy Act of 1974; Systems ofRecords

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DOD.ACTION: Amend record systems.

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navyproposes to amend systems of recordsnotices in its inventory of recordsystems subject to the Privacy Act of1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.DATES: The amendments will beeffective on April 17, 1997, unlesscomments are received that wouldresult in a contrary determination.ADDRESSES: Send comments to theDepartment of the Navy, PA/FOIAPolicy Branch, Chief of NavalOperations (N09B30), 2000 NavyPentagon, Washington, DC 20350–2000.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs.Doris Lama at (202) 685–6545 or DSN325–6545.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: TheDepartment of the Navy’s record systemnotices for records systems subject tothe Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a),as amended, have been published in theFederal Register and are available fromthe address above.

The Department of the Navy proposesto amend systems of records notice inits inventory of record systems subjectto the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C.

552a), as amended. The changes to thesystem of records are not within thepurview of subsection (r) of the PrivacyAct of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended,which requires the submission of newor altered systems reports. The recordsystems being amended are set forthbelow as amended, published in theirentirety.

Dated: March 12, 1997.

L. M. Bynum,Alternate OSD Federal Register LiaisonOfficer, Department of Defense.

N01070–10

SYSTEM NAME:

Aviation Training Jacket (September20, 1993, 58 FR 48853).

CHANGES:

SYSTEM IDENTIFIER:Delete entry and replace with

‘N01542–1’.* * * * *

N01542–1

SYSTEM NAME:

Aviation Training Jacket.

SYSTEM LOCATION:The Aviation Training Jacket

accompanies the individual student toeach Naval Air Training Command


squadron as he progresses in thetraining program. Upon completion ortermination of training, the AviationTraining Jacket is forwarded to the Chiefof Naval Air Training, 250 LexingtonBoulevard, Suite 102, Corpus Christi,TX 78419–5041.

CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THESYSTEM:

All naval aviators, naval flightofficers, naval flight surgeons, aviationwarrant officers, and pre-commissioningtraining for aviation maintenance dutyand aviation intelligence officers. Thisincludes records in the above categoriesfor individuals who do not completeprescribed training.

CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:Aviation flight training, practical and

academic grade scores, including pre-training aviation test battery scores.

AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:5 U.S.C. 301, Departmental

Regulations and E.O. 9397 (SSN).

PURPOSE(S):To maintain an up-to-date student

flight record and to evaluate thestudent’s individual training progressand qualifications, including aircraft,medical and physiologicalqualifications.

ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THESYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS ANDTHE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:

In addition to those disclosuresgenerally permitted under 5 U.S.C.552a(b) of the Privacy Act, these recordsor information contained therein mayspecifically be disclosed outside theDoD as a routine use pursuant to 5U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:

To educational institutions uponindividual requests for academictranscripts.

The ‘Blanket Routine Uses’ thatappear at the beginning of the Navy’scompilation of systems of recordsnotices apply to this system.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING,RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, ANDDISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:

STORAGE:File folders in metal filing cabinets

and limited access word processingequipment.

RETRIEVABILITY:Name and date of designation,

completion or termination of trainingand Social Security Number/officer filenumber.

SAFEGUARDS:Access is restricted to the individual

or those who maintain training records

and those who are directly involvedwith the individual’s training orevaluation. The file cabinets containingthe jackets are in command areas undernormal military 24 hour securitymeasures.

RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:Two years after completion of

advanced training, files are retired to theFederal Records Center, Fort Worth,Texas for 50 years and then destroyed.An individual aviator who retires or isreleased from active/reserve duty mayrequest custody of his/her file bywriting to the Chief of Naval AirTraining.

SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS:Chief of Naval Air Training, 250

Lexington Boulevard, Suite 102, CorpusChristi, TX 78419–5041.

NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE:The individual is informed that the

Aviation Training Jacket is beingmaintained and has ready access to itduring training. After training, he cansubmit written request to the Chief ofNaval Air Training, 250 LexingtonBoulevard, Suite 102, Corpus Christi,TX 78419–5041.

Individual should provide name,Social Security Number or officer filenumber, and date of completion ortermination of training. Personal visitorscan provide proof of identity by militaryidentification card, active or retired, ordriver’s license and some record ofnaval service.

RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES:Individuals seeking access to

information about themselves containedin this system should address writteninquiries to the Chief of Naval AirTraining, 250 Lexington Boulevard,Suite 102, Corpus Christi, TX 78419–5041.

Individual should provide name,Social Security Number or officer filenumber, and date of completion ortermination of training. Personal visitorscan provide proof of identity by militaryidentification card, active or retired, ordriver’s license and some record ofnaval service.

CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES:The Navy’s rules for accessing

records, and for contesting contents andappealing initial agency determinationsare published in Secretary of the NavyInstruction 5211.5; 32 CFR part 701; ormay be obtained from the systemmanager.

RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:Prior educational experience, flight

grades, academic grades supporting

flight training, physical fitness/survival/swimming proficiency, aviationphysiology training and qualifications,and birth certificate.

EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM:None.

N01070–11

SYSTEM NAME:Flight Instruction Standardization and

Training (FIST) Jacket (September 20,1993, 58 FR 48854).

CHANGES:


‘N03760–2’.* * * * *

RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:Delete entry and replace with ‘Jacket

is retained at the individual’s commanduntil detachment, at which time it isgiven to the individual.’* * * * *

N03760–2

SYSTEM NAME:Flight Instruction Standardization and

Training (FIST) Jacket.

SYSTEM LOCATION:The FIST jacket is located at the

various Naval Air Training Commandswhere the individual may be assigned.Contact the Chief of Naval Air Training,250 Lexington Boulevard, Suite 102,Corpus Christi, TX 78419–5041, todetermine the location of any specificcommand.


All naval aviators and naval flightofficers assigned to duty as instructorswithin the Naval Air TrainingCommand.

CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:A record of flight instruction

standardization and training required ofnaval aviators and naval flight officersassigned duty as instructors.



PURPOSE(S):To ensure that the flight instructor’s

qualifications are current to instruct inthe designated naval aircraft, bothacademically and physiologically. Thesystem is used to schedule trainingflights, qualify and designate flightinstructors, etc. This system is used byCommanding Officers and trainingpersonnel of the command to which theindividual is assigned.






STORAGE:File folders in metal file cabinets.

RETRIEVABILITY:Name, rank, and Social Security

Number.

SAFEGUARDS:Access is restricted to the individual,

his commanding officer, or thoseinvolved in maintaining trainingrecords. The file cabinets containing thejackets are in command areas undernormal military 24 hour securitymeasures.

RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:Jacket is retained at the individual’s

command until detachment, at whichtime it is given to the individual.

SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS:Chief of Naval Air Training, 250

Lexington Boulevard, Suite 102, CorpusChristi, TX 78419–5041.

NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE:The individual is informed that the

FIST jacket is being maintained,participates in its development and,additionally, is required to review thejacket with his instructor periodically.

Individuals seeking access toinformation about themselves containedin this system should address writteninquiries to the activity where assignedor to the Chief of Naval Air Training,250 Lexington Boulevard, Suite 102,Corpus Christi, TX 78419–5041.

Individual should provide their name,rank, and Social Security Number.

RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES:The individual is informed that the

FIST jacket is being maintained,participates in its development and,additionally, is required to review thejacket with his instructor periodically.Any questions should be directed to theChief of Naval Air Training, 250Lexington Boulevard, Suite 102, CorpusChristi, TX 78419–5041.

CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES:

The Navy’s rules for accessingrecords, and for contesting contents andappealing initial agency determinationsare published in Secretary of the NavyInstruction 5211.5; 32 CFR part 701; ormay be obtained from the systemmanager.

RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:

Academic tests, flight performanceevaluation, check flight evaluation,instructor’s evaluation, commanddeterminations, and, personal input.

EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM:

None.

N01850–2

SYSTEM NAME:

Physical Disability Evaluation SystemProceedings (September 20, 1993, 58 FR48858).

CHANGES:

* * * * *

STORAGE:

Delete entry and replace with ‘Paperand automated records, microfiche, andcassette recordings.’

RETRIEVABILITY:

Delete entry and replace with ‘Year ofdisability proceeding, name, recordnumber, and Social Security Numberwithin that year.’

SAFEGUARDS:

Delete entry and replace with ‘Filesare maintained in file cabinets or otherstorage devices under the control ofauthorized personnel during workinghours. Computerized system ispassword protected. Access duringworking hours is controlled by Boardpersonnel and the office space in whichthe file cabinets and storage devices arelocated is locked after official workinghours. The building in which the officeis located employs security guards.’

RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:

Delete entry and replace with‘Records are retained on-site at theNaval Council of Personnel Boards forone year. After that, they are retired tothe Washington National RecordsCenter, 4205 Suitland Road, Suitland,MD 20409 for retention. After a total of75 years, records are destroyed.’* * * * *

N01850–2

SYSTEM NAME:

Physical Disability Evaluation SystemProceedings.

SYSTEM LOCATION:Physical Evaluation Board, Ballston

Centre Tower 2, 801 North RandolphStreet, Arlington, VA 22203–1989.


All Navy and Marine Corps personnelwho have been considered by a PhysicalEvaluation Board for separation orretirement by reason of physicaldisability (including those found fit forduty by such boards).

CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:File contains medical board reports;

statements of findings of physicalevaluation boards; medical reports fromDepartment of Veterans Affairs andcivilian medical facilities; copies ofmilitary health records; copies of JAGManual investigations; copies of prioractions/appellate actions/review takenin the case; recordings of physicalevaluation board hearings; rebuttalssubmitted by the member; intra andinteragency correspondence concerningthe case; correspondence from and tothe member, members of Congress,attorneys, and other interestedmembers; and documents concerningthe appointment of trustees for mentallyincompetent service members.

AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:10 U.S.C. 1216 and E.O. 9397 (SSN).

PURPOSE(S):To determine fitness for duty or

eligibility for separation or retirementdue to physical disability of Navy andMarine Corps personnel, by establishingthe existence of disability, the degree ofdisability, and the circumstances underwhich the disability was incurred, andto respond to official inquiriesconcerning the disability evaluationproceedings of particular servicepersonnel.

Used by the Office of the JudgeAdvocate General relating to legalreview of disability evaluationproceedings; response to officialinquiries concerning the disabilityevaluation proceedings of particularservice personnel; to obtain informationin order to initiate claims against thirdparties for recovery of medical expensesunder the Medical Care Recovery Act(42 U.S.C. 2651–2653); and to obtaininformation on personnel determined tobe mentally incompetent to handle theirown financial affairs, in order to appointtrustees to receive their retired pay.


In addition to those disclosuresgenerally permitted under 5 U.S.C.


552a(b) of the Privacy Act, these recordsor information contained therein mayspecifically be disclosed outside theDoD as a routine use pursuant to 5U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:

To officials and employees of theDepartment of Veterans Affairs to verifyinformation of service connecteddisabilities in order to evaluateapplications for veteran’s benefits.



STORAGE:

Paper and automated records,microfiche, and cassette recordings.

RETRIEVABILITY:

Year of disability proceeding, name,record number, and Social SecurityNumber within that year.

SAFEGUARDS:

Files are maintained in file cabinets orother storage devices under the controlof authorized personnel during workinghours. Computerized system ispassword protected. Access duringworking hours is controlled by Boardpersonnel and the office space in whichthe file cabinets and storage devices arelocated is locked after official workinghours. The building in which the officeis located employs security guards.


Records are retained on-site at theNaval Council of Personnel Boards forone year. After that, they are retired tothe Washington National RecordsCenter, 4205 Suitland Road, Suitland,MD 20409 for retention. After a total of75 years, records are destroyed.

SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS:

Director, Naval Council of PersonnelBoards, Ballston Centre Tower 2, 801North Randolph Street, Arlington, VA22203–1989.

NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE:

Individuals seeking to determinewhether information about themselvesis contained in this system shouldaddress written inquiries to the NavalCouncil of Personnel Boards, BallstonTower 2, 801 North Randolph Street,Arlington, VA 22203–1989.

Written requests for informationshould contain the full name of theindividual, military grade or rate, anddate of Disability Evaluation Systemaction. Written requests must be signedby the requesting individual.

RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES:

Individuals seeking access toinformation about themselves containedin this system should address writteninquiries to the Director, Naval Councilof Personnel Boards, Ballston Tower 2,801 North Randolph Street, Arlington,VA 22203–1989.




Military medical boards and medicalfacilities; Department of VeteransAffairs and civilian medical facilities;physical evaluation boards and otheractivities of the disability evaluationsystem, Naval Council of PersonnelBoards, the Bureau of Medicine andSurgery; the Judge Advocate General;Navy and Marine Corps local commandactivities; other activities of theDepartment of Defense; andcorrespondence from private counseland other interested persons.


None.

N01900–1

SYSTEM NAME:

Naval Discharge Review BoardProceedings (September 9, 1996, 61 FR47489).

CHANGES:

SYSTEM IDENTIFIER:

Delete entry and replace with‘N01000–2’.* * * * *

STORAGE:

Delete entry and replace with ‘Paperrecords in file folders; microfiche;plastic recording disks; recordingcassettes; and computerized data base’.* * * * *

SAFEGUARDS:

Add to end of entry ‘Computerizeddata base is password protected andaccess is limited.’


Delete entry and replace with ‘Filesare transferred to the WashingtonFederal Records Center, 4205 SuitlandRoad, Suitland, MD 20409 when case isclosed and then destroyed after 15years.’* * * * *

N01000–2

SYSTEM NAME:Naval Discharge Review Board

Proceedings.

SYSTEM LOCATION:Naval Discharge Review Board,

Ballston Centre Tower 2, 801 NorthRandolph Street, Arlington, VA 22203–1989.


Former Navy and Marine Corpspersonnel who have submittedapplications for review of discharge ordismissal pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 1553, orwhose discharge or dismissal has beenor is being reviewed by the NavalDischarge Review Board, on its ownmotion, or pursuant to an application bya deceased former member’s next of kin.

CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:The file contains the former member’s

application for review of discharge ordismissal, any supporting documentssubmitted therewith, copies ofcorrespondence between the formermember or his counsel and the NavalDischarge Review Board and othercorrespondence concerning the case,and a summarized record of proceedingsbefore the Board.

AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:10 U.S.C. 1553 and E.O. 9397 (SSN).

PURPOSE(S):Selected information is used to

defend the Department of the Navy incivil suits filed against it in the Stateand/or Federal courts system. Thisinformation will permit officials andemployees of the Board to considerformer member’s applications for reviewof discharge or dismissal and anysubsequent application by the member;to answer inquiries on behalf of or fromthe former member or counsel regardingthe action taken in the former member’scase. The file is used by members of theBoard for Correction of Naval Recordswhen reviewing any subsequentapplication by the former member for acorrection of records relative to theformer member’s discharge or dismissal.



The file is used by counsel for theformer member, and by accredited


representatives of veterans’organizations recognized by theSecretary, Department of VeteransAffairs under 38 U.S.C. 3402 and dulydesignated by the former member as hisor her representative before the NavalDischarge Review Board.

Officials of the Department of Justiceand the United States Attorneys officesassigned to the particular case.



STORAGE:Paper records in file folders;

microfiche; plastic recording disks;recording cassettes; and computerizeddata base.

RETRIEVABILITY:Name, docket number, and/or Social

Security Number.

SAFEGUARDS:Files are kept within the Naval

Discharge Review Board’sadministrative office. Access duringbusiness hours is controlled by Boardpersonnel. The office is locked at theclose of business; the building in whichthe office is located employs securityguards. Computerized data base ispassword protected and access islimited.

RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:Files are transferred to the

Washington Federal Records Center,4205 Suitland Road, Suitland, MD20409 when case is closed and thendestroyed after 15 years.

SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS:Director, Naval Council of Personnel

Boards, Department of the Navy,Ballston Centre Tower 2, 801 NorthRandolph Street, Arlington, VA 22203–1989.

NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE:Individuals seeking to determine

whether information about themselvesis contained in this system shouldaddress written inquiries to the Director,Naval Council of Personnel Boards,Ballston Centre Tower 2, 801 NorthRandolph Street, Arlington, VA 22203–1989.


information about themselves containedin this system should address writteninquiries to the Director, Naval Councilof Personnel Boards, Ballston Centre

Tower 2, 801 North Randolph Street,Arlington, VA 22203–1989.



RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:Information contained in the files is

obtained from the former member orthose acting on the former member’sbehalf, from military personnel andmedical records, and from records oflaw enforcement investigations.


N01900–2

SYSTEM NAME:Navy Individual Service Review

Board (ISRB) Proceedings ApplicationFile (September 9, 1996, 61 FR 47489).

CHANGES:


‘N01000–3’.* * * * *

N01000–3

SYSTEM NAME:Navy Individual Service Review

Board (ISRB) Proceedings ApplicationFile.

SYSTEM LOCATION:Bureau of Naval Personnel (Pers 324),

2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370–3240.


Individuals who have applied formilitary status and subsequentdischarge from the United States Navybecause they claim membership in agroup which has been determined tohave performed active military servicewith the United States Navy.

CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:Application for discharge, supporting

documentation, copies ofcorrespondence between the individualand the Navy ISRB and othercorrespondence concerning the case.

AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:Pub.L. 95–202 and E.O. 9397 (SSN).

PURPOSE(S):To consider the individual’s

application for military status anddischarge.





STORAGE:Paper records in file folders.

RETRIEVABILITY:Name and Social Security Number.

SAFEGUARDS:The files are kept within the Bureau

of Naval Personnel offices. Accessduring business hours is controlled byBureau personnel. Records not in useare maintained in a room which islocked during non-duty hours. TheBureau is secured at the close ofbusiness and the building in which theBureau is located has limited accesscontrolled by security guards.

RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:Applications which are approved will

necessitate creation of a service recordwhich is part of the Navy PersonnelRecords System. Remaining records areretained in the Bureau of NavalPersonnel for two years and thendestroyed.

SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS:Chief of Naval Personnel (Pers 324),

Bureau of Naval Personnel, 2 NavyAnnex, Washington, DC 20370–3240.


whether information about themselvesis contained in this system shouldaddress written inquiries to the Chief ofNaval Personnel (Code Pers 324),Bureau of Naval Personnel, 2 NavyAnnex, Washington, DC 20370–3240.


information about themselves containedin this system should address writteninquiries to the Chief of Naval Personnel(Code Pers 324), Bureau of NavalPersonnel, 2 Navy Annex, Washington,DC 20370–3240.


records, and for contesting contents and


appealing initial agency determinationsare published in Secretary of the NavyInstruction 5211.5; 32 CFR part 701; ormay be obtained from the systemmanager.

RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:Information contained in the files is

obtained from the individual or thoseacting on the individual’s behalf, fromother military records and from theDepartment of Defense Civilian/MilitaryService Review Board.


N04385–2

SYSTEM NAME:Hotline Program Case Files (February

22, 1993, 58 FR 10741).

CHANGES:


‘N05041–1’.

SYSTEM NAME:Delete entry and replace with

‘Inspector General (IG) Records.’* * * * *


Delete entry and replace with ‘Anyperson who has been the subject of,witness for, or referenced in anInspector General (IG) investigation, aswell as any individual who submits arequest for assistance or complaint to anInspector General.’

CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:Delete entry and replace with ‘Letters/

transcriptions of complaints, allegationsand queries; tasking orders from theDepartment of Defense InspectorGeneral, Secretary of the Navy, Chief ofNaval Operations, and Commandant ofthe Marine Corps; requests forassistance from other Navy/MarineCorps commands and activities;appointing letters; reports ofinvestigations, inquiries, and reviewswith supporting attachments, exhibitsand photographs; records of interviewsand synopses of interviews; witnessstatements; legal review of case files;congressional inquiries and responses;administrative memoranda; letters andreports of action taken; referrals to othercommands; letters to complainants andsubjects of investigations; court recordsand results of nonjudicial punishment;letters and reports of adverse personnelactions; financial and technical reports.’

AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:Delete entry and replace with ‘10

U.S.C. 5014, Office of the Secretary of

the Navy; 10 U.S.C. 5020, NavalInspector General: details; duties;SECNAVINST 5430.57F, Mission andFunctions of the Naval InspectorGeneral, January 15, 1993.’

PURPOSE(S):

Delete entry and replace with ‘Todetermine the facts and circumstancessurrounding allegations or complaintsagainst Department of the Navypersonnel and/or Navy/Marine Corpsactivities.

To present findings, conclusions andrecommendations developed frominvestigations and other inquiries to theSecretary of the Navy, Chief of NavalOperations, Commandant of the MarineCorps, or other appropriateCommanders.’* * * * *

STORAGE:

Delete entry and replace with ‘Filefolders and computerized data base.’

RETRIEVABILITY:

Delete entry and replace with ‘Bysubject’s or complainant’s name; casename; case number; and other casefields.’

SAFEGUARDS:

Delete entry and replace with ‘Accessis limited to officials/employees of thecommand who have a need to know.Files are stored in locked cabinets androoms. Computer files are protected bysoftware systems which are passwordprotected.’


Delete entry and replace with‘Permanent. Retired to WashingtonNational Records Center when fouryears old. Transfer to the NationalArchives and Records Administrationwhen 20 years old.’* * * * *


Delete entry and replace with‘Complainants; witnesses; Members ofCongress; the media; and othercommands or government agencies.’


Delete first paragraph and replacewith ‘Parts of this system may beexempt under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1) and(k)(2), as applicable’.

N05041–1

SYSTEM NAME:

Inspector General (IG) Records.

SYSTEM LOCATION:

Office of the Naval Inspector General,Building 200, 901 M Street, SE,

Washington DC 20374–5006; InspectorGeneral offices at major commands andactivities throughout the Department ofthe Navy and other naval activities thatperform inspector general (IG)functions. Official mailing addresses arepublished as an appendix to the Navy’scompilation of systems of recordsnotices.


Any person who has been the subjectof, witness for, or referenced in anInspector General (IG) investigation, aswell as any individual who submits arequest for assistance or complaint to anInspector General.

CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:Letters/transcriptions of complaints,

allegations and queries; tasking ordersfrom the Department of DefenseInspector General, Secretary of theNavy, Chief of Naval Operations, andCommandant of the Marine Corps;requests for assistance from other Navy/Marine Corps commands and activities;appointing letters; reports ofinvestigations, inquiries, and reviewswith supporting attachments, exhibitsand photographs; records of interviewsand synopses of interviews; witnessstatements; legal review of case files;congressional inquiries and responses;administrative memoranda; letters andreports of action taken; referrals to othercommands; letters to complainants andsubjects of investigations; court recordsand results of nonjudicial punishment;letters and reports of adverse personnelactions; financial and technical reports.

AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:10 U.S.C. 5014, Office of the Secretary

of the Navy; 10 U.S.C. 5020, NavalInspector General: details; duties;SECNAVINST 5430.57F, Mission andFunctions of the Naval InspectorGeneral, January 15, 1993.

PURPOSE(S):To determine the facts and

circumstances surrounding allegationsor complaints against Department of theNavy personnel and/or Navy/MarineCorps activities.

To present findings, conclusions andrecommendations developed frominvestigations and other inquiries to theSecretary of the Navy, Chief of NavalOperations, Commandant of the MarineCorps, or other appropriateCommanders.


In addition to those disclosuresgenerally permitted under 5 U.S.C.


552a(b) of the Privacy Act, these recordsor information contained therein mayspecifically be disclosed outside theDoD as a routine use pursuant to 5U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:



STORAGE:File folders and computerized data

base.

RETRIEVABILITY:By subject’s or complainant’s name;

case name; case number; and other casefields.

SAFEGUARDS:Access is limited to officials/

employees of the command who have aneed to know. Files are stored in lockedcabinets and rooms. Computer files areprotected by software systems which arepassword protected.

RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:Permanent. Retired to Washington

National Records Center when fouryears old. Transfer to the NationalArchives and Records Administrationwhen 20 years old.

SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS:Naval Inspector General, 901 M Street

SE, Washington Navy Yard,Washington, DC 20374–5006 or thelocal command’s IG office. Officialmailing addresses are published as anappendix to the Navy’s compilation ofsystems of records notices.


whether information about themselvesis contained in this system shouldaddress written inquiries to the NavalInspector General, 901 M Street SE,Washington Navy Yard, Washington, DC20374–5006 or the relevant command’sIG office. Official mailing addresses arepublished as an appendix to the Navy’scompilation of systems of recordsnotices.

The request should include the fullname of the requester and/or casenumber.


information about themselves containedin this system should address writteninquiries to the Naval Inspector General,901 M Street SE, Washington NavyYard, Washington, DC 20374–5006 orthe relevant command’s IG office.

Official mailing addresses are publishedas an appendix to the Navy’scompilation of systems of recordsnotices.

The request should include the fullname of the requester and/or casenumber.



RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:Complainants; witnesses; Members of

Congress; the media; and othercommands or government agencies.

EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM:Portions of this system may be exempt

under the provisions o 5 U.S.C.552a(k)(1) and (k)(2), as applicable.

An exemption rule for this system hasbeen promulgated in accordance withrequirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(1), (2),and (3), (c) and (e) and published in 32CFR part 701, subpart G. For additionalinformation contact the system manager.

N05300–2

SYSTEM NAME:Administrative Personnel

Management System (May 22, 1996, 61FR 25639).

CHANGES:

SSYSTEM IDENTIFIER:Delete entry and replace with

‘N05000–2’.* * * * *

CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:Delete entry and replace with

‘Records and correspondence needed tomanage personnel and projects, such asName, Social Security Number, date ofbirth, photo id, grade and series or rank/rate, etc., of personnel; location(assigned organization code and/or workcenter code); MOS; labor code;payments for training, travel advancesand claims, hours assigned and worked,routine and emergency assignments,functional responsibilities, clearance,access to secure spaces and issuance ofkeys, educational and experiencecharacteristics and training histories,travel, retention group, hire/terminationdates; type of appointment; leave; trade,vehicle parking, disaster control,community relations, (blood donor, etc),employee recreation programs;retirement category; awards;biographical data; property custody;personnel actions/dates; violations of

rules; physical handicaps and health/safety data; veterans preference; postaladdress; location of dependents andnext of kin and their addresses; mutualaid association memberships; unionmemberships; qualifications;computerized modules used to trackpersonnel data; and other data neededfor personnel, financial, line, safety andsecurity management, as appropriate.’* * * * *

N05000–2

SYSTEM NAME:Administrative Personnel

Management System.

SYSTEM LOCATION:Organizational elements of the

Department of the Navy. Officialmailing addresses are published as anappendix to the Navy’s compilation ofsystems of records notices. Included inthis notice are those records duplicatedfor maintenance at a site closer to wherethe employee works (e.g., in anadministrative office or a supervisor’swork area).

Commander in Chief, U.S. AtlanticCommand, 1562 Mitscher Avenue, Suite200, Norfolk, VA 23551–2488.

Commander in Chief, U.S. PacificCommand, P.O. Box 64028, Camp H.M.Smith, HI, 96861–4028.


All civilian, (including formermembers and applicants for civilianemployment), military and contractemployees.

CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:Records and correspondence needed

to manage personnel and projects, suchas Name, Social Security Number, dateof birth, photo id, grade and series orrank/rate, etc., of personnel; location(assigned organization code and/or workcenter code); MOS; labor code;payments for training, travel advancesand claims, hours assigned and worked,routine and emergency assignments,functional responsibilities, clearance,access to secure spaces and issuance ofkeys, educational and experiencecharacteristics and training histories,travel, retention group, hire/terminationdates; type of appointment; leave; trade,vehicle parking, disaster control,community relations, (blood donor, etc),employee recreation programs;retirement category; awards;biographical data; property custody;personnel actions/dates; violations ofrules; physical handicaps and health/safety data; veterans preference; postaladdress; location of dependents andnext of kin and their addresses; mutual


aid association memberships; unionmemberships; qualifications;computerized modules used to trackpersonnel data; and other data neededfor personnel, financial, line, safety andsecurity management, as appropriate.



PURPOSE(S):To manage, supervise, and administer

programs for all Department of the Navycivilian and military personnel such aspreparing rosters/locators; contactingappropriate personnel in emergencies;training; identifying routine and specialwork assignments; determiningclearance for access control; recordhandlers of hazardous materials; recordrental of welfare and recreationalequipment; track beneficial suggestionsand awards; controlling the budget;travel claims; manpower and grades;maintaining statistics for minorities;employment; labor costing; watch billpreparation; projection of retirementlosses; verifying employment torequesting banking; rental and creditorganizations; name change location;checklist prior to leaving activity;payment of mutual aid benefits; safetyreporting/monitoring; and, similaradministrative uses requiring personneldata. Arbitrators and hearing examinersin civilian personnel matters relating tocivilian grievances and appeals.



The ’Blanket Routine Uses’ thatappear at the beginning of the Navy’scompilation of systems of recordsnotices apply to this system.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING,RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, ANDDISPOSING OF RECORDS:

STORAGE:Paper and automated records.

RETRIEVABILITY:Name, Social Security Number,

employee badge number, case number,organization, work center and/or joborder, supervisor’s shop and code.

SAFEGUARDS:Password controlled system, file, and

element access based on predefinedneed-to-know. Physical access to

terminals, terminal rooms, buildingsand activities’ grounds are controlled bylocked terminals and rooms, guards,personnel screening and visitorregisters.


Destroy when no longer needed orafter two years, whichever is later.

SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS:

Commanding officer of the activity inquestion. Official mailing addresses arepublished as an appendix to the Navy’scompilation of systems of recordsnotices.


Individuals seeking to determinewhether this system of records containsinformation about themselves shouldaddress written inquiries to thecommanding officer of the activity inquestion. Official mailing addresses arepublished as an appendix to the Navy’scompilation of systems of recordsnotices.

The request should include full name,Social Security Number, and address ofthe individual concerned and should besigned.


Individuals seeking access to recordsabout themselves contained in thissystem of records should addresswritten inquiries to the commandingofficer of the activity in question.Official mailing addresses are publishedas an appendix to the Navy’scompilation of systems of recordsnotices.

The request should include full name,Social Security Number, and address ofthe individual concerned and should besigned.




Individual, employment papers, otherrecords of the organization, officialpersonnel jackets, supervisors, officialtravel orders, educational institutions,applications, duty officer,investigations, OPM officials, and/ormembers of the American Red Cross.


None.

N05300–4

SYSTEM NAME:

Personnel Management and TrainingResearch Statistical Data System(February 22, 1993, 58 FR 10751).

CHANGES:

* * * * *

SAFEGUARDS:

Delete entry and replace with ‘Accessto building is controlled. Badge systemis used to enter Center; 24 hour guardmaintained on a fenced compound;control of visitors; data bank usershaving special access codes; and, accesslimited to only designated personnel.’* * * * *

N05300–4

SYSTEM NAME:

Personnel Management and TrainingResearch Statistical Data System.

SYSTEM LOCATION:

Commanding Officer, U.S. NavyPersonnel Research and DevelopmentCenter, 53335 Ryne Road, San Diego,CA 92152–7250.


U.S. Navy and Marine CorpsPersonnel and applicants thereto: Activeduty, reserve, prior service, dependents,retired, and Department of the Navycivilians from 1951 to present. (Onlysamples of data from each category areon file, depending on research study.)

CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:

Performance, attitudinal,biographical, aptitude, vocationalinterest, demographic, physiological.Data in any file are limited, dependingon purpose of the research study.

AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:

5 U.S.C. 301, DepartmentalRegulations.

PURPOSE(S):

The data are used solely by NavyPersonnel Research and DevelopmentCenter researchers who analyze themstatistically to arrive atrecommendations to management onsuch topics as: Comparison of differenttraining methods, selection tests,equipment designs, or policies relatingto improving race relations anddecreasing drug abuse. In no case arethe data used for other than statisticalpurposes; that is, the data are not usedin making decisions affecting specificindividuals as individuals.






STORAGE:Magnetic tapes, magnetic disk, and

print.

RETRIEVABILITY:Records are retrievable by name,

Social Security Number, or service/filenumbers, but such identifyinginformation is used only to permitcollation of data for statistical analysis,and is not used for retrieval ofindividual records.

SAFEGUARDS:Access to building is controlled.

Badge system is used to enter Center; 24hour guard maintained on a fencedcompound; control of visitors; data bankusers having special access codes; and,access limited to only designatedpersonnel.

RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:Records are destroyed five years after

termination of a research project. Theyare maintained within the confines ofthe Research Center. Destruction isaccomplished by degaussing magnetictapes and disks, and shredding paperproducts.

SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS:Director, Personnel and

Organizational Assessment Department,Code 12, Navy Personnel Research andDevelopment Center, 53335 Ryne Road,San Diego, CA 92152–7250.


whether information about themselvesis contained in this system shouldaddress written inquiries to the Director,Personnel and OrganizationalAssessment Department, Code 12, NavyPersonnel Research and DevelopmentCenter, 53335 Ryne Road, San Diego,CA 92152–7250.

Research Center files are organized byresearch study. To determine if Centerfiles contain information concerninghimself, an individual would have to

specify time and place of participationin the research, unit to which attachedat the time, and descriptive informationabout the study so that appropriate datamay be located. For a personal visit,please contact the system manager.


Individuals seeking access toinformation about themselves containedin this system should address writteninquiries to the Director, Personnel andOrganizational Assessment Department,Code 12, Navy Personnel Research andDevelopment Center, 53335 Ryne Road,San Diego, CA 92152–7250.

Research Center files are organized byresearch study. To determine if Centerfiles contain information concerninghimself, an individual would have tospecify time and place of participationin the research, unit to which attachedat the time, and descriptive informationabout the study so that appropriate datamay be located. For a personal visit,please contact the system manager.




The source depends on purpose andnature of study: From the subjectsthemselves, educational institutions,supervisors, peers, instructors, spouses,and job sample tests.


None.

N05300–5

SYSTEM NAME:

Command Management InformationSystem (CMIS) (August 17, 1995, 60 FR42854).

CHANGES:

SYSTEM IDENTIFIER:

Delete entry and replace with‘N05233-2’.* * * * *

CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:

In line 20, change the word ‘work’ to‘worked’.* * * * *

N05233–2

SYSTEM NAME:

Command Management InformationSystem (CMIS).

SYSTEM LOCATION:Naval Computer and

Telecommunications Station,Washington, 901 M Street, Southeast,Building 143, Washington Navy Yard,Washington, DC 20374–5069.


Current employee assigned militarypersonnel, contractor personnel andthose separated within the current fivefiscal years.

CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:Individual’s Social Security Number,

date of birth, home address, hometelephone number, education level, sex,race or ethnic group. Other types ofrecords integrated with personnelrecords include: (a) Status of travelorders during the previous fiscal year;(b) vehicle identification for parkingcontrol purposes; (c) manual privacy logcontaining a history of accesses made toany of the privacy protected data; (d)record of personnel actions issued; (e)training data extracted from theIndividual Development Plan (IDP); (f)history of all promotions associatedwith employment at Naval Computerand Telecommunications Station(NAVCOMTELSTA) Washington; (g)listing of security accesses; (h)manpower costs for all personneldistributed by project and task; and (i)data relating to projects or endeavorsthat individuals have worked on. Thisdata deals with costs and milestonemonitoring.


Regulations; 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.; 44U.S.C. 3101; and E.O. 9397 (SSN).

PURPOSE(S):To manage personnel, monitor

projects and manage financial data.





STORAGE:Records are maintained on magnetic

disk and on magnetic tape.


RETRIEVABILITY:CMIS users obtain information by

means of either a query or a request fora standard report. Personnel data maybe indexed by any data item althoughthe primary search key is the badgenumber.

SAFEGUARDS:Access to building is protected by a

Card Access System and uniformedguards requiring positive identificationfor admission. The computer roomwhere data is physically stored isprotected by a cipher lock. The systemis protected by user account numberand password sign-on, data baseauthority, set and item authority for list,add, delete, and update.

RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:An individual’s Personnel Master

Data Set record is retained in the database as long as they are activelyemployed with the Command. The on-line personnel data set is purged of allrecords of separated personnel at theend of each fiscal year. Historical datamay be kept for five years on separatetape files and then destroyed.

SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS:Director, Resources Management

Directorate (N1) NAVCOMTELSTA,Washington, 901 M Street, Southeast,Building 143, Washington Navy Yard,Washington, DC 20374–5069.


whether information about themselvesis contained in this system shouldaddress written inquiries to the Director,Resources Management Directorate (N1)NAVCOMTELSTA, Washington, 901 MStreet, Southeast, Building 143,Washington Navy Yard, Washington, DC20374–5069.

Individual should provide full nameand signature of the individualconcerned and his/her Social SecurityNumber indicated on the letter. Forpersonal visits, the individual should beable to provide some acceptable form ofidentification, i.e., driver’s license, etc.


information about themselves containedin this system should address writteninquiries to the Director, ResourcesManagement Directorate (N1)NAVCOMTELSTA, Washington, 901 MStreet, Southeast, Building 143,Washington Navy Yard, Washington, DC20374–5069.

Individual should provide full nameand signature of the individualconcerned and his/her Social SecurityNumber indicated on the letter. For

personal visits, the individual should beable to provide some acceptable form ofidentification, i.e., driver’s license, etc.



RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:Information in this system comes

from the individual to whom it applies,from security agencies to whichapplication for clearances have beenmade, and from agencies’ variousadministrative departments.


N07220–6

SYSTEM NAME:Midshipman Pay System (February

22, 1993, 58 FR 10803).

CHANGES:

* * * * *

CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:Delete entry and replace with

‘Military pay account records (DefenseJoint Military Pay System).’* * * * *

PURPOSE:Delete entry and replace with ‘To pay

Naval Academy midshipmen.’* * * * *

SAFEGUARDS:Delete entry and replace with ‘Access

is limited to Midshipmen DisbursingOffice personnel; information ispassword protected; and access tocomputer area is restricted.’* * * * *

RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:Delete entry and replace with

‘Midshipmen’s service record.’* * * * *

N07220–6

SYSTEM NAME:Midshipman Pay System.

SYSTEM LOCATION:Midshipmen Disbursing Office, U.S.

Naval Academy, 101 Sands Road,Annapolis, MD 21402–5078;

Defense Finance and AccountingService-Cleveland Center, 1240 East 9thStreet, Cleveland, OH 44199–2056;

Defense Finance and AccountingService-Denver Center, 6760 East

Irvington Place, Denver, CO 80279–5000; and

Chief of Naval Personnel, Bureau ofNaval Personnel, 2 Navy Annex,Washington, DC 20370–5001.


Midshipmen of the U.S. NavalAcademy, Annapolis, MD.

CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:Military pay account records (Defense

Joint Military Pay System).



PURPOSE(S):To pay Naval Academy midshipmen.



To officials and employees of theInternal Revenue Service and the SocialSecurity Administration for reportingwages, FICA tax and federal tax paid.

To the American Red Cross, NavyRelief Society, and U.S.O. for personalassistance to the member.

The ‘Blanket Routine Uses’ thatappear at the beginning of the Navy’scompilation also apply to this system.


STORAGE:Computerized and microfiche records.

RETRIEVABILITY:Social Security Number.

SAFEGUARDS:Access is limited to Midshipmen

Disbursing Office personnel;information is password protected; andaccess to computer area is restricted.

RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:Records are maintained for six years

and three months and then destroyed.

SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS:Midshipmen Disbursing Office, U.S.

Naval Academy, 101 Sands Road,Annapolis, MD 21402–5078;

Defense Finance and AccountingService-Cleveland Center, 1240 East 9thStreet, Cleveland, OH 44199–2056; and

Defense Finance and AccountingService-Denver Center, 6760 East


Irvington Place, Denver, CO 80279–5000.


Individuals can be informed of anyrecords maintained in the system byidentifying themselves to MidshipmenDisbursing Office, U.S. Naval Academy,101 Sands Road, Annapolis, MD 21402–5078.

Requesters should include their fullname and Social Security Number intheir request.


Individuals seeking access toinformation about themselves containedin this system should address writteninquiries to the Midshipmen DisbursingOffice, U.S. Naval Academy, 101 SandsRoad, Annapolis, MD 21402–5078 orvisit the Midshipmen Disbursing Office.Individual must present his/heridentification card to obtain therequested information.




Midshipmen’s service record.


None.

N12593–1

SYSTEM NAME:

Living Quarters and LodgingAllowance (February 22, 1993, 58 FR10820).

CHANGES:

* * * * *

SYSTEM NAME:

Delete entry and replace with‘Civilian Overseas Quarters and LodgingAllowances.’* * * * *

PURPOSE(S):

Delete entry and replace with ‘Torecord civilian overseas employee’sliving quarters and/or temporarylodging allowance entitlement.’* * * * *

AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:

Delete entry and replace with ‘5U.S.C. 301, Departmental Regulationsand E.O.s 9397 (SSN), 10903, 10970,10853, and 10982.’* * * * *

SAFEGUARDS:Delete entry and replace with ‘Access

provided on need to know basis only.Access to computerized and manualrecords is limited he control ofauthorized personnel during workinghours. The office space in which the filecabinets are located is locked outside ofofficial working hours. Access tocomputerized data base is passwordprotected.’

RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:Delete entry and replace with ‘Files

are retained for four years and thendestroyed.’* * * * *

RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:Delete entry and replace with

‘Individual and official personnel file.’* * * * *

N12593–1

SYSTEM NAME:Civilian Overseas Quarters and

Lodging Allowances.

SYSTEM LOCATION:Overseas organizational elements of

the Department of the Navy. Officialmailing addresses are published as anappendix to the Navy’s compilation ofsystems of records notices.

Appropriated and non-appropriatedfund U.S. civilian employees eligible forallowance.

CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:Employee’s name, grade, address, rent

and utility expenses, living quarters andlodging allowance, and name of familyand/or members.


Regulations and E.O.s 9397 (SSN),10903, 10970, 10853, and 10982.

PURPOSE(S):To record civilian overseas

employee’s living quarters and/ortemporary lodging allowanceentitlement.



To officials of the Department of Statefor the purpose of monitoring the levelof allowances that Navy is authorized.

The ‘Blanket Routine Uses’ thatappear at the beginning of the Navy’s

compilation of systems of recordsnotices apply to this system.


STORAGE:Paper records and computerized data

base.

RETRIEVABILITY:Name and Social Security Number.

SAFEGUARDS:Access provided on need to know

basis only. Access to computerized andmanual records is limited he control ofauthorized personnel during workinghours. The office space in which the filecabinets are located is locked outside ofofficial working hours. Access tocomputerized data base is passwordprotected.

RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:Files are retained for four years and

then destroyed.

SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS:Overseas commanding officer of the

activity in question. Official mailingaddresses are published as an appendixto the Navy’s compilation of systems ofrecords notices.


whether this system containsinformation about themselves shouldaddress written inquiries to theCommanding Officer at the overseasactivity where he or she is assigned.Official mailing addresses are publishedas an appendix to the Navy’scompilation of systems of records.

Requester should include full name,Social Security Number, and datesassigned to the activity.


information about themselves containedin this system should address writteninquiries to the Commanding Officer atthe overseas activity where he or she isassigned. Official mailing addresses arepublished as an appendix to the Navy’scompilation of systems of records.

Requester should include full name,Social Security Number, and datesassigned to the activity.





Individual and official personnel files.


None.[FR Doc. 97–6746 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 5000–04–F

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Notice of Proposed InformationCollection Requests

AGENCY: Department of Education.

ACTION: Proposed collection; commentsrequested.

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Educationrequests comments on the FreeApplication for Federal Student Aid(FAFSA) that the Secretary proposes touse for the 1998–99 award year. TheFAFSA is completed by students andtheir families and the informationsubmitted on the form is used todetermine the students’ eligibility andfinancial need for the student financialassistance programs authorized underTitle IV of the Higher Education Act of1965, as amended, (Title IV, HEAPrograms). The Secretary is particularlyseeking comments regarding whether allthe questions on the FAFSA are needed.The Secretary will consider thesecomments not only for the 1998–99FAFSA but also in the design of the1999–2000 FAFSA.

DATES: Interested persons are invited tosubmit comments on or before May 19,1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments andrequests for copies of the proposedinformation collection requests shouldbe addressed to Patrick J. Sherrill,Department of Education, 600Independence Avenue, S.W., Room5624, Regional Office Building 3,Washington, DC 20202–4651.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Patrick J. Sherrill (202) 708–8196.Individuals who use atelecommunications device for the deaf(TDD) may call the Federal InformationRelay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern time,Monday through Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section483 of the Higher Education Act of1965, as amended (HEA), requires theSecretary, ‘‘in cooperation with agenciesand organizations involved in providingstudent financial assistance,’’ to‘‘produce, distribute and process free ofcharge a common financial reportingform to be used to determine the needand eligibility of a student under’’ theTitle IV, HEA Programs. This form is theFAFSA. In addition, section 483authorizes the Secretary to include onthe FAFSA up to eight non-financialdata items that would assist States inawarding State student financialassistance.

Over the past several years, theSecretary, in cooperation with the abovedescribed agencies and organizations,has added questions to the form. Thosequestions were added to accommodatethe needs of States that administer Statestudent aid programs, and ofinstitutions of higher education thatadminister the Title IV, HEA Programs.They were also added to facilitateeliminating or reducing the number ofState and institutional forms that astudent and his or her family mustcomplete in order to receive studentfinancial assistance.

In the context of re-engineering theFAFSA and looking at each FAFSAquestion anew, it appears that a greatmany of the questions now on the formare not needed to determine a student’sneed and eligibility for Title IV, HEAPrograms. Moreover, it also appears thatmany questions are of a marginal value,even for State and institutionalpurposes.

The 1998–99 FAFSA will begin to beused on January 1, 1998. Because of thelead time needed to begin using thatform on that date, the Secretary hasproposed to modify or eliminate only aminimum number of questions of theproposed 1998–99 FAFSA. Using the1996–97 and 1997–98 FAFSAs as areference point, the Secretary proposeseliminating question 37. The Secretaryproposes to combine questions 20 and21 into a single yes/no question, asfollows: ‘‘Will you have received a highschool diploma or earned a GED beforethe first date of your enrollment incollege?’’ The Secretary proposes toeliminate the ‘‘day’’ in questions 12, 31,and 50 leaving just the ‘‘month’’ and‘‘year.’’ Finally, the Secretary proposesto eliminate the fourth option under‘‘housing codes’’ on page four of theFAFSA. The Secretary seeks commentson these modifications.

With regard to the 1999–2000 FAFSA,using the 1996–97 and 1997–98 FAFSAsas a reference point, the Secretary notes

that a student does not need to completethe following questions in order to havehis or her eligibility and need for TitleIV, HEA Programs determined: 11–14,18, 20–39, 50, 53–54, 65–66, and 92-105. Therefore the Secretary requestscomments on the need and desirabilityof these questions.

In particular, the Secretary requestscomments on whether a particularquestion is integral to a State studentaid program, and requests each State tolist in order of importance, thosequestions that it needs to administer itsState student aid programs.

The Secretary is publishing thisrequest for comment under theprovisions of the Paperwork ReductionAct of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.Under that Act, ED must obtain thereview and approval of the Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) beforeit may use a form to collect information.However, under the procedure forobtaining approval from OMB, ED mustfirst obtain public comment on theproposed form, and to obtain thatcomment, ED must publish this noticein the Federal Register.

In addition to comments requestedabove, to accommodate therequirements of the PaperworkReduction Act, the Secretary isinterested in receiving comments withregard to the following matters: (1) isthis collection necessary to the properfunctions of the Department, (2) willthis information be processed and usedin a timely manner, (3) is the estimateof burden accurate, (4) how might theDepartment enhance the quality, utility,and clarity of the information to becollected, and (5) how might theDepartment minimize the burden of thiscollection on the respondents, includingthrough the use of informationtechnology.

Dated: March 12, 1997.Gloria Parker,Director, Information Resources ManagementGroup.

Office of Postsecondary Education

Type of Review: Revision.Title: Free Application for Federal

Student Aid (FAFSA).Frequency: Annually.Affected Public: Individuals and

families.Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping

Hour Burden:Responses: 9,831,756.Burden Hours: 7,625,993.

Abstract: The FAFSA collectsidentifying and financial informationabout a student and his or her family ifthe student applies for Title IV, HigherEducation Act (HEA) Program funds.


This information is used to calculate thestudent’s expected family contribution,which is used to determine a student’sfinancial need. The information is alsoused to determine the student’seligibility for grants and loans under theTitle IV, HEA Programs. It is furtherused for determining a student’seligibility and need for State andinstitutional financial aid programs.

[FR Doc. 97–6742 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4000–01–P

Submission for OMB Review;Comment Request

AGENCY: Department of Education.ACTION: Submission for OMB review;comment request.

SUMMARY: The Director, InformationResources Management Group, invitescomments on the submission for OMBreview as required by the PaperworkReduction Act of 1995.DATES: Interested persons are invited tosubmit comments on or before April 17,1997.ADDRESSES: Written comments shouldbe addressed to the Office ofInformation and Regulatory Affairs,Attention: Wendy Taylor, Desk Officer,Department of Education, Office ofManagement and Budget, 725 17thStreet, NW., Room 10235, NewExecutive Office Building, Washington,DC 20503. Requests for copies of theproposed information collectionrequests should be addressed to PatrickJ. Sherrill, Department of Education, 600Independence Avenue, S.W., Room5624, Regional Office Building 3,Washington, DC 20202–4651.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Patrick J. Sherrill (202) 708–8196.Individuals who use atelecommunications device for the deaf(TDD) may call the Federal InformationRelay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern time,Monday through Friday.SUPPLEMENTARY 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 orFederal law, or substantially interferewith any agency’s ability to perform itsstatutory obligations. The Director of the

Information Resources ManagementGroup publishes this 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 at the address specifiedabove. Copies of the requests areavailable from Patrick J. Sherrill at theaddress specified above.

Dated: March 12, 1997.Gloria Parker,Director, Information Resources ManagementGroup.

Office of Postsecondary Education

Type of Review: Reinstatement.Title: Combined Application for the

Talent Search and EducationalOpportunity Centers Program.

Frequency: Annually.Affected Public: Business or other for-

profit; Not-for-profit institutions; State,local or Tribal Gov’t, SEAs or LEAs.

Annual Reporting and RecordkeepingHour Burden:

Responses: 1,200.Burden Hours: 40,800.

Abstract: The application form isneeded to conduct a nationalcompetition for program years 97–98 forthe Talent Search and the EducationalOpportunity Centers. These programsprovide federal financial assistance inthe form of grants to institutions ofhigher education, public and privateagencies and organizations,combinations of institutions andagencies and, in exceptional cases,secondary schools to establish andoperate projects designed to provideinformation regarding financial andacademic assistance available forindividuals who desire to pursue aprogram of postsecondary education,and assist individuals to apply foradmission to institutions that offerprograms of postsecondary education.


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Site Services Division; Notice ofAvailability of a CooperativeAgreement Solicitation for the Historyof the Savannah River Site

AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy(DOE), Savannah River (SR) Office.ACTION: Notice of Availability of aCooperative Agreement Solicitation.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE) at SR is announcing theavailability of a cooperative agreementsolicitation for the history of theSavannah River Site (SRS). The SRS isapproaching its fiftieth anniversary andis currently involved in closing oldproduction facilities and relatedenvironmental restoration of thesefacilities. The solicitation was madeavailable on February 28, 1997;applications are due March 28, 1997.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As amatter of legacy and education, it isimportant that Savannah River capturethe technical history of the oldproduction facilities, related artifacts,and the technology developed at SRSfrom the inception of the site in theearly 1950’s to the present time.

The purpose of this solicitation is toestablish a mechanism to research,develop and preserve the mission(nuclear materials production) history ofSRS, and to provide a product tool to beused for continual education and publicinformation purposes.

The participant will conduct a three-phased project to record and preservethe history of the SRS. Phase One willinvolve a survey of structures andartifacts of historic significance at SRSincluding photographs and documents,development of criteria for determininghistoric significance, and the recordingof oral histories from scientists andengineers associated with thedevelopment of nuclear energy at SRS.Phase Two will require the gathering,archiving and storage of those itemsidentified in the Phase One survey.Phase Three will consist of thepreparation and submission of anelectronic narrative of the site historyand recommendations for archival andfuture use of the artifacts, documents,photographs and personal narratives.

All phases of this project must becarried out in concert and with theobjective of compiling a site history thatevaluates and determines thesignificance of SRS’ role in the ColdWar and provides recommendations fornomination of various site buildings andstructures to the National Register ofHistoric Places includingrecommendations for meeting


nomination guidelines under Section106 of the National HistoricPreservation Act.

The project should be conducted withinput from experts in the variousprofessional disciplines involved in thedevelopment and operation of the SRSand led by historians whose area ofexpertise includes twentieth centurymilitary/industrial development in theUnited States.

Those who submitted an Expressionof Interest (EOI) in response to theDepartment’s August 1996 request forEOI’s will automatically receive a copyof the solicitation. Requests for copies ofthe solicitation should be received inwriting or be transmitted via facsimileto (803) 725–8573 no later than close ofbusiness (4:00 p.m. Eastern StandardTime) March 14, 1997. Requests ornotifications should be sent to Ms.Angela M. Sistrunk, ContractsManagement Division, U.S. Departmentof Energy, P.O. Box A, Aiken, SC 29802.Telephonic requests will not beaccepted.

Issued in Aiken, SC, on March 4, 1997.Ronald D. Simpson,Head of Contracting Activity Designee,Contracts Management Division, SavannahRiver Operations Office.[FR Doc. 97–6782 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6450–01–P


Privatization Working Group: Notice ofAvailability of the Report of thePrivatization Working Group

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary,Department of Energy (DOE).ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: The Privatization WorkingGroup, established by the Secretary ofEnergy to examine how privatizationcould help the Department utilize itsresources more efficiently, hascompleted its work and provided itsrecommendations to the Secretary. Thisnotice announces the availability of theWorking Group’s report entitled,‘‘Harnessing the Market: TheOpportunities and Challenges ofPrivatization’’ Report #DOE/S–0120. Italso requests the views of the public onthe policy, principles, andrecommendations contained therein.DATES: Comments should be submittedon or before May 19, 1997.ADDRESSES: Written comments onReport # DOE/S–0120 should be sent to:The Office of the Executive Secretariat,U.S. Department of Energy, ForrestalBuilding, 1000 Independence Ave., SW,Room 7E–054, Washington, DC 20585.

Copies of this report, #DOE/S–0120may be ordered from the PublicInquiries Office, U.S. Department ofEnergy, Forrestal Building, 1000Independence Ave., SW, Room 1E–206or by calling (202) 586–5575.

The report is also available on theInternet at: http://www.doe.gov/privatization/report.

Additionally, this report is availablefor inspection in the Public ReadingRooms at DOE Headquarters and in theDepartment’s primary field offices. Thelocations and telephone numbers ofthese Reading Rooms are:U.S. Department of Energy, Public

Reading Room, 1000 IndependenceAve., Room 1E–090, SW, Washington,DC 20585 (202) 586–5955

National Atomic Museum, PublicReading Room, 20358 WyomingBoulevard SE, Kirtland Air ForceBase, NM 87117, 505–845–4378, Attn:Diane Zepeda

Chicago Operations Office, PublicReading Room, 9800 South CassAvenue, Argonne, IL 60439, 630–252–2010, Attn: Sandra Geib

Idaho Operations Office, Public ReadingRoom, 1776 Science Center Drive,Idaho Falls, ID 83415, 208–526–1144,Attn: Gail Wilmore

Nevada Operations Office, PublicReading Room, 2621 Losee Rd. Bldg.B–3 Mail Stop 548, Las Vegas, NV89030, 702–295–1628, 702–295–1128,Attn: Janet Fogg

Oak Ridge Operations Office, PublicReading Room, Federal Building, 200Administration Road, Oak Ridge, TN37830, 423–576–1216, Attn: JaneGreenwalt

Oakland Operations Office, PublicReading Room-Room 1H/EIC, 1301Clay Street, Oakland CA 94612, 510–637–1794, Attn: Lauren Noble

U.S. Department of Energy, PublicReading Room, University of SouthCarolina-Aiken, 171 UniversityParkway, Second Floor Library,Aiken, SC 29801, 803–725–1408,Attn: Pauline Conner

U.S. Department of Energy, PublicReading Room, Ohio Field Office, 1Mound Road, Miamisburg, OH 45342,513–865–3174, Attn: Cindy Franklin-1st Floor

U.S. Department of Energy, PublicReading Room, Richland Operations,100 Sprout Road, Richland, WA99352, 509–376–8583, Attn: TerriTraub

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: TheContract Reform Project Office, U.S.Department of Energy, room GA–155,Washington, DC 20585 (202) 586–0800,or the individual site offices asdesignated below:

Albuquerque Operations Office—JimHoyal (505) 845–5751

Chicago Operations Office—JerryZimmer (630) 252–2129

Federal Energy Technology Center—Carroll Labton (412) 892–6199

Golden Field Office—Jeff Baker (303)275–4785

Idaho Operations Office—Jan Chavez(208) 526–5968

Nevada Operations Office-RickBetteridge (702) 295–0520

Oak Ridge Operations Office—StevenWyatt (423) 576–0885

Oakland Operations Office—JimHirahara (510) 637–1658

Ohio Field Office—Pete Greenwald(937) 865–3862

Richland Operations Office—LiefErickson (509) 376–7272

Rocky Flats Field Office—Jeff Kerridge(303) 966–2866

Savannah River Operations Office—Chris Van Horn (803) 725–5313

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FormerSecretary of Energy, Hazel R. O’Leary,initiated a broad slate of strategic andmanagerial reform initiatives totransform the Department to better meetthe challenges of the 21st Century. Thereports that support these reformsconsistently identified privatization as apotentially powerful management toolto enable institutional change. Inrecognition of this and in support of theClinton Administration’s commitmentto a government that works better andcosts less, the Secretary formed thePrivatization Working Group to examinehow privatization could help transformDOE.

The report of the Working Group,Harnessing the Market: TheOpportunities and Challenges ofPrivatization, provides an analysis ofthe major issues that affect privatizationwithin the Department of Energy. Thereport includes 13 case studies thatexplore actual DOE privatization effortsover the past two years. Additionally, itsummarizes the key legal authoritiesthat govern each of the three types ofprivatization opportunities discussed inthe report. Finally, the report makes aseries of recommendations and outlinesaccompanying actions that will help theDepartment seize the opportunitiespresented by privatization and confrontits challenges. The report stresses thatwhen wisely considered and carefullyimplemented, privatization is apowerful strategic management tool.

The Department is interested in theviews of stakeholders on the report’srecommendations and action items.


Issued in Washington, DC on March 12,1997.Dan W. Reicher,Chief of Staff, Department of Energy.[FR Doc. 97–6780 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

Office of General Counsel

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act;Intergovernmental Consultation

AGENCY: Office of the General Counsel,Department of Energy.ACTION: Notice of final statement ofpolicy.

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy(DOE) today publishes a final statementof policy on intergovernmentalconsultation under the UnfundedMandates Reform Act of 1995. Thepolicy reflects the guidelines andinstructions that the Director of theOffice of Management and Budget(OMB) provided to each agency todevelop, with input from State, local,and tribal officials, anintergovernmental consultation processwith regard to significantintergovernmental mandates containedin a notice of proposed rulemaking.EFFECTIVE DATE: This policy is effectiveMarch 18, 1997.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Steve Duarte, Office of the AssistantGeneral Counsel for Regulatory Law,U.S. Department of Energy, 1000Independence Avenue, S.W.,Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586–9507.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section203 of the Unfunded Mandates ReformAct of 1995 (the Act), 2 U.S.C. 1533,requires that, prior to establishingregulatory requirements that mightsignificantly or uniquely affect smallgovernments, the agency shall havedeveloped a plan that, among otherthings, provides for notice to potentiallyaffected small governments, if any, andfor a meaningful and timely opportunityto provide input in the development ofregulatory proposals. Section 204(a) ofthe Act requires each agency to develop,to the extent permitted by law, aneffective process to permit timely inputby elected officers (or their designees) ofState, local, and tribal governments inthe development of a regulatoryproposal containing a proposed‘‘significant intergovernmentalmandate’’ that is not a requirementspecifically set forth in law. 2 U.S.C.1531, 1534(a).

A ‘‘significant intergovernmentalmandate’’ under the Act is anyprovision in a Federal agency regulationthat: (1) Would impose an enforceable

duty upon State, local, or tribalgovernments (except as a condition ofFederal assistance); and (2) may resultin the expenditure by State, local, andtribal governments, in the aggregate, of$100 million (adjusted annually forinflation) in any one year. See 2 U.S.C.658(5)(A)(i), 1532(a). The Act defines‘‘small government’’ to mean any smallgovernmental jurisdiction defined in theRegulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.601(5), and any tribal government. 2U.S.C. 658(11).

In January 1996, DOE published anotice of a proposed policy toimplement this portion of the Act andthe OMB guidelines and instructionspublished on September 29, 1995 (60 FR50651) that deal with theintergovernmental consultation process.DOE sought public comment on theproposed policy in order to give State,local and tribal officials, as well asmembers of the public, an opportunityto comment on the policy before it wasfinalized. DOE received comments fromone commenter. The DOE reviewed thecomments and has determined tofinalize the proposed policy with themodifications as described below.

The commenter suggested thatindirect notification to local electedofficials (or their designees) through theNational League of Cities, the NationalAssociation of Counties, and the U.S.Conference of Mayors may not providenotification to those local electedofficials who are not members of thesenational organizations. The commentersuggested that DOE also notify the StateMunicipal Leagues. DOE has decided toimplement this suggestion in thefollowing manner. DOE understandsthat a number of the State MunicipalLeagues are members of, and arerepresented by, one or another of thenamed national organizations. DOE willnotify directly the State MunicipalLeagues that are not otherwiserepresented by one of the namednational organizations.

The commenter suggested that, indetermining if an unfunded mandatetriggers the $100 million threshold, theDOE should not discount future costs topresent value. After consulting withOMB, DOE has accepted this suggestion.

The commenter also suggested thatDOE open the consultation processwhenever a DOE rule would create anunfunded mandate, without regard forthe cost of the mandate. DOE has notaccepted this suggestion because the Actprovides otherwise, and in any event,issues about a proposed mandate couldbe presented during the commentperiod provided in the notice ofproposed rulemaking. The Act assignsto the agency the obligation to assess the

effects of Federal regulatory actions onState, local and tribal governments. 2U.S.C. 1531. The Act requires that theagency permit State, local, and tribalgovernments to provide input in thedevelopment of regulatory proposalswhen the regulatory proposals containsignificant Federal intergovernmentalmandates. 2 U.S.C. 1534. If the agencyfinds that the unfunded mandate doesnot rise to the level of a ‘‘significantintergovernmental mandate’’ under theAct, then the consultation process is notrequired. However, such a findingwould not preclude a State, local, ortribal government from commenting ina public hearing or in a meeting withagency officials on a proposedintergovernmental mandate that isbelow the threshold of a ‘‘significantintergovernmental mandate.’

Finally, the commenter suggested thatDOE create a review process wherebylocal government officials can petitionto have DOE’s threshold determinationreviewed by a ‘‘neutral party.’’ DOE hasnot accepted this suggestion because theAct specifically provides for judicialreview. 2 U.S.C. 1571.

In accordance with section 801 of theSmall Business Regulatory EnforcementAct of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE willreport to Congress the promulgation ofthis Statement of Policy prior to itseffective date.

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 11,1997.Mary Anne Sullivan,Acting General Counsel.

On the basis of the foregoing, DOEadopts the following Statement ofPolicy:

Statement of Policy on the Process forIntergovernmental Consultation Underthe Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of1995

I. PurposeThis Statement of Policy implements

sections 203 and 204 of the UnfundedMandates Reform Act of 1995 (Act), 2U.S.C. 1533, 1534, consistent with theguidelines and instructions of theDirector of the Office of Managementand Budget (OMB).

II. ApplicabilityThis Statement of Policy applies to

the development of any regulation(other than a regulation for a financialassistance program) containing asignificant intergovernmental mandateunder the Act. A significantintergovernmental mandate is amandate that: (1) Would impose anenforceable duty upon State, local, ortribal governments (except as acondition of Federal assistance); and (2)


may result in the expenditure by State,local, and tribal governments, in theaggregate, of $100 million (adjustedannually for inflation) in any one year.DOE officials may apply this Statementof Policy selectively if there is anexigent need for immediate agencyaction that would warrant waiver ofprior notice and opportunity for publiccomment under the AdministrativeProcedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553.

III. Intergovernmental Consultation

When to begin. As early as possible inthe development of a notice of proposedrulemaking (for other than a financialassistance program) that involves anenforceable duty on State, local, or tribalgovernments, the responsible SecretarialOfficer, with the concurrence of theAssistant Secretary for Policy and theGeneral Counsel, should estimatewhether the aggregate complianceexpenditures will be in the amount of$100 million or more in any one year.In making such an estimate, theSecretarial Officer ordinarily shouldadjust the $100 million figure in yearsafter 1995 using the Gross DomesticProduct deflator as contained in theAnnual Report of the Counsel ofEconomic Advisors which is part of theEconomic Report of the President.

Content of notice. Upon determiningthat a proposed regulatory mandate onState, local, or tribal governments maybe a significant intergovernmentalmandate, the Secretarial Officerresponsible for the rulemaking shouldprovide adequate notice to pertinentState, local and tribal officials: (1)Describing the nature and authority forthe rulemaking; (2) explaining DOE’sestimate of the resulting increase intheir governmental expenditure level;(3) inviting them to participate in thedevelopment of the notice of proposedrulemaking by participating in meetingswith DOE or by presenting their viewsin writing on the likely effects of theregulatory requirement or legallyavailable policy alternatives that DOEshould take into account. If DOEpublishes an advance notice ofproposed rulemaking, then these issuesmay be addressed in that advancenotice.

How to notify State and tribalofficials. With respect to State and tribalgovernments, actual notice should begiven by letter, using a mailing listmaintained by the DOE Office ofIntergovernmental and External Affairsthat includes elected chief executives(or their designees), chief financialofficers (or their designees), the NationalGovernors Association, and the NationalCongress of American Indians. The

Secretarial Officer also should providenotice in the Federal Register.

How to notify local officials. Withrespect to local governments, theSecretarial Officer should providenotice through the Federal Register andby letter to the National League ofCities, the National Association ofCounties, the U.S. Conference ofMayors, and any State MunicipalLeague not represented by a nationalassociation. If a significantintergovernmental mandate might affectlocal governments in a limited area ofthe United States, then the SecretarialOfficer, in consultation with the Officeof Intergovernmental and ExternalAffairs, should give actual notice byletter to appropriate local officials ifpracticable.

Exemption from the Federal AdvisoryCommittee Act. Secretarial Officers areencouraged to meet with State, local,and tribal elected officials (or theirdesignees) to exchange views,information, and advice concerning theimplementation of intergovernmentalresponsibilities or administration.Section 204(b) of the Act, 2 U.S.C.1534(b), exempts from the FederalAdvisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.)meetings for this purpose that do notinclude other members of the public.

Small government consultation plan.If the proposed regulatory requirementsmight significantly or uniquely affectsmall governments, then the SecretarialOfficer should summarize in theSupplementary Information section ofthe notice of proposed rulemaking itsplan for intergovernmental consultationunder section 203 of the Act. Unlessimpracticable, the plan should providefor actual notice by letter to potentiallyaffected small governments.

Documenting compliance. TheSupplementary Information section ofany notice of proposed and finalrulemaking involving a significantintergovernmental mandate upon State,local, or Indian tribal governmentsshould describe DOE’s determinationsand compliance activities under the Act.The Supplementary Information sectionof the notice of proposed rulemakingshould describe the estimated impact ofan intergovernmental mandate, theassumptions underlying its calculation,and the resulting determination ofwhether the rulemaking involves asignificant intergovernmental mandate.It should discuss, as appropriate, costand benefit estimates and anyreasonable suggestions received duringpre-notice intergovernmentalconsultations. Any substantive pre-notice written communications shouldbe described in the SupplementaryInformation and made available for

inspection in the public rulemaking filein the DOE Freedom of InformationReading Room.

Reporting. Pursuant to the OMBguidelines and instructions, the Officeof General Counsel, with thecooperation of the Secretarial Officers,will prepare the annual report to OMBon compliance with theintergovernmental consultationrequirements of the Act (initially due onJanuary 15, 1996, and annually onJanuary 15 thereafter).


Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission

[Docket No. TM97–10–23–000]

Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company;Notice of Proposed Changes in FERCGas Tariff

March 12, 1997.

Take notice that on March 7, 1997,Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company(ESNG) tendered for filing as part of itsFERC Gas Tariff, First Revised VolumeNo. 1, certain revised tariff sheet in theabove captioned docket, with aproposed effective date of April 1, 1997.

ESNG states that the purpose of thisinstant filing is to ‘‘track’’Transcontinental Gas Pipe LineCorporation’s (Transco) revised fuelretention percentages for injecting gasinto storages (see Transco’s SeventhRevised Sheet No. 29) proposed to beeffective April 1, 1997.

ESNG states that copies of the filinghave been served upon its jurisdictionalcustomers and interested StateCommissions.

Any person desiring to be heard or toprotest said filing should file a motionto intervene or protest with the FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission, 888First Street, N.E., Washington D.C.20426, in accordance with Rule 211 andRule 214 of the Commission’s Rules ofPractice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211and 385.214). All such motions orprotests must be filed in accordancewith Section 154.210 of theCommission’s Regulations. Protests willbe considered by the Commission indetermining the appropriate action to betaken, but will not serve to makeprotestants parties to the proceeding.Any person wishing to become a partymust file a motion to intervene. Copiesof this filing are on file with the


Commission and are available for publicinspection.Lois D. Cashell,Secretary.[FR Doc. 97–6760 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. TM97–2–24–000]

Equitrans, L.P.; Notice of ProposedChanges in FERC Gas Tariff

March 12, 1997.

Take notice that on March 3, 1997,Equitrans, L.P. (Equitrans) tendered forfiling as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, FirstRevised Volume No. 1, the followingproposed tariff sheet, with an effectivedate of April 1, 1997:

Eighth Revised Sheet No. 6

Equitrans states that this filingconstitutes its second annual productsextraction rate adjustment filing underSection 32 of the General Terms andConditions of its FERC Gas Tariff. Bythis filing, Equitrans proposes anadjusted extraction rate of $0.2004/Dthfor the prospective 12-month periodbeginning April 1, 1997. Equitrans statesthat this represents a reduction from the$0,2015/Dth rate which was approvedby the Commission in 1996. Incalculating the current rate, Equitransstates that it utilizes actual extractionbillings and actual plant throughout forthe 12 months ended December 31,1996, adjusted for anticipated activityduring 1997, all as more fully set forthin the filing.

Any person desiring to be heard orprotest this filing should file a motionto intervene or protest with the FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission, 888First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.20426, in accordance with Sections385.214 and 385.211 of theCommission’s Rules and Regulations.All such motions or protests must befiled in accordance with Section154.210 of the Commission’sRegulations. Protests will be consideredby the 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 in thePublic Reference Room.Lois D. Cashell,Secretary.[FR Doc. 97–6761 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. RP97–198–002]

Gulf States Transmission Corporation;Notice of Proposed Changes in FERCGas Tariff

March 12, 1997.Take notice that on March 7, 1997,

Gulf States Transmission Corporation(GSTC) tendered for filing as part of itsFERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1,certain tariff sheets to be effectiveDecember 31, 1996.

GSTC states that the purpose of thefiling is to comply with theCommission’s letter order issuedFebruary 5, 1997 in Docket No. RP97–198–001.

GSTC states that it has modified itstariff to (i) replace the term ‘‘casereservation rate’’ with ‘‘base reservationrate’’ on Tariff Sheet No. 58G, (ii) reflectthat its discounted policy is applicablealso to GSTC’s interruptible rates, (iii)modify Tariff Sheet No. 58G to correctlyreflect Original Volume No. 1 instead ofFirst Revised Volume No. 1, and (iv)change the requested effective date toDecember 31, 1996.

GSTC states that copies of the filingare being mailed to its jurisdictionalcustomers and interested statesregulatory agencies.

Any person desiring to protest thisfiling should file a protest with theFederal Energy Regulatory Commission,888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.20426, in accordance with Section385.211 of the Commission’s Rules andRegulations. All such protests must befiled as provided in Section 154.210 ofthe Commission’s Regulations. Protestswill be considered by the Commissionin determining the appropriate action tobe taken, but will not serve to makeprotestants parties to the proceeding.Copies of this filing are on file with theCommission and are available for publicinspection in the Public ReferenceRoom.Lois D. Cashell,Secretary.[FR Doc. 97–6775 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. TM97–1–131–000]

KO Transmission Company; Notice ofTariff Filing


KO Transmission Company (KOTransmission) tendered for filing tobecome part of its FERC Gas Tariff,Original Volume No. 1, the followingrevised tariff sheet bearing a proposedeffective date of April 1, 1997.Second Revised Sheet No. 10

KO Transmission states that thepurpose of the filing is to revise its fuelretainage percentage consistent withSection 24 of the General Terms andConditions of its Tariff. According toKO Transmission, Columbia GasTransmission Corporation (Columbia)operates and maintains the KOTransmission facilities pursuant to theOperating Agreement referenced in itsTariff at Original Sheet No. 7. Pursuantto that Operating Agreement, Columbiaretains certain volumes associated withgas transported on behalf of KOTransmission. On March 4, 1997,Columbia notified KO Transmission thatunder the terms of the OperatingAgreement KO Transmission will besubject to a 0.46% retainage.Accordingly, KO Transmission statesthat the instant filing tracks this fuelpercentage.

Any person desiring to be heard orprotest this filing should file a motionto intervene or protest with the FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission, 888First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.20426, in accordance with Sections385.214 and 385.211 of theCommission’s Rules and Regulations.All such motions or protests must befiled in accordance with Section154.210 of the Commission’sRegulations. Protests will be consideredby the 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 in thePublic Reference Room.Lois D. Cashell,Secretary.[FR Doc. 97–6762 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–M


Koch Gateway Pipeline Company;Notice of Proposed Changes in FERCGas Tariff


Koch Gateway Pipeline Company(Koch) tendered for filing as part of itsFERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised VolumeNo. 1, the following tariff sheets, tobecome effective April 7, 1997:1st Rev Seventh Revised Sheet No. 1Seventeenth Revised Sheet No. 24First Revised Sheet No. 1414Third Revised Sheet No. 3200Fourth Revised Sheet No. 5200

Koch states that the above referencedtariff sheets are being filed to reflect


minor administrative and typographicalcorrections to its Fifth Revised VolumeNo. 1 FERC Gas Tariff.

Koch also states that the revised tariffsheets are being served upon all itscustomers, State Commissions, andother interested parties.

Any person desiring to be heard or toprotest this filing should file a motionto intervene or protest with the FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission, 888First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.20426, in accordance with Sections385.214 and 385.211 of theCommission’s rules and regulations. Allsuch motions or protests must be filedas provided by § 154.210 of theCommission’s Regulations. Protests willbe considered by the Commission indetermining the appropriate action to betaken, but will not serve to makeprotestants parties to the proceeding.Any person wishing to become a partmust file a motion to intervene. Copiesof this filing are on file with theCommission and are available for publicinspection in the Public ReferenceRoom.Lois D. Cashell,Secretary.[FR Doc. 97–6766 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. TM97–1–54–001]

Louisiana Nevada Transit Company;Notice of Refund Report

March 12, 1997.Take notice that on February 28, 1997,

Louisiana Nevada Transit Company(LNT) filed a refund report in DocketNo. TM97–1–54–000. LNT states thatthe filing and refunds of AnnualCharges Adjustment (ACA) surchargeswere made in compliance with theCommission’s Order of January 14, 1997in the referenced Docket. LNT statesthat refunds were disbursed to itsjurisdictional customers on February 13,1997.

LNT states that: (1) no refunds weredisbursed for the period October 1, 1992through September 30, 1996, because alljurisdictional transportation wasdiscounted below LNT’s maximumtransportation rate, at a discount levelgreater than the $0.0023 per Mcfsurcharge amount; (2) refunds for theperiod October 1, 1995 throughSeptember 30, 1996 in the amount of$155.57 including interest calculated inaccordance with 18 CFR 154.501(d),were paid to Arkla, A Division ofNorAm Energy Corporation (Arkla) fortransportation services performed fromMarch 1, 1996 through September 30,1996 for all ACA surcharge amounts

collected above the Commission-approved rate of $0.0023 per Mcf; and(3) refunds for the period October 1,1996 through December 31, 1996 in theamount of $128.01 including interestcalculated in accordance with 18 CFR154.501(d), were paid to Arkla fortransportation services performedduring that period for all ACA surchargeamounts collected above theCommission-approved rate of $0.0020per Mcf.

LNT further states that copies of itsrefund report filing have been served onall affected customers and statecommissions.

Any person desiring to protest saidfiling should file a protest with theFederal Energy Regulatory Commission,888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.20426, in accordance with Rule 211 ofthe Commission’s Rules of Practice andProcedure (18 CFR 385.211). All suchprotests should be filed on or beforeMarch 19, 1997. Protests will beconsidered by the Commission indetermining the appropriate action to betaken, but will not serve to makeprotestants parties to the proceeding.Copies of this filing are on file with theCommission and are available for publicinspection.Lois D. Cashell,Secretary.[FR Doc. 97–6763 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–M


Mississippi River TransmissionCorporation; Notice of InformalSettlement Conference

March 12, 1997.Take notice that an informal

settlement conference will be convenedin this proceeding on March 20, 1997,at 10:00 a.m., at the offices of theFederal Energy Regulatory Commission,888 First Street, N.E., Washington, DC,for the purposes of exploring thepossible settlement of the referenceddocket.

Any party, as defined by 18 CFR385.102(c) or any participant, as definedby 18 CFR 385.102(b) is invited toattend. Persons wishing to become aparty must move to intervene andreceive intervenor status pursuant to theCommission’s regulations (18 CFR385.214).

For additional information, contactKathleen M. Dias at (202) 208–0524 orRussell B. Mamone at (202) 208–0744.Lois D. Cashell,Secretary.[FR Doc. 97–6773 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–M


Natural Gas Pipeline Company ofAmerica; Notice of Withdrawal


Natural Gas Pipeline Company ofAmerica (Natural) withdrew thefollowing tariff sheets that had beensubmitted with its compliance filing inthe captioned docket on February 28,1977:Fourth Revised Sheet Nos. 11 through 13Fifteenth Revised Sheet No. 14Third Revised Sheet No. 18

Natural states that the changes tothese tariff sheets had been included inNatural’s filing in Docket No. RP97–64–000 on November 1, 1996. However, theFederal Energy Regulatory Commissionhad stated in its order in this docketissued December 23, 1996, that Naturalshould not make the proposed changesto these sheets in this proceeding.Natural states it inadvertently includedthese sheets in the February 28, 1997filing.

Natural states that copies of its letterwithdrawing the sheets has been servedon all those who received the February28, 1997 filing.

Any person desiring to protest thisfiling should file a protest with theFederal Energy Regulatory Commission,888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.20426, in accordance with Section385.211 of the Commission’s Rules andRegulations. All such protests must befiled as provided in Section 154.210 ofthe Commission’s Regulations. Protestswill be considered by the Commissionin determining the appropriate action tobe taken, but will not serve to makeprotestants parties to the proceeding.Copies of this filing are on file with theCommission and are available for publicinspection in the Public ReferenceRoom.Lois D. Cashell,Secretary.[FR Doc. 97–6774 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–M


Panhandle Eastern Pipe LineCompany; Notice of ProposedChanges in FERC Gas Tariff


Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company(Panhandle) tendered for filing as part ofits FERC Gas Tariff, First RevisedVolume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed onAppendix A attached to the filing tobecome effective April 6, 1997.


Panhandle states that the purpose ofthis filing is to: (1) Reflect certainchanges to Section 12.11(h) of theGeneral Terms and Conditionsconcerning the Daily SchedulingCharges and various references in theForms of Service Agreement whichevolve from Panhandle’simplementation of the standardspromulgated by the Gas IndustryStandards Board which the Commissionadopted in Order Nos. 587, 587–A, and587–B; (2) clarify Section 3 of RateSchedule SCT, Small CustomerTransportation Service, as it relates tothe basis of billing for services renderedunder that Rate Schedule; (3) modify theprovisions of Rate Schedule FS, FlexibleStorage Service to allow shippersadditional flexibility to tailor theallowable injection and withdrawalperiods to suit their individual needs;and (4) modify the provisions of RateSchedule GDS, General DeliveryService, to allow shippers, under certaincircumstances, to designate a ServiceAgreement under Rate Schedule FS asthe storage service which supports itsRate Schedule GDS service.

Panhandle states that copies of thisfiling are being served on alljurisdictional customers and applicablestate regulatory agencies.

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 Sections 385.214and 385.211 of the Commission’s Rulesand Regulations. All such motions orprotests must be filed in accordancewith Section 154.210 of theCommission’s Regulations. Protests willbe considered by the Commission indetermining the appropriate action to betaken, but will not serve to makeprotestants parties to the proceeding.Any person wishing to become a partymust file a motion to intervene. Copiesof this filing are on file with theCommission and are available for publicinspection in the Public ReferenceRoom.Lois D. Cashell,Secretary.[FR Doc. 97–6764 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. CP97–131–000]

Panhandle Eastern Pipe LineCompany; Notice of Application

March 12, 1997.Take notice that on November 27,

1996, Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line

Company (Panhandle), P.O. Box 1642,Houston, Texas 77251–1642, filed inDocket No. CP97–131–000, anabbreviated application pursuant toSection 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act andPart 157 of the Federal EnergyRegulatory Commission’s (Commission)regulations for authorization to abandonby sale certain pipeline facilities, all asmore fully set forth in the applicationwhich is on file with the Commissionand open to public inspection.

Panhandle proposes to abandon bysale to Cherokee Pipe and ServiceCompany, Inc. (Cherokee)approximately 17.1 miles of 22 inchpipeline and appurtenant facilitieslocated in Beaver County, Oklahomaand Seward County, Kansas. Panhandlestates that the subject facilities whichwere decommissioned in accordancewith a Commission order issued onSeptember 19, 1990 in Docket No.CP90–681–000, will be sold in place.Panhandle further states that the saleprice for the subject facilities is$166,000.

Any person desiring to be heard or tomake any protest with reference to saidapplication should on or before April 2,1997, file with the Federal EnergyRegulatory Commission, Washington,DC 20426, a motion to intervene or aprotest in accordance with therequirements of the Commission’s Rulesof Practice and Procedure (18 CFR385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulationsunder the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR157.10). All protests filed with theCommission will be considered by it indetermining the appropriate action to betaken but will not serve to make theprotestants parties to the proceeding.Any person wishing to become a partyto a proceeding or to participate as partyin any hearing therein must file amotion to intervene in accordance withthe Commission’s Rules.

Take further notice that, pursuant tothe authority contained in and subject tothe jurisdiction conferred upon theFederal Energy Regulatory Commissionby Sections 7 and 15 of the Natural GasAct and the Commission’s Rules ofPractice and Procedure, a hearing willbe held without further notice before theCommission or its designee on thisapplication if no motion to intervene isfile within the time required herein, ifthe Commission on its own review ofthe matter finds that permission andapproval for the abandonment arerequired by the public convenience andnecessity. If a motion for leave tointervene is timely filed, or if theCommission on its own motion believesthat a formal hearing is required, further

notice of such hearing will be dulygiven.

Under the procedures herein providedfor, unless otherwise advised, it will beunnecessary for Panhandle to appear orbe represented at the hearing.Lois D. Cashell,Secretary.[FR Doc. 97–6769 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–M


Petal Gas Storage Company; Notice ofProposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

March 12, 1997.

Take notice that on March 5, 1997,Petal Gas Storage Company (Petal)tendered for filing as part of its FERCGas Tariff, Pro Forma First RevisedVolume No. 1, a number of tariff sheetsto become effective June 1, 1997.

Petal states that this filing is made incompliance with Order No. 587, issuedin Docket No. RM96–1–000 on July 17,1996. These pro forma tariff sheetsreflect the requirements of Order No.587 that interstate pipelines followstandardized procedures for criticalbusiness practices—nominations,flowing gas (allocations, balancing, andmeasurement), invoicing, and capacityrelease, except where waiver isrequested.

Petal states that copies of this filingare being served on all affectedcustomers and applicable stateregulatory agencies.

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 Sections 385.214 or385.211 of the Commission’s Rules andRegulations. All such motions orprotests must be filed by on or beforeMarch 26, 1997. Protests will beconsidered by the Commission indetermining the appropriate action to betaken, but will not serve to makeProtestants parties to the proceeding.Any person wishing to become a partymust file a motion to intervene. Copiesof this filing are on file with theCommission and are available for publicinspection in the Public ReferenceRoom.Lois D. Cashell,Secretary.[FR Doc. 97–6767 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–M



Shell Gas Pipeline Company; Notice ofPetition for Waiver


Shell Gas Pipeline Company (Shell)tendered for filing a petition for aninterim waiver of Commission OrderNo. 587–B issued January 30, 1997 inDocket No. RM96–1–003.

Shell states that it has entered into anagreement with Southern Natural GasCompany (Southern) for the use of theSoNet electronic bulletin board system.Southern is in the process of developinga new system which should be availableSeptember 1, 1997.

Shell requests waiver of Order No.587–B to extend the deadline to allowShell to implement the requirements ofOrder No. 587–B in conjunction withthe start-up of Southern’s new computersystem.

Shell states that copies of the filinghas been served on all shippers andinterstate commissions of Shell.

Any person desiring to be heard or toprotest said filing should file a motionto intervene or protest with the FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission, 888First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,in accordance with Rule 211 and Rule214 of the Commission’s Rules ofPractice and Procedure (18 CFR Section385.211 and Section 385.214). All suchmotions or protests must be filed on orbefore March 19, 1997. Protests will beconsidered by the Commission indetermining the appropriate action to betaken, but will not serve to makeprotestants parties to the proceeding.Any person wishing to become a partymust file a motion to intervene. Copiesof this filing are on file with theCommission and are available for publicinspection.Lois D. Cashell,Secretary.[FR Doc. 97–6768 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–M


Southern Natural Gas Company;Notice of Proposed Changes in FERCGas Tariff


Southern Natural Gas Company(Southern) tendered for filing as part ofits FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh RevisedVolume No. 1, the following tariff sheetsto become effective April 7, 1997:Second Revised Sheet No.140aThird Revised Sheet No. 141

Southern states that its filing is incompliance with the Commission’sFebruary 19, 1997 Order on Rehearingand Clarification directing Southern tofile revised tariff sheets consistent withits order and to file any objections toposting daily net system imbalances.

Southern states that copies of thefiling will be served upon all partiesdesignated on the official service listcompiled by the Secretary in theseproceedings.

Any person desiring to protest thisfiling should file a protest with theFederal Energy Regulatory Commission,Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordancewith Rule 211 of the Commission’sRules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFRSection 385.211). All such protests mustbe filed in accordance with Section154.210 of the Commission’sRegulations. Protests will be consideredby the Commission in determining theappropriate action to be taken, but willnot serve to make protestants parties tothe proceeding. Copies of this filing areon file with the Commission and areavailable for public inspection in thePublic Reference Room.Lois D. Cashell,Secretary.[FR Doc. 97–6772 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–M


Trunkline Gas Company; Notice ofProposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff


Trunkline Gas Company (Trunkline)tendered for filing as part of its FERCGas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1,the tariff sheets identified on AppendixA attached to the filing proposed to beeffective April 6, 1997.

Trunkline states that this filing, whichis made in accordance with theprovisions of Section 154.204 of theCommission’s Regulations, modifiesTrunkline’s FERC Gas Tariff, firstRevised Volume No. 1 to: (1) reviseSection 2.4 of Rate Schedule NNS–1 toadd Service Agreements under RateSchedules SST and LFT as ServiceAgreements which a Shipper mayspecify as a Designated TransportationService Agreement; (2) modify Section2.5 of Rate Schedule NNS–1 to removethe limitation that an Eligible Point ofDelivery must be one at whichTrunkline previously provided salesservice, thus making all Delivery Pointsavailable for No Notice Service; and (3)amend Article 6 of the OperationalBalancing Agreement (OBA) Form ofService Agreement to provide that OBAs

will continue in effect until terminatedby Trunkline or the OBA Party upon atleast thirty days written notice.

Trunkline states that copies of thisfiling are being served on alljurisdictional customers and applicablestate regulatory agencies.

Any person desiring to be heard or toprotest this filing should file a motionto intervene or protest with the FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission, 888First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.20426, in accordance with Sections385.214 and 385.211 of theCommission’s Rules and Regulations.All such motions or protests must befiled in accordance with Section154.210 of the Commission’sRegulations. Protests will be consideredby the Commission in determining theappropriate action to be taken, but willnot serve to make protestants parties tothe proceeding.

Any person wishing to become a partymust file a motion to intervene. Copiesof this filing are on file with theCommission and are available for publicinspection in the Public ReferenceRoom.Lois D. Cashell,Secretary.[FR Doc 97–6765 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket Nos. CP97–279–000, CP97–280–000and CP97–281–000]

Warren Transportation, Inc.; Notice ofApplication


Warren Transportation, Inc. (WTI), 1000Louisiana, Suite 5800, Houston, Texas77002, filed an application pursuant toSections 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act, andPart 157, Subpart A and F, and Part 284,Subpart G, of the Commission’sRegulations for certificates of publicconvenience and necessity, all as morefully set forth in the application on filewith the Commission and open topublic inspection.

WTI requests that the Commissionauthorize: (1) the acquisition of 27 milesof 16′′ diameter interstate pipeline(known as the ‘‘Rodman (Enid) 16-inchPipeline’’), located Alfalfa, Major andGarfield Counties, Oklahoma, fromWilliams Natural Gas Company(Williams); (2) jurisdictionaltransportation rates; (3) self-implementing interstate transportationof natural gas under a Part 284, SubpartG blanket transportation certificate; and(4) self-implementing ‘‘routineactivities’’ under a Part 157, Subpart Fblanket certificate.


WTI states it is holding a 30 day non-discriminatory ‘‘open season’’ to assurethat each and every potential shipper ofresidue gas at the Rodman plant isapprised of this acquisition fromWilliams and upcoming open accessoperation of the Rodman (Enid) 16-inchpipeline. This form of public noticeannounces this open season process,which commences on the date of itsissuance.

WTI states it does not expectoversubscription from this open season,but would allocate firm capacity, in theevent of oversubscription, based on thenet present value procedure common forinterstate pipeline open seasons.Specifically, subscriptions for firmcapacity will be required to state boththe transportation rate the shipper iswilling to pay (up to the maximumreservation rate as stated in Exhibit P tothe application) and the term of servicesought. WTI states there should that beany oversubscription, WTI will thenrank all prospective firm shippers inorder of the highest net present value toWTI; that is, the bid price and term ofeach subscription will be multiplied togive the total projected revenues perunit of capacity, which in turn will bediscounted to the present understandard DCF methodology.

Any prospective shipper interested insubscribing for service should contactthe following WTI representative for asubscription form: Timothy P. Balaski,Warren Transportation, Inc., 1000Louisiana, Suite 5800, Houston, Texas77002, (713) 507–6523 (telephone),(713) 507–6515 (telefax).

Any person desiring to be heard or tomake any protest with reference to saidapplication should on or before March27, 1997, file with the Federal EnergyRegulatory Commission, Washington,D.C. 20426, a motion to intervene or aprotest in accordance with therequirements of the Commission’s Rulesof Practice and Procedure (18 CFR385.211 and 385.214) and theregulations under the Natural Gas Act(18 CFR 157.10). All protests filed withthe Commission will be considered byit in determining the appropriate actionto be taken but will not serve to makethe protestants parties to theproceeding. Any person wishing tobecome a party in any proceedingherein must file a motion to intervenein accordance with the Commission’srules.

Take further notice that, pursuant tothe authority contained in and subject tothe jurisdiction conferred upon theCommission by Sections 7 and 15 of theNatural Gas Act and the Commission’sRules of Practice and Procedure, ahearing will be held without further

notice before the Commission or itsdesignee on this application if nomotion to intervene is filed within thetime required herein, if the Commissionon its own review of the matter findsthat permission and approval for theproposed abandonment are required bythe public convenience and necessity. Ifa motion for leave to intervene is timelyfiled, or if the Commission on its ownmotion believes that formal hearing isrequired, further notice of such hearingwill be duly given.

Under the procedure herein providedfor, unless otherwise advised, it will beunnecessary for WTI to appear or to berepresented at the hearing.Lois D. Cashell,Secretary.[FR Doc. 97–6771 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. CP97–272–000]

Williams Natural Gas Company; Noticeof Request Under BlanketAuthorization


Williams Natural Gas Company (WNG),P.O. Box 3288, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74101,filed in Docket No. CP97–272–000 arequest pursuant to Sections 157.205and 157.216 of the Commission’sRegulations under the Natural Gas Act(18 CFR 157.205 and 157.216) forauthorization to abandon certain lateralpipeline facilities, meters and associatedequipment, all located in WashingtonCounty, Oklahoma, under WNG’sblanket certificate issued in Docket No.CP82–479–000 pursuant to Section 7 ofthe Natural Gas Act, all as more fully setforth in the request that is on file withthe Commission and open to publicinspection.

WNG proposes to abandon by sale toWestern Resources, Inc. (WRI)approximately 2.4 miles of its 6-inchDewey lateral pipeline, domesticmeters, other equipment and relatedservice. It is stated that the facilitieswere installed in 1974 at a cost of$271,571 and that the facilities have asalvage value of $10 and that the cost toreclaim them is $1,572. It is assertedthat the customers served through thesefacilities have agreed to theabandonment and would continue toreceive service from WRI. It is explainedthat the sale would enable WRI toexpand its local distribution system. Itis further asserted that WNG hassufficient capacity to render its servicesfollowing the proposed abandonmentwithout detriment or disadvantage to its

other existing customers and that itstariff does not prohibit such a change.

Any person or the Commission’s staffmay, within 45 days after issuance ofthe instant notice by the Commission,file pursuant to Rule 214 of theCommission’s Procedural Rules (18 CFR385.214) a motion to intervene or noticeof intervention and pursuant to Section157.205 of the Regulations under theNatural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) aprotest to the request. If no protest isfiled within the time allowed therefor,the proposed activity shall be deemed tobe authorized effective the day after thetime allowed for filing a protest. If aprotest is filed and not withdrawnwithin 30 days after the time allowedfor filing a protest, the instant requestshall be treated as an application forauthorization pursuant to Section 7 ofthe Natural Gas Act.Lois D. Cashell,Secretary.[FR Doc. 97–6770 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Project Nos. 459–086, et al.]

Hydroelectric Applications [UnionElectric Company, et al.]; Notice ofApplications

Take notice that the followinghydroelectric applications have beenfiled with the Commission and areavailable for public inspection:

1a. Type of Application: Amendmentof Recreation Plan.

b. Project No.: 459–086.c. Date Filed: November 21, 1996.d. Applicant: Union Electric

Company.e. Name of Project: Osage Project.f. Location: Bagnell Dam is on Lake of

The Ozarks in Benton County, Missouri.g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power

Act, 16 U.S.C. § 791(a)–825(r).h. Applicant contact: Dan Jarvis,

Route 3, Box 234, Eldon, MO 65026,(573) 365–9322.

i. FERC contact: John K. Hannula,(202) 219–0116.

j. Comment date: April 14, 1997.k. Description of the Application:

Union Electric Company proposes toend its Tour-of-the-Dam program andreplace it with an Educational andHistorical Information Facility atWillmore Lodge located near the dam.The new educational facility wouldcontain a multimedia interactive displaythat would provide historicalinformation about Bagnell Dam andeducate the public about the benefits ofhydropower.

This notice also consists of thefollowing standard paragraphs: B, C1,and D2.


2a. Type of Application: Surrender ofExemption.

b. Project No: 7297–002.c. Date Filed: February 24, 1997.d. Applicant: City of Buena Park.e. Name of Project: OC–17

Hydroelectric Generation Facility.f. Location: Feeder Station 423+63,

Orange County, California.g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power

Act, 16 USC Section 791(a)—825(r).h. Applicant Contact: Don Jenson,

6650 Beach Blvd., Buena Park, CA, (714)562–3500.

i. FERC Contact: Hillary Berlin, (202)219–0038.

j. Comment Date: April 14, 1997.k. Description of Application: The

exemptee states that the generating unitwas removed from service and theproject is no longer operational.

l. The notice also consists of thefollowing standard paragraphs: B, C1,and D2.

3a. Type of filing: Notice of Intent toFile Application for New License.

b. Project No.: 184.c. Date filed: February 24, 1997.d. Submitted By: Pacific Gas and

Electric Company, current licensee.e. Name of Project: El Dorado.f. Location: On the South Fork

American River, in El Dorado, Alpine,and Amador Counties, California.

g. Filed Pursuant to: Section 15 of theFederal Power Act, 18 CFR 16.6 of theCommission’s regulations.

h. Effective date of original license:December 1, 1980.

i. Expiration date of original license:February 23, 2002.

j. The 21-megawatt project consists of:Lake Aloha and dam; Echo Lake, dam,and conduit; Caples Lake and the mainand auxiliary dams; Silver Lake anddam; El Dorado Forebay and dam; ElDorado Dam and fish ladder; El Doradopenstock and powerhouse; and ElDorado Canal.

k. Pursuant to 18 CFR 16.7,information on the project is availableat: Pacific Gas and Electric Company,245 Market Street, Room 1103, SanFrancisco, CA 94105, ATTN: JohnGourley, (415) 972–5772.

l. FERC contact: Hector M. Perez (202)219–2843.

m. Pursuant to 18 CFR 16.9(b)(1) eachapplication for a new license and anycompeting license applications must befiled with the Commission at least 24months prior to the expiration of theexisting license. All applications forlicense for this project must be filed byFebruary 23, 2000.

4a. Type of Application: Approval toamend license to modify whitewaterrelease flows.

b. Project No: 2899–065.c. Date Filed: February 13, 1997.d. Applicant: Idaho Power Company

and Milner Dam, Inc.e. Name of Project: Milner

Hydroelectric Project.f. Location: Twin Falls, Cassia,

Jerome, and Minidoka Counties, Idaho.g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power

Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).h. Applicant Contact: Ms. Laurel

Heacock, Idaho Power Company, P.O.Box 70, Boise, ID 83707, (208) 388–2918.

i. FERC Contact: Jean Potvin, (202)219–0022.

j. Comment Date: April 14, 1997.k. Description of Project: Licensee

proposes to modify whitewater releaseflows to the Milner Reach by reducingthe Daylight hours of bypass flows fromeight to four hours, shutting down themain powerhouse only when inflow tothe Project is between 10,500 and12,500 cfs, providing flows betweenMay and June, and providing flows onlyon weekend days and the observedMemorial Day holiday.

l. This notice also consists of thefollowing standard paragraphs: B, C1,and D2.

Standard Paragraphs

B. 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.

C1. Filing and Service of ResponsiveDocuments—Any filings must bear inall capital letters the title‘‘COMMENTS’’,‘‘RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERMSAND CONDITIONS’’, ‘‘PROTEST’’, OR‘‘MOTION TO INTERVENE’’, asapplicable, and the Project Number ofthe particular application to which thefiling refers. Any of the above-nameddocuments must be filed by providingthe original and the number of copiesprovided by the Commission’sregulations to: The Secretary, FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission, 888First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.20426. A copy of any motion tointervene must also be served upon each

representative of the Applicantspecified in the particular application.

D2. Agency Comments—Federal,state, and local agencies are invited tofile comments on the describedapplication. A copy of the applicationmay be obtained by agencies directlyfrom the Applicant. If an agency doesnot file comments within the timespecified for filing comments, it will bepresumed to have no comments. Onecopy of an agency’s comments must alsobe sent to the Applicant’srepresentatives.

Dated: March 12, 1997, Washington, D.C.Lois D. Cashell,Secretary.[FR Doc. 97–6776 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

Notice of Application Filed With theCommission

March 10, 1997.Take notice that the following

hydroelectric application has been filedwith the Commission and is availablefor public inspection:

a. Type of Application: Amendmentof License.

b. Project No: 2042.c. Date Filed: February 18, 1997.d. Applicant: Public Utility District

No. 1 of Pend Oreille.e. Name of Project: Box Canyon

Hydroelectric Project.f. Location: 3 miles north of the town

of Ione, Washington on the Pend OreilleRiver in Pend Oreille County,Washington.

g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal PowerAct, 16 U.S.C. § 791(a)–825(r).

h. Applicant Contact: Mr. BobGeddes, Manager of Regulatory Affairs,PUD No. 1 of Pend Oreille County, P.O.Box 190, Newport, WA 99156, (509)447–9342, (509) 447–5824 (Fax).

i. FERC Contact: J. W. Flint, (202)219–2667.

j. Comment Date: April 18, 1997.k. Description of Application: The

amendment of license proposes tochange the limit of the upstream projectboundary from River Mile 34.4 nearRuby, Washington, to the Corps ofEngineers’ Albeni Falls Dam, near theWashington-Idaho borders, Rm 90.1.The new project boundary will encloseall lands which are flooded for flows upto 90,000 cfs.

l. This notice also consists of thefollowing standard paragraphs: B, C1,and D2.

B. Comments, Protests, or Motions toIntervene—Anyone may submitcomments, a protest, or a motion tointervene in accordance with the


requirements 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.

C1. Filing and Service of ResponsiveDocuments—Any filings must bear inall capital letters the title‘‘COMMENTS’’,‘‘RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERMSAND CONDITIONS’’, ‘‘PROTEST’’, OR‘‘MOTION TO INTERVENE’’, asapplicable, and the Project Number ofthe particular application to which thefiling refers. Any of the above-nameddocuments must be filed by providingthe original and the number of copiesprovided by the Commission’sregulations to: The Secretary, FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission, 888First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.20426. A copy of any motion tointervene must also be served upon eachrepresentative of the Applicantspecified in the particular application.

D2. Agency Comments—Federal,state, and local agencies are invited tofile comments on the describedapplication. A copy of the applicationmay be obtained by agencies directlyfrom the Applicant. If an agency doesnot file comments within the timespecified for filing comments, it will bepresumed to have no comments. Onecopy of an agency’s comments must alsobe sent to the Applicant’srepresentatives.Lois D. Cashell,Secretary.[FR Doc. 97–6777 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

Notice of Application Ready forEnvironmental Analysis

March 10, 1997.

Take notice that the followinghydroelectric application has been filedwith the Commission and is availablefor public inspection:

a. Type of Application: MinorLicense.

b. Project No: 11509–000.c. Date Filed: December 5, 1994.d. Applicant: City of Albany, Oregon.e. Name of Project: City of Albany,

Oregon Hydroelectric Project.

f. Location: T12S, R1W, Section 19;T12S, R2W, Sections 2, 3, 11, 23, and24; T11S, R3W, Sections 6, 7, 15, 18,and 20–25; T11S, R2W, Sections 30–34;and T11S, R4W, Section 12 (SouthSantiam River, Calaoppoia River, andAlbany-Santiam Canal in Linn County,Oregon and the cities of Albany, Oregonand Lebanon, Oregon).

g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal PowerAct, 16 USC 791(a)–(825(r).

h. Applicant Contact: Peter Harr, CivilEngineer II, City of Albany, 333Broadalbin SW, P.O. Box 490, Albany,Oregon 97321–0144, (541) 917–7643.

i. FERC Contact: Nicholas J. Jayjack,(202) 219–2825.

j. Deadline for comments,recommendations, terms andconditions, and prescriptions: May 9,1997.

k. Status of Environmental Analysis:The application is now ready forenvironmental analysis—see attachedparagraph D10.

l. Brief Description of Project: Theproposed project would consist of: (1)the existing 450-foot-long, 6-foot-high,flashboard-equipped concrete damknown as Lebanon dam that would bemodified to have a fixed crest and a newheight of 7.5 feet; (2) the existing 18-mile-long Albany-Santiam Canal thatwould be dredged and screened; (3) anexisting 55-foot-long, 6-foot-diametersteel penstock; (4) an existingpowerhouse that would be modified tohave an installed capacity of 500kilowatts; (5) the existing 2.4-kilovolt,300 foot-long transmission line; and (7)related appurtenances.

m. This notice also consists of thefollowing standard paragraphs: A4 andD10.

n. A copy of the application isavailable for inspection andreproduction at the Commission’sPublic Reference Room, located at: 888First St., NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC20426, or by calling (202) 208–1371.

A4. Development Application—Public notice of the filing of the initialdevelopment application, which hasalready been given, established the duedate for filing competing applications ornotices of intent. Under theCommission’s regulations, anycompeting development applicationmust be filed in response to and incompliance with public notice of theinitial development application. Nocompeting applications or notices ofintent may be filed in response to thisnotice.

D10. Filing and Service of ResponsiveDocuments—The application is readyfor environmental analysis at this time,

and the Commission is requestingcomments, reply comments,recommendations, terms andconditions, and prescriptions.

The Commission directs, pursuant toSection 4.34(b) of the Regulations (seeOrder No. 533 issued May 8, 1991, 56FR 23108, May 20, 1991) that allcomments, recommendations, terms andconditions and prescriptions concerningthe application be filed with theCommission within 60 days from theissuance date of this notice. All replycomments must be filed with theCommission within 105 days from thedate of this notice.

Anyone may obtain an extension oftime for these deadlines from theCommission only upon a showing ofgood cause or extraordinarycircumstances in accordance with 18CFR 385.2008.

All filings must (1) bear in all capitalletters the title ‘‘COMMENTS’’, ‘‘REPLYCOMMENTS’’,‘‘RECOMMENDATIONS,’’ ‘‘TERMSAND CONDITIONS,’’ or‘‘PRESCRIPTIONS’’; (2) set forth in theheading the name of the applicant andthe project number of the application towhich the filing responds; (3) furnishthe name, address, and telephonenumber of the person submitting thefiling; and (4) otherwise comply withthe requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001through 385.2005. All comments,recommendations, terms and conditionsor prescriptions must set forth theirevidentiary basis and otherwise complywith the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b).Agencies may obtain copies of theapplication directly from the applicant.Any of these documents must be filedby providing the original and thenumber of copies required by theCommission’s regulations to: TheSecretary, Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission, 888 First Street NE.,Washington, DC 20426. An additionalcopy must be sent to Director, Divisionof Project Review, Office of HydropowerLicensing, Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission, at the above address. Eachfiling must be accompanied by proof ofservice on all persons listed on theservice list prepared by the Commissionin this proceeding, in accordance with18 CFR 4.34(b), and 385.2010.Lois D. Cashell,Secretary.[FR Doc. 97–6778 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M



[FRL–5710–9]

Science Advisory Board; Request forNomination of Members andConsultants

In accordance with its standardoperating procedures (SAB–FRL–2657–4 dated August 21, 1984), the ScienceAdvisory Board (SAB), including theClean Air Scientific AdvisoryCommittee (CASAC) and the Council onClean Air Compliance Analysis(Council), previously referred to as theClean Air Act Compliance AdvisoryCouncil (CAACAC), of theEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA)is soliciting nominations for Membersand Consultants (M/Cs). As part of thiseffort, the Agency is publishing thisnotice to describe the purpose of theSAB and to invite the public tonominate appropriately qualifiedcandidates to fill upcoming vacancies.This process supplements other effortsto identify qualified candidates.

The SAB is composed of non-Federalgovernment scientists and engineerswho are employed on an intermittentbasis to provide independent advicedirectly to the EPA Administrator ontechnical aspects of public health andenvironmental issues confronting theAgency. Members of the SAB areappointed by the Administrator—generally in October—to serve two yearsterms with some possibilities forreappointment. Consultants areappointed throughout the year, as theneed arises, by the Staff Director of theScience Advisory Board to serverenewable one-year terms and serve onSAB committees, as needed. Manyindividuals serve as Consultants prior toserving as Members.

Any interested person or organizationmay nominate qualified persons to serveon the SAB. Nominees should bequalified by education, training andexperience to evaluate scientific,engineering and/or economicsinformation on issues referred to andaddressed by the Board. The principalcriteria in the membership selectionprocess are:

a. Technical competence.b. Independence.c. Ability to work in a committee

environment.d. Overall balance of technical points

of view on the SAB. Historically,between 15 and 20 new Members andbetween 30 and 40 new consultants areappointed each year.

Members and Consultants most oftenserve in association with one of thefollowing standing committees:

Advisory Council on Clean AirCompliance Analysis, Clean AirScientific Advisory Committee,Drinking Water Committee, EcologicalProcesses and Effects Committee,Environmental Economics AdvisoryCommittee, Environmental EngineeringCommittee, Environmental HealthCommittee, Integrated Human ExposureCommittee, Radiation AdvisoryCommittee, and Research StrategiesAdvisory Committee.

Members and Consultants can expectto attend 1–6 meetings per year, basedupon the activity of the committee onwhich they serve. M/Cs generally serveas Special Government Employees(SGEs) (40 CFR part 3, subpart F or EPAEthics Advisory 88–6 dated 7/6/88) andreceive compensation, in addition toreimbursement at the Federalgovernment rate for travel and per diemexpenses while serving on the SAB.SGEs are required to complete anapplication package, including aConfidential Financial DisclosureReport.

Nominees should be identified byname, occupation, position, address,telephone number, fax number, emailaddress (if available) and SABcommittee of primary interest.Nominations should include a currentresume or curriculum vitae thataddresses the nominee’s background,experience, qualifications, and specificareas of expertise (e.g., genetictoxicologist, resource economist, etc.).

Information on the nominees will beevaluated and entered into the SAB’s M/C data base which will be consultedwhenever vacancies arise and/or whenspecial expertise is needed for particularreviews. This request for nominationsdoes not imply any commitment by theAgency to select individuals to serve asa Member of or Consultant to theScience Advisory Board from theresponses received.

Nominations should be submitted to:Ms. Carolyn Osborne, ProjectCoordinator, Science Advisory Board,USEPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington,DC 20460 Tel:(202) 260–9644 no laterthan June 13, 1997. Additionalinformation concerning the ScienceAdvisory Board, its structure, function,and composition, may be found in theAnnual Report of the Staff Directorwhich is available at the SAB WebsiteURL http://www.epa.gov/science1 or bycalling (202) 260–8414 or by INTERNETat [email protected].

Dated: March 7, 1997.Donald G. Barnes,Staff Director, Science Advisory Board.[FR Doc. 97–6828 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

[OPP–00475; FRL–5596–6]

1996 Food Quality Protection Act,Amendments to the Laws Governingthe Regulation of Pesticides; EPA’sImplementation Plan

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

SUMMARY: EPA’s plan for implementingthe provisions of the Food QualityProtection Act of 1996 is now availableto the public. On August 3, 1996,President Clinton signed into law theFood Quality Protection Act of 1996(FQPA). FQPA significantly amends theFederal Insecticide, Fungicide, andRodenticide Act (FIFRA) and theFederal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act(FFDCA), the laws governing pesticideregulation. EPA’s FQPA ImplementationPlan summarizes the provisions ofFQPA and explains the Agency’sapproach to implementing them. FQPAsignificantly changes the way pesticidesmust be reviewed. The new law requiresEPA, among other things, to upgrade itsscientific review procedures to providea more complete assessment of pesticiderisks, especially risks to potentiallysensitive groups, such as infants andchildren. FQPA sets a new health-basedsafety standard for all pesticide residuesin food and requires that all establishedpermissible pesticide residue limits(tolerances) be re-evaluated inaccordance with the new standard. ThisFederal Register Notice announces theavailability of the Implementation Planand instructs the public on how toobtain it.ADDRESSES: By mail: Copies of theFQPA Implementation Plan areavailable by mail at the followinglocations: Public Response and ProgramResources Branch, or theCommunications Services Branch, Fieldand External Affairs Division (7506C),Office of Pesticide Programs,Environmental Protection Agency, 401M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.

In person:1. Public Response and Program

Resources Branch, Rm. 1132, CrystalMall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy.,Arlington, VA, (703) 305-5805.

2. Communications Services Branch,Rm. 1120, Crystal Mall #2, 1921Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA,(703) 305–5017.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bymail: Christine Gillis, Field and ExternalAffairs Division (7506C), Office ofPesticide Programs, EnvironmentalProtection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,Washington, DC 20460. Telephone (703)305–5131


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:Electronic Availability: Electroniccopies of this document and theImplementation Plan are available fromthe EPA home page at theEnvironmental Sub-Set entry for thisdocument under ‘‘Regulations’’ (http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/). TheImplementation Plan is also posted atthe FQPA section of EPA’s Website:http://www.epa.gov/opppsps1/FQPA.

FQPA represents the most significantpiece of pesticide and food safetylegislation enacted in 30 years. Itprovides unprecedented opportunitiesto safeguard the health of all Americans,particularly infants and children, fromrisks posed by pesticides. The Presidentcalled it ‘‘the peace of mind act’’because it will ‘‘give parents the peaceof mind that comes from knowing thatthe fruits, vegetables, and grains thatthey set down in front of their childrenare safe.’’ FQPA signals a new era infood safety regulation in the UnitedStates. Major provisions, once fullyimplemented, will strengthen healthand environmental protection in anumber of ways. FQPA will:

• Establish a single, health-basedstandard for all pesticide residues infood, eliminating past inconsistencies inthe law which treated residues in someprocessed foods differently from otherraw and processed foods.

• Provide for a more completeassessment of potential risks, withspecial protections for potentiallysensitive groups, such as infants andchildren.

• Require a reassessment of allexisting residue limits in accordancewith the new standard.

• Expand consumers’ ‘‘right to know’’about pesticide risks and benefits byrequiring a new brochure for display insupermarkets and grocery stores.

• Ensure that all pesticides areperiodically re-evaluated for adherenceto current safety standards and aresupported by up-to-date scientific data.

• Expedite the approval of safer,reduced risk pesticides.

• Encourage the development of safer,effective crop protection tools forAmerican farmers.

• Promote national uniformity inpesticide residue limits, whilerespecting states’ rights to requirelabeling or other warnings.

• Establish a more consistent,protective regulatory process, groundedin sound science and adaptable to futureadvances in scientific understanding.

No specific transition period isprovided by the new FQPA, but the lawcontains sufficient flexibility to allowfor a phase-in period as EPA deals withthe complexities of the new provisions.

An important element of EPA’s plan forimplementation is the development ofinterim strategies to allow EPA to maketimely decisions which are protectiveand economical but which can berevisited as implementation progresses.EPA intends to continually review allactivities undertaken to implement theFQPA amendments, to assess theireffectiveness and to make modificationsas necessary. EPA will updateimplementation communicationmaterials on a regular basis.

List of SubjectsEnvironmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,Agricultural commodities, Pesticides,and pests.

Dated: March 12, 1997.Lynn R. Goldman,Assistant Administrator for Prevention,Pesticides and Toxic Substances.

[FR Doc. 97–6804 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION

Farm Credit Administration Board;Special Meeting

AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given,pursuant to the Government in theSunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3)), ofthe forthcoming special meeting of theFarm Credit Administration Board(Board).DATE AND TIME: The special meeting ofthe Board will be held at the offices ofthe Farm Credit Administration inMcLean, Virginia, on March 20, 1997,from 9:00 a.m. until such time as theBoard concludes its business.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Floyd Fithian, Secretary to the FarmCredit Administration Board, (703) 883–4025, TDD (703) 883–4444.ADDRESSES: Farm CreditAdministration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive,McLean, Virginia 22102–5090.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Thismeeting of the Board will be open to thepublic (limited space available). In orderto increase the accessibility to Boardmeetings, persons requiring assistanceshould make arrangements in advance.The matters to be considered at themeeting are:

Open SessionA. Approval of MinutesB. Report

Farm Credit System BuildingAssociation Quarterly Report

C. New Business

Regulation1. Disclosure to Shareholders [12 CFR

Part 620](Final)2. Cumulative Voting for Bank

Directors [12 CFR Part 615](Proposed)

Dated: March 14, 1997.Floyd Fithian,Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.[FR Doc. 97–6951 Filed 3–14–97; 2:37 pm]BILLING CODE 6705–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONSCOMMISSION

[Report No. 2178–Corrected]

Petitions for Reconsideration andClarification of Action in RulemakingProceedings

March 6, 1997.Petitions for reconsideration and

clarification have been filed in theCommission’s rulemaking proceedingslisted in this Public Notice andpublished pursuant to 47 CFR Section1.429(e). The full text of thesedocuments are available for viewing andcopying in Room 239, 1919 M Street,N.W., Washington, D.C. or may bepurchased from the Commission’s copycontractor, ITS, Inc. (202) 857–3800.Oppositions to these petitions must befiled April 2, 1997. See Section 1.4(b)(1)of the Commission’s rules (47 CFR1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an opposition mustbe filed within 10 days after the time forfiling oppositions has expired.

Subject: Guidelines for Evaluating theEnvironmental Effects ofRadiofrequency Radiation. (ET DocketNo. 93–62).

Number of petitions filed: 4.Subject: Replacement of Part 90 by

Part 88 to Revise the Private LandMobile Radio Services and Modify thePolicies Governing Them; Examinationof Exclusivity and FrequencyAssignment Policies of the Private LandMobile Radio Services (PR Docket No.92–235).

Number of petitions filed: 2.Subject: Amendment of the

Commission’s Rules Regarding the 37.0–38.6 GHz and 38.6–40.0 GHz Bands ETDocket No. 95–183, RM–8533);Implementation of Section 309(j) of theCommunications Act—CompetitiveBidding 37.0–38.6 GHz and 38l60–40.0GHz Bands (PP Docket No. 93–253).

Number of petitions filed: 1.Subject: Geographic partitioning and

Spectrum Disaggregation by CommercialMobile Radio Services Licensees (WTDocket No. 96–148); Implementation ofSection 257 of the Communications


Act—Elimination of Market EntryBarriers (GN Docket No. 96–113).

Number of petitions filed: 2.

Subject: Implementation of the Non-Accounting Safeguards of Sections 271and 272 of the Communications Act of1934, as amended (CC Docket No. 96–149).


Subject: Implementation of theTelecommunications Act of 1996;Accounting Safeguards Under theTelecommunications Act of 1996. (CCDocket No. 96–150).


Federal Communications Commission.William F. Caton,Acting Secretary.[FR Doc. 97–6749 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6712–01–M

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 12:00 noon, Monday,March 24, 1997.

PLACE: Marriner S. Eccles FederalReserve Board Building, C Streetentrance between 20th and 2lst Streets,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:Mr. Joseph R. Coyne, Assistant to theBoard; (202) 452–3204. You may call(202) 452–3207, beginning atapproximately 5 p.m. two business daysbefore this meeting, for a recordedannouncement of bank and bankholding company applicationsscheduled for the meeting.

Dated: March 14, 1997.Jennifer J. Johnson,Deputy Secretary of the Board.[FR Doc. 97–6957 Filed 3–14–97; 2:44 pm]BILLING CODE 6210–01–P

GENERAL SERVICESADMINISTRATION

Availability of Final EnvironmentalImpact Statement/EnvironmentalImpact; Report for Proposed SanFrancisco Federal Building, SanFrancisco, CA

AGENCY: Public Buildings Service,United States General ServicesAdministration.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The United States GeneralServices Administration (GSA) herebygives notice that a joint FinalEnvironmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR)has been prepared and filed with theUnited States Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) for the proposedconstruction of a new Federal Buildingwithin the City of San Francisco,California, in accordance with theCouncil of Environmental Qualityregulations and the proceduralprovisions of the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA). Theproposed project involves theconstruction of a new Federal Buildingwith 161 approximately 475,000occupiable square feet of space (675,000gross square feet) and onsite parkingspaces. The purpose of this project is (1)to consolidate federal agencies housedin multiple locations in order toincrease efficiency and to reduce theamount of government leased space and(2) to house law enforcement agenciesthat are not suitable as lease tenants.The preferred alternative for this projectis the site located at 7th and MissionStreets.

DATES: Submit written comments on theFinal EIS/EIR to GSA on or before April21, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Mail written comments andrequests for copies to Ms. Jane Woo,U.S. General Services Administration,Portfolio Management Division (9PT),450 Golden Gate Avenue, 3rd Floor, SanFrancisco, California 94102.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Ms. Jane Woo, (415) 522–3487.(Authority: NEPA, the Environmental QualityImprovement Act of 1970, as amended (42U.S.C. 4371 et seq.), sec. 309 of the Clean AirAct, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7609), and E.O.11514 (Mar. 5, 1970, as amended by E.O.11991, May 24, 1977)).

Dated: March 11, 1997.Kenn N. Kojima,Regional Administrator (9A).[FR Doc. 97–6820 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6820–23–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ANDHUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. 96E–0504]

Determination of Regulatory ReviewPeriod for Purposes of PatentExtension; BAYTRIL

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration,HHS.ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Food and DrugAdministration (FDA) has determinedthe regulatory review period forBAYTRIL and is publishing this noticeof that determination as required bylaw. FDA has made the determinationbecause of the submission of anapplication to the Commissioner ofPatents and Trademarks, Department ofCommerce, for the extension of a patentwhich claims that animal drug product.ADDRESSES: Written comments andpetitions should be directed to theDockets Management Branch (HFA–305), Food and Drug Administration,12420 Parklawn Dr., rm. 1–23,Rockville, MD 20857.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Brian J. Malkin, Office of Health Affairs(HFY–20), Food and DrugAdministration, 5600 Fishers Lane,Rockville, MD 20857, 301–443–1382.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The DrugPrice Competition and Patent TermRestoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98–417)and the Generic Animal Drug and PatentTerm Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100–670)generally provide that a patent may beextended for a period of up to 5 yearsso long as the patented item (humandrug product, animal drug product,medical device, food additive, or coloradditive) was subject to regulatoryreview by FDA before the item wasmarketed. Under these acts, a product’sregulatory review period forms the basisfor determining the amount of extensionan applicant may receive.

A regulatory review period consists oftwo periods of time: A testing phase andan approval phase. For animal drugproducts, the testing phase begins onthe earlier date when either a majorenvironmental effects test was initiatedfor the drug or when an exemptionunder section 512(j) of the Federal Food,Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C.360b(j)) became effective and runs untilthe approval phase begins. The approvalphase starts with the initial submissionof an application to market the animaldrug product and continues until FDAgrants permission to market the drugproduct. Although only a portion of a


regulatory review period may counttoward the actual amount of extensionthat the Commissioner of Patents andTrademarks may award (for example,half the testing phase must besubtracted as well as any time that mayhave occurred before the patent wasissued), FDA’s determination of thelength of a regulatory review period foran animal drug product will include allof the testing phase and approval phaseas specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(4)(B).

FDA recently approved for marketingthe animal drug product BAYTRIL(enrofloxacin). BAYTRIL is indicatedfor chickens to control mortalityassociated with Escherichia colisusceptible to enrofloxacin, and forturkeys to control mortality associatedwith E. coli and Pasturella multocida(fowl cholera) susceptible toenrofloxacin. Subsequent to thisapproval, the Patent and TrademarkOffice received a patent term restorationapplication for BAYTRIL (U.S. PatentNo. 4,670,444) from BayerAktiengesellschaft and requested FDA’sassistance in determining the patent’seligibility for patent term restoration. Ina letter dated January 21, 1997, FDAadvised the Patent and TrademarkOffice that this animal drug product hadundergone a regulatory review periodand that the approval of BAYTRILrepresented the first commercialmarketing of the product. Shortlythereafter, the Patent and TrademarkOffice requested that FDA determine theproduct’s regulatory review period.

FDA has determined that theapplicable regulatory review period forBAYTRIL is 4,334 days. Of this time,648 days occurred during the testingphase of the regulatory review period,while 3,686 days occurred during theapproval phase. These periods of timewere derived from the following dates:

1. The date an exemption undersection 512(j) of the Federal Food, Drug,and Cosmetic Act became effective:November 24, 1984. The applicantclaims November 20, 1984, as the datethe investigational new animal drugapplication (INAD) became effective.However, FDA records indicate that thedate of FDA’s official acknowledgmentletter assigning a number to the INADwas November 24, 1984, which isconsidered to be the effective date forthe INAD.

2. The date the application wasinitially submitted with respect to thehuman drug product under section512(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, andCosmetic Act: September 2, 1986. Theapplicant claims August 26, 1986, as thedate the new animal drug application(NADA) for BAYTRIL (NADA 140–828) was initially submitted. However,

a review of FDA records reveals that thedate of FDA’s official acknowledgmentletter assigning a number to the NADAwas September 2, 1986, which isconsidered to be the initially submitteddate for the NADA.

3. The date the animal drug wasapproved: October 4, 1996. FDA hasverified the applicant’s claim thatNADA 140–828 was approved onOctober 4, 1996.

This determination of the regulatoryreview period establishes the maximumpotential length of a patent extension.However, the U.S. Patent andTrademark Office applies severalstatutory limitations in its calculationsof the actual period for patent extension.In its application for patent extension,this applicant seeks 1,827 days of patentterm extension.

Anyone with knowledge that any ofthe dates as published is incorrect may,on or before May 19, 1997, submit to theDockets Management Branch (addressabove) written comments and ask for aredetermination. Furthermore, anyinterested person may petition FDA, onor before September 15, 1997, for adetermination regarding whether theapplicant for extension acted with duediligence during the regulatory reviewperiod. To meet its burden, the petitionmust contain sufficient facts to merit anFDA investigation. (See H. Rept. 857,part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41–42,1984.) Petitions should be in the formatspecified in 21 CFR 10.30.

Comments and petitions should besubmitted to the Dockets ManagementBranch (address above) in three copies(except that individuals may submitsingle copies) and identified with thedocket number found in brackets in theheading of this document. Commentsand petitions may be seen in theDockets Management Branch between 9a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday throughFriday.

Dated: March 6, 1997.Stuart L. Nightingale,Associate Commissioner for Health Affairs.[FR Doc. 97–6719 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4160–01–F

[Docket No. 97D–0024]

Medical Devices; ImmunotoxicityTesting Framework; Draft Guidance;Availability


SUMMARY: The Food and DrugAdministration (FDA) is announcing theavailability of a draft guidance entitled

‘‘Immunotoxicity Testing Framework.’’This guidance will provide reviewersand manufacturers with a coherentstrategy for assessing whether testing forpotential adverse effects involvingmedical devices or constituent materialsand the immune system is needed. Thedraft guidance will also aid indeveloping a systematic approach tosuch testing.DATES: Written comments by June 16,1997.ADDRESSES: Submit written requests forsingle copies of the draft guidanceentitled ‘‘Immunotoxicity TestingFramework’’ to the Division of SmallManufacturers Assistance, Center forDevices and Radiological Health (HFZ–220), Food and Drug Administration,5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD20857, 301–443–0806 (toll free outsideof MD 1–800–638–2041). Send two selfaddressed adhesive labels to assist thatoffice in processing your requests. Thedraft guidance is also available via theWorld Wide Web at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/draftgui.html. A textonly version is also available from aVT–100 compatible terminal via theFDA bulletin board by dialing 800–222–0185 (terminal settings are 8/1/N).

Submit written comments on the draftguidance to the Dockets ManagementBranch (HFA–305), Food and DrugAdministration, 12420 Parklawn Dr.,rm. 1–23, Rockville MD 20857. Requestsand comments should be identified withthe docket number found in brackets inthe heading of this document. A copy ofthe draft guidance and receivedcomments are available for publicexamination in the DocketsManagement Branch (address above)between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Mondaythrough Friday.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: JohnJ. Langone, Center for Devices andRadiological Health (HFZ–113), Foodand Drug Administration, 12709Twinbrook Pkwy., Rockville, MD 20852,301–443–7132.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. BackgroundIn May 1995, FDA adopted the

General Program Memorandum G95–1,an FDA-modified version ofInternational Standard ISO–10993,entitled ‘‘Biological Evaluation ofMedical Devices-Part 1: Evaluation andTesting.’’ It was pointed out that inaddition to the general guidance fortoxicity testing contained in thatdocument, additional guidance might beneeded for evaluation of specific organor system toxicity. As a result, the Officeof Device Evaluation, Center for Devicesand Radiological Health, developed the


draft ‘‘Immunotoxicity TestingFramework’’ to deal specifically withtesting for adverse effects of medicaldevices or constituent materials on theimmune system. The draft guidance willprovide medical device manufacturerswith FDA’s current thinking onimmunotoxicity testing, and it will helpto ensure a consistent and scientificallysound approach to the overallevaluation of product safety.

The draft guidance also contains aflow chart to determine ifimmunotoxicity testing isrecommended, and three tables that leadsequentially from potentialimmunological effects, to potentialresponses commonly associated withthose effects, to examples of testing thatmight be considered as part of theoverall safety evaluation of finisheddevices or constituent materials.

In the past, guidances generally havebeen issued under § 10.90(b) (21 CFR10.90(b)), which provides for the use ofguidances to state procedures orstandards of general applicability thatare not legal requirements, but that areacceptable to FDA. This guidancerepresents FDA’s current thinking onthe issue of immunotoxicity testing formedical devices and constituentmaterials. 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 therequirements of the applicable statute,regulations, or both.

II. Request for Comments

Interested persons may, on or beforeJune 16, 1997, submit to the DocketsManagement Branch (address above)written comments regarding the draftguidance. Two copies of any commentsare to be submitted, except thatindividuals may submit one copy.Comments are to be identified with thedocket number found in brackets in theheading of this document. The draftguidance and received comments maybe seen in the office above between 9a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday throughFriday.

Received comments will beconsidered in determining whether toamend the current draft guidancedocument.

Dated: March 6, 1997.Joseph A. Levitt,Deputy Director for Regulations Policy, Centerfor Devices and Radiological Health.[FR Doc. 97–6715 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4160–01–F

Investigational Biological ProductTrials; Procedure to Monitor ClinicalHold Process; Meeting of OversightCommittee and Request forSubmissions


SUMMARY: The Food and DrugAdministration (FDA) is announcing ameeting of its clinical hold oversightcommittee, which reviews the clinicalhold orders that the Center for BiologicsEvaluation and Research (CBER) hasplaced on certain investigationalbiological product trials. FDA is invitingany interested biological productcompany to use this confidentialmechanism to submit to the committeefor its review the name and number ofany investigational biological producttrial placed on clinical hold during thepast 12 months that the company wantsthe committee to review.DATES: The meeting will be held on May13, 1997. Biological product companiesmay submit review requests for the Maymeeting by April 4, 1997.ADDRESSES: Submit clinical hold reviewrequests to Amanda Bryce Norton, FDAChief Mediator and Ombudsman, Officeof the Commissioner (HF–7), Food andDrug Administration, 5600 FishersLane, rm. 14–105, Rockville, MD 20857,301–827–3390.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: JoyA. Cavagnaro, Center for BiologicsEvaluation and Research (HFM–5), Foodand Drug Administration, 1401Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852–1448, 301–827–0379.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDAregulations in part 312 (21 CFR part312) provide procedures that govern theuse of investigational new drugs andbiologics in human subjects. If FDAdetermines that a proposed or ongoingstudy may pose significant risks forhuman subjects or is otherwise seriouslydeficient, as discussed in theinvestigational new drug regulations, itmay order a clinical hold on the study.The clinical hold is one of FDA’sprimary mechanisms for protectingsubjects who are involved ininvestigational new drug or biologictrials. Section 312.42 describes thegrounds for ordering a clinical hold.

A clinical hold is an order that FDAissues to a sponsor to delay a proposedinvestigation or to suspend an ongoinginvestigation. The clinical hold may beordered on one or more of theinvestigations covered by aninvestigational new drug application(IND). When a proposed study is placed

on clinical hold, subjects may not begiven the investigational drug orbiologic as part of that study. When anongoing study is placed on clinicalhold, no new subjects may be recruitedto the study and placed on theinvestigational drug or biologic, andpatients already in the study shouldstop receiving therapy involving theinvestigational drug or biologic unlessFDA specifically permits it.

When FDA concludes that there is adeficiency in a proposed or ongoingclinical trial that may be grounds forordering a clinical hold, ordinarily FDAwill attempt to resolve the matterthrough informal discussions with thesponsor. If that attempt is unsuccessful,a clinical hold may be ordered by or onbehalf of the director of the division thatis responsible for the review of the IND.

FDA regulations in § 312.48 providedispute resolution mechanisms throughwhich sponsors may requestreconsideration of clinical hold orders.The regulations encourage the sponsorto attempt to resolve disputes directlywith the review staff responsible for thereview of the IND. If necessary, thesponsor may request a meeting with thereview staff and management to discussthe clinical hold.

CBER began a process to evaluate theconsistency and fairness of practices inordering clinical holds by instituting areview committee to review clinicalholds (see 61 FR 1033, January 11,1996). CBER held its first clinical holdoversight committee meeting on May 17,1995, and plans to conduct furtherquality assurance oversight of the INDprocess. The committee last met inFebruary 1997. The review procedure ofthe committee is designed to afford anopportunity for a sponsor who does notwish to seek formal reconsideration of apending clinical hold to have thatclinical hold considered‘‘anonymously.’’ The committeeconsists of senior managers of CBER, asenior official from the Center for DrugEvaluation and Research, and the FDAChief Mediator and Ombudsman.

Clinical holds to be reviewed will bechosen randomly. In addition, thecommittee will review some of theclinical holds proposed for review bybiological product sponsors. In general,a biological product sponsor shouldconsider requesting review when itdisagrees with FDA’s scientific orprocedural basis for the decision.

Requests for committee review of aclinical hold should be submitted to theFDA Chief Mediator and Ombudsman,who is responsible for selecting clinicalholds for review. The committee andCBER staff, with the exception of theFDA Chief Mediator and Ombudsman,


are never advised, either in the reviewprocess or thereafter, which of theclinical holds were randomly chosenand which were submitted by sponsors.The committee will evaluate theselected clinical holds for scientificcontent and consistency with FDAregulations and CBER policy.

The meetings of the oversightcommittee are closed to the publicbecause committee discussions dealwith confidential commercialinformation. Summaries of thecommittee deliberations, excludingconfidential commercial information,may be requested in writing from theFreedom of Information Office (HFI–35),Food and Drug Administration, 5600Fishers Lane, rm. 12A–16, Rockville,MD 20857, approximately 15 workingdays after the meeting, at a cost of 10cents per page. If the status of a clinicalhold changes following the committee’sreview, the appropriate division willnotify the sponsor.

FDA invites biological productcompanies to submit to the FDA ChiefMediator and Ombudsman the nameand IND number of any investigationalbiological product trial that was placedon clinical hold during the past 12months that they want the committee toreview at its May 13, 1997, meeting.Submissions should be made by April 4,1997, to Amanda Bryce Norton, FDAChief Mediator and Ombudsman(address above).

Dated: March 5, 1997.William K. Hubbard,Associate Commissioner for PolicyCoordination.[FR Doc. 97–6779 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4160–01–F

Health Care Financing Administration,HHS

Submitted for Collection of PublicComment: Submission for OMBReview (HCFA–R–4)

In compliance with the requirementof section 3506(c)(2)(A) of thePaperwork Reduction Act of 1995, theHealth Care Financing Administration(HCFA), Department of Health andHuman Services, has submitted to theOffice of Management and Budget(OMB) the following proposals for thecollection of information. Interestedpersons are invited to send commentsregarding this burden estimate or anyother aspect of this collection ofinformation, including any of thefollowing subjects: (1) The necessity andutility of the proposed informationcollection for the proper performance ofthe agency’s functions; (2) the accuracy

of the estimated burden; (3) ways toenhance the quality, utility, and clarityof the information to be collected; and(4) the use of automated collectiontechniques or other forms of informationtechnology to minimize the informationcollection burden.

1. Type of Request: Extension of acurrently approved collection; Title ofInformation Collection: InformationCollection Requirements contained in42 CFR 447.253; Form No.: HCFA–R–4;Use: The Medicaid ManagementInformation System (MMIS) is a State-operated, Federally mandated computersystem used for automated Medicaidclaims processing and informationretrieval for program management. Dataelements represent the Federallyimposed recordkeeping requirements ofMMIS; Frequency: Annually; AffectedPublic: Business or other for profit;State, local, or tribal government;Number of Respondents: 50; TotalAnnual Responses: 50; Total AnnualHours: 2,298,250.

To request copies of the proposedpaperwork collection referenced above,E-mail your request, including youraddress, to [email protected], or callthe Reports Clearance Office on (410)786–1326. Written comments andrecommendations for the proposedinformation collections should be sentwithin 30 days of this notice directly tothe HCFA Paperwork Clearance Officerdesignated at the following address:OMB Human Resources and HousingBranch, Attention: Allison Eydt, NewExecutive Office Building, Room 10235,Washington, D.C. 20503.

Dated: March 5, 1997.Edwin J. Glatzel,Director, Management Analysis and PlanningStaff, Office of Financial and HumanResources, Health Care FinancingAdministration.[FR Doc. 97–6789 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4120–03–P

[Document Identifier: HCFA-R–201]

Correction Notice: Agency InformationCollection Activities: Submission forEmergency OMB Review; CommentRequest

AGENCY: Health Care FinancingAdministration, HHS.

In compliance with the PaperworkReduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.), the Health Care FinancingAdministration (HCFA), Department ofHealth and Human Services, hassubmitted to the Office of Managementand Budget (OMB) the followingproposals for the collection ofinformation. Interested persons are

invited to send comments regarding theburden estimate or any other aspect ofthis collection of information, includingany of the following subjects: (1) thenecessity and utility of the proposedinformation collection for the properperformance of the agency’s functions;(2) the accuracy of the estimatedburden; (3) ways to enhance the quality,utility, and clarity of the information tobe collected; and (4) the use ofautomated collection techniques orother forms of information technology tominimize the information collectionburden.

1. Type of Information CollectionRequest: New collection; Title ofInformation Collection: Managed CareOrganization, Incentive ArrangementDisclosure Form and SupportingRegulations 42 CFR 417.479, 417.500,434.44, 434.67, 434.70, 1003.100,1003.101, 1003.103, 1003.106; FormNo.: HCFA–R–201; Use: Final ruleOMC–10, published in the FederalRegister on 12/31/96, disclosed to thepublic that the information collectionrequirements referenced in OMC–10-F,would be submitted to OMB foremergency review upon publication ofthe rule. However, Section V of finalrule OMC–10 neglected to denote thatthe forms used to capture theinformation collection requirementsreferenced in OMC–10 would also besubmitted to OMB as part of theemergency review. These forms whichwill be used to demonstrate and monitorcompliance with statute governingphysician incentives under Medicareand Medicaid managed careorganizations, were created in anextensive cooperative effort with theAmerican Association of Health Plans,State Medicaid Agency representatives,and the Medicaid Managed CareTechnical Advisory group. Therefore,we are correcting this oversight and arerequesting comment on the forms andsupporting regulations. These forms areavailable for inspection on the HCFAwebsite, on the Internet, at http://www.hcfa.gov; Frequency: Annually;Affected Public: Business or other forprofit, not for profit institutions, state,local or tribal government, and federalgovernment; Number of Respondents:450; Total Annual Responses: 450; TotalAnnual Hours: 45,000.

To obtain copies of the supportingstatement and any related forms, E-mailyour request, including your addressand phone number, [email protected], or call the ReportsClearance Office on (410) 786–1326.Written comments andrecommendations for the proposedinformation collection should be sentwithin 5 days of this notice directly to


the OMB Desk Officer designated at thefollowing address: OMB HumanResources and Housing Branch,Attention: Allison Eydt, New ExecutiveOffice Building, Room 10235,Washington, D.C. 20503.

Dated: March 13, 1997.Edwin J. Glatzel,Director Management Analysis and PlanningStaff, Office of Financial and HumanResources, Health Care FinancingAdministration.[FR Doc. 97–6825 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4120–03–P

Public Health Service

Second Food and Nutrition BoardWorkshop on B Vitamins

AGENCY: Office of Disease Preventionand Health Promotion, Public HealthService, DHHS.ACTION: Second Food and NutritionBoard Workshop on B Vitamins; noticeof meeting and request for information.

SUMMARY: The Food and Nutrition Board(FNB), Institute of Medicine, NationalAcademy of Sciences, under theauspices of the Standing Committee onthe Scientific Evaluation of DietaryReference Intakes, will hold an openworkshop to address the nutrientsthiamin, riboflavin, niacin, vitamin B–6,pantothenic acid, and biotin.DATES: The open meeting will be heldfrom 12:30 until 5:30 p.m. P.D.T. onMay 20, 1997, and from 8:00 a.m. until12:30 p.m. P.D.T. on March 21, 1997, atthe Arnold and Mabel Beckman CenterAuditorium, National Academy ofSciences and Engineering, 100 AcademyDrive, Irvine, California. The meeting isopen to the public.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Diane Johnson, Program Assistant, Foodand Nutrition Board, 2101 ConstitutionAvenue, NW., Washington, DC 20418,(202) 334–1312, or send an e-mail [email protected] INFORMATION: Speakershave been invited to present evidencebearing on requirements and adverseeffects, if any, of high levels of intake ofthiamin, riboflavin, niacin, vitamin B–6,pantothenic acid, and biotin.Information presented will beconsidered by the committee in itsdevelopment of Dietary ReferenceIntakes for these nutrients. Interestedindividuals and organizations areencouraged to provide written scientificinformation for the committee’s use.Those wishing to be considered for abrief oral presentation should submit anabstract with references to FNB, 2101Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,

DC 20418, by May 2, 1997. The studyfor which this meeting is being held issupported by the Department of Healthand Human Services (Office of DiseasePrevention and Health Promotion,Office of Public Health and Science;Division of Nutrition and PhysicalActivity, National Center for ChronicDisease Prevention and HealthPromotion, Centers for Disease Controland Prevention; and Office of DietarySupplements, Office of DiseasePrevention, National Institutes ofHealth). The meeting is open to thepublic; however seating is limited. Ifyou will require a sign languageinterpreter, please call Diane Johnson at(202) 334–1312 by 4:30 p.m. E.D.T. onMay 12, 1997.Claude Earl Fox,Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health(Disease Prevention and Health Promotion),U.S. Department of Health and HumanServices.[FR Doc. 97–6709 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4160–17–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR


Relationship of Interior Programs toE.O. 12372 Process; IntergovernmentalReview of the Department of theInterior Programs and Activities

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Interior.ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice contains revisionsbeing made to a list of programs andactivities eligible for E.O. 12372,‘‘Intergovernmental Review of FederalPrograms’’ process use and a list ofprograms and activities with existingconsultation processes. This list wasoriginally published as a notice in theFederal Register on June 24, 1983 (48FR 29235–29236) and was subsequentlyrevised in Federal Register noticespublished on March 7, 1984 (49 FR8495) and February 7, 1985 (50 FR5316–5317). These publications shouldbe referred to and except for the changesindicated in today’s notice, there are nofurther changes being made at this time.Updated names of bureau and officeIntergovernmental Review Coordinatorsare included in the section below forcontacts for further information.EFFECTIVE DATES: This notice shallbecome effective on March 18, 1997.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Debra E. Sonderman, (Director,Procurement and Property ManagementSystems), (202) 208–3336. Departmentof the Interior IntergovernmentalReview Coordinators Ceceil C. Belong

(Departmental Contact) 202–208–3474;National Park Service; Ken Compton(Recreation Grants Division) 202–343–3700, Geraldine Smith (Policy Division)202–208–7456, Joe Wallis (HeritagePreservation Services Division) 202–343–9564; Office of Surface MiningReclamation and Enforcement, BarbaraRamey 202–208–2843; MineralsManagement Service, Dennis Buck 703–787–1370; Bureau of Land Management,Tom Walker 202–208–4896; U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service, Phyllis Cook 703–358–1943; U.S. Geological Survey, GaryHill 703–648–4451; Bureau ofReclamation, Patricia Zelazny 303–236–3750.

Programs Under Which States May Optto Use E.O. 12372 ProcessAdministering Bureau: National Park

ServiceCatalog No. 15.904

The Program Name should becorrected to state, ‘‘HistoricPreservation Fund Grants-in-Aid’’rather than ‘‘Historic Preservation-Grants-in-Aid.’’

Catalog No. 15.920.This program should be deleted

because the Budget authority hasexpired.

Administering Bureau: Bureau ofReclamation.

Catalog Nos. 15.501, 15.502, and 15.503and the Atmospheric WaterResources Management ProgramResearch.

The above referenced programsshould be deleted from the listbecause they are no longerfunctional and have been removedfrom the Catalog of FederalDomestic Assistance.

Administering Bureau: U.S. Fish andWildlife Service.

Catalog No. 15.605.The Program name should be

corrected to state, ‘‘Sport FishRestoration,’’ to be consistent withthe new title in the Catalog ofFederal Domestic Assistance.

Catalog Nos. 15.600 and 15.612.The above referenced programs

should be deleted from the listbecause the Budget authority forthem has expired and they havebeen removed from the Catalog ofFederal Domestic Assistance.

Catalog Nos. 15.614, 15.615. 15.616,15.617, and 15.618.

Program Nos. 15.614, ‘‘CoastalWetlands Planning, Protection andRestoration Act,’’ 15.615,‘‘Cooperative Endangered SpeciesConservation Fund,’’ 15.616, ‘‘CleanVessel Act,’’ 15.617, ‘‘WildlifeConservation and Appreciation,’’and 15.618, ‘‘Administrative Grants


for Federal Aid in Sport Fish andWildlife Restoration’’ are added tothe list in order to be consistentwith covered programs included inthe Catalog of Federal DomesticAssistance.

Interior Programs With ExistingConsultation Processes

Bureau: Fish and Wildlife Service

The entries for Established Researchand Research at Cooperative Unitsshould be deleted since these activitiesare no longer the responsibility of theU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Bureau: Bureau of Mines

The entry for the Bureau of Mines,‘‘State Mining and Mineral Resourcesand Research Institutes,’’ should bedeleted from the list because the Budgetauthority has expired and the programhas been removed from the Catalog ofFederal Domestic Assistance.

Bureau: Bureau of Reclamation

The following program should beadded to the list of programsadministered by this bureau:

5. Desalination Research andDevelopment—42 U.S.C. 7815–16.

Bureau: U.S. Geological Survey

The following entries should beadded to the list of activitiesadministered by this bureau:

4. Established Research—16 U.S.C.661–661c, 742a–742l, 757a–757l, 778–778c, 931–939c.

5. Research at Cooperative Units—16U.S.C. 753a–b.

Dated: March 10, 1997.Robert J. Lamb,Acting Assistant Secretary—Policy,Management and Budget.[FR Doc. 97–6744 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310–RF–M

Bureau of Land Management

[WY–920–07–1320–00]

Powder River Regional Coal TeamActivities; Schedule of Public Meeting

AGENCY: Department of the Interior,Wyoming.ACTION: Notice of schedule of publicmeeting.

SUMMARY: The Powder River RegionalCoal Team (RCT) announces that it hasscheduled its annual public meeting forApril 23, 1997 for the followingpurposes: (1) review current andproposed activities in the Powder RiverCoal Region, (2) review new andpending coal lease applications (LBA),

and (3) make recommendations on newcoal lease applications.DATES: The RCT meeting will begin at9:00 a.m. M.D.T. on Wednesday, April23, 1997, at the Wyoming ConservationCommission Meeting Room, 777 West1st Street, Casper, Wyoming. Themeeting is open to the public.ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held atthe Wyoming ConservationCommission’s Meeting Room, 777 1stStreet, Casper, Wyoming. Attendeesmay wish to make their roomreservations before until April 11, 1997.A block of rooms has been reserved forteam members and guests at the CasperHilton Inn through April 11, 1997. Forroom reservations call 1–307–266–6000.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Pam Hernandez or Eugene Jonart,Wyoming State Office, Attn. (922), P.O.Box 1828, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003:telephone (307) 775–6270 or 775–6257.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Primarypurpose of the meeting is to discusspending and new coal lease applications(LBA) from Evergreen Enterprises,(WYW138975), filed on May 13, 1996,for an estimated 675 million tons and7,841 acres, and the Antelope CoalCompany (WYW141435), filed February14, 1997, for an estimated 177 milliontons and 1,470 acres. This is the initialpublic notification of the pendingapplications listed above, in accordancewith the Powder River OperationalGuidelines (1991). Generally, a coallease application filed under the LBAportion of BLM regulations (43 CFR3425) takes two to four years to beprocessed to the competitive sale stage,depending on informational andenvironmental study requirements. TheRCT may generate recommendation(s)for any or all of the new and pendingLBAs.

The meeting will serve as a forum forpublic discussion on Federal coalmanagement issues of concern in thePowder River Basin region. Any partyinterested in providing comments ordata related to the above pendingapplications may either do so in writingto the State Director (925), WyomingState Office, Bureau of LandManagement, P.O. Box 1828, Cheyenne,WY. 82003 no later than April 14, 1997,or by addressing the RCT with his/herconcerns at the meeting on April 23,1997.

The proposed agenda for the meetingfollows:

1. Introduction of RCT Members andguests.

2. Approval of the Minutes of theApril 23, 1996, Regional Coal Teammeeting held in Cheyenne, Wyoming.

3. Regional Coal Activity Status:

a. Current Production and Trendb. Activity Since Last RCT Meeting:c. Status of pending LBAs previously

reviewed by RCT:—North Rochelle LBA—WYW127221,

Zeigler; filed 7/22/92; 140 milliontons; est. sale date July 1997. Draft EISwas reviewed by public fromNovember 8, 1996 thru January 10,1997. A public hearing was held inGillette, WY, on December 12, 1996.

—Powder River—WYW136142;Peabody; filed 3/23/95, est. 550million tons, 4,020 acres, tentativesale date in March 98

—Jacob’s Ranch—WYW136458;(Wyoming), Kerr-McGee; filed 4/14/95, est. 432 million tons, 4,000 acres,tentative sale date June 98.

d. Status of Coal Exchanges—Belco/HayCreek; Nance/Brown AVF

e. Pending Coal Lease Modifications (ifany):

f. New coal lease applications (LBAs):4. Update of Selected Portions of 1996

Executive Summary.5. Other Regional Issues:

—Status of Buffalo Resource Area’sManagement Plan, (Wyoming).

—Encoal Corporation Presentation—North American Power Group

Presentation6. Lease Applicant Presentations:

—Evergreen Enterprises—Antelope Coal Company

7. RCT Activity PlanningRecommendations—Review and recommendation(s) on

pending lease Application(s).8. Discussion of the next meeting.9. Adjourn.Public discussion opportunities will

be provided on all agenda items.Alan R. Pierson,State Director, Wyoming.[FR Doc. 97–6579 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310–22–M

[ES–931–07–1430–01; MIES–033804]

Public Land Order No. 7249; PartialRevocation of Executive Order DatedJuly 24, 1875; Michigan

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management,Interior.ACTION: Public Land Order.

SUMMARY: This order revokes anExecutive order insofar as it affects 1.70acres of public land withdrawn for useby the U.S. Coast Guard for lighthousepurposes. The land is no longer neededfor lighthouse purposes. This action willopen the land to surface entry. The landhas been and remains open to mineralleasing.


EFFECTIVE DATE: April 17, 1997.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: EdRuda, BLM Eastern States Office, 7450Boston Boulevard, Springfield, Virginia22153, 703–440–1671.

By virtue of the authority vested inthe Secretary of the Interior by Section204 of the Federal Land Policy andManagement Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C.1714 (1988) it is ordered as follows:

1. The Executive Order dated July 24,1875, which withdrew public land foruse as lighthouse purposes, is herebyrevoked insofar as it affects thefollowing described land:

Michigan Meridian

Point Betsie Lighthouse

T. 26 N., R. 16 W.,Sec. 4, lot 10.The area described contains 1.70 acres in

Benzie County.

2. At 10:00 a.m. on April 17, 1997 theland will be opened to the operation ofthe public land laws generally, subjectto valid existing rights, the provisions ofexisting withdrawals, other segregationsof record, and the requirements ofapplicable law. All valid applicationsreceived at or prior to 10 a.m. on April17, 1997 shall be considered assimultaneously filed at that time. Thosereceived thereafter shall be consideredin the order of filing.

Dated: February 19, 1997Bob Armstrong,Assistant Secretary of the Interior.[FR Doc. 97–6790 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310–GJ–P

[OR–957–00–1420–00: G7–0117]

Filing of Plats of Survey: Oregon/Washington

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management.ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The plats of survey of thefollowing described lands are scheduledto be officially filed in the Oregon StateOffice, Portland, Oregon, thirty (30)calendar days from the date of thispublication.

Willamette Meridian

Oregon

T. 9 S., R. 4 E., accepted January 31, 1997T. 21 S., R. 1 W., accepted January 31, 1997T. 16 S., R. 3 W., accepted January 24, 1997T. 38 S., R. 4 W., accepted January 31, 1997T. 32 S., R. 5 W., accepted January 31, 1997T. 21 S., R. 9 W., accepted January 24, 1997T. 23 S., R. 9 W., accepted January 24, 1997T. 25 S., R. 13 W., accepted February 28,

1997

If protests against a survey, as shownon any of the above plat(s), are received

prior to the date of official filing, thefiling will be stayed pendingconsideration of the protest(s). A platwill not be officially filed until the dayafter all protests have been dismissedand become final or appeals from thedismissal affirmed.

The plat(s) will be placed in the openfiles of the Oregon State Office, Bureauof Land Management, 1515 S.W. 5thAvenue, Portland, Oregon 97201, andwill be available to the public as amatter of information only. Copies ofthe plat(s) may be obtained from theabove office upon required payment. Aperson or party who wishes to protestagainst a survey must file with the StateDirector, Bureau of Land Management,Portland, Oregon, a notice that theywish to protest prior to the proposedofficial filing date given above. Astatement of reasons for a protest may befiled with the notice of protest to theState Director, or the statement ofreasons must be filed with the StateDirector within thirty (30) days after theproposed official filing date.

The above-listed plats representdependent resurveys, survey andsubdivision.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Bureau of Land Management, (1515S.W. 5th Avenue) P.O. Box 2965,Portland, Oregon 97208.

Dated: March 7, 1997.Robert D. DeViney, Jr.,Chief, Branch of Realty and Records Services.[FR Doc. 97–6712 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310–33–M

National Park Service

Public Notice

SUMMARY: Public notice is hereby giventhat the National Park Service proposesto award a concession contractauthorizing continued operation ofcommercially guided horse rides, for thepublic at Bryce Canyon National Parkfor a period of five (5) years fromJanuary 1, 1998 through December 31,2002.EFFECTIVE DATE: Offers will be acceptedfor sixty (60) days under the termsdescribed in the Prospectus. The sixty(60) day application period will beginwith the release of the Prospectus,which will occur on or before April 17,1997. The actual release date of theProspectus shall be the date ofpublication in the ‘‘Commerce BusinessDaily’’.ADDRESSES: Interested parties shouldcontact the Superintendent; BryceCanyon National Park; P.O. Box 170001;Bryce Canyon, Utah 84717; to obtain a

copy of the Prospectus describing therequirements of the proposed contacts.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Thiscontract renewal has been determined tobe categorically excluded from theprocedural provisions of the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act and noenvironmental document will beprepared.

The existing concessioner hasperformed its obligation to thesatisfaction of the Secretary under anexisting contract which expires bylimitation of time on December 31,1997. Therefore pursuant to theprovisions of Section 5 of the Act ofOctober 9, 1965 (79 Stat. 969; 16 U.S.C.20), the concessioner is entitled to begiven preference in the renewal of thecontract and in the award of a newcontract providing that the existingconcessioner submits a responsive offer(a timely offer which meets the termsand conditions of the Prospectus). Thismeans that the contract will be awardedto the party submitting the best offer,provided that if the best offer was notsubmitted by the existing concessioner,then the existing concessioner will beafforded the opportunity to match thebest offer. If the existing concessioneragrees to match the best offer, then thecontract will be awarded to the existingconcessioner.

If the existing concessioner does notsubmit a responsive offer, the right ofpreference in renewal shall beconsidered to have been waived, andthe contract will then be awarded to theparty that has submitted the bestresponsive offer.

The Secretary will consider andevaluate all offers received as a result ofthis notice. Any offer, including that ofthe existing concessioner, must bereceived by the Superintendent, BryceCanyon National Park; P.O. Box 170001;Bryce Canyon, Utah 84717; not laterthan sixty (60) days following release ofthe Prospectus to be considered andevaluated.

Dated: March 7, 1997.John T. Crowley.Acting Director, Intermountain Region.[FR Doc. 97–6824 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310–70–P

National Preservation Technology andTraining Board: Meeting

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.ACTION: Notice of meeting of theNational Preservation Technology andTraining Board.

Notice is hereby given in accordancewith the Federal Advisory Committee


Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix (1988), that theNational Preservation Technology andTraining Board will meet on April 21,22 and 23, 1997, in Los Angeles,California.

The Board was established byCongress to provide leadership, policyadvice, and professional oversight to theNational Center for PreservationTechnology and Training, as requiredunder the National Historic PreservationAct of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C.470).

The Board will meet at the GettyConservation Institute which is locatedat 1200 Getty Center Drive in LosAngeles, California. Matters to bediscussed will include, staff programupdates and the establishment of non-Federal support for the Center’sprograms.

Monday, April 21 the meeting willstart at 9:00 am and end at 5:00 pm. OnTuesday, April 22, the meeting will bebegin at 8:30 am and end at 4:30 pm andWednesday, April 23, the meeting willbegin at 8:30 am and end at noon.Meetings will be open to the public.However, facilities and space foraccommodating members of the publicare limited and persons willaccommodated on a first-come, first-served basis. Any member of the publicmay file a written statement concerningthe matters to be discussed by theNational Preservation Technology andTraining Board, with the National ParkService, Heritage Preservation Services,P.O. Box 37127, Washington, DC 20013–7127, ATTN: Carol Gould. If you plan toattend the meeting you must notifyCarol Gould at telephone (202) 343–9585 by Thursday, April 17, 1997, sothat arrangements can be made for youto gain access to the Getty ConservationInstitute facility.

Draft summary minutes of the meetingwill be available for public inspectionabout eight weeks after the meeting atHeritage Preservation Services Office,Suite 200, 800 North Capitol Street,Washington, DC.

Dated: 12 March 1997.E. Blaine Cliver,Chief, HABS/HAER, Designated FederalOfficial, National Park Service.[FR Doc. 97–6823 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310–70–P

National Register of Historic Places;Notification of Pending Nominations

Nominations for the followingproperties being considered for listingin the National Register were receivedby the National Park Service beforeMarch 8, 1997. Pursuant to § 60.13 of 36CFR Part 60 written comments

concerning the significance of theseproperties under the National Registercriteria for evaluation may be forwardedto the National Register, National ParkService, P.O. Box 37127, Washington,D.C. 20013–7127. Written commentsshould be submitted by April 2, 1997.Patrick Andrus,Acting Keeper of the National Register.

CALIFORNIA

Los Angeles CountyCulver Hotel, 9400 Culver Blvd., Culver City,

97000296

Riverside CountyFirst Congregational Church of Riverside,

3504 Mission Inn Ave., Riverside,97000297

Ventura CountyMcCrea, Joel, Ranch, 4500 N. Moorpark Rd.,

Thousand Oaks, 97000295

COLORADO

Denver CountyKistler Stationery Company Building, 1636

Champa St., Denver, 97000298

CONNECTICUT

New Haven CountyEast Rock Park, Roughly bounded by State,

Davis, and Livingston Sts., Park andMitchell Drs., and Whitney Ave., NewHaven, 97000299

GEORGIA

Lamar CountyGachet, Benjamin, House, GA 18, 3 mi. W of

Barnesville, Barnesville vicinity, 97000301

Thomas CountyMill Creek Plantation, 100 Mill Creek

Plantation, Thomasville vicinity, 97000300

INDIANA

Delaware CountyCincinnati, Richmond, & Muncie Depot,

Wysor St., jct. of Broadway, Muncie,97000304

Marion CountyCampbell, Henry F., Mansion, 2550 Cold

Spring Rd., Indianapolis, 97000305

Morgan CountyBurton Lane Bridge, Burton Ln. over Indian

Cr., .3 mi. S of IN 37, Martinsville vicinity,97000302

East Washington Street Historic District,Roughly, E. Washington St. from Sycamoreto Crawford Sts., Martinsville, 97000306

Tippecanoe CountyNinth Street Hill Neighborhood Historic

District, Roughly, 9th St. from South toKossuth Sts. and State St. from 9th toKossuth Sts., Lafayette, 97000303

IOWA

Clinton CountyChicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific

Depot—Delmar (Advent and Development

of Railroads in Iowa, 1850—1940 MPS), Wof Main St., between Railroad St. andClinton Ave., Delmar, 97000308

Jasper CountyLong, J. G. and Regina, House, Co. Rd. F70,

.5 mi. W of Monroe city limits, Monroevicinity, 97000307

MAINE

Cumberland CountyDyer—Hutchinson Farm, 1148 Sawyer Rd.,

South Portland vicinity, 97000313

Penobscot CountyCurtis, John B., Free Public Library, Jct. of

ME 11 and ME 221, NE corner, Bradford,97000310

District No. 2 School, Jct. of Pleasant St. andCaribou Rd., SE corner, Passadumkeag,97000309

Piscataquis CountyBurgess, Walter and Eva, Farm, 79 Shaw Rd.,

Macomber Corner vicinity, 97000312

York CountyDalton, Benjamin and Abigail, House,

Address Restricted, North Parsonsfieldvicinity, 97000311

MARYLAND

Wicomico CountyWailes, F. Leonard, Law Office, 116–118 E.

Main St., Salisbury, 97000314

MONTANA

Chouteau CountyVirgelle Mercantile and Virgelle State Bank,

Co. Rd. 430, approximately 6.3 mi. S of US87, Virgelle, 97000315

NORTH CAROLINA

Rutherford CountyBechtler Mint Site, Address Restricted,

Rutherfordton vicinity, 97000316

RHODE ISLAND

Kent CountyDistrict Four School, 1515 W. Shore Rd.,

Warwick, 97000318

TEXAS

Harris CountyWest Eleventh Place Historic District, 1–8 W.

11th Pl., Houston, 97000317

WASHINGTON

King CountyGreat Northern Depot, Jct. of Railroad Ave.

and 4th St., SE corner, Skykomish,97000322

TOURIST II (auto ferry), 25 Lake Shore Plaza,Marina Park, Kirkland, 97000321

Pierce CountyDierenger School (Rural Public Schools in

Washington MPS) 1808 E. Valley Hwy.,Sumner, 97000324

Spokane CountyRockwood Historic District, Roughly,

Rockwood Blvd. from 11th to 29th Aves.,Spokane, 97000320


Stevens CountyOpera House and I. O. O. F. Lodge, 151 W.

1st Ave., Colville, 97000319

Thurston CountyUnion Cemetery—Pioneer Calvary Cemetery,

5700 Littlerock Rd., Tumwater, 97000323

WISCONSIN

Dane CountyMarquette Bungalows Historic District,

Bounded by S. Thorton Ave., Rutledge, S.Dickinson, and Spaight Sts., Madison,97000329

Door CountyWelcker’s Resort Historic District, Roughly

bounded by Cottage Row, Maple, Cedar,and Main Sts., Gibralter, 97000328

Fond Du Lac CountyLongfellow School, 221 Spaulding Ave.,

Ripon, 97000325

Iowa CountySpensley Farm, 1126 WI QQ, E of jct. with

WI 39, Mineral Point, 97000330

Iron CountySpringstead, Jct. of Old Springfield Tote Rd.

and WI 182, Sherman, 97000326

Winnebago CountyOmro Village Hall and Engine House, 144 E.

Main St., Omro, 97000327[FR Doc. 97–6822 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310–70–P

Office of Surface Mining Reclamationand Enforcement

Notice of Proposed InformationCollection

AGENCY: Office of Surface MiningReclamation and Enforcement.ACTION: Notice and request forcomments.

SUMMARY: In compliance with thePaperwork Reduction Act of 1995, theOffice of Surface Mining Reclamationand Enforcement (OSM) is announcingits intention to request approval for thecollections of information for 30 CFRparts 733 and 785.DATES: Comments on the proposedinformation collection must be receivedby May 19, 1997 to be assured ofconsideration.ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed toJohn A. Trelease, Office of SurfaceMining Reclamation and Enforcement,1951 Constitution Ave., NW, Room120—SIB, Washington, DC 20240.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:To request a copy of the informationcollection requests, explanatoryinformation and related forms, contactJohn A. Trelease, at (202) 208–2783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Officeof Management and Budget (OMB)regulations at 5 CFR Part 1320, whichimplement provisions of the PaperworkReduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13),require that interested members of thepublic and affected agencies have anopportunity to comment on informationcollection and recordkeeping activities(see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). This noticeidentifies information collections thatOSM will be submitting to OMB forextension. These collections arecontained in 30 CFR part 733,Maintenance of State programs andprocedures for substituting Federalenforcement of State programs andwithdrawing approval of Stateprograms, and part 785, Requirementsfor permits for special categories ofmining.

OSM has revised burden estimates,where appropriate, to reflect currentreporting levels or adjustments based onreestimates of burden or respondents.OSM will request a 3-year term ofapproval for each information collectionactivity.

Comments are invited on: (1) Theneed for the collection of informationfor the performance of the functions ofthe agency; (2) the accuracy of theagency’s burden estimates; (3) ways toenhance the quality, utility and clarityof the information collection; and (4)ways to minimize the informationcollection burden on respondents, suchas use of automated means of collectionof the information. A summary of thepublic comments will be included inOSM’s submissions of the informationcollection requests to OMB.

The following information is providedfor each information collection: (1) Titleof the information collection; (2) OMBcontrol number; (3) summary of theinformation collection activity; and (4)frequency of collection, description ofthe respondents, estimated total annualresponses, and the total annualreporting and recordkeeping burden forthe collection of information.

Title: Maintenance of State programsand procedures for substituting Federalenforcement of State programs andwithdrawing approval of Stateprograms, 30 CFR part 733.

OMB Control Number: 1029–0025.Summary: This part provides that any

interested person may request theDirector of OSM to evaluate a Stateprogram by setting forth in the requesta concise statement of facts which theperson believes establishes the need forthe evaluation.

Bureau Form Number: None.Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

Description of Respondents: Anyinterested person (individuals,businesses, institutions, organizations).

Total Annual Responses: 1.Total Annual Burden Hours: 100

hours.Title: Requirements for permits for

special categories of mining, 30 CFR785.

OMB Control Number: 1029–0040.Summary: The information is being

collected to meet the requirements ofsections 507, 508, 510, 515, 701, and711 of Public Law 95–87, which requireapplicants for special types of miningactivities to provide descriptions, maps,plans and data of the proposed activity.This information will be used by theregulatory authority in determining ifthe applicant can meet the applicableperformance standards for the specialtype of mining activity.

Bureau Form Number: None.Frequency of Collection: On occasion.Description of Respondents:

Applicants for coal mine activities.Total Annual Responses: 463.Total Annual Burden Hours: 8,443.Dated: March 13, 1997.

Arthur W. Abbs,Chief, Division of Regulatory Support.[FR Doc. 97–6754 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

Harvey Bigelsen, M.D., Revocation ofRegistration

On April 19, 1996, the DeputyAssistant Administrator, Office ofDiversion Control, Drug EnforcementAdministration (DEA), issued an Orderto Show Cause to Harvey Bigelsen,M.D., of Scottsdale, Arizona, proposingthe revocation of his DEA Certificate ofRegistration BB3105992 and denial ofany pending applications for renewal ofsuch registration as a practitionerpursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), forreason that he is not currentlyauthorized to handle controlledsubstances in the State of Arizona. Theorder also advised that should norequest for a hearing be filed within 30days, his hearing right would be deemedwaiver.

The Order to Show Cause was sent toDr. Bigelsen by registered mail to hisDEA registered address, but wasreturned to DEA unclaimed. The Orderwas next sent by registered mail to Dr.Bigelsen’s last known residence inScottsdale, Arizona, and is also wasreturned to DEA unclaimed. DEA then


attempted to locate Dr. Bigelsen inArizona through the telephone directoryand the Arizona Board of MedicalExaminers without success. DEAinvestigators went to Dr. Bigelsen’s lastknown address and were advised thathe no longer lived there.

The Acting Deputy Administratorfinds that DEA has attempted to locateDr. Bigelsen and has determined that hiswhereabouts are unknown. It is evidentthat Dr. Bigelsen is no longer practicingmedicine at the address listed on hisDEA Certificate of Registration. TheActing Deputy Administrator concludesthat considerable effort has been madeto serve Dr. Bigelsen with the Order toShow Cause without success. Dr.Bigelsen is therefore deemed to havewaived his opportunity for a hearing.The Acting Deputy Administrator nowenters his final order in this matterwithout a hearing and based on theinvestigative file. 21 C.F.R. 1301.54 and1301.57.

The Acting Deputy Administratorfinds that effective May 2, 1994, theBoard of Medical examiners of the Stateof Arizona (Board) entered into aConsent Order with Dr. Bigelsenwhereby his license to practicemedicine in the State of Arizona wascanceled. The Board’s action was aresult of a plea agreement entered intoby Dr. Bigelsen on or about October 21,1993, wherein he pled guilty to chargesof filing false, fictitious or fraudulentclaims in violation of 18 U.S.C. 287,mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C.1341, and conspiring to obstruct justicein violation of 18 U.S.C. 371. As part ofthe plea agreement, Dr. Bigelsen agreedto voluntarily relinquish his licenses topractice medicine in Arizona, New Yorkand New Jersey, and his DEA Certificateof Registration. Attempts by DEA toobtain the voluntary surrender of Dr.Bigelsen’s DEA Certificate ofRegistration have been unsuccessful.

As a result of the cancellation of hisArizona medical license, the ActingDeputy Administrator finds that Dr.Bigelsen is not currently authorized tohandle controlled substances in theState of Arizona. The DEA does nothave statutory authority under theControlled Substances Act to issue ormaintain a registration if the applicantor registrant is without state authority tohandle controlled substances in thestate in which he conducts his business.21 U.S.C. 802(21), 823(f), and 824(a)(3).This prerequisite has been consistentlyupheld. See Earl G. Rozeboom, M.D., 61FR 60,730 (1996); Charles L. Novosad,Jr., M.D., 60 FR 47,182 (1995); DominickA. Ricci, M.D., 58 FR 51,104 (1993).Since Dr. Bigelsen is not currentlyauthorized to handle controlled

substances in the State of Arizona, he isnot entitled to a DEA registration in thatstate.

Accordingly, the Acting DeputyAdministrator of the Drug EnforcementAdministration, pursuant to theauthority vested in him by 21 U.S.C. 823and 824 and 28 C.F.R. 0.100(b) and0.104, hereby orders that DEACertificate of Registration, BB3105992,previously issued to Harvey Bigelsen,M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. TheActing Deputy Administrator furtherorders that any pending applications forrenewal of such registration be, and theyhereby are, denied. This order iseffective April 17, 1997.

Dated: March 11, 1997.James S. Milford,Acting Deputy Administrator.[FR Doc. 97–6792 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

[Docket No. 96–36]

Yu-To Hsu, M.D., Denial of Application

On May 15, 1996, the DeputyAssistant Administrator, Office ofDiversion Control, Drug EnforcementAdministration (DEA), issued an Orderto Show Cause to Yu-To Hsu, M.D.(Respondent), of Houston, Texas,notifying him of an opportunity to showcause as to why DEA should not denyhis application for a DEA Certificate ofRegistration as a practitioner pursuantto 21 U.S.C. 823(f), as being inconsistentwith the public interest. Specifically,the Order to Show Cause alleged that:

(1) On ten separate occasions betweenFebruary 28, 1991 and November 4,1992, [Respondent] prescribedcontrolled substances to undercoverofficers for no legitimate medicalpurpose. On at least seven of thoseoccasions, [Respondent] prescribedcombinations of Tylenol with codeineand Valium (diazepam) to undercoverofficers when [he] knew or should haveknown that the combination of thesedrugs is highly abused on the streets.

(2) Following the execution of aFederal search warrant at[Respondent’s] office, on December 4,1992, [he] voluntarily surrendered hisDEA Certificate of Registration,AH8099788, as well as [his] State ofTexas Controlled SubstancesRegistration Certificate. [Respondent’s]Texas Controlled SubstancesRegistration Certificate has since beenreinstated.

(3) Following [Respondent’s]indictment on seven counts of unlawfulprescribing of controlled substances toundercover officers, on March 30, 1993,in the District Court of Harris County,

Texas, [he] pled guilty to each count ofthe indictment. On July 23, 1993,[Respondent was] sentenced toprobation for a period of ten years withdeferred adjudication, fined $10,000and ordered to perform 1,500 hours ofcommunity service.

By letter to DEA dated June 16, 1996,counsel for Respondent replied to theOrder to Show Cause, but did notrequest a hearing on the issues raised bythe Order to Show Cause. The matterwas docketed before AdministrativeLaw Judge Mary Ellen Bittner. In a letterdated July 3, 1996, the Office ofAdministrative Law Judges advisedcounsel for Respondent that Respondenthad until July 19, 1996, to file a requestfor a hearing or else be deemed to havewaived the right to a hearing. No requestfor a hearing was filed on behalf ofRespondent. Therefore, on July 24,1996, Judge Bittner issued an orderfinding that Respondent had waived hisright to a hearing, and ordering that allproceedings before her be terminated.Thereafter, the case was transmitted tothe Deputy Administrator for issuanceof a final order pursuant to 21 C.F.R.1301.54(e).

According, the Acting DeputyAdministrator now enters his final orderin this matter pursuant to 21 C.F.R.1301.54(e) and 1301.57, without ahearing and based on the investigativefile and the letter dated July 16, 1996,from counsel for Respondent.

The Acting Deputy Administratorfinds that sometime in the late 1980’s orearly 1990’s, DEA received informationfrom the Houston Police Departmentthat Respondent was a major diverter ofSchedule III through V controlledsubstances. DEA then contacted theMedicaid Fraud Division of the TexasDepartment of Human Services andlearned that Respondent had issued alarge number of controlled substanceprescriptions. A subsequent survey ofarea pharmacies also revealed thatRespondent issued a large number ofcontrolled substance prescriptions andfurther revealed that he continuallyprescribed Tylenol with Codeine No. 4(Tylenol No. 4), a Schedule IIIcontrolled substance, in combinationwith diazepam 10 mg., a Schedule IVcontrolled substance. At that time, thiscombination of drugs was being abusedin the Houston area and was being soldat crack houses throughout the Houstonarea to help users alleviate the effects ofcoming off a crack cocaine high. Inaddition, DEA learned that on April 5,1990, during the execution of a searchwarrant at a crack house by the HoustonPolice Department, several prescriptionbottles were found, containing Tylenol


No. 4 and diazepam and listingRespondent as the prescriber.

As a result of this information, DEAinitiated an undercover investigation ofRespondent’s prescribing practices. OnFebruary 28, 1991, undercover DEAAgent #1 went to Respondent’s officeduring which the agent indicated thatshe used crack cocaine and needed‘‘some pills . . . to mellow out.’’Respondent told her not to come backto his office and not to refer any otherindividuals to him, yet nonethelessissued the agent a prescription for 30dosage units of Tylenol No. 4 and aprescription for 30 dosage units ofdiazepam 10 mg.

On April 4, 1991, undercover DEAAgent #2 told Respondent that she hadjust started to use crack cocaine and thatshe needed something to relax.Respondent asked the agent if sheneeded something to ‘‘bring [her] down’’and told her to return to his office if shebecame a ‘‘little big fidgety.’’Respondent issued the agent aprescription of 38 dosage units ofdiazepam 10 mg. and one for 50 dosageunits of Soma, a non-controlledsubstance, and told the agent to returnto see him and he could help her quitusing crack cocaine.

Undercover DEA Agent #3 went toRespondent’s office on July 31, 1991,posing as Agent #2’s boyfriend. Agent #3indicated that he smoked crack cocaineand that he had used some of themedication that Respondent hadprescribed for his ‘‘girlfriend’’. Thetranscript of this visit indicates thatRespondent stated, ‘‘crack cocaine . . .it’s a lot to satisfy a body. You know,you should buy the good stuff—cocaine.Concentration so much it stop a fewpuffs.’’ The agent indicated that aftersmoking crack, ‘‘the coming down washurting.’’ Respondent then asked, ‘‘Howmany Valiums need you to get out ofthis state?’’ Respondent issued the agentprescriptions for 30 dosage units ofdiazepam 10 mg. and 50 dosage units ofSoma, but told the agent not to returnto Respondent’s office.

When Agent #3 returned toRespondent’s office on September 17,1991, he waited in the reception area forthree hours. Respondent didacknowledge the agent’s presence, butdid not meet with the agent. The agentleft Respondent’s office withoutobtaining any controlled substancesprescriptions.

On December 23, 1991, undercoverAgent #4 went to Respondent’s officeand asked Respondent for some Valium(brand name for diazepam) or Tylenolwith codeine No. 3 (Tylenol No. 3), aSchedule III controlled substance,stating that he had been using cocaine

for about two years, that he’s takenTylenol No. 3 with beer in the past, andit has helped him ‘‘come down off’’ thecocaine. Respondent replied that theTylenol No. 3 will not help him quitusing cocaine, but that he will give himthe medication anyway. Respondentfurther stated that the agent should notreturn to Respondent’s office, andencouraged the agent to quit usingcocaine. Respondent issued the agentprescriptions for 28 dosage units ofdiazepam 10 mg. and 30 dosage units ofTylenol No. 3.

Agent #4 returned to Respondent’soffice on January 29, 1992. Respondentasked the agent, ‘‘what’s your problem?’’The agent replied that, ‘‘I just came into see if I can get some, Tylenol 3’s andsome Valium.’’ Respondent asked theagent why he used Tylenol No. 3 andthe agent stated that, ‘‘I use cocaine onoccasion and it helps me come downafter I get on it. . . .’’ There was thensome discussion regarding the merits ofthe agent selling cocaine. Respondentissued the agent a prescription for 26dosage units of Tylenol No. 3 and aprescription for 28 dosage units ofdiazepam 10 mg.

On March 3, 1992, Agent #4 againreturned to Respondent’s office andasked for more Tylenol No. 3 andValium. Respondent replied, ‘‘You taketoo much man, you still smoking thedope?’’ The agent told Respondent thathe still used cocaine, and they thendiscussed the price of cocaine. Theagent asked Respondent if he would seeone of the agent’s ‘‘fiends’’ who was outin the waiting room, but Respondentrefused because the ‘‘friend’’ did nothave any identification. Respondentissued the agent a prescription for 26dosage units of Tylenol No. 3 and onefor 28 dosage units of diazepam 10 mg.

Agnt #4 returned to Respondent’soffice on April 23, 1992, accompaniedby undercover DEA Agent #5.Respondent first met with Agent #4 andasked the agent if he wanted someTylenol No. 4 and Valium, and alsoasked the agent if he was still usingcocaine. Respondent then issued theagent a prescription for 26 dosage unitsof Tylenol No. 4 and a prescription for28 dosage units of diazepam 10 mg.Respondent next met with Agent #5.Agent #5 asked Respondent for someTylenol No. 3 and some Valium becausehe uses cocaine and ‘‘it helps me comedown’’. Respondent refused to issue theagency any controlled substanceprescriptions on this occasion andencouraged the agent to stop usingcocaine.

Agent #5 returned to Respondent’soffice on July 24, 1992. During this visit,Respondent remembered that he had not

written any prescriptions for the agenton his previous visit. The agent toldRespondent that he had quit usingcocaine, but that he needed somethingbecause he had ‘‘been burning thecandle on both ends.’’ On this occasionRespondent issued the agent aprescription for 28 dosage units ofTylenol No. 3 and a prescription for 28dosage units of diazepam 10 mg.

On November 4, 1992, Respondentasked Agent #5 if he wanted the samemedication. The agent told Respondentthat he still used cocaine occasionally.Respondent issued him prescriptions for28 dosage units of Tylenol No. 4 and 28dosage units of diazepam 10 mg.Respondent told Agent #5 not to cometo Respondent’s office too often. On thesame day, Respondent issued Agent #4a prescription for 28 dosage units ofTylenol No. 4 and one for 28 dosageunits of diszepam 10 mg.

As a result of this investigation, onDecember 4, 1992, Respondentsurrendered his Texas controlledsubstance registration and his previousDEA Certificate of Registration,AH8099788. Subsequently, Respondentwas indicted in the 179th District Court,Harris County, Texas and charged withseven counts of unlawful prescribing ofcontrolled substances in violation ofstate law. On March 30, 1993,Respondent pled guilty to all sevencounts, and on July 23, 1993, he wassentenced to probation for 10 years withdeferred adjudication of guilt, fined$10,000.00 and ordered to perform1,500 hours of community service.

In the letter dated June 16, 1996,Respondent’s counsel asserted thatRespondent ‘‘has completed all of theterms of his deferred adjudication andhis probation has been terminated,’’ andthat his state controlled substancelicense has been reinstated. Counselalso claimed that Respondent had ahearing before the state medical boardin February 1994, and that Respondent’smedical license ‘‘was neither revokednor suspended.’’ There was nodocumentation submitted byRespondent to support any of theseassertions. Regarding the undercoverpurchases of controlled substanceprescriptions, Respondent’s counselstated, ‘‘I would have tried anentrapment defense for [Respondent]but juries, I feel, cannot understandentrapment.’’

Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f), theDeputy Administrator may deny anapplication for a DEA Certificate ofRegistration, if he determines that theregistration would be inconsistent withthe public interest. Section 823(f)requires that the following factors beconsidered:


(1) The recommendation of theappropriate State licensing board orprofessional disciplinary authority.

(2) The applicant’s experience indispensing, or conducting research withrespect to controlled substances.

(3) the applicant’s conviction recordunder Federal or State laws relating tothe manufacture, distribution, ordispensing of controlled substances.

(4) Compliance with applicable State,Federal, or local laws relating tocontrolled substances.

(5) Such other conduct which maythreaten the public health and safety.These factors are to be considered in thedisjunctive; the Deputy Administratormay rely on any one or a combinationof factors and may give each factor theweight he deems appropriate indetermining whether a registrationshould be revoked or an application forregistration be denied. See Henry J.Schwarz, Jr., M.D., Docket No. 88–42, 54FR 16,422 (1989).

Regarding factor one, the recordindicates that while Respondentsurrendered his state controlledsubstances license in December 1992, itha since been reinstated with norestrictions. In addition, it is unclearexactly what action, if any, was taken bythe Texas State Board of MedicalExaminers regarding Respondent’slicense to practice medicine in thatstate. However, it is undisputed that heis currently licensed to practicemedicine in Texas.

As to Respondent’s experience indispensing controlled substances, it isclear that Respondent prescribedcontrolled substances to the undercoveragents for no legitimate medical reason.The agents told Respondent that theywere cocaine users and that they neededTylenol with codeine and Valium tohelp them come off their cocaine highs.The Acting Deputy Administrator findsthat prescribing controlled substancesfor this purpose is reprehensible, sinceit fosters the continued illegal use ofcocaine.

Regarding factor three, Respondenthas been convicted of a controlledsubstance related offense. DEA hasconsistently held that a deferredadjudication of guilt following a plea ofguilty is a conviction within themeaning of the Controlled SubstancesAct. See Harlan J. Borcherding, D.O., 60FR 28,796 (1995); see also Clinton D.Nutt, D.O., 55 FR 30,992 (1990) (whereplea was ‘‘nolo contendere’’ rather than‘‘guilty’’). In his letter dated June 16,1996, Respondent’s counsel eludes to anentrapment defense to the chargesbrought against Respondent. There is noelaboration of this argument inRespondent’s letter, and it is

nonetheless irrelevant to thisproceeding, since Respondent pledguilty to the charges against him.

As to factor four, Respondent’sconviction in state court for theunlawful prescribing clearly shows thatRespondent failed to comply with theapplicable state law. In addition,Respondent’s prescribing of controlledsubstances to the undercover agents forno legitimate medical purpose was inviolation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1).

In June 16, 1996 letter, Respondent’scounsel asserts that Respondent has‘‘never had any trouble with the D.E.A.prior to 1993 and he does need hisD.E.A. Certificate so that he maypractice normally again.’’ However,other than counsel’s unsubstantiatedassertions, there is no documentation inthe record of Respondent’s fitness tohandle controlled substances.

The Acting Deputy Administratorconcludes that based upon the recordbefore him, Respondent’s registrationwith DEA would be inconsistent withthe public interest. Respondentprescribed highly abused substances forno legitimate medical purpose topurported users of cocaine. There is noindication that Respondent can now betrusted to responsibly handle controlledsubstances.

Accordingly, the Acting DeputyAdministrator of the Drug EnforcementAdministration, pursuant to theauthority vested in him by 21 U.S.C.823, and 28 C.F.R. 0.100(b) and 0.104,hereby orders that the applicationsubmitted by Yu-To Hsu, M.D. for aDEA Certificate of Registration be, andit hereby is, denied. This order iseffective April 17, 1997.

Dated: March 10, 1997.[FR Doc. 97–6793 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4410–09–M


Donald P. Tecca, M.D. Continuation ofRegistration With Restrictions

On April 3, 1995, the DeputyAssistant Administrator, Office ofDiversion Control, Drug EnforcementAdministration (DEA), issued an Orderto Show Cause to Donald P. Tecca, M.D.(Respondent) of San Diego, California,notifying him of an opportunity to showcause as to why DEA should not revokehis DEA Certificate of Registration,AT1241847, and deny any pendingapplications for renewal of suchregistration as a practitioner under 21U.S.C. 823(f), for reason that pursuant to21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4), his continuedregistration would be inconsistent withthe public interest. The Order to Show

Cause alleged, in essence, that: (1) inJune 1992, DEA received complaintsfrom several area pharmacies thatRespondent was overprescribingcontrolled substances including Vicodinand codeine, and in particular, oneindividual has received 1,640 dosageunits of Tylenol No. 3 with codeine overa three month period; and (2) on eightoccasions between December 28, 1992and May 25, 1993, Respondentprescribed controlled substances toundercover officers for no legitimatemedical reason.

By letter dated April 26, 1995,Respondent, through counsel, filed atimely request for a hearing, andfollowing prehearing procedures, ahearing was held in San Diego,California on September 19 and 20,1995, before Administrative Law JudgeMary Ellen Bittner. At the hearing, bothparties called witnesses and introduceddocumentary evidence. After thehearing, counsel for both partiessubmitted proposed findings of fact,conclusions of law and argument. OnJune 21, 1996, Judge Bittner issued herOpinion and Recommended Ruling,Findings of Fact, Conclusion of Law andDecision, recommending thatRespondent’s DEA registration berevoked, and any pending applicationsfor registration be denied. Respondentfiled exceptions to Judge Bittner’sOpinion and Recommended Ruling, andthereafter, on August 6, 1996, the recordof these proceedings was transmitted tothe Deputy Administrator.

The Acting Deputy Administrator hasconsidered the record in its entirety,and pursuant to 21 C.F.R. 1316.67,hereby issues his final order based uponfindings of fact and conclusions of lawas hereinafter set forth. The ActingDeputy Administrator adopts, except asnoted, the findings of fact andconclusions of law of theAdministrative Law Judge, but rejectsthe recommended ruling, for the reasonsstated below.

The Acting Deputy Administratorfinds that Respondent graduated frommedical school in 1980, and in 1983,become board certified in internalmedicine. At the time of the hearing inthis matter, he was on the senior staff atthree hospitals in San Diego, hadconsulting privileges at a psychiatrichospital in San Diego, was the chief ofthe Department of Medicine at one ofthe local hospitals, and maintained aprivate practice in internal medicine.

In 1992, two local pharmacists madeallegations to DEA that Respondent mayhave been overprescribing controlledsubstances. While the Order to ShowCause issued in this proceeding citedthis alleged overprescribing as evidence


that Respondent’s continued registrationwould be inconsistent with the publicinterest, no evidence was introduced atthe hearing regarding the validity ofthese allegations. Therefore, the ActingDeputy Administrator has onlyconsidered the pharmacists’ allegationsas the basis for the initiation of theinvestigation. Subsequently, stateundercover officers made 10 visits toRespondent’s office between December1992 and July 1993 to attempt to obtaincontrolled substance prescriptions fromRespondent for no legitimate medicalpurpose.

The first visit occurred on December28, 1992, when Special Agent Roberts ofthe Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement(BNE) of the California Department ofJustice attempted to obtain aprescription for anabolic steroids fromRespondent. Before seeing Respondent,Agent Roberts filled out a patienthistory form on which he did notindicate any medical problems, and anurse weighed him and took his bloodpressure and pulse. The transcript ofthis visit indicates that Respondentasked Agent Roberts a series of medicalhistory questions. Agent Roberts thentold Respondent that he was not seeingresults at the gym, that he was going tojail for a year and that he wanted to‘‘gain some size’’. Respondent indicatedthat it would probably not hurt AgentRoberts to take anabolic steroids to puton muscle mass since he appearedhealthy. Then, in the agent’s presence,Respondent telephoned a localpharmacist seeking advice as to what toprescribe for this purpose. Respondenttestified that the pharmacist told himthat Anadrol was used for that purpose,but did not indicate that such use of thesubstance was illegal or that it was acontrolled substance. Following theconversation with the pharmacist,Respondent told the agent, ‘‘Anadrol iswhat they use but it’s not supposed tobe prescribed for this purpose.’’Respondent then consulted the 1991edition of the Physicians’ DeskReference, which did not indicate thatAnadrol was a controlled substance, todetermine the proper dosage toprescribe. Respondent told AgentRoberts that, ‘‘I don’t think there’sanything illegal about this, it’s justfrowned on because it’s felt that the riskoutweighs the gain.’’ Respondentwarned Agent Roberts of the possibleside effects, advised him to discontinuetaking the medication if any of the sideeffects occurred, and told him to returnin three weeks for a blood test.Respondent then issued Agent Roberts aprescription for 120 dosage units ofAnadrol with no refills, impressing

upon him the need for follow-up care.Agent Roberts paid $40.00 for the officevisit.

At the follow-up visit on January 19,1993, Agent Roberts had gained apound, his blood pressure had gonedown, and he reported some strengthgains. The transcript of this visitindicates that Respondent asked aboutvarious side effects, and Agent Robertsindicated that he had not experiencedany side effects. Respondent examinedAgent Roberts for possible liverenlargement and Respondent’s nursedrew blood. Agent Roberts askedRespondent for a prescription for Cylert,a Schedule IV stimulant, because he feltthat he was ‘‘kind of dragging’’. AgentRoberts testified at the hearing that heasked for Cylert because it is commonlytaken by steroid users and because itwas his understanding that physicianswho unlawfully prescribe controlledsubstances will issue prescriptions forall types of controlled substances.Respondent refused to give AgentRoberts a prescription for Cylert andsuggested aerobic activity instead.Respondent wrote Agent Roberts aprescription for 100 dosage units ofAnadrol with three refills, told him toreturn in two months for a follow-upvisit, and told him to call the office forthe results of the blood test. AgentRoberts paid $45.00 for the office visit.

Sergeant Arvizu, then with the Medi-Cal Fraud Unit of the Department ofHealth Services, went to Respondent’soffice on two occasions, posing as AgentRoberts’ girlfriend. Sergeant Arvizu hadnever acted in an undercover capacitybefore and was instructed to ask forTylenol No. 3 with codeine (Tylenol No.3), a Schedule III controlled substance,without telling Respondent thatanything was wrong with her. Therewere no transcripts of these visitsintroduced into evidence at the hearing.

On February 8, 1993, she enteredRespondent’s office, told thereceptionist that she was there for acheck-up, filled out medical historyforms indicating as her chief complaint‘‘check-up’’, and had her weight,temperature and blood pressure taken.Sergeant Arvizu testified that whenRespondent asked her why she wasthere, she told him that she was therefor a check-up and that she wantedsome Tylenol No. 3. She testified thatRespondent said ‘‘sure’’ and then askedsome medical history questions andchecked her chest and back with astethoscope, checked her eyes, ears,throat, and neck, and reported that shewas in good health. Respondent testifiedthat Sergeant Arvizu stated that shewanted the Tylenol No. 3 to feel goodand that implicit in that request was

that something was wrong with her. Hetestified that he performed an extensivephysical examination of SergeantArvizu and found her to be very tensewith quite a bit of muscle tendernessand rigidity. At first, Respondenttestified that Sergeant Arvizu wincedduring the physical examination andtold him that she had muscle pain, butlater testified that the finding of painwas based solely upon his physicalexamination and her social history.Respondent’s medical chart for SergeantArvizu indicated ‘‘Normal exam withmuscle tenderness-tension * * *Tylenol #3 for tension-muscle pain.’’Sergeant Arvizu however testified thatshe never told Respondent that anythingwas wrong with her and that there wasno discussion during this visit of anymuscle pain or tenderness. Judge Bittnerfound Sergeant Arvizu to be a crediblewitness and that she did not tellRespondent that she was in pain.Respondent issued Sergeant Arvizu aprescription for 40 tablets of TylenolNo. 3, ‘‘per pain’’, with no refills.

Sergeant Arvizu returned toRespondent’s office on February 22,1993, and had her weight and bloodpressure taken. She testified that shetold Respondent that she wantedanother prescription for Tylenol No. 3because it made her feel good. SergeantArvizu further testified that Respondentstated that ‘‘this isn’t really legitimate* * * it’s not really legal * * * you’reputting me in a bind.’’ Sergeant Arvizutestified that there was then somediscussion where Respondent said thatsomething had to be wrong with her and‘‘he made a suggestion about a headacheor a backache.’’ Sergeant Arvizu alsotestified that she told Respondent thatshe had used drugs in the past, but thatRespondent stated that he did not thinkthat she was addicted to the Tylenol No.3, however she should only use it foremergencies. Respondent testified thathe conducted a brief physicalexamination on this occasion. His notesof the visit indicate ‘‘some muscletenderness’’ in the neck and ‘‘Tylenol #3for tension Headaches—may be usefulto keep her off drugs and monitorusage.’’ Respondent further testified thatthere was no indication of any misuseof the previous prescription for TylenolNo. 3. Respondent issued SergeantArvizu a prescription for 48 tablets ofTylenol No. 3 with no refills, ‘‘per pain’’and she paid the receptionist $20.00 forthe visit.

Next, BNE Agent Ellis went toRespondent’s office on two occasionsposing as a friend of Agent Roberts andseeking Winstrol, an anabolic steroid.On his first visit on March 22, 1993,Agent Ellis filled out a patient history


form indicating no medical problems,and then a nurse took his weight andblood pressure, which was a little high.Agent Ellis then met with Respondentand told Respondent that he wasreferred by his friend who had gottensteroids from Respondent and that hewanted some Winstrol to help him gainstrength at the gym. Respondentindicated that he knew who Agent Elliswas referring to, since he had onlyprescribed steroids once before.Respondent then asked some medialhistory questions, took Agent Ellis’blood pressure again, and stated thatWinstrol is ‘‘not totally benign’’describing the various possible sideeffects. Respondent told Agent Ellis thathe needed to have a blood test for abaseline, but Agent Ellis was reluctantto have blood drawn. Respondentinsisted that he could not give AgentEllis the Winstrol without a blood test,since the whole point of going to adoctor is so the doctor can monitor thepatient. Respondent issued Agent Ellis aprescription for 60 dosage units ofWinstrol and told him to come back fora follow-up visit in a month. Thetranscript of this visit indicates thatAgent Ellis said, ‘‘You know if I had agood supply of these we could make lotsof money,’’ and Respondent replied,‘‘Well, I’m not interested in that.Basically, you know, I’m not interestedin making money; I’m just interestedthat if I do a treatment, it’s usedproperly.’’ Agent Ellis paid $65.00 forthe visit.

Agent Ellis returned for his follow-upvisit on April 26, 1993, during which anurse took his weight and bloodpressure. Respondent discussed theresults of the blood test with AgentEllis, asked if he had experienced anyside effects, to which Agent Ellisreported none, checked Agent Ellis’liver, and gave Agent Ellis informationabout a low-cholesterol diet.Respondent then indicated that hewould give Agent Ellis a refill of theprescription, but that next month hewas going to reduce the dosage. AgentEllis then asked if he could pick up aprescription for his friend, AgentRoberts. Respondent refused to issuesuch a prescription and essentially toldAgent Ellis that he would not issue aprescription without seeing the patient.Respondent gave Agent Ellis aprescription for 60 tablets of Winstroland with no refills, and Agent Ellis paid$39.00 for the office visit.

On May 3, 1993, InvestigatorHutchison of the Medical Board ofCalifornia went to Respondent’s officein an undercover capacity seekingVicodin, a Schedule III controlledsubstance. Investigator Hutchison

completed a patient history form onwhich she did not indicate any medicalcomplaints. A nurse took her weightand blood pressure. Respondent askedInvestigator Hutchison a series ofmedical history questions and theinvestigator then asked for someVicodin explaining that she liked to takeit when she went out with her friendsbecause she did not like alcohol. Shetold Respondent that Vicodin made herfeel relaxed and mellow. The transcriptof this visit indicates that Respondentstated on more than one occasion thatthis was a strange request and that hehad never had a request like this before.Respondent warned InvestigatorHutchison of the risks of addiction andthat such use could lead to abuse ofother substances. InvestigatoryHutchison said that she used theVicodin infrequently. Respondent toldInvestigator Hutchison that if he gaveher a small prescription she would notbecome addicted, but that she shouldreally reconsider using the drug to relaxsince such use was not accepted insociety. Respondent also acknowledgedthat it was illegal for him to give her thedrug to feel good. InvestigatorHutchison offered to tell Respondentthat she had a headache. Respondentissued Investigator Hutchison aprescription for 30 tablets of Vicodinand charged her $40.00 for the visit.Respondent testified that he knew thatInvestigator Hutchison did not have aheadache and that she was using theVicodin inappropriately, but that heissued her a trial prescription to seehow she would use the drug and thenwould try to treat her inappropriate usethe drug.

Investigator Hutchison returned toRespondent’s office on June 28, 1993,and asked for another prescription forVicodin. The transcript of this visitindicates that Respondent repeatedlytold Investigator Hutchison that whatshe was doing was wrong. Respondentdiscussed the dangers of addiction andthat it was illegal for her to use theVicodin for her stated purpose.

Respondent attempted to discourageInvestigator Hutchison from continuingto use Vicodin the way she had beenusing it. Investigator Hutchison offeredseveral times to tell Respondent that shehad headaches or pain. Respondentrefused to issue Investigator Hutchisona prescription and did not charge her forthis visit. Investigator Hutchisontestified that she believed thatRespondent was trying to establish arapport with her and counseled her onthe misuse of Vicodin for illegalpurposes.

Finally, BNE Agent Price made twoundercover visits to Respondent

attempting to obtain prescriptions forTylenol No. 3 without indicating amedical reason for the substance. OnMay 25, 1993, Agent Price filled out apatient history form indicating nomedical problems. Agent Price toldRespondent that she had receivedTylenol No. 3 about a year and a halfearlier following an appendectomy, andthat she usually kept some on hand.Agent Price told Respondent that shehad no real pain, but used the TylenolNo. 3 for relaxation. The transcriptindicates that Agent Price toldRespondent that ‘‘I work out at the gyma lot like that. When I get home I just,once in awhile I might take a pill orsomething.’’ Agent Price further statedthat it was ‘‘not so much for aches* * * it just kind of relaxes me.’’

Respondent performed a brief physicalexamination. Respondent told AgentPrice that her request was strange andhe was not sure that he approved of herusing Tylenol No. 3 for relaxation sinceit was a pain pill, but decided that hecould give her a few pills foremergencies. Respondent issued AgentPrice a prescription for 30 tablets forTylenol No. 3 with one refill and shepaid $40.00 for the office visit.Respondent testified at the hearing thathe was confused by Agent Price’srequest because she did not appear to bean addict since she was well-groomedand stated that she only used a fewpills, and he had never before hadanyone request Tylenol No. 3 forrelaxation. Respondent further testifiedthat he interpreted Agent Price’s use ofthe word ‘‘relaxation’’ to mean relieffrom pain.

Agent Price returned to Respondent’soffice on July 26, 1993 and toldRespondent that she was not having anypains, that she wanted the drug only forrelaxation, and that she was just comingback for a refill of the Tylenol No. 3prescription. Respondent reiterated thatTylenol No. 3 is used for pain and notrelaxation, and that he did not believethat Agent Price was using themedication for relief of pain.Respondent expressed concern thatAgent Price was becoming dependenton the drug and refused to issue heranother prescription. Respondent didnot charge Agent Price for the visit. Onher chart for this visit, Respondentwrote as his assessment, ‘‘DrugAddiction (highly likely).’’

A Special Agent with BNE testified atthe hearing that he had asked variousknowledgeable sources, includingmanufacturers of anabolic steroids, theFood and Drug Administration, and theAmerican Medical Association, whetherthe use of anabolic steroids to buildmuscle mass is appropriate, and that all


of them replied in the negative.Anabolic steroids became controlledsubstances under California laweffective August 20, 1986, and effectiveFebruary 27, 1991, anabolic steroidsbecame a Schedule III controlledsubstance federally under theControlled Substances Act. Respondenttestified that before prescribing Anadroland Winstrol to the undercover officershe consulted the 1991 edition of thePhysicians’ Desk Reference, which didnot indicate that they were controlledsubstances.

The Director of Pharmacy Services atthe psychiatric hospital whereRespondent had consulting privileges,testified that he monitors and fills theprescriptions of doctors at the hospitaland that he has known Respondent for10 years. He further testified that he hadnever seen a prescription issued byRespondent for anabolic steroids andthat in his opinion, Respondent’s use ofTylenol No. 3 and Vicodin is veryconservative and clinically appropriate.Three physicians, Respondent’ssupervisor, an associate professor at theUniversity of California San DiegoSchool of Medicine, and an internist inprivate practice, all testified at thehearing that his prescribing of Vicodinand Tylenol No. 3 to the undercoveragents was medically appropriate, andthat in 1992 and 1993, they wereunaware that anabolic steroids werecontrolled substances. One of thedoctors testified that it is a commonpractice to issue a trial prescription if adoctor is not sure whether a substanceis being misused. Respondent’ssupervisor at one of the hospitals ratedRespondent’s medical abilities as a tenon a scale of ten. Respondent alsointroduced into evidence a letter from adoctor who has known Respondent for11 years and considers him ‘‘a mostknowledgeable, conscientious andethical physician.’’ This doctor alsostated in his letter that Respondent‘‘practiced at the standard of thecommunity’’ in his prescribing ofcontrolled substances to the undercoverofficers. Respondent also introducedinto evidence a letter from a physicianwho has known Respondent for 11 yearsand shared an office with him for fouryears, who stated that Respondent ‘‘hasconsistently demonstrated high qualitymedical care.’’ Finally, Respondentintroduced a letter from a pharmacistwho has known Respondent forapproximately 12 years and has filledhundreds of his prescriptions. Thepharmacist considers Respondent to bea ‘‘very conscientious, dedicated, andknowledgeable physician.’’

Respondent testified at the hearingthat he felt that he was already

conservative in his prescribingpractices, but that as a result of thisexperience he has become even moreconservative. He stated that he wouldnever prescribe anabolic steroids againand that he has learned that he must bevery cautious in his prescribing ofSchedule III controlled substances.

Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and824(a)(4), the Deputy Administrator mayrevoke a DEA Certificate of Registrationand deny any pending applications, ifhe determines that the continuedregistration would be inconsistent withthe public interest. Section 823(f)requires that the following factors beconsidered.

(1) The recommendation of theappropriate State licensing board orprofessional disciplinary authority.

(2) The applicant’s experience indispensing, or conducting research withrespect to controlled substances.

(3) The applicant’s conviction recordunder Federal or State laws relating tothe manufacture, distribution, ordispensing of controlled substances.

(4) Compliance with applicable State,Federal, or local laws relating tocontrolled substances.

(5) Such other conduct which maythreaten the public health and safety.These factors are to be considered in thedisjunctive; the Deputy Administratormay rely on any one or a combinationof factors and may give each factor theweight he deems appropriate indetermining whether a registrationshould be revoked or an application forregistration be denied. See Henry J.Schwarz, Jr., M.D., Docket No. 88–42, 54FR 16,422 (1989).

Regarding factor one, there is noevidence in the record of any stateaction taken against Respondent’slicense to practice medicine. Likewise,regarding factor three, there is noevidence that Respondent has even beenconvicted under federal or state lawsrelating to the manufacture,distribution, or dispensing of controlledsubstances.

As to factor, four, Respondent’sexperience in dispensing controlledsubstances, the Administrative LawJudge found that Respondent issuedprescriptions to Sergeant Arvizu,Investigator Hutchison and Agent Pricefor no legitimate purpose. Judge Bittnerfound that ‘‘Respondent prescribedVicodin to Investigator Hutchisondespite knowing any saying that doingso was illegal because she had notcomplained of any headache or otherpain.’’ Respondent testified that hediagnosed Investigator Hutchison asinappropriately using Vicodin; that hecould have turned her away, but feltthat his job was not to just diagnose, but

to treat the problem; and that hetherefore issued her a trial prescriptionon her first visit. Judge Bittnerspecifically found that ‘‘[a]’ ‘trialprescription’ of a controlled substancejust to see how a patient will use thesubstance * * * is too likely to result indiversion and is not given for alegitimate medical purpose. The same istrue of prescribing a controlledsubstance just to build a relationshipwith a patient.’’ The Acting DeputyAdministrator agrees that a DEAregistrant must be extremely careful inthe dispensing of controlled substancesto protect against the diversion of thesedangerous substances. However, theActing Deputy Administrator does notadopt Judge Bittner’s generalproposition that trial prescriptions arenot issued for a legitimate medicalpurpose. The Acting DeputyAdministrator believes that everyprescription must be evaluated in lightof the totality of the circumstancessurrounding the issuance of aprescription, and one of the physicianswho testified in this proceedingindicated that it is common practice toissue trial prescriptions to see if a drugis being misused. But, the ActingDeputy Administrator does find that inthis case, Respondent’s prescribing ofVicodin to Investigator Hutchisonduring her first visit was extremelyquestionable and was evidence ofRespondent’s lax prescribing practices.Respondent admitted that he knew thatInvestigator Hutchison was misusingVicodin. Therefore, there waspresumably no need to issue a trialprescription.

Regarding Sergeant Arvizu, the ActingDeputy Administrator concurs withJudge Bittner’s conclusion that‘‘Respondent prescribe Tylenol No. 3 toSergeant Arvizu although she said shewas not in pain,’’ and that thisprescribing was ‘‘especiallyinappropriate’’ since she had indicatedthat she had a drug abuse problem inthe past, and that should have causedRespondent to be ‘‘particularlysuspicious of her specific request forTylenol No. 3.’’ Respondent himselfadmitted at the hearing that hisexperience with Sergeant Arvizu taughthim that he needs ‘‘to be very cautiousin prescribing Schedule IIImedications.’’

The Acting Deputy Administratorconcludes that Respondent’s issuance ofa prescription to Agent Price was highlyquestionable given that she told himthat she used Tylenol No. 3 forrelaxation and not for pain. Respondentthought this was a strange request, butnonetheless issued her a prescription forthe drug to keep on hand for


emergencies. The Acting DeputyAdministrator finds that this prescribingis evidence of Respondent’s laxpractices.

Regarding Respondent’s prescribing ofanabolic steroids to the two undercoveragents, the Acting Deputy Administratoragrees with Judge Bittner that there is noevidence in the record that Respondentknew that these were controlledsubstances. In addition, the recordshows that Respondent advise theagents of the potential side effects fromtaking the steroids; required that theagents submit to blood tests formonitoring purposes; told the agents toreturn for follow-up visits; checked forside effects during the follow-up visits;consulted with a pharmacist regardingwhat substance to prescribe; andconsulted the Physicians’ DeskReference regarding the proper dosageto prescribe. As will be discussed in thecontext of factor four, the prescribing ofsteroids for the purpose of buildingmuscle mass is not a legitimate medicaluse, however it appears from the recordthat Respondent was attempting todispense the substances in a responsiblefashion.

The Acting Deputy Administrator alsofinds it significant, that Respondentrefused one of the agent’s invitations togo into the business of selling anabolicsteroids, stating that he was notinterested in making money, but in theproper management of the medication;that Respondent refused to issue AgentRoberts a prescription for Cylert; andthat Respondent refused to give AgentEllis a prescription for his friend whowas not present, stating that he had tosee the friend personally before hewould issue a prescription.

Judge Bittner concluded that,‘‘[a]though there is no direct evidencethat Respondent has done anythingimproper outside of the ten undercovervisits that took place as part of thisinvestigation, what occurred in thosevisits establishes that Respondent is laxabout prescribing controlled substancesand that he is likely to prescribecontrolled substances for other thanlegitimate medical purposes in othersituations.’’

The Acting Deputy Administratorconcurs with Judge Bittner that there isevidence in the record that, at least onsome occasions, Respondent was lax inthis controlled substance prescribingpractices. However, there is alsoevidence in the record that otherphysicians and pharmacists, who are inpositions that enable them to observeand evaluate Respondent’s prescribingpractices, find him to be conscientious,knowledgeable, and ethical. In addition,Respondent testified that this

experience has caused him to ‘‘becomemore conservative’’. Therefore, unlikeJudge Bittner, the Acting DeputyAdministrator concludes that withproper training and monitoring, as willbe discussed below, it is unlikely thatRespondent will prescribe controlledsubstances for other than legitimatemedical purposes in the future.

Regarding factor four, there isevidence in the record that Respondentprescribe control substances for nolegitimate medical purpose andtherefore violated 21 U.S.C. § 841(a), 21C.F.R § 1306.04(a) and California Healthand Safety Code § 11153(a). Respondentprescribed narcotic pain medication tothree of the undercover agents after theyspecifically told him that they were notin pain. Investigator Hutchison wasprescribed Vicodin after tellingRespondent that she used it to ‘‘mellowout’’. Sergeant Arvizu was prescribedTylenol No. 3 after telling Respondentthat she takes it ‘‘to feel good.’’ Finally,Respondent prescribed Tylenol No. 3 toAgent Price after she told him that sheused it ‘‘for relaxation and to unwind’’.DEA has previously revokedregistrations based upon similarconduct. See Mukand Lal Arora, M.D.,60 FR 4447 (1995) (practitioner’s DEAregistration was revoked upon a findingthat the practitioner prescribed Vicodinto an undercover officer to mellow-outwhere the undercover officer did notgive an indication of any medicalpurpose and denied any physicalcomplaint.)

In addition, on four occasions,Respondent prescribed anabolic steroidsto undercover agents for no legitimatemedical purpose. A BNE Agent testifiedat the hearing before Judge Bittner thataccording to various knowledgeablesources, including manufacturers ofanabolic steroids, the Food and DrugAdministration, and the AmericanMedical Association, it is not propermedical practice to use anabolic steroidsto build muscle mass. DEA haspreviously held that the prescribing ofanabolic steroids for body enhancementis a violation of California law, since itwas not prescribed for a legitimatemedical purpose. See John W.Copeland, M.D., 59 FR 47,063 (1994).

The Administrative Law Judgeconcluded ‘‘that the record as a wholeestablishes that Respondent’s continuedregistration would be inconsistent withthe public interest.’’ Judge Bittnerfurther concluded that ‘‘[u]ntilRespondent can demonstrate that heacknowledges that his decisions werewrong and understands why and hastaken concrete steps to prevent it fromhappening again, allowing him todispense controlled substances presents

to great a risk that controlled substanceswill be diverted into illicit channels.’’Therefore, Judge Bittner recommendedthat Respondent’s DEA registration berevoked.

Respondent argues in his exceptionsto Judge Bittner’s Recommended Rulingthat the Government did not meet itsburden of proof; that a preponderance ofthe evidence shows that Respondent’scontinued registration is consistent withthe public interest; that Judge Bittner’sinterpretation of the evidence was ‘‘one-sided’’ and ‘‘unfair’’; that a re-examination of the evidence refutes thatRespondent was lax in his prescribingpractices or would be so in the future;and that Respondent has accepted fullresponsibility for his actions. In hisexceptions, Respondent provideddetailed citations to the record insupport of his arguments, and providedevidence of what he has done since thehearing ‘‘to avoid any similar incidentsin the future’’. In addition, Respondentsuggested an alternative resolution tocomplete revocation, whereby certainrestrictions would be placed on his DEAregistration.

The Acting Deputy Administrator hasnot considered the new information inthe exceptions submitted by Respondentthat was not part of the record derivedfrom the hearing. Exceptions are avehicle for pointing out perceived errorsin the recommended decision of theAdministrative Law Judge and not avehicle for introducing evidence notadmitted through testimony and/orexhibits at the hearing. Respondentcould have filed a motion to reopen therecord had he wanted this newinformation considered.

However, the Acting DeputyAdministrator has carefully consideredthe entire record in this proceeding,including Respondent’s exceptions toJudge Bittner’s recommended decision,and concludes that while theGovernment established a prima faciecase based upon Respondent’s laxprescribing of controlled substances tothe undercover officers, completerevocation of Respondent’s registrationis not necessary at this time to protectthe public interest. Evidence ofRespondent’s lax prescribing practicesappears to be limited to theprescriptions provided to theundercover officers. Respondenttestified at the hearing that in hindsighthe should not have prescribed some ofthe substances to the undercoverofficers, and that he has become moreconservative in his prescribingpractices. Therefore, the Acting DeputyAdministrator finds that Respondent’sactions do not warrant completerevocation of his DEA registration.


Nonetheless, a DEA registrationcarries with it the responsibility toensure that controlled substances areonly prescribed for a legitimate medicalpurpose thereby preventing thediversion of these potentially dangeroussubstances from legitimate channels.Therefore, the Acting DeputyAdministrator concludes that somemonitoring of Respondent’s controlledsubstance handling practices and sometraining in the proper handling ofcontrolled substance is necessary toprotect the public health and safety.

Thus, the Acting DeputyAdministrator concludes thatRespondent’s DEA registration shouldbe continued subject to the followingconditions:

(1) For a period of two years from theeffective date of this order, Respondentshall be required to submit to the DEASan Diego Field Division for reviewevery three months, a log of hisprescribing, dispensing andadministering of controlled substances.This log shall include, at a minimum,the date of the prescribing, dispensingand administering, the name of thepatient, and the name, dosage andquantity of the controlled substanceprescribed, administered or dispensed.

(2) Within three months of theeffective date of this order, Respondentshall provide to the DEA San DiegoField Division evidence of thesuccessful completion of at least 24hours of training in the proper handlingof controlled substances.

Accordingly, the Acting DeputyAdministrator of the Drug EnforcementAdministration, pursuant to theauthority vested in him by 21 U.S.C. 823and 824 and 28 C.F.R. 0.100(b) and0.104, hereby orders that DEACertificate of Registration AT1241847,issued to Donald P. Tecca, M.D., becontinued, and any pendingapplications be granted, subject to theabove conditions. This order is effectiveApril 17, 1997.

James S. Milford,Acting Deputy Administrator.

Dated: March 4, 1997.[FR Doc. 97–6795 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4410–09–M


Anne Lazar Thorn, M.D. Revocation ofRegistration

On April 15, 1996, the DeputyAssistant Administrator, Office ofDiversion Control, Drug EnforcementAdministration (DEA) issued an Orderto Show Cause to Anne Lazar Thorn,M.D. (Respondent), of Lafayette,

Louisiana, notifying her of anopportunity to show cause as to whyDEA should not revoke her DEACertificate of Registration, AT6512152,pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), anddeny any pending applications forrenewal of such registration as apractitioner pursuant to 21 U.S.C.823(f), for reason that effective October18, 1993, the Louisiana State Board ofMedical Examiners indefinitelysuspended her license to practicemedicine and as a result, she is notcurrently authorized to handlecontrolled substances in the State ofLouisiana.

By letter dated April 29, 1996,Respondent, acting pro se, filed a timelyrequest for a hearing, and the matter wasdocketed before Administrative LawJudge Mary Ellen Bittner. On May 3,1996, Judge Bittner issued an Order forPrehearing Statements. On May 24,1996, in lieu of filing such a statement,the Government filed a Motion forSummary Disposition and to StayProceedings, asserting that ‘‘Respondentis without state authorization to handlecontrolled substances at this time.’’Attached to the motion was a copy ofthe Louisiana State Board of MedicalExaminer’s (Board) decision datedOctober 18, 1993, indefinitelysuspending Respondent’s license topractice medicine and a copy of a letterfrom the Board notifying DEA thatRespondent’s license to practicemedicine in the State of Louisiana wassuspended.

On June 3, 1996, the AdministrativeLaw Judge received a letter from anattorney indicating that he had beenretained to represent Respondent, andon June 21, 1996, counsel forRespondent filed a Memorandum inOpposition to Government’s Motion forSummary Disposition and Motion toStay Proceedings. Respondent did notdeny that she is currently withoutauthority to handle controlledsubstances in the State of Louisiana.However, she argued that 21 U.S.C.824(a) provides for the DeputyAdministrator to use his discretion indetermining whether to revoke orsuspend a registration because of lack ofstate authority to handle controlledsubstances and that a hearing isnecessary to determine what actionshould be taken against Respondent’sregistration. Respondent further arguesthat this matter is not yet ripe fordetermination since Respondent has not‘‘had the opportunity to present herevidence with supporting testimonyconcerning her current fitness topractice medicine, or the steps whichshe is taking to seek the reinstatement

of her license to practice medicine inthe State of Louisiana.’’

On July 25, 1996, Judge Bittner issuedher Opinion and RecommendedDecision, finding that Respondent is notcurrently authorized to handlecontrolled substances in the State ofLouisiana; that she is bound by DEA’sinterpretation of the ControlledSubstances Act that, pursuant to 21U.S.C. 823(f) and 802(21), a petitionermay not hold a DEA registration withoutstate authority to handle controlledsubstances; that since no materialquestion of fact is involved, a hearing isnot necessary; and that while the statueprovides for the revocation orsuspension, revocation is appropriate inthis case since there is no indicationthat Respondent’s state license will bereinstated any time soon. Accordingly,Judge Bittner granted the Government’sMotion for Summary Disposition andrecommended that the Respondent’sDEA Certificate of Registration berevoked.

On August 8, 1996, Respondent filedwith the Administrative Law Judge aMotion for Reconsideration and/or toAlter or Amend Judgment (Motion forReconsideration). Respondent arguedthat the Board suspended her licenseindefinitely, rather than revoking itentirely, and that it would remainsuspended until further order of theBoard. Respondent asserted that theonly evidence before the AdministrativeLaw Judge in rendering herrecommended decision was the order ofthe Board dated October 18, 1993 andthat ‘‘a great deal has transpired withrespect to Respondent’s license topractice medicine and the steps she hastaken to have her license reinstated.’’Respondent argued that she should begiven an opportunity for a hearingregarding her DEA registration in orderto outline the steps she has taken tohave her state license reinstated, andthat the evidence which would havebeen presented at a hearing would haveaided the Administrative Law Judge indeciding whether to recommendrevocation or suspension ofRespondent’s registration. Respondentcontended that ‘‘the decision topermanently revoke a physician’sregistration to distribute drugs is aserious sanction, and is one whichshould not be rendered withoutconsidering all of the evidence in aparticular case.’’

Therefore, Respondent requested thatthe Administrative Law Judgereconsider her decision to denyRespondent the opportunity for ahearing, or in the alternative, that theAdministrative Law Judge alter herrecommendation from revocation to


suspension of Respondent’s registration.On August 14, 1996, Judge Bittnerissued a Ruling denying Respondent’sMotion for Reconsideration as lacking inmerit. Neither party filed exceptions toher Opinion and RecommendedDecision, and on August 26, 1996, JudgeBittner transmitted the record of theseproceedings to the DeputyAdministrator.

The Acting Deputy Administrator hasconsidered the record in its entirety,and pursuant to 21 C.F.R. 1316.67,hereby issues his final order based uponfindings of fact and conclusions of lawas hereinafter set forth. The ActingDeputy Administrator adopts in full theOpinion and Recommended Decision ofthe Administrative Law Judge.

DEA has consistently interpreted theControlled Substances Act to preclude apractitioner from holding a DEAregistration if the practitioner is withoutauthority to handle controlledsubstances in the state in which he/shepractices. See 21 U.S.C. 823(f)(authorizing the Attorney General toregister a practitioner to dispensecontrolled substances only if theapplicant is authorized to dispensecontrolled substances under the laws ofthe state in which he or she practices);and 21 U.S.C. 802(21) (defining apractitioner as one authorized by theUnited States or the state in which heor she practices to handle controlledsubstances in the course of professionalpractice or research). This prerequisitehas been consistently upheld. See RitaM. Coleman, M.D., 61 FR 35,816 (1996);Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58 FR 51,104(1993); Roy E. Hardman, M.D., 57 FR49,195 (1992); and Bobby Watts, M.D.,53 FR 11,919 (1988).

The Acting Deputy Administratorfinds that the controlling question is notwhether a practitioner’s license topractice medicine in the state issuspended or revoked; rather, it iswhether the Respondent is currentlyauthorized to handle controlledsubstances in the state. In the instantcase, it is undisputed that Respondent isnot currently authorized to handlecontrolled substances in the State ofLouisiana. Therefore, as Judge Bittnernotes, Respondent ‘‘is not currentlyentitled to a DEA registration.’’

The Acting Deputy Administratorconcludes that Judge Bittner properlygranted the Government’s Motion forSummary Disposition. Here, the partiesdid not dispute the fact that Respondentwas unauthorized to handle controlledsubstances in Louisiana. Therefore, it iswell-settled that when no question ofmaterial fact is involved, a plenary,adversary administrative proceedinginvolving evidence and cross-

examination of witnesses is notobligatory. See Philip E. Kirk, M.D., 48FR 32,887 (1983), aff’d sub nom. Kirkversus Mullen, 749 F.2d 279 (6th Cir.1984); Alfred Tennyson Smurthwaite,M.D., 43 FR 11,873 (1978); see alsoNLRB versus International Associationof Bridge, Structural and OrnamentalIronworks, AFL–CIO, 549 F.2d 634 (9thCir. 1977); United States versusConsolidated Mines & Smelting Co., 44F.2d 432 (9th Cir. 1971).

In her Motion for Reconsideration,Respondent argued that the permanentrevocation of a registration is a serioussanction and ‘‘should not be renderedwithout considering all of the evidencein a particular case.’’ The Acting DeputyAdministrator notes that the revocationof Respondent’s registration is notpermanent. Respondent may reapply fora new DEA registration when her stateprivileges to handle controlledsubstances are reinstated. Further, theActing Deputy Administrator recognizesthat he has the discretionary authorityto either revoke or suspend a DEAregistration. However, given theindefinite nature of the suspension ofRespondent’s state license to practicemedicine, the Acting DeputyAdministrator agrees with Judge Bittnerthat revocation is appropriate in thiscase.

Accordingly, the Acting DeputyAdministrator of the Drug EnforcementAdministration, pursuant to theauthority vested in him by 21 U.S.C. 823and 824, and 28 C.F.R. 0.100(b) and0.104, hereby orders that the DEACertificate of Registration AT6512152,issued to Anne Lazar Thorn, M.D., be,and it hereby is, revoked, and that anypending applications for the renewal ofsuch registration be, and they herebyare, denied. This order is effective April17, 1997.

Dated: March 4, 1997.James S. Milford,Acting Deputy Administrator.[FR Doc. 97–6794 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

Office of Justice Programs

[OJP(BJA)–1116]

RIN 1121–ZA62

State Criminal Alien AssistanceProgram

AGENCY: Office of Justice Programs,Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA),Justice.ACTION: Notice of proposed guidelines.

SUMMARY: This notice is to requestcomment on the proposed guideline on

the application process for States andpolitical subdivisions to obtainreimbursement for the incarceration ofundocumented criminal aliens underthe State Criminal Alien AssistanceProgram.DATES: Comments on this proposedguideline must be received on or beforeApril 22, 1997.

Final guidelines and applicationinformation will be published andissued within 30 days of the end of thiscomment period and applicants will begiven at least 30 working days to makethat application.ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailedto: Office of Justice Programs, Office ofthe General Counsel, 633 IndianaAvenue, NW, Room 1245, Washington,DC 20531.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Linda James McKay, SCAAPCoordinator, State and Local AssistanceDivision, Bureau of Justice Assistance,or the Department of Justice ResponseCenter, 1–800–421–6770 or 202–307–1480.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Thefollowing supplementary information isprovided: The State Criminal AlienAssistance Program (SCAAP) providesreimbursement for certain criminalaliens who are incarcerated in State andlocal correctional facilities. The programis administered by the Bureau of JusticeAssistance (BJA), which is part of theOffice of Justice Programs (OJP) in theDepartment of Justice. The program isauthorized and governed by theprovisions of the Immigration andNationality Act of 1990, as amended, 8U.S.C. 1251(i), originally enacted as partof the Violent Crime Control and LawEnforcement Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103–322) at section 20301.

This section provides the authority, atthe option of the Attorney Generalwhenever an appropriation is made, toeither reimburse States and localities forcosts incurred in incarceratingqualifying criminal aliens or take suchaliens into Federal custody. For FiscalYear 1997 (FY 1997), the AttorneyGeneral has delegated the authority toimplement the program to BJA. BJA isa criminal justice grant making andadministrative agency within theDepartment of Justice and, thus, has noability to take custody. Therefore,SCAAP will continue to beadministered only as a reimbursementprogram. For FY 1997, $500,000,000,less administrative costs, is available forreimbursement payments under SCAAP.

For FY 1997, records related to allforeign-born inmates with one felony ortwo misdemeanor convictions who areor have been incarcerated within a State


or local correctional facility during aspecified one-year period should beincluded in an applicant’s claim for anaward. All State or local jurisdictionswhich have facilities housing suchaliens for periods over 72 hours will beeligible. Applicants must provideinmate-specific information forcomparison with records maintained bythe Immigration and NaturalizationService (INS). Award amounts willdepend on the number of reimbursablealiens verified by INS, on the lengths ofstay of those aliens in the applicant’sfacilities, and on the applicant’s costs ofincarceration. Last year, reimbursementwas approximately 60 percent of theamount claimed by applicants forverified, reimbursable aliens.

FY 1997 will be the third fiscal yearin which funding for SCAAP hasoccurred. In each of these years, therehave been changes to the authorizationfor SCAAP and modifications in datagathering and formal applicationprocedures. Because of these changes,BJA is issuing its proposed model fordistributing FY 1997 SCAAP funds toallow and encourage comment bypotential applicants and other interestedparties.

Comment is particularly requestedabout the methodology to be used tocount inmates who fit within the criteriafor reimbursement and the types of dataelements about those inmates that mustbe provided for INS verification. Theability of eligible applicants to accessnecessary criminal history informationand the completeness and accuracy ofthat information is also a critical areathat should also be addressed, as it willbe relevant to the provision of requesteddata (see subsection 2 below). Commenton any other aspect of this proposeddistribution model is also welcome.

BJA is attempting to increase the bodyof information available about allincarcerated criminal aliens, to ensurethat the data underlying its awards arecomplete and accurate, withoutestablishing requirements for datasubmission that are overly burdensomefor applicants. For these reasons, themodel proposed expands the types ofdata required while streamlining themethodology for obtaining that data.

1. Eligible ApplicantsEligible applicants are States and

political subdivisions of States(hereafter, ‘‘localities’’ or‘‘subdivisions’’) that exercise authoritywith respect to the incarceration of anundocumented criminal alien in afacility that provides secure, overnightcustody of inmates for periodsextending beyond 72 hours. Only oneapplication may be submitted by each

locality; therefore, cost and inmateinformation from all facilities within asingle subdivision must be consolidatedinto a single application.

The applicant may be either the chiefexecutive officer (CEO) (e.g., governor,county executive, mayor) of the politicalsubdivision itself or the head (e.g.,director, commissioner, sheriff, etc.) ofthe correctional facility in thatjurisdiction, pursuant to a delegationfrom the CEO. Such delegation must bein writing and be submitted to BJA bythe CEO or correctional agency headapplying on behalf of the jurisdiction. Acopy of a valid delegation previouslyobtained and submitted to BJA for thepurpose of SCAAP will be acceptable.

Awards will be made to the place ofbusiness of the signatory on theapplication, regardless of designation.That is, if the county board chair (orcounty manager, county auditor, etc.)will be signing the application, theformal applicant would be the county,at the address of the county office. If thecounty sheriff will be signing theapplication pursuant to delegation fromthe county board, the formal applicantwould be the sheriff, and the award willgo directly to the address of the sheriff(or county correctional facility).

For the purposes of the remainder ofthis guidance, ‘‘applicant’’ refers to thehead of the correctional facility housingthe alien inmates, as this facility is thesource of both inmate and cost datarequired for the application.

2. Reimbursable Inmates and Length ofStay Calculation

Applicants will be expected to submitrecords on all inmates in their custodywho have a foreign country of birth andwho have been convicted of a felony ortwo misdemeanors. Applicants shouldnot screen out aliens known or believedto be nonreimbursable. Themethodology for determiningreimbursability of unmatched inmates(as discussed in subsection 4 below)will not depend on the ratio ofreimbursable to nonreimbursableinmates, as was the case in prior years.This change means that applicants willnot be required to make any judgmentsabout the potential reimbursability oftheir incarcerated aliens.

Not all foreign born inmates whoserecords are submitted will bedetermined to be reimbursable aliensunder the law. To be reimbursable, aninmate must:

• Have a foreign country of birth. Therecord submitted must contain the nameof that foreign country. See thediscussion under subparagraph 4 belowfor proposed rules for submitting andverifying suspected foreign-born

inmates who do not self-report a foreigncountry of birth.

• Have been in the applicant’scustody at some point between July 1,1996, and June 30, 1997. Only thenumber of days in custody during thistime period may be counted toward thelength of stay for that inmate. Thus, acap of 365 days will be imposed on thenumber of days which an applicant mayclaim for a single inmate.

• Have been in the applicant’scustody for a period exceeding 72 hours.Police ‘‘lockups’’ and similar holdingfacilities are excluded, and theapplicant would not be expected tosubmit records for persons held pendingarraignment on new charges who arethen released and not againincarcerated. However, once the facilityhas exercised custody over an inmatebeyond 72 hours, all time in custodymay be included in the length of stayreported for an otherwise qualifiedinmate, as defined in this section.

• Have one felony conviction or twomisdemeanor convictions. Qualifyingconviction(s) can occur prior to entryinto the applicant’s custody or be theresult of charges that led to thatincarceration. In the case of aliens whoentered with previous qualifyingconvictions, all time in custody duringthe specified one-year period may becounted, regardless of the disposition ofthe charges which led to the currentincarceration. In the case of aliens whodid not have the qualifyingconviction(s) before entering intoapplicant’s custody, only the time spentduring the one-year period inapplicant’s custody after the qualifyingconviction occurs may be counted,unless the inmate is also sentencedduring the specified year period to somesentence (e.g., ‘‘time served’’) whichconverts the pretrial custody period intopart of the final disposition for purposesof fulfilling the sentence. In thissituation, all time in custody can becounted.

Please note that, in either case, theapplicant must be able to determine anddocument that the qualifyingconvictions have taken place. Thus,particularly for those inmates for whomthe qualifying conviction(s) occurredprior to entry into applicant’s custody,the applicant must have ready access toaccurate and complete criminal historyinformation.

For the purposes of thisdetermination, the applicant shouldfollow its own State law as to whatconstitutes a felony or misdemeanor andwhat actions constitute a validconviction. If a State has no setdefinition of ‘‘felony,’’ a felony shouldbe considered any offense for which the


potential sentence that could beimposed upon conviction is more thanone year.

• Fall within one of three categoriesspecified in the statute:

• Entered the United States withoutinspection or at any time or place otherthan as designated by the AttorneyGeneral;

• Was the subject of exclusion ordeportation proceedings at the time heor she was taken into custody by theState or a political subdivision of theState; or,

• Was admitted as a nonimmigrantand at the time he or she was taken intocustody by the State, or a politicalsubdivision of the State has failed tomaintain the nonimmigrant status inwhich the alien was admitted (or towhich it was changed) or to complywith the conditions of any such status.

In determining who is the ‘‘subject of’’proceedings under the second category,an alien would be considered eligible tobe counted for reimbursement if thecharging document had been issued byINS prior to that alien’s entry into theapplicant’s custody. The chargingdocument need not be served againstthe alien nor filed with the immigrationcourt. Alien inmates with final orders ofdeportation or exclusion will also beconsidered the ‘‘subject of’’ proceedings.Cubans who entered the United Statesas part of the 1980 Marielito boatlift(’’Mariel Cubans’’) are not separatelyeligible and will not automatically beincluded for reimbursement; rather,Cuban inmates, as all other inmates,will be reimbursable only to the extentthey fall under one of the categorieslisted above.

3. Specification for Inmate RecordsThe applicant will have two options

for providing information aboutinmates: (1) Applicants may use theirown data system to produce a properlyformatted data file, or (2) applicantsmay reenter data into a database shellon a diskette to be provided by BJA. Forapplicants choosing the first option, allinmate data submitted must be in ASCIIformat, in fixed length fields. Further,unless a specific exception is notedbelow, all data fields must becompleted. Failure to provide therequested data in the proper format willresult in exclusion of the record fromthe verification process. Exactinformation on the order and length ofdata fields will be provided in the finalinstructions.

The following data will be requested:• Alien (‘‘A’’) number. An ‘‘A’’

number is an 7-, 8-, or 9-digit numberwhich may or may not have beenassigned to an inmate by INS and be

known to the applicant. If no A numberis available, the applicant may leave thisfield blank.

• First, middle, and last names of theinmate, including all aliases. A separaterecord will be required for each alias.

• Unique identifying number for eachinmate. This number will allow INS tocheck separate alias records, but avoidduplicate counting of the same inmate.The number will be assigned to thatinmate by the applicant and willgenerally be used by the applicant forother identification purposes.

• Date of birth. If more than one dateof birth is provided, a separate recordshould be used for each date, as in thecase of different names.

• Foreign country of birth. Applicantsshould supply the actual name of theforeign country (at least the first 10letters of the name will be required) oruse a coding system. If a coding systemis used, applicants must submitdocumentation of the codes as part oftheir applications.

• Date upon which the alien enteredinto the applicant’s custody. This datewill be a required field for all inmates,not just those potentially qualifyingunder the ‘‘subject of proceedings’’category.

• Type and level of crime of thequalifying conviction(s). Applicants willbe expected to code the qualifyingfelony or misdemeanor convictionsutilizing the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation’s (FBI’s) National CriminalInformation Center (NCIC) codingscheme. Both of the qualifyingmisdemeanors will need to be coded.More specific directions for accessingand utilizing these codes will appear inthe final guidance for application. Theseinstructions will also address the issueof which among possible qualifyingconvictions should be coded.

Because this will be the first year inwhich the qualifying offenses will needto be submitted, and because of thespecificity and reliability that wouldresult from use of NCIC codes for alloffenses, BJA particularly solicitscomment by potential applicants ontheir ability to provide this data in theform requested.

• Actual length of stay in theapplicant’s custody between July 1, 1996and June 30, 1997 that is ‘‘qualifying’’under the criteria set forth in subsection2 above. Applicants will be expected tospecify the exact number of days ofincarceration for each inmate. Unlikelast year, no predetermined, standardlengths of stay will be allowed. BothState and local facilities will beexpected to comply with thisrequirement.

• Earliest possible release date for theinmate, if that inmate is currentlyserving a sentence in applicant’scustody. This field may be left blank ifthe inmate is in pretrial status (but hasthe qualifying prior felony or twomisdemeanor convictions) or has beenconvicted but not yet sentenced for thecharge(s) which brought the inmate intoapplicant’s custody, or if thedetermination will be made by a Statefacility after transfer of a sentencedinmate from a local to a State facility.

• FBI number. This information willnot be a required but is data that willincrease the probability of a positivematch between applicant and existingINS records.

In addition, each applicant will bepreassigned a jurisdictionalidentification number that must appearon the diskette label and as part of everyrecord submitted. This number mustalso appear on the formal applicationdocument. Other data that might beuseful in making positive identificationsof inmates may be requested, but willnot be required.

Applicants that cannot provide dataon lengths of stay for all inmatesincarcerated during the one-year periodwill be allowed to do a one-day countat any point during the applicationperiod. However, they may only claimthe lengths of stay for the inmates whowere incarcerated on the day of thatcount. This option should only be usedif it is impossible to provide full-yeardata, because it is very likely to resultin a lower level of reimbursement thanwould use of the preferred method.

4. Verification of Inmate DataINS will verify applicants’ inmate

records by matching those records torecords in INS databases. The matchingprocess will result in three groups ofinmates: Positively identifiedreimbursable inmates, positivelyidentified nonreimbursable inmates,and inmates not matched.

A reimbursement rate will be appliedto inmates whose eligibility cannot bedetermined through a positive match.Unlike in prior years, this rate will notbe based on the ratio of matchedreimbursable to nonreimbursableinmates whose records are submitted bythe applicant, but rather will be basedon a separate process. The INS iscurrently working to gather data thatwill produce an estimate of theproportion of unmatched inmates whoare likely to be eligible forreimbursement. The estimate will likelybe based on the information about theimmigration status of criminal aliensinterviewed during the last year whopreviously did not have files in INS


databases. Depending on the results ofthis study, a single, nationwide rate willprobably be developed, although it ispossible that regional or state-specificrates will be necessary. This newprocedure is expected to allow moreuniformity among applicantsubmissions while being equitable to allapplicants.

Applicants who have a reasonablebasis to believe that an inmate hasfalsely claimed to have been born in theUnited States or its territories andpossessions (e.g., Guam, NorthernMariana Islands, the Virgin Islands,Puerto Rico) may include those inmatesin their data submissions. Similarly,applicants may include in theirsubmissions inmates for whom theyhave no known country of birth. If INSis able to match these inmate records,they will be retained as part of theapplicants’ submissions. However, ifINS is unable to match the inmates withno foreign country of birth provided,those inmate records will be deletedfrom the applicants’ submissions.Aliens whose records are deleted froma submission will not be included in thepool of unmatched inmates to which thespecial reimbursement rate is applied.

5. Cost of Inmate Custody

Only routine operating expenditureswill be allowed as part of thecalculation of annual inmate costs;capital expenditures and nonroutinecosts will not be allowed. Costcalculations should be based onroutinely maintained cost figures for allqualifying facilities administered by thepolitical subdivision makingapplication, not on costs directlyassociated with alien inmates claimed.The costs should be calculated based onthe average number of bed spaces filledin all facilities under the applicant’scontrol over the course of the year, noton an average of the costs of runningeach separate component facility.

In making calculations, all payments,including Federal payments, to theapplicant from other jurisdictions tocover costs of housing inmates for thoseother jurisdictions must be deductedfrom the overall prisoners’ upkeep costs.Payments made by the jurisdiction toother jurisdictions to house theirinmates can be added to the cost figures.Similarly, services provided withinfacilities but not charged to the budgetof the correctional agency (e.g.,vocational training funded through theState’s department of education) shouldnot be included. Nor should applicantsuse inmate cost rates negotiated withFederal or State or other jurisdictions astheir basis of claim. Rather, calculations

should be based on their own actualcosts of inmate custody for the currentor the immediately prior fiscal year.

BJA will review and compare inmatecost figures submitted. If requested to doso by BJA, the Department of Justice, orany other authorized auditor, applicantsmust be able to provide the detailedinformation that went into their claimedcosts calculation.

6. Formal Application and Deadline forApplication

Application kits with finalinstructions will be mailed directly tocorrectional facilities (unless BJA hasbeen notified by an eligible jurisdictionto provide the kit to another office) andwill consist of a formal applicationform, required Federal assurances andcertifications, and a diskette forprovision of inmate data (at theapplicant’s option; see subsection 3above). An original, signed delegationfrom the CEO of the jurisdiction willalso be required if the applicant is notthe CEO. If both the CEO and thedesignated signatory for the jurisdictionare the same as reflected in priorapplications under this program in FY1995 or FY 1996, a copy of thepreviously submitted delegation will beacceptable.

As was the case last year, BJAanticipates requesting a mix ofelectronic and hardcopy documentationas part of the application package. Allinmate data must be submitted inelectronic form (on diskette). Ascannable, hardcopy application formwill be used to obtain basic informationon the applicant (e.g., address, contactperson, etc.). Separate, hardcopycertifications and assurance forms maybe used, or the scannable applicationform may contain the necessarystandard certifications. In any event, theapplicant will be required to provide allinmate and cost information necessaryfor BJA to make the award, as isdescribed in this announcement.

In a change from last year, thedeadline for submission of both inmatedata and the other applicationdocuments will be on the same date.This date will be a firm deadline(evidenced by postmark); no extensionsof this deadline will be given and latesubmissions of inmate diskettes will notbe allowed. Applicants will be given atleast 30 working days to complete therequired application. During theapplication period, BJA staff willprovide technical assistance to potentialapplicants preparing the inmate datadiskettes and will be available to answerany questions that applicants may haveabout filling in the formal application

documents. After applicants have metthe deadline, BJA reserves the right toask for additional information to clarifyor correct minor errors in theapplication.

7. Award Calculation and FundingAvailability

The FY 1997 amount available fordistribution is $492,038,000. As in pastyears, the formula for award calculationwill, first, establish the final dollarclaim of each applicant, based on theverification of its inmate and cost data.This calculation will involvemultiplying the number of reimbursableinmates (including a percentage ofinmates not matched) by the lengths ofstay for these inmates by the applicant’sactual annual cost per day per inmate.The final claims for all applicants willthen be totaled and divided into theavailable appropriation to determine thepercentage payoff on the dollar of eachclaim. Finally, the award amount foreach applicant will be calculated basedon that payoff percentage.

Applicants cannot be assured ofreceiving an award, however, because itis possible that, following INSverification of inmate data, there will beno reimbursable inmates upon which tobase an award. Similarly, pastreimbursements should not be used topredict future reimbursements becausethe number of applicants may vary andthe eligibility criteria have changed ineach of the three years of this program’soperation.

8. Award and Post-Award Processing

BJA will continue to utilize grants asits reimbursement mechanism. Theconditions governing general awardeligibility, drawdown, and use of fundsafter drawdown, and the processes usedfor these events will remain the same asin the past year. In particular, allpayments to applicants will be madeelectronically. New applicants will beexpected to provide information toallow electronic transfer of funds as partof their award acceptance. Grantcloseout will be automatic. Awardfunds, once properly distributed toeligible applicants, may be used bythese jurisdictions for any lawfulpurposes and need not be appliedtowards reimbursement of correctionalcosts.Nancy E. Gist,Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance.[FR Doc. 97–6740 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4410–18–P


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


Submission for OMB Review;Comment Request

March 13, 1997.The Department of Labor (DOL) has

submitted the following publicinformation collection request (ICR) tothe Office of Management and Budget(OMB) for review and approval inaccordance with the PaperworkReduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13,44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). A copy of thisICR, with applicable supportingdocumentation, may be obtained bycalling the Department of Labor,Departmental Clearance Officer, TheresaM. O’Malley ([202] 219–5096 ext. 143).Individuals who use atelecommunications device for the deaf(TTY/TDD) may call [202] 219–4720between 1:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. Easterntime, Monday through Friday.

Comments should be sent to Office ofInformation and Regulatory Affairs,Attn: OMB Desk Officer for Bureau ofLabor Statistics, Office of Managementand Budget, Room 10235, Washington,DC 20503 ([202] 395–7316), within 30days from the date of this publication inthe Federal Register.

The OMB is particularly interested incomments which:

• Evaluate whether the proposedcollection of information is necessaryfor the proper performance of thefunctions of the agency, includingwhether the information will havepractical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of theagency’s estimate of the burden of theproposed collection of information,including 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 electronic submission ofresponses.

Agency: Bureau of Labor Statistics.Title: Work Schedules Supplement to

the Current Population Survey.OMB Number: 1220–0119.Frequency: One-time.Affected Public: Individuals or

households.Number of Respondents: 48,000.Estimated Time Per Respondent: 4.5

minutes.Total Burden Hours: 3,600.Total Annualized capital/startup

costs: 0Total annual costs (operating/

maintaining systems or purchasingservices): 0.

Description: The work schedulessupplement will gather information onthe work schedules of employedpersons and on the number ofcharacteristics of employed personswho do work at home.Theresa M. O’Malley,Departmental Clearance Officer.[FR Doc. 97–6811 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4510–23–M

Employment and TrainingAdministration

[TA–W–33,213]

Burwood Products Company TraverseCity, MI; Notice of Termination ofInvestigation

Pursuant to Section 221 of the TradeAct of 1974, an investigation wasinitiated on February 24, 1997 inresponse to a worker petition which wasfiled on February 24, 1997 on behalf ofworkers at Burwood Products Company,locate in Traverse City, Michigan.

The petitioning group of workers issubject to an ongoing investigation forwhich a determination has not yet beenissued (TA–W–33,205). Consequently,further investigation in this case wouldserve no purpose, and the investigationhas been terminated.

Signed in Washington, DC, this 26th day ofFebruary, 1997.Russel T. Kile,Program Manager, Policy and ReemploymentServices, Office of Trade AdjustmentAssistance.[FR Doc. 97–6814 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

Investigations Regarding Certificationsof Eligibility To Apply for WorkerAdjustment Assistance

Petitions have been filed with theSecretary of Labor under Section 221(a)of the Trade Act of 1974 (‘‘the Act’’) andare identified in the Appendix to thisnotice. Upon receipt of these petitions,the Program Manager of the Office ofTrade Adjustment Assistance,Employment and TrainingAdministration, has institutedinvestigations pursuant to Section221(a) of the Act.

The purpose of each of theinvestigations is to determine whetherthe workers are eligible to apply foradjustment assistance under Title II,Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigationswill further relate, as appropriate, to thedetermination of the date on which totalor partial separations began orthreatened to begin and the subdivisionof the firm involved.

The petitioners or any other personsshowing a substantial interest in thesubject matter of the investigations mayrequest a public hearing, provided suchrequest is filed in writing with theProgram Manager, Office of TradeAdjustment Assistance, at the addressshown below, not later than March 28,1997.

Interested persons are invited tosubmit written comments regarding thesubject matter of the investigations tothe Program Manager, Office of TradeAdjustment Assistance, at the addressshown below, not later than March 28,1997.

The petitions filed in this case areavailable for inspection at the Office ofthe Program Manager, Office of TradeAdjustment Assistance, Employmentand Training Administration, U.S.Department of Labor, 200 ConstitutionAvenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 24th day ofFebruary, 1997.Russell T. Kile,Program Manager, Policy & ReemploymentServices, Office of Trade AdjustmentAssistance.

APPENDIX.—PETITIONS INSTITUTED ON 02/24/97

TA–W Subject firm (petitioners) Location Date ofpetition Products

33,213 ......... Burwood Products Co (Comp) .................. Traverse City, MI ............ 02/10/97 Clocks & Wall Decor.33,214 ......... EOS Corp (Comp) ..................................... Camarillo, CA ................. 02/10/97 Power Supplies.33,215 ......... Deckers Outdoor Corp (Comp) ................. Goleta, CA ...................... 02/07/97 Sport Sandals.33,216 ......... Gruen Marketing Corp (Wkrs) ................... Exeter, PA ...................... 02/01/97 Warehousing, Packaging and Shipping.33,217 ......... Leslie Fay Companies (Comp) .................. Laflin, PA ........................ 02/14/97 Ladies’ Dresses.33,218 ......... Leslie Fay Companies (Comp) .................. New York, NY ................. 02/14/97 Office & Management (Ladies’ Dresses).


APPENDIX.—PETITIONS INSTITUTED ON 02/24/97—Continued

TA–W Subject firm (petitioners) Location Date ofpetition Products

33,219 ......... Tectonic Industries, Inc (UAW) ................. Berlin, CT ........................ 02/05/97 Extruded Plastics Eyeglass Frame Parts.33,220 ......... Spenco Manufacturing (Comp) ................. Glenville, WV .................. 02/10/97 Sewing Furniture Liners & Pads.33,221 ......... Norco/Jeld Wen (Wkrs) ............................. Marenisco, MI ................. 02/06/97 Wood Patio Doors.33,222 ......... Coltec Industries (Comp) ........................... Roscoe, IL ...................... 02/04/97 Electronic Boards and Magnetos.33,223 ......... Camp, Inc (Wkrs) ...................................... Jackson, MI .................... 02/04/97 Medical Garments.33,224 ......... Personal Products Co. (UPIU) .................. North Brunswick, NJ ....... 02/02/97 Internal and External Sanitary Prod.33,225 ......... Goodyear Tire and Rubber (USWA) ......... East Gadsden, AL .......... 02/04/97 Replacement Tire for Cars & Trucks.33,226 ......... Crewe Garment (UNITE) ........................... Crewe, VA ...................... 02/05/97 Children’s Dresses.33,227 ......... National Sportswear (Wkrs) ...................... Chicago, IL ..................... 02/11/97 Ladies’ Uniform Blouses.33,228 ......... ANR Pipeline (Wkrs) ................................. Chickasha, OK ................ 02/05/97 Gas Transportation (Pipeline).33,229 ......... Avesta-Sheffield East (USWA) .................. Baltimore, MD ................. 02/07/97 Stainless Steel Plates & Coils.

[FR Doc. 97–6817 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

[TA–W–33,207]

Gruen Marketing Corporation Exeter,Pennsylvania; Notice of Termination ofInvestigation

Pursuant to Section 221 of the TradeAct of 1974, an investigation wasinitiated on February 18, 1997 inresponse to a worker petition which wasfiled on behalf of workers and formerworkers at Gruen MarketingCorporation, located in Exeter,Pennsylvania (TA–W–33,207).

On February 26, 1997, the Departmentof Labor issued a determination onbehalf of the petitioning group ofworkers at Gruen MarketingCorporation, located in Exeter,Pennsylvania (TA–W–33,216).Consequently, further investigation inthis case would serve no purpose, andthe investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 27th day ofFebruary 1997.Russell T. Kile,Program Manager, Policy and ReemploymentServices, Office of Trade AdjustmentAssistance.[FR Doc. 97–6813 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

Investigations Regarding Certificationsof Eligibility To Apply for WorkerAdjustment Assistance

Petitions have been filed with theSecretary of Labor under Section 221(a)of the Trade Act of 1974 (‘‘the Act’’) andare identified in the Appendix to thisnotice. Upon receipt of these petitions,the Program Manager of the Office ofTrade Adjustment Assistance,Employment and TrainingAdministration, has institutedinvestigations pursuant to Section221(a) of the Act.

The purpose of each of theinvestigations is to determine whetherthe workers are eligible to apply foradjustment assistance under Title II,Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigationswill further relate, as appropriate, to thedetermination of the date on which totalor partial separations began or

threatened to begin and the subdivisionof the firm involved.

The petitioners or any other personsshowing a substantial interest in thesubject matter of the investigations mayrequest a public hearing, provided suchrequest is filed in writing with theProgram Manager, Office of TradeAdjustment Assistance, at the addressshown below, not later than March 28,1997.

Interested persons are invited tosubmit written comments regarding thesubject matter of the investigations tothe Program Manager, Office of TradeAdjustment Assistance, at the addressshown below, not later than March 28,1997.

The petitions filed in this case areavailable for inspection at the Office ofthe Program Manager, Office of TradeAdjustment Assistance, Employmentand Training Administration, U.S.Department of Labor, 200 ConstitutionAvenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 18th day ofFebruary, 1997.Russell T. Kile,Program Manager, Policy & ReemploymentServices, Office of Trade AdjustmentAssistance.

APPENDIX.—PETITIONS INSTITUTED ON 02/18/97

TA–W Subject firm (petitioners) Location Date of peti-tion Product(s)

33,194 ......... Hasbro, Inc (Comp) ................................... Pawtucket, RI ................. 02/07/97 Toys, Games & Infant Products.33,195 ......... Reynolds Metals Company (Wkrs) ............ Fulton, NY ....................... 01/21/97 Cans for Miller Brewing Co.33,196 ......... General Electric Company (Wkrs) ............. Ft. Edward, NY ............... 02/03/97 Capacitors.33,197 ......... Mason Distributors, Inc (Wkrs) .................. Hasbrovck Hgts., NJ ....... 01/25/97 Packing & Dist. of Medicine & Vitamins.33,198 ......... Imation (Wkrs) ........................................... Weatherford, OK ............. 01/28/97 Computer Diskettes.33,199 ......... Centerstar Manufacturing (Wkrs) .............. Oxford, AL ...................... 01/31/97 Knitted, Dye, Finish Cut & Sewed T-Shirt.33,200 ......... Yocom Knitting Company (Wkrs) .............. Pottstown, PA ................. 02/03/97 Tee Shirts.33,201 ......... Cedarapids, Inc (Wkrs) .............................. Pocatello, ID ................... 01/31/97 Rock Processing Equipment.33,202 ......... Allied Signal (UAW) ................................... Charlotte, NC .................. 12/16/97 Valves, compressors—Heavy Trucks.33,203 ......... Chevron U.S.A. (Comp) ............................ Tulsa, OK ........................ 02/07/97 Natural Gas Liquids.33,204 ......... J and J Group, Inc (Comp) ....................... Franklin, WV ................... 01/30/97 Ladies’ Dresses, Jackets & Pants.33,205 ......... Burwood Products Co (Wkrs) .................... Traverse City, MI ............ 01/30/97 Clocks—Wall Decor.33,206 ......... Juki Union Special, Inc (Wkrs) .................. Wayne, NJ ...................... 01/06/97 Industrial Sewing Equip. Sales & Dist.33,207 ......... Gruen Marketing Corp (Wkrs) ................... Exeter, PA ...................... 02/04/97 Markets Watches.33,208 ......... Great Western Malting Co. (Comp) .......... Vancouver, WA ............... 02/03/97 Beer Malt.


APPENDIX.—PETITIONS INSTITUTED ON 02/18/97—Continued

TA–W Subject firm (petitioners) Location Date of peti-tion Product(s)

33,209 ......... Parker Abex Aerospace (UAW) ................ Kalamazoo, MI ................ 02/01/97 Aerospace Components.33,210 ......... Singer Furniture Co. (Wkrs) ...................... Lenior, NC ...................... 02/04/97 Bedroom and Dining Room Furniture.33,211 ......... General Motors Corp (Wkrs) ..................... Goleta, CA ...................... 02/03/97 Turrets—Light Armored Vehicles.33,212 ......... Getinge Castle (Wkrs) ............................... Mercersburg, PA ............. 02/06/97 Hospital Disinfectant Equipment.


Kingstree Knits, a Division of TexfiIndustries, Incorporated; TA–W–32,561Midway, GA and TA–W–32,516EKingstree, SC

Amended Certification RegardingEligibility To Apply for WorkerAdjustment Assistance

In accordance with Section 223 of theTrade Act of 1974 (19 USC 2273) theDepartment of Labor issued aCertification of Eligibility to Apply forWorker Adjustment Assistance onSeptember 17, 1996, applicable toworkers of Kingstree Knits, a Division ofTexfi Industries, Incorporated, locatedin Midway, Georgia. The notice waspublished in the Federal Register onOctober 1, 1996 (61 FR 51303). Theworker certification was subsequentlyamended to include workers at otherproduction facilities of the subject firm.

At the request of petitioners, theDepartment reviewed the certificationfor workers of the subject firm. Newfindings show that workers separationshave occurred at the subject firm’sKingstree, South Carolina location. Theworkers produce tee shirts for women,men and boys.

The intent of the Department’scertification is to include all workers ofKingstree Knits who were affected byincreased imports. Accordingly, theDepartment is amending the workercertification to include the workers ofKingstree Knits, a Division of TexfiIndustries, Incorporated, located inKingstree, South Carolina.

The amended notice applicable toTA–W–32,561 is hereby issued asfollows:

All workers of Kingstree Knits, a Divisionof Texfi Industries, Incorporated, Midway,Georgia (TA–W–32,561) and Kingstree, SouthCarolina (TA–W–32,561E), who becametotally or partially separated fromemployment on or after July 11, 1995, areeligible to apply for adjustment assistanceunder Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 21st day ofFebruary 1997.Russell T. Kile,Program Manager, Policy and ReemploymentServices, Office of Trade AdjustmentAssistance.[FR Doc. 97–6819 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

Proposed Collection; CommentRequest

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, aspart of its continuing effort to reducepaperwork and respondent burdenconducts a preclearance consultationprogram to provide the general publicand Federal agencies with anopportunity to comment on proposedand/or continuing collections ofinformation in accordance with thePaperwork Reduction Act of 1995(PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. Thisprogram helps to ensure that requesteddata can be provided in the desiredformat, reporting burden (time andfinancial resources) is minimized,collection instruments are clearlyunderstood, and the impact of collectionrequirements on respondents can beproperly assessed. Currently, theEmployment and TrainingAdministration is soliciting commentsconcerning the proposed reinstatementof the collection of the WorkerAdjustment Annual Substate AreaReport, ETA Form 9046. A copy of theproposed information collection request(ICR) can be obtained by contacting theoffice listed below in the addressessection of this notice.DATES: Written comments must besubmitted to the office listed in theaddressee section below on or beforeMay 19, 1997. The Department of Laboris particularly interested in commentswhich:

• 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 electronic submissionsof responses.ADDRESSES: Zenowia Choma, Office ofWorker Retraining and AdjustmentPrograms, Office of Work-BasedLearning, Employment and TrainingAdministration, U.S. Department ofLabor, Room N–5426, 200 ConstitutionAvenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210,202–219–5577 (this is not a toll-freenumber).


I. BackgroundThe Worker Adjustment Annual

Substate Area Report providesinformation on the available funds,expenditures and participants at thesubstate area level during the course ofa program year.

II. Current ActionsThis is a request for OMB approval of

the reinstatement of a collection ofinformation previously approved byOMB. The reinstatement will allow theDepartment to continue to monitorperformance of the formula programsunder Title III at the local level.

Type of Review: Reinstatement.Agency: Employment and Training

Administration.Title: Worker Adjustment Annual

Substate Area Report.OMB Number: 1205–0346.Affected Public: State, Local or Tribal

Government.Total Respondents: 52.Frequency: Annually.Average Time per Response: 1.Estimated Total Burden Hours: 52.Comments submitted in response to

this comment request will besummarized and/or included in therequest for Office of Management andBudget approval of the information


collection request; they will alsobecome a matter of public record.Shirley M. Smith,Acting Administrator, Office of Work-BasedLearning, Employment and TrainingAdministration.[FR Doc. 97–6810 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

Investigations Regarding Certificationsof Eligibility To Apply for NAFTATransitional Adjustment Assistance

Petitions for transitional adjustmentassistance under the North AmericanFree Trade Agreement—TransitionalAdjustment Assistance ImplementationAct (Pub. L. 103–182), hereinafter called(NAFTA–TAA), have been filed withState Governors under Section 250(b)(1)of Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title II, ofthe Trade Act of 1974, as amended, areidentified in the Appendix to this

Notice. Upon notice from a Governorthat a NAFTA–TAA petition has beenreceived, the Program Manager of theOffice of Trade Adjustment Assistance(OTAA), Employment and TrainingAdministration (ETA), Department ofLabor (DOL), announces the filing of thepetition and takes actions pursuant toparagraphs (c) and (e) of Section 250 ofthe Trade Act.

The purpose of the Governor’s actionsand the Labor Department’sinvestigations are to determine whetherthe workers separated from employmentafter December 8, 1993 (date ofenactment of Pub. L. 103–182) areeligible to apply for NAFTA–TAA underSubchapter D of the Trade Act becauseof increased imports from or the shift inproduction to Mexico or Canada.

The petitioners or any other personsshowing a substantial interest in thesubject matter of the investigations mayrequest a public hearing with the

Program Manager of OTAA at the U.S.Department of Labor (DOL) inWashington, D.C. provided such requestis filed in writing with the ProgramManager of OTAA not later than March28, 1997.

Also, interested persons are invited tosubmit written comments regarding thesubject matter of the petitions to theProgram Manager of OTAA at theaddress shown below not later thanMarch 28, 1997.

Petitions filed with the Governors areavailable for inspection at the Office ofthe Program Manager, OTAA, ETA,DOL, Room C–4318, 200 ConstitutionAvenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210.

Signed at Washington, D.C. this 4th day ofMarch, 1997.Russell Kile,Program Manager, Policy & ReemploymentServices, Office of Trade AdjustmentAssistance.

APPENDIX

Subject firm Location

Date re-ceived at

Governor’soffice

Petition No. Articles produced

Printpact ...................................................... San Leandro, CA ..... 01/31/97 NAFTA–1,467 Print labels on foil packaging.Envisions (Engineering Visions Inc.) .......... Harlingen, TX .......... 01/31/97 NAFTA–1,468 Image base data processing.Medite ......................................................... White Coty, OR ....... 01/31/97 NAFTA–1,469 Lumber.Milltown Manufacturing ............................... Red Boiling Springs,

TN.01/23/97 NAFTA–1,470 Jeans.

Brownsville Manufacturing .......................... Brownsville, TX ........ 02/03/97 NAFTA–1,471 Men’s dress and casual pants.Northway Products ...................................... Rensselaer, IN ......... 01/31/97 NAFTA–1,472 Bathroom furniture.Joyce Sportswear Company ....................... Gary, IN ................... 02/03/97 NAFTA–1,473 Women’s clothing.Quality Park Products ................................. St. Paul, MN ............ 02/03/97 NAFTA–1,474 Envelopes.Sahara Sportswear ..................................... El Paso, TX ............. 02/05/97 NAFTA–1,475 Golf bags.Sun Apparel ................................................ Concepcion, TX ....... 02/10/97 NAFTA–1,476 Garments.ITT Cannon ................................................. Santa Ana, CA ........ 02/10/97 NAFTA–1,477 Electronic connectors.Activewear Co. ............................................ Athens, GA .............. 02/10/97 NAFTA–1,478 Ladies garments.General Motors ........................................... Goleta, GA ............... 02/10/97 NAFTA–1,479 Electronics.CMI Industries ............................................. El Paso, TX ............. 02/17/97 NAFTA–1,480 Womens’ blazers, pants, and shirts.Crewe Garment ........................................... Crewe, VA ............... 02/10/97 NAFTA–1,481 Clothing.Singer Furniture .......................................... Lenoir, NC ............... 02/07/97 NAFTA–1,482 Bedroom and dining room furniture.Alsea Veneer .............................................. New Port, OR .......... 02/06/97 NAFTA–1,483 Green and dry veneers.Trulife .......................................................... Jackson, MT ............ 02/04/97 NAFTA–1,484 Orthopedic products.Norco Jald Wan .......................................... Marenisco, MI .......... 02/10/97 NAFTA–1,485 Wood patio doors.Burwood Products Co. ................................ Traverse City, MI ..... 02/07/97 NAFTA–1,486 Clocks and wall decor.Earthgrains Merico ...................................... Clayton, MO ............ 02/11/97 NAFTA–1,487 Refrigerated dough products.Gruen Marketing ......................................... Exeter, PA ............... 02/12/97 NAFTA–1,488 Watches.Allied Signal Laminate Systems ................. Lacrosse, WI ........... 02/09/97 NAFTA–1,489 Electronic.National Sportwear ..................................... Chicago, IL .............. 02/12/97 NAFTA–1,490 Sportswear.Diesel Recon ............................................... Charleston, SC ........ 02/03/97 NAFTA–1,491 Diesel engines.Juki Union Special ...................................... Wayne, NJ ............... 02/05/97 NAFTA–1,492 Sewing equipment.John H. Harland .......................................... Centralia, WA .......... 02/06/97 NAFTA–1,493 Printing of personal checks.Springfield Group ........................................ Eugene, OR ............. 02/12/97 NAFTA–1,494 Green dried neneer.Osh Kosh B’Gosh ....................................... Oshkosh, WI ............ 02/17/97 NAFTA–1,495 Men’s workwear clothing,Square D Company .................................... Clearwater, FL ......... 02/17/97 NAFTA–1,496 Low voltage transformers.Lorraine Linens ........................................... Hialeah Garden, FL 02/17/97 NAFTA–1,497 Linens.Willamette Industries ................................... Sweet Home, OR .... 02/13/97 NAFTA–1,498 Plywood.Hafer Logging ............................................. LaGrands, OR ......... 02/13/97 NAFTA–1,499 Log.Binney and Smith ........................................ Winfield, KS ............. 02/14/97 NAFTA–1,500 Crayon and markers.Coltec .......................................................... Roscoe, TX .............. 02/07/97 NAFTA–1,501 Electronics.Merchants Fast Motor Lines ....................... Odessa, TX ............. 02/18/97 NAFTA–1,502 Common carrier.SCA Molnlycke ............................................ Palmer, Mk .............. 02/18/97 NAFTA–1,503 Adult diapers and underpads.Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company ........ Gadsden, AL ........... 02/18/97 NAFTA–1,504 Tires.Starter Sportswear ...................................... Century, FL .............. 02/19/97 NAFTA–1,505 Outerwear and sweatsuit.Kaufman Footwear ...................................... Batavia, NY ............. 02/14/97 NAFTA–1,506 Leather boots.Fibrex Company .......................................... North Aurora, IL ....... 02/19/97 NAFTA–1,507 Pipes construction.


APPENDIX—Continued

Subject firm Location

Date re-ceived at

Governor’soffice

Petition No. Articles produced

Belden Wire and Gable .............................. Apple Creek, OH ..... 02/21/97 NAFTA–1,508 Wire.Allen—Bradle Co, ....................................... Mauston, WI ............ 02/19/97 NAFTA–1,509 Printed electronic circuit boards.Square D ..................................................... Milwaukee, WI ......... 02/19/97 NAFTA–1,510 Low voltage transformers and switchgear.Sunbeam ..................................................... McMinnville, TN ....... 02/12/97 NAFTA–1,511 Human and animal hair clippers.D and R Cedar Products ............................ Forks, WA ................ 02/19/97 NAFTA–1,512 Cedar, shakes, and shingles.Posey .......................................................... Hoquiam, WA .......... 02/19/97 NAFTA–1,513 Piano sound boards.Mitsubishi Consumer Electronics America Santa Ana, CA ........ 02/14/97 NAFTA–1,514 Projection televisions.Standard Products Company ...................... Schenectady, NY ..... 02/20/97 NAFTA–1,515 Automotive body side molding.Niagara Mohawk Power .............................. West Syracuse, NY 02/20/97 NAFTA–1,516 Electricity.Cabano Kingsway Transport ...................... Buffalo, NY .............. 02/21/97 NAFTA–1,517 Transportation.Boise Cascade Corp. .................................. Port, OR .................. 02/24/97 NAFTA–1,518 Pulp and paper, timber.Garland US Range ..................................... Freeland, PA ........... 02/21/97 NAFTA–1,519 Parts and service for cooking equipment.Hutchens Industrial ..................................... Mount Crovo, MO .... 02/19/97 NAFTA–1,520 Exercise equipment.Merchants Fast Motor Lines ....................... Abilene, TX .............. 02/21/97 NAFTA–1,521 Transportation of freight.Thompson Consumer Electronics ............... Syracuse, NY .......... 02/25/97 NAFTA–1,522 Televisions.Saul’s Bros of Atlanta ................................. Gillsville, GA ............ 02/24/97 NAFTA–1,523 Ladies pants.Schindler Elevator ....................................... Randolph, NJ ........... 02/21/97 NAFTA–1,524 Elevator guide rails.Burlington Industries ................................... Greensboro, NC ...... 02/26/97 NAFTA–1,525 Knit fabrics.Kings Creek ................................................ Ferguson, NC .......... 02/26/97 NAFTA–1,526 Ladies clothing.Elk Spinners ................................................ Hope Mills, NC ........ 02/26/97 NAFTA–1,527 Yarn.American West Trading .............................. Dresden, TN ............ 02/26/97 NAFTA–1,528 Men’s women’s and children’s boots.Meyers and Son .......................................... Madison, IN ............. 02/26/97 NAFTA–1,529 Men’s coveralls.Stride Rite ................................................... Hamilton, MO .......... 02/27/97 NAFTA–1,530 Children’s shoes.Johnson Controls ........................................ Ann Arbor, MI .......... 02/24/97 NAFTA–1,531 Seat tracks.Tecumseh Metal ......................................... Grand Rapids, MI .... 02/24/97 NAFTA–1,532 Metal stampings.D.D. Jones Warehouse and Transfer ......... Harrisburg, PA ......... 02/28/97 NAFTA–1,533 Satellite rebuilding.SPX Corporation ......................................... Dowagiac, MI ........... 02/28/97 NAFTA–1,534 Roske booster housing.Jefferson Smurfit ......................................... Monroe, MI .............. 02/25/97 NAFTA–1,535 Industrial packaging.


[NAFTA–01448]

R & S Dress Mfg. CompanyShippensburg, Pennsylvania;Amended Certification RegardingEligibility To Apply for NAFTATransitional Adjustment Assistance

In accordance with Section 250(a),Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title II, of theTrade Act of 1974, as amended (19 USC2273), the Department of Labor issued aCertification of Eligibility to Apply forNAFTA Transitional AdjustmentAssistance on February 7, 1997,applicable to all workers of R & S DressMfg. Company located in Shippensburg,Pennsylvania. The notice will soon bepublished in the Federal Register.

At the request of the State agency, theDepartment reviewed the certificationfor workers of the subject firm. Newfindings show that the Departmentincorrectly set the impact date atJanuary 23, 1995. The Department isamending the certification for workersof the subject firm to set the impact dateat January 23, 1996, one year prior to thedate of the petition.

The amended notice applicable toNAFTA—01448 is hereby issued asfollows:

All workers of R & S Dress Mfg. Companyin Shippensburg, Pennsylvania, who becametotally or partially separated fromemployment on or after January 23, 1996 areeligible to apply for NAFTA–TAA underSection 250 of the Trade Act of 1974.

Signed at Washington, D.C. this 20th dayof February 1997.Russell T. Kile,Program Manager, Policy and ReemploymentServices, Office of Trade AdjustmentAssistance.[FR Doc. 97–6815 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

[NAFTA–001391]

Van Leer Containers, IncorporatedChicago, Illinois; Notice of Terminationof Investigation

Pursuant to Title V of the NorthAmerican Free Trade AgreementImplementation Act (P. L. 103–182)concerning transitional adjustmentassistance, hereinafter called (NAFTA–TAA), and in accordance with Section250(a), Subchapter D, chapter 2, Title II,of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended(19 USC 2273), an investigation wasinitiated on December 19, 1996 inresponse to a petition filed on behalf ofworkers at Van Leer Containers,Incorporated, located in Chicago,Illinois.

The petitioner has requested that thepetition be withdrawn. Consequently,further investigation in this case wouldserve no purpose, and the investigationhas been terminated.

Signed at Washington, D.C., this 4th day ofMarch 1997Russell T. Kile,Program Manager, Policy and ReemploymentServices, Office of Trade AdjustmentAssistance.[FR Doc. 97–6816 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

Pension and Welfare BenefitsAdministration

Working Group Studying EmployerAssets in ERISA Employer-SponsoredPlans, Advisory Council on EmployeeWelfare and Pension Benefits Plans;Notice of Meeting

Pursuant to the authority contained inSection 512 of the Employee RetirementIncome Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29U.S.C. 1142, a public meeting will beheld on April 9, 1997 of the AdvisoryCouncil on Employee Welfare andPension Benefit Plans’ new WorkingGroup set to study Employer Assets inERISA Employer-Sponsored Plans.

The purpose of the open meeting,which will run from 9:30 a.m. to


approximately noon in Room N–5437A&B, U.S. Department of LaborBuilding, Second and ConstitutionAvenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20210,is for Working Group members toestablish the agenda and course of studyfor the upcoming Council year on thetopic of employer assets in ERISAemployer-sponsored plans.

Members of the public are encouragedto file a written statement pertaining toany topic concerning ERISA bysubmitting 20 copies on or before April1, 1997, to Sharon Morrissey, ExecutiveSecretary, ERISA Advisory Council,U.S. Department of Labor, Room N–5677, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW,Washington, D.C. 20210. Individuals orrepresentatives of organizations wishingto address the Working Group onEmployer Assets in ERISA Employer-Sponsored Plans should forward theirrequest to the Executive Secretary ortelephone (202) 219–8753. Oralpresentations will be limited to 10minutes, but an extended statement maybe submitted for the record. Individualswith disabilities, who need specialaccommodations, should contact SharonMorrissey by April 1, 1997, at theaddress indicated in this notice.

Organizations or individuals may alsosubmit statements for the recordwithout testifying. Twenty (20) copies ofsuch statements should be sent to theExecutive Secretary of the AdvisoryCouncil at the above address. Paperswill be accepted and included in therecord of the meeting if received on orbefore April 1.

Signed at Washington, D.C. this 12th dayof March, 1997.Olena Berg,Assistant Secretary, Pension and WelfareBenefits Administration.[FR Doc. 97–6808 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4510–29–M

Working Group on Studying the Meritsof Defined Contribution vs. DefinedBenefit Plans, Advisory Council onEmployee Welfare and PensionBenefits Plans; Notice of Meeting

Pursuant to the authority contained inSection 512 of the Employee RetirementIncome Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29U.S.C. 1142, the Advisory Council onEmployee Welfare and Pension BenefitPlans’ new Working Group beingestablished to Study the Merits ofDefined Contributions vs. DefinedBenefit Plans With an Emphasis onSmall Business Concerns will hold apublic meeting on April 8, 1997 inRoom N–5437 A&B, U.S. Department ofLabor Building, Second and

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,D.C. 20210.

The purpose of the open meeting,which will run from 9:30 a.m. toapproximately noon, is for WorkingGroup members to begin organizing thecourse of study for the year and, it ishoped, even to begin taking testimonyon the topic.

Members of the public are encouragedto file a written statement pertaining toany topic concerning ERISA bysubmitting 20 copies on or before April1, 1997, to Sharon Morrissey, ExecutiveSecretary, ERISA Advisory Council,U.S. Department of Labor, Room N–5677, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW,Washington, D.C. 20210. Individuals orrepresentatives of organizations wishingto address the Working Group onStudying the Merits of DefinedContribution vs. Defined ContributionPlans With an Emphasis on SmallBusiness Concerns should forward theirrequest to the Executive Secretary ortelephone (202) 219–8753. Oralpresentations will be limited to 10minutes, but an extended statement maybe submitted for the record. Individualswith disabilities, who need specialaccommodations, should contact SharonMorrissey by April 1, at the addressindicated in this notice.

Organizations or individuals may alsosubmit statements for the recordwithout testifying. Twenty (20) copies ofsuch statements should be sent to theExecutive Secretary of the AdvisoryCouncil at the above address. Paperswill be accepted and included in therecord of the meeting if received on orbefore April 1.

Signed at Washington, D.C. this 12th dayof March, 1997.Olena Berg,Assistant Secretary, Pension and WelfareBenefits Administration.[FR Doc. 97–6809 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4510–29–M

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDSADMINISTRATION

National Historical Publications andRecords Commission; NationalHistorical Publications and RecordsCommission Strategic Plan; Requestfor Comments

AGENCY: National HistoricalPublications and Records Commission,National Archives and RecordsAdministration.ACTION: Request for comment.

SUMMARY: The National HistoricalPublications and Records Commission(NHPRC), a grant-making affiliate of the

National Archives and RecordsAdministration, asks the variousconstituencies it serves to address aseries of questions on the present andfuture status of the NHPRC’s role. Thecontext for this invitation is theNHPRC’s decision to review thestrategic plan voted upon in November1996.DATES: Comments should be received byMay 1, 1997, to ensure consideration bythe Commission.ADDRESSES: Requests for packets ofbackground information described inthe Supplementary Information sectionof this notice may be obtained by callingNHPRC at (202) 501–5600 or by writingto NHPRC, 700 Pennsylvania Avenue,Room 607, Washington, DC 20408.Comments may be sent to the sameaddress, or by fax to (202) 501–5601, orby e-mail to [email protected] FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Gerald George, Executive Director,NHPRC, at 202–501–5600.


In thinking about the past, present,and future of the NHPRC, we ask you tospeak to the following issues:

(a) How should the legislative historyof the NHPRC affect decisions on howthe Commission allocates its resources?

(b) How effectively have past NHPRCallocations met the statutory objectivesof the Commission?

(c) What public benefits should theCommission seek to achieve in thecontext of entering a new century, withchanging circumstances in technology,user expectations, and scholarlycommunication?

(d) What is an appropriate way for theNHPRC to determine, in principle, howits funds should be allocated?

(e) What are the implications of thenew strategic plan for the NHPRC’sability to achieve its statutoryobjectives?

The NHPRC requests responses tothese questions by May 1, 1997, so thatmembers of the Commission may reviewthe responses prior to the next NHPRCmeeting in June 1997. Organizationsinterested in responding are asked torequest from the NHPRC a packet ofbackground information consisting offive items: (1) A copy of the strategicplan voted upon in November 1996; (2)a chart comparing past authorizationsand appropriations of NHPRC grantfunds; (3) a chart showing pastallocations of NHPRC grant funds indollars and in percentages; (4) copies ofall NHPRC statutes containingCongressional mandates; and (5) themost recent House and Senate reportson NHPRC reauthorization legislation.


Dated: March 12, 1997.Lewis J. Bellardo,Deputy Archivist of the United States.[FR Doc. 97–6720 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 7515–01–P

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Advisory Committee for Education andHuman Resources; Meeting

In accordance with the FederalAdvisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, as amended), the National ScienceFoundation announces the followingmeeting.

Name: Advisory Committee for Educationand Human Resources (#1119).

Date & Time: April 2, 1997, 10:15 am–5pm; April 3, 1997, 8 am–5 pm

Place: Arlington Hilton Hotel, 950 N.Stafford Street, Arlington, VA 22203.

Type of meeting: Open.Contact Persons: Peter E. Yankwich,

Executive Secretary, Directorate forEducation and Human Resources, Room 835,National Science Foundation, 4201 WilsonBlvd., Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703)306–1670.

Summary Minutes: May be obtained fromcontact listed above.

Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice andrecommendations concerning NSF supportfor Education and Human Resources.

Agenda: Review of FY 1997 Programs andInitiative Strategic Planning for FY 1998 andBeyond.

Dated: March 13, 1997.Linda Allen-Benton,Deputy Director, Division of Human ResourceManagement, Acting Committee ManagementOfficer.[FR Doc. 97–6801 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 7555–01–M

Real and Harmonic Analysis Panel inMathematical Sciences; Meeting

In accordance with the FederalAdvisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, as amended), the National ScienceFoundation announces the followingmeeting.

Name and Committee Code: Real andHarmonic Analysis in Math Sciences (1204).

Date and Time: April 7–9, 1997; 8:30 a.m.until 5 p.m.

Place: Room 1060, National ScienceFoundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard,Arlington, VA 22230.

Type of Meeting: Closed.Contact Person: Dr. Juan Manfredi,

Program Director, National ScienceFoundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard,Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 306–1870.

Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice andrecommendations concerning proposalssubmitted to NSF for financial support.

Agenda: To review and evaluate theAnalysis Program nominations/applicationsas part of the selection process for awards.

Reason for Closing: The proposals beingreviewed include information of aproprietary or confidential nature, includingtechnical information; financial data, such assalaries and personal information concerningindividuals associated with the proposals.These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C.552b(c) (4) and (6) of the Government in theSunshine Act.


Special Emphasis Panel inUndergraduate Education; Notice ofMeeting

In accordance with the FederalAdvisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, as amended), the National ScienceFoundation announces the followingmeeting:

Name: Special Emphasis Panel inUndergraduate Education (1214).

Date and Time: April 6th, 1997 (7:30 p.m.to 9 p.m.), April 7th, 1997 (8 a.m. to 5 p.m.)and April 8th, 1997 (8 a.m. to 12 Noon).

Place: Room 310 & 320, NSF, 4201 WilsonBoulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.

Type of Meeting: Closed.Contact Person: Dr. Terry Woodin, Program

Director, Division of UndergraduateEducation (DUE), Room 835, NationalScience Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd.,Arlington, VA 22230, Tel: (703) 306–1666.

Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice andrecommendations concerning continuedfunding of current projects in their third year.

Agenda: A reverse site panel meeting toreview and evaluate third year projects in theNSF Collaborative for Excellence in TeacherPreparation.

Reason for Closing: The proposals beingreviewed includes information of aproprietary or confidential nature, includingtechnical information, financial data, such assalaries; and personal informationconcerning individuals associated with theproposals. These matters are withinexemptions (4) and (6) of 5 U.S.C. 552b(c),the Government in the Sunshine Act.


NATIONAL TRANSPORTATIONSAFETY BOARD


TIME: 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, March 25,1997.PLACE: The Board Room, 5th Floor, 490L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC20594.STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE DISCUSSED:

6674A Railroad Accident Report: NearHead-On Collision and Derailmentof Two New Jersey TransitCommuter Trains in Secaucus, NewJersey, February 9, 1996.

NEWS MEDIA CONTACT: Telephone: (202)314–6100.FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: BeaHardesty, (202) 314–6065.

Dated: March 14, 1997.Bea Hardesty,Federal Register Liaison Officer.[FR Doc. 97–6905 Filed 3–14–97; 2:26 pm]BILLING CODE 7533–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION


In the Matter of Entergy Operations,Inc. (Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1);Exemption

I

Entergy Operations, Inc. (the licensee)is the holder of Facility OperatingLicense No. DPR–51, which authorizesoperation of Arkansas Nuclear One,Unit 1. The license provides, amongother things, that the licensee is subjectto all rules, regulations, and orders ofthe Commission now or hereafter ineffect.

The facility consists of twopressurized water reactors, ArkansasNuclear One, Units 1 and 2, located atthe licensee’s site in Pope County,Arkansas.

II

In its letter dated November 26, 1996,the licensee requested an exemptionfrom the Commission’s regulations forArkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1. Title 10of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part50, Section 60 (10 CFR 50.60),‘‘Acceptance Criteria for FracturePrevention Measures for LightwaterNuclear Power Reactors for NormalOperation,’’ states that all lightwaternuclear power reactors must meet thefracture toughness and materialsurveillance program requirements for


the reactor coolant pressure boundary asset forth in Appendices G and H to 10CFR Part 50. Appendix G to 10 CFR Part50 defines pressure/temperature (P/T)limits during any condition of normaloperation, including anticipatedoperational occurrences and systemhydrostatic tests to which the pressureboundary may be subjected over itsservice lifetime. It is specified in 10 CFR50.60(b) that alternatives to thedescribed requirements in AppendicesG and H to 10 CFR Part 50 may be usedwhen an exemption is granted by theCommission under 10 CFR 50.12.

The licensee relies on the electromaticrelief valve (ERV) to provide lowtemperature overpressure protection(LTOP). The ERV is mounted on thepressurizer and helps to controlpressure transients during poweroperations. However, when the reactoris heating up or cooling down and theprimary system pressure andtemperature are reduced, the ERV isreset to the LTOP mode. In the LTOPmode the setpoint to open the ERV islow enough to prevent pressuretransients from exceeding applicable P/T limits. Some margin should bemaintained between the primary systempressure and the LTOP setpoint toprevent the ERV from lifting as a resultof normal operating pressure surges.

The licensee has requested the use ofthe American Society of MechanicalEngineers (ASME) Boiler and PressureVessel Code (Code) Case N–514, ‘‘LowTemperature Overpressure Protection,’’which allows exceeding the Appendix Gsafety limits by 10 percent. ASME CodeCase N–514, the proposed alternatemethodology, is consistent withguidelines developed by the ASMEWorking Group on Operating PlantCriteria to define pressure limits duringLTOP events that avoid certainunnecessary operational restrictions,provide adequate margins against failureof the reactor pressure vessel, andreduce the potential for unnecessaryactivation of pressure-relieving devicesused for LTOP. Code Case N–514 hasbeen approved by the ASME CodeCommittee. The content of this codecase has been incorporated intoAppendix G of Section XI of the ASMECode and published in the 1993Addenda to Section XI.

IIIPursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the

Commission may, upon application byany interested person or upon its owninitiative, grant exemptions from therequirements of 10 CFR Part 50 (1) whenthe exemptions are authorized by law,will not present an undue risk to publichealth or safety, and are consistent with

the common defense and security; and(2) when special circumstances arepresent. Special circumstances arepresent whenever, according to 10 CFR50.12(a)(2)(ii), ‘‘Application of theregulation in the particularcircumstances would not serve theunderlying purpose of the rule or is notnecessary to achieve the underlyingpurpose of the rule. * * *’’

The underlying purpose of 10 CFR50.60, Appendix G, is to establishfracture toughness requirements forferritic materials of pressure-retainingcomponents of the reactor coolantpressure boundary to provide adequatemargins of safety during any conditionof normal operation, includinganticipated operational occurrences, towhich the pressure boundary may besubjected over its service lifetime.Section IV.A.2 of this appendix requiresthat the reactor vessel be operated withP/T limits at least as conservative asthose obtained by following themethods of analysis and the requiredmargins of safety of Appendix G of theASME Code.

Appendix G of the ASME Coderequires that the P/T limits becalculated: (a) Using a safety factor oftwo on the principal membrane(pressure) stresses, (b) assuming a flawat the surface with a depth of one-quarter (1/4) of the vessel wall thicknessand a length of six (6) times its depth,and (c) using a conservative fracturetoughness curve that is based on thelower bound of static, dynamic, andcrack arrest fracture toughness tests onmaterial similar to the ANO–1 reactorvessel material.

In determining the setpoint for LTOPevents, the licensee proposed to usesafety margins based on an alternatemethodology consistent with the ASMECode Case N–514 guidelines. The ASMECode Case N–514 allows determinationof the setpoint for LTOP events suchthat the maximum pressure in the vesselwould not exceed 110 percent of the P/T limits of the existing ASME AppendixG. This results in a safety factor of 1.8on the principal membrane stresses. Allother factors, including assumed flawsize and fracture toughness, remain thesame. Although this methodologywould reduce the safety factor on theprincipal membrane stresses, theproposed criteria will provide adequatemargins of safety to the reactor vesselduring LTOP transients and, thus, willsatisfy the underlying purpose of 10CFR 50.60 for fracture toughnessrequirements. Further, by relieving theoperational restrictions, the potential forundesirable lifting of the ERV would bereduced, thereby improving plant safety.

IVFor the foregoing reasons, the NRC

staff has concluded that the licensee’sproposed use of the alternatemethodology in determining theacceptable setpoint for LTOP events willnot present an undue risk to publichealth and safety and is consistent withthe common defense and security. TheNRC staff has determined that there arespecial circumstances present, asspecified in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2), in thatapplication of 10 CFR 50.60 is notnecessary in order to achieve theunderlying purpose of this regulation.

Accordingly, the Commission hasdetermined that, pursuant to 10 CFR50.12(a), an exemption is authorized bylaw, will not endanger life or propertyor common defense and security, and is,otherwise, in the public interest.Therefore, the Commission herebygrants an exemption from therequirements of 10 CFR 50.60 such thatin determining the setpoint for LTOPevents, the Appendix G curves for P/Tlimits are not exceeded by more than 10percent in order to be in compliancewith these regulations. This exemptionis applicable only to LTOP conditionsduring normal operation.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, theCommission has determined that thegranting of this exemption will not havea significant effect on the quality of thehuman environment (62 FR 11482).

This exemption is effective uponissuance.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th dayof March 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Samuel J. Collins,Director, Office of Nuclear ReactorRegulation.[FR Doc. 97–6756 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 7590–01–P


Susquehanna Steam Electric Station,Unit 2; Notice of Consideration ofIssuance of Amendment to FacilityOperating License and Opportunity fora Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (the Commission) isconsidering issuance of an amendmentto Facility Operating License No. NPF–22, issued to Pennsylvania Power &Light Company (the licensee), foroperation of the

Susquehanna Steam Electric Station,Unit 2, located in Luzerne County, PA.

The proposed amendment wouldmake the following changes to theTechnical Specifications for the plant toreflect the initiation of a 24-month fuel


cycle and the use of the Atrium-10 fueldesign: (1) Inclusion of core flowdependent minimum critical powerratio (MCPR) Safety Limits in Sections2.1.2 and 3.4.1.1.2, (2) inclusion ofSiemens Power Corporation (SPCmethodology topical reports in Section6.9.3.2, changes to Section 5.3.1 toreflect new fuel design features, and (3)changes to definitions in Section 1 toreflect the new fuel design.

A notice of consideration of issuanceof amendment with a proposed nosignificant hazards considerationdetermination was published in theFederal Register on January 15, 1997(62 FR 2193). This notice supersedes theJanuary 15, 1997, notice.

Before issuance of the proposedlicense amendment, the Commissionwill have made findings required by theAtomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended(the Act) and the Commission’sregulations.

By April 17, 1997, the licensee mayfile a request for a hearing with respectto issuance of the amendment to thesubject facility operating license andany person whose interest may beaffected by this proceeding and whowishes to participate as a party in theproceeding must file a written requestfor a hearing and a petition for leave tointervene. Requests for a hearing and apetition for leave to intervene shall befiled in accordance with theCommission’s ‘‘Rules of Practice forDomestic Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10CFR Part 2. Interested persons shouldconsult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714which is available at the Commission’sPublic Document Room, the GelmanBuilding, 2120 L Street, NW.,Washington, DC, and at the local publicdocument room located at the OsterhoutFree Library, Reference Department, 71South Franklin Street, Wilkes-Barre, PA18701. If a request for a hearing orpetition for leave to intervene is filed bythe above date, the Commission or anAtomic Safety and Licensing Board,designated by the Commission or by theChairman of the Atomic Safety andLicensing Board Panel, will rule on therequest and/or petition; and theSecretary or the designated AtomicSafety and Licensing Board will issue anotice of hearing or an appropriateorder.

As required by 10 CFR 2.714, apetition for leave to intervene shall setforth with particularity the interest ofthe petitioner in the proceeding, andhow that interest may be affected by theresults of the proceeding. The petitionshould specifically explain the reasonswhy intervention should be permittedwith particular reference to thefollowing factors: (1) The nature of the

petitioner’s right under the Act to bemade a party to the proceeding; (2) thenature and extent of the petitioner’sproperty, financial, or other interest inthe proceeding; and (3) the possibleeffect of any order which may beentered in the proceeding on thepetitioner’s interest. The petition shouldalso identify the specific aspect(s) of thesubject matter of the proceeding as towhich petitioner wishes to intervene.Any person who has filed a petition forleave to intervene or who has beenadmitted as a party may amend thepetition without requesting leave of theBoard up to 15 days prior to the firstprehearing conference scheduled in theproceeding, but such an amendedpetition must satisfy the specificityrequirements described above.

Not later than 15 days prior to the firstprehearing conference scheduled in theproceeding, a petitioner shall file asupplement to the petition to intervenewhich must include a list of thecontentions which are sought to belitigated in the matter. Each contentionmust consist of a specific statement ofthe issue of law or fact to be raised orcontroverted. In addition, the petitionershall provide a brief explanation of thebases of the contention and a concisestatement of the alleged facts or expertopinion which support the contentionand on which the petitioner intends torely in proving the contention at thehearing. The petitioner must alsoprovide references to those specificsources and documents of which thepetitioner is aware and on which thepetitioner intends to rely to establishthose facts or expert opinion. Petitionermust provide sufficient information toshow that a genuine dispute exists withthe applicant on a material issue of lawor fact. Contentions shall be limited tomatters within the scope of theamendment under consideration. Thecontention must be one which, ifproven, would entitle the petitioner torelief. A petitioner who fails to file sucha supplement which satisfies theserequirements with respect to at least onecontention will not be permitted toparticipate as a party.

Those permitted to intervene becomeparties to the proceeding, subject to anylimitations in the order granting leave tointervene, and have the opportunity toparticipate fully in the conduct of thehearing, including the opportunity topresent evidence and cross-examinewitnesses.

A request for a hearing or a petitionfor leave to intervene must be filed withthe Secretary of the Commission, U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission,Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention:Docketing and Services Branch, or may

be delivered to the Commission’s PublicDocument Room, the Gelman Building,2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, bythe above date. Where petitions are filedduring the last 10 days of the noticeperiod, it is requested that the petitionerpromptly so inform the Commission bya toll-free telephone call to WesternUnion at 1–(800) 248–5100 (in Missouri1–(800) 342–6700). The Western Unionoperator should be given DatagramIdentification Number N1023 and thefollowing message addressed to John F.Stolz, Director, Project Directorate I–2:petitioner’s name and telephonenumber; date petition was mailed; plantname; and publication date and pagenumber of this Federal Register notice.A copy of the petition should also besent to the Office of the GeneralCounsel, U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, Washington, DC 20555–0001, and to Jay Silberg, Esquire, Shaw,Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge, 2300 NStreet NW., Washington, DC 20037,attorney for the licensee.

Nontimely filings of petitions forleave to intervene, amended petitions,supplemental petitions and/or requestsfor hearing will not be entertainedabsent a determination by theCommission, the presiding officer or thepresiding Atomic Safety and LicensingBoard that the petition and/or requestshould be granted based upon abalancing of the factors specified in 10CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)–(v) and 2.714(d).

If a request for a hearing is received,the Commission’s staff may issue theamendment after it completes itstechnical review and prior to thecompletion of any required hearing if itpublishes a further notice for publiccomment of its proposed finding of nosignificant hazards consideration inaccordance with 10 CFR 50.91 and50.92.

For further details with respect to thisaction, see the application foramendment dated December 18, 1996,as supplemented March 12, 1997, whichare available for public inspection at theCommission’s Public Document Room,the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street,NW., Washington, DC, and at the localpublic document room located at theOsterhout Free Library, ReferenceDepartment, 71 South Franklin Street,Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th dayof March 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Donald S. Brinkman,Acting Director, Project Directorate I–2,Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office ofNuclear Reactor Regulation.[FR Doc. 97–6757 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 7590–01–P



DATE: Weeks of March 17, 24, 31, andApril 7, 1997.PLACE: Commissioners’ ConferenceRoom, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,Maryland.STATUS: Public and Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Week of March 17There are no meetings scheduled for

the Week of March 17.

Week of March 24—Tentative

Tuesday, March 2510:00 a.m. Briefing on High-Burnup

Fuel Issues (PUBLIC MEETING)(Contact: Ralph O. Meyer, 301–415–6789)

11:30 a.m. Affirmation Session(PUBLIC MEETING) (if needed)

Week of March 31—Tentative

Monday, March 3111:30 a.m. Affirmation Session

(PUBLIC MEETING) (if needed)2:00 p.m. Classified Security Briefing

(Closed—Ex. 1)2:30 p.m. Meeting with DOE on

External Regulation of DOEFacilities (PUBLIC MEETING)

Week of April 7—Tentative

Wednesday, April 911:30 a.m. Affirmation Session

(PUBLIC MEETING) (if needed)Note: The schedule for commission

meetings is subject to change on short notice.To verify the status of meetings call(recording)—(301) 415–1292. Contact personfor more information: Bill Hill (301) 415–1661.

The NRC Commission MeetingSchedule can be found on the Internetat: http://www.nrc.gov/SECY/smj/schedule.htm.

This notice is distributed by mail toseveral hundred subscribers; if you nolonger wish to receive it, or would liketo be added to it, please contact theOffice of the Secretary, Attn: OperationsBranch, Washington, DC 20555 (301–415–1661).

In addition, distribution of thismeeting notice over the internet systemis available. If you are interested inreceiving this Commission meetingschedule electronically, please send anelectronic message to [email protected] [email protected].

Dated: March 14, 1997.William M. Hill, Jr.,SECY Tracking Officer, Office of theSecretary.[FR Doc. 97–6938 Filed 3–14–97; 2:26 pm]BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket 70–3091]

Notice of Availability of Memorandumof Understanding Between the NuclearRegulatory Commission and theDepartment of Energy Concerning theCooperation and Support forDemonstration Phase (Phase I) of DOEHanford Tank Waste RemediationSystem Privatization Activities

SUMMARY: On January 29, 1997, theNuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)and the Department of Energy (DOE)signed a Memorandum ofUnderstanding (MOU) to provide a basisfor cooperation and support during thedemonstration phase (Phase I) of theDOE Hanford Tank Waste RemediationSystem (TWRS) Privatization Activities.The MOU establishes a cooperativeprocess to support DOE in developing aregulatory program consistent with theNRC’s regulatory approach.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Amy L. Bryce, Special Projects Branch,Division of Fuel Cycle Safety andSafeguards, Office of Nuclear MaterialSafety and Safeguards, U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, Washington,DC 20555, (301) 415–5848.


Memorandum of UnderstandingBetween the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission and the Department ofEnergy

Cooperation and Support forDemonstration Phase (Phase I) of DOEHanford Tank Waste RemediationSystem Privatization Activities

I. PurposeThe purpose of this Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) between theNuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)and the Department of Energy (DOE) isto establish the basis for cooperationand mutual support during thedemonstration phase (defined as PhaseI) of DOE’s Tank Waste RemediationSystem (TWRS) Privatization activities.An objective of this DOE/NRCinteraction is the development andexecution of a comprehensive regulatoryprogram by DOE that is consistent withNRC’s regulatory approach forprotecting workers, the general public,and the environment. DOE’s regulatoryprogram is to be structured to facilitatethe possible transition of regulatoryresponsibilities from DOE to NRC at thestart of the full-scale operations phase(defined as Phase II). During Phase I,DOE is responsible for implementingthe TWRS Privatization regulatoryprogram. This MOU provides forcooperation and mutual support in anintegrated effort that provides for:

1. DOE to acquire capability toimplement a program of nuclear safetyand safeguards regulation consistentwith NRC’s regulatory approach.

2. NRC to acquire sufficientknowledge and understanding of thephysical and operational situation at theHanford waste tanks and the processes,technology and hazards involved inPhase I activities, to enable NRC (a) toassist DOE in performing reviews in amanner consistent with NRC’sregulatory approach and (b) to beprepared to develop an effective andefficient regulatory program for thelicensing of DOE contractor-owned andcontractor-operated facilities that willprocess waste at Hanford during PhaseII.

II. Introduction

A. Background

During 1991, the Department ofEnergy (DOE) established the TWRSProgram at the Hanford Site to manage,retrieve, treat, immobilize, and disposeof certain radioactive waste in a safe,environmentally-sound, and cost-effective manner. The requirements andcommitments for the TWRS cleanupactivities are documented in theHanford Federal Facilities Agreementand Consent Order, also known as theTri-Party Agreement (TPA). Under theTPA, DOE, the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA), and theWashington State Department ofEcology have agreed to a timetable forcleanup of the Hanford Site.

DOE, through the TWRS Program, ismaking a fundamental change in itscontracting approach at Hanford,utilizing privately-owned facilities onthe Hanford Site for processing wastewhich contains special nuclear material.This change in contracting approachalso necessitates a fundamental changein DOE’s approach to regulation andoversight.

To accomplish the TWRSrequirements, DOE plans to privatizetreatment operations for the Hanfordtank wastes. The TWRS Privatization isdivided into two phases, ademonstration phase (defined as PhaseI) and a full-scale operations phase(defined as Phase II). During bothphases, DOE will purchase wastetreatment services from a DOEcontractor-owned, contractor-operatedfacility under a fixed-price type ofcontract; DOE will provide the feedstockto be processed. The DOE TWRSPrivatization Contractor must financethe project; design the equipment andfacility; apply for and receive requiredpermits and licenses; construct thefacility and bring it on line; operate the


facility to treat waste; and deactivate thefacility.

DOE will undertake nuclear safetyand safeguards regulatory responsibilityassociated with the TWRS Privatizationactivities during Phase I. The EPA andthe State of Washington haveresponsibility to regulate environmentalissues and the Occupational Safety andHealth Administration hasresponsibility to regulate occupationalsafety. NRC’s participation during PhaseI will primarily be of a cooperativenature for the purposes of informationtransfer and assisting DOE in theestablishment of a regulatory programthat is consistent with NRC’s regulatoryapproach for protecting workers, thegeneral public, and the environment.

This MOU describes the relationshipbetween NRC and DOE for activitiesconducted during Phase I only. Therelationship between NRC, DOE, andthe DOE TWRS PrivatizationContractors during Phase II remains tobe clarified by legislation and/orregulatory requirements.

B. Phase Descriptions

Phase I

Phase I is a proof-of-concept/commercial demonstration-scale effort.The objectives of Phase I are to: (a)demonstrate the technical and businessviability of using privatized facilities totreat Hanford tank waste;(b) define andmaintain required levels of safety andsafeguards; (c) maintain environmentalprotection and compliance; and (d)substantially reduce life-cycle costs andtime required to treat Hanford tankwaste.

Phase II

Phase II will be the full-scaleproduction phase, in which the facilitiesare to be configured so that all theremaining tank waste can be processed.The objectives of Phase II are to (a)implement the lessons learned fromPhase I, and (b) process all tank wasteinto forms suitable for final disposal.The current DOE proposal is to haveNRC assume full regulatoryresponsibility (consistent with themanner in which NRC regulates itslicensees) for Phase II, although certainoperational, statutory, and regulatoryissues must be clarified before theproposed Phase II regulation by NRCcan be implemented. Current estimatesare that DOE procurement documentsand NRC regulatory requirements forPhase II would be needed by the year2004.

This MOU does not apply to Phase IIactivities.

III. Authority

A. Department of EnergySections 31, 91 and 161 of the Atomic

Energy Act of 1954, as amended;Section 104 of the EnergyReorganization Act of 1974; and,Section 301 of the DOE OrganizationAct authorize DOE to provide for thesafe storage, processing, transportationand disposal of hazardous waste,including radioactive waste, resultingfrom nuclear materials production andweapons production. In addition, withregard to activities under DOE’sjurisdiction, Section 161.i.(3) of theAtomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,permits DOE to prescribe suchregulations or orders as it may deemnecessary to govern DOE activitiesauthorized by the Atomic Energy Act of1954, as amended, including standardsand restrictions governing the design,location, and operation of facilities usedin the conduct of such activity, in orderto protect health and to minimizedanger to life or property.

B. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionSections 53, 57, 62, 63, 81, 103, 104,

and 161b, of the Atomic Energy Act of1954, as amended, and Section 201(f) ofthe Energy Reorganization Act of 1974authorize NRC to license and establishby rule, regulation, or order, standardsand instructions to govern thepossession and use of special nuclearmaterial, source material, or byproductmaterial to protect health or to minimizedanger to life or property, or to promotethe common defense and security. Thisagreement is entered into pursuant tothese and other applicable authorities,including the Economy Act of 1932, asamended.

IV. Foundation Understandings1. This MOU applies to Phase I only.2. DOE will regulate the DOE TWRS

Privatization Contractors during Phase Iunder the terms and conditions agreedupon by DOE and the DOE TWRSPrivatization Contractors, and will beresponsible for the regulatory oversightof all design, construction, operational,and event-response activities. NRC willhave no regulatory authority over theDOE TWRS Privatization Contractorsduring Phase I.

3. No regulatory action, process, orpractice established by DOE duringPhase I will be binding on NRC duringany possible NRC regulatory oversightof DOE TWRS Privatization Contractorsduring Phase II.

4. NRC’s regulatory approach is based(a) on reviewing the applicant’ssystematic and integrated identificationof potential accidents and interactions

resulting from radiological and relatedprocess chemical and fire hazards, and(b) on ensuring adequate protectionagainst those hazards which couldimpact on the safety of the worker, thegeneral public and the protection of theenvironment.

V. Agreements Between Parties

A. Responsibilities

Department of EnergyThe Manager, Richland Operations

Office, will be responsible forimplementing the terms of thisagreement. The TWRS RegulatoryOfficial, who reports to the Manager,Richland Operations Office, will be theDOE point of contact for allcommunications relating to carrying outthe provisions of this agreement.

Nuclear Regulatory CommissionThe Director of Nuclear Materials

Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) will beresponsible for implementing the termsof this agreement. The Chief of theresponsible Branch within NMSS willbe the NRC point of contact for allcommunications related to carrying outthe provisions of this agreement.

B. General Provisions1. At the foundation of the DOE

privatization approach is apredictability and reliability featureembedded in DOE’s contracts with theTWRS Privatization Contractors ‘‘namely contractual commitments forDOE regulatory actions within specifictime periods. Essential to timely andorderly DOE regulatory actions is theawareness by NRC of these contractualcommitments and the need for timelyinteraction between DOE and NRC at alllevels.

2. If an issue arises in theimplementation of this MOU whichcannot be resolved at the agency point-of-contact level, the NRC and DOE agreeto refer the matter within 30 days to theDirector, NMSS, and the Manager,Richland Operations Office, forappropriate action.

3. It is the intent of both parties toconduct the TWRS Regulatory Programin an open, public, and professionalmanner. NRC and DOE recognize theimportance of providing timely andaccurate information to the publicregarding regulatory matters that mayaffect the protection of workers, thegeneral public, and the environment.Meetings between NRC and DOE staff inconnection with this MOU will begoverned by NRC policy on openmeetings (59 FR48340; September 20,1994). NRC will participate with DOE inpublic meetings and other public


interactions, as appropriate. Alltransmittals between DOE and NRCregarding TWRS Privatization activitieswill be made publicly available,consistent with NRC and DOE policiesand requirements, at an establishedlocal public document room.

4. Each agency recognizes that it isresponsible for the protection, control,and accounting of classified,proprietary, and procurement-sensitiveinformation; Safeguards Information(SGI); and Unclassified ControlledNuclear Information (UCNI).

5. Each agency will be responsible forprocessing, under its establishedprogram(s), allegations—declarations orstatements or assertions of improprietyor inadequacy whose validity has notbeen established— associated with theregulated TWRS Privatization activitiescovered by this Memorandum ofUnderstanding. Each agency will keepthe other agency informed, asappropriate, of such allegations, theallegations’’ status, and the allegations’’resolution. Each agency will assure thatallegations are promptly referred to theagency or entity that has jurisdictionover the allegation.

6. In support of the DOE TWRSPrivatization activities, DOE willprovide private office space andequipment, if needed, for NRC in thevicinity of the TWRS Regulatory Unit inthe Richland, Washington area. DOEwill provide the NRC with ready accessto current TWRS regulatory information;access to key individuals in theRegulatory Unit for consistencydiscussions; access to TWRS generalinformation, tank farm status andoperational issues, and safetyperspectives; and access to Hanford Sitesafety perspectives.

C. Regulatory Interaction Activities

1. Site Familiarization

NRC will need to acquire knowledgeof the physical and operational situationfor the Hanford waste tanks and of theprocesses, technologies, and hazardsinvolved in processing the tank wastes.The following activities will beperformed to provide thisfamiliarization: a. NRC will visit theHanford Site, as necessary, to examinethe conditions of the tank farms as theymay relate to TWRS Privatization. Aspart of NRC’s orientation, DOE willprovide NRC information on:

• The physical conditions andoperational requirements necessary forsafe storage, retrieval, transfer, andprocessing of the tank waste,

Evaluations of the criticality potentialfor TWRS Privatization activities,

• Radiation levels of the waste andchemical forms of the waste,

• Contamination levels in the areas ofthe planned TWRS Privatizationfacilities and tanks,

• Hydrogen generation/flammable gassituation of tanks,

• Organic complexant/nitrateoxidizer situation of tanks,

• Other possible hazards associatedwith the waste,

• Available or planned wastemovement systems, and

• The Resource Conservation andRecovery Act (RCRA), ComprehensiveEnvironmental Response,Compensation, and Liability Act(CERCLA), and Atomic Energy Act of1954 for the TWRS.

b. DOE will provide NRC access to thetank farms, tank farm records anddocumentation, and other informationconcerning operational conditions andevents that NRC may desire in order tounderstand the TWRS Privatizationproject and associated hazards,processes, and conditions.

c. Upon request by NRC, DOE willbrief or hold discussions with NRC onissues related to the TWRS Privatizationeffort. The locations, timing, andcontent of these meetings will be agreedupon by the points of contact for eachagency.

d. NRC may occasionally conductreviews and special audits orinspections at DOE’s request to provideobjective perspective on selectedregulatory issues.

2. Regulatory FamiliarizationTo assist the DOE in establishing the

capability to regulate consistent withNRC concepts and principles, the NRCwill provide detailed briefings, guidancedocuments, and support in developingimportant administrative and technicalprogram elements of a regulatoryprogram. NRC will provide DOE accessto regulatory training provided by NRCto its staff on a space available basisand, with specific agreement, willprovide DOE opportunity to observeNRC’s regulatory activities.

3. Development of DOE TWRSRegulatory Program

DOE guidance specific to theregulation of DOE TWRS PrivatizationContractors will be prepared and issuedby DOE. The guidance is for use by theDOE’s TWRS Regulatory Unit in itsexecution of the regulatory reviews andresulting regulatory actions and isprovided as information to the DOETWRS Privatization Contractors for theirpreparation of regulatory submittals.The guidance will cover thosesubmittals required of the Contractors

by DOE such as the Quality Assurance(QA) program, essential set of safetystandards and requirements (includingthe site-specific design basis), integratedsafety management plan, safetyassessment, construction authorizationrequest, operating authorization request,operational reports and assessments,and deactivation authorization. DOEwill be responsible for issuing thisguidance in its final form.

The following activities will beperformed by NRC and DOE to developthe guidance:

a. NRC will provide DOE withestablished and evolving NRC guidanceand position documents as input forDOE to consider in the developmentand updating of its guidance for theDOE regulatory review. NRC will assistDOE in developing a DOE inspectionprogram that will be applied duringdesign, fabrication, construction (e.g.acceptable codes and standards forconcrete, electrical, welding, etc.),installation, and qualification testing.

b. DOE will develop guidance for thereview of Contractor submittals andDOE reviews of TWRS Privatizationactivities. NRC will review and providea basis for its comments on DOE’s draftguidance to identify areas that may notbe consistent with NRC’s regulatoryapproach.

c. NRC will participate, asappropriate, with DOE in the jointdevelopment of guidance, based onindustry standards, e.g., ANS/ANSI, forissuance by DOE as guidance for theDOE TWRS Privatization Program.

4. Regulatory Program ImplementationSpecific DOE regulatory activities are

planned: these include design basisreview, QA program evaluation,standards approval, initial safetyevaluation, construction authorizationand inspection, operating authorizationoversight, and deactivationauthorization. These actions will beginin FY 1997 and continue throughoutPhase I. The following activities will beperformed by DOE and NRC infulfillment of their respectiveresponsibilities under this MOU:

a. DOE will be responsible for safety(e.g. design basis) and safeguardsreviews and determining acceptabilityof DOE TWRS Privatization Contractors’submittals against the DOE TWRSguidance. DOE will have final decisionauthority for regulatory implementationduring Phase I and for all interactionswith the DOE TWRS PrivatizationContractors.

b. NRC will review and provide abasis for its comments on DOE TWRSPrivatization Contractors’ submittals toidentify any areas that are not consistent


with NRC’s regulatory approach. Thesesubmittals will include all documentswhich address the technical and qualitybasis for the TWRS facilities and whichcould affect nuclear and process safetyand safeguards in design, constructionand operation.

NRC will assist DOE in evaluatingsubmittals and in verifying effectiveimplementation of:

• Design—design basis, designverification, level of design detail anddocumentation, design specifications,calculations and drawings, andprocurement specifications,

• Quality assurance—for design,procurement, construction, pre-operational testing and operation,

• Operator training and qualification,• Human factors,• Emergency response.

VI. Other Provisions1. Nothing in this MOU will limit the

authority of either agency toindependently exercise its authoritywith regard to matters that are thesubject of this MOU.

2. Nothing in this MOU will bedeemed to establish any right norprovide a basis for any action, eitherlegal or equitable, by any person or classof persons challenging a governmentaction or a failure to act.

3. This MOU will be effective uponsignature and upon satisfaction ofconditions in Section VI.4 and willremain in effect until the end of PhaseI. This agreement may also beterminated by mutual agreement or bywritten notice of either party submittedsix months in advance of termination.Amendments or modifications to thisagreement may be made upon writtenagreement of the parties.

4. This MOU will become effective,and remain in effect during such timeperiods when Congress authorizes, andprovides appropriate funding (or whenthere is another acceptable form ofreimbursement) for NRC’s participationin this project.

5. Activities within the scope of thisMOU and within the scope ofappropriated resources are mutuallyagreed to be without reimbursement ofcost for either organization. Special

activities such as described in SectionsV.C.1.d and V.C.2 may be negotiated forcost reimbursement as needed.John Wagoner, Manager, Richland

Operations Office, Department ofEnergy

Carl Paperiello, Director, Office ofNuclear Materials Safety andSafeguards, U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommissionThis Memorandum of Understanding

was signed by the Manager of theDepartment of Energy’s RichlandOperations Office on January 15, 1997and the Director of the Office of NuclearMaterials Safety and Safeguards, U. S.Nuclear Rgulatory Commission onJanuary 29, 1997.

Dated at Rockvile, Maryland, this 7th dayof March 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Robert C. Pierson,Chief, Special Projects Branch, Division ofFuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, NMSS.[FR Doc. 97–6759 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT ANDBUDGET

Cumulative Report on Rescissions andDeferrals

March 1, 1997.This report is submitted in fulfillment

of the requirement of Section 1014(e) ofthe Congressional Budget andImpoundment Control Act of 1974 (Pub.L. 93–344). Section 1014(e) requires amonthly report listing all budgetauthority for the current fiscal year forwhich, as of the first day of the month,a special message had been transmittedto Congress.

This report gives the status, as ofMarch 1, 1997, of nine rescissionproposals and seven deferrals containedin two special messages for FY 1997.These messages were transmitted toCongress on December 4, 1996, and onFebruary 10, 1997.

Rescissions (Attachments A and C)As of March 1, 1997, nine rescission

proposals totaling $397 million had

been transmitted to the Congress.Attachment C shows the status of the FY1997 rescission proposals.

Deferrals (Attachments B and D)

As of March 1, 1997, $3,420 millionin budget authority was being deferredfrom obligation. Attachment D showsthe status of each deferral reportedduring FY 1997.

Information From Special Messages

The special messages containinginformation on the rescission proposalsand deferrals that are covered by thiscumulative report is printed in theeditions of the Federal Register citedbelow:

61 FR 66172, Monday, December 16,1996

62 FR 8045, Friday, February 21, 1997Franklin D. Raines,Director.

ATTACHMENT A.—STATUS OF FY 1997RESCISSIONS

[In millions of dollars]

Budgetaryresources

Rescissions proposed by thePresident ............................... $397.1

Rejected by the Congress ........Amounts rescinded ...................

Currently before the Con-gress .............................. 397.1

ATTACHMENT B.—STATUS OF FY 1997DEFERRALS

[In millions of dollars]

Budgetaryresources

Deferrals proposed by thePresident ............................... $3,544.3

Routine Executive releasesthrough March 1, 1997(OMB/Agency releases of$124.3 million.) ...................... ¥124.3

Overturned by the Congress ....

Currently before the Con-gress .............................. 3,420.0

ATTACHMENT C.—STATUS OF FY 1997 RESCISSION PROPOSALS—AS OF MARCH 1, 1997[Amounts in thousands of dollars]

Agency/Bureau/Account

Re-scis-sionnum-ber

Amounts pending beforeCongress

Date ofmessage

Pre-viously

withheldand

madeavailable

Datemade

available

Amountrescinded

Congres-sionalactionLess than

45 daysMore than45 days

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Foreign Agricultural Service:


ATTACHMENT C.—STATUS OF FY 1997 RESCISSION PROPOSALS—AS OF MARCH 1, 1997—Continued[Amounts in thousands of dollars]

Agency/Bureau/Account

Re-scis-sionnum-ber

Amounts pending beforeCongress

Date ofmessage

Pre-viously

withheldand

madeavailable

Datemade

available

Amountrescinded

Congres-sionalactionLess than

45 daysMore than45 days

P.L. 480 grants—Title I (OFD), II, and III R97–1 3,500 .................... 2–10–97P.L. 480 program account ....................... R97–2 46,500 .................... 2–10–97

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—MILITARY

Operation and Maintenance:Operation and maintenance, Defense-

wide.R97–4 10,000 .................... 2–10–97

Procurement:National Guard and Reserve equipment R97–5 62,000 .................... 2–10–97

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Energy Programs:Strategic petroleum reserve .................... R97–6 11,000 .................... 2–10–97

Power Marketing Administrations:Construction, rehabilitation, operation

and maintenance, Western AreaPower Administration.

R97–7 2,111 .................... 2–10–97

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBANDEVELOPMENT

Public and Indian Housing Programs:Annual contributions for assisted housing R97–8 1 250,000 .................... 2–10–97

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

General Administration:Working capital fund ................................ R97–9 6,400 .................... 2–10–97

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

General Activities:Expenses, Presidential transition ............ R97–

105,600 .................... 2–10–97 ................ ................

Total Rescissions ................................. 397,111 0 ................ 0 0

1 Funds never withheld from obligation.

ATTACHMENT D.—STATUS OF FY 1997 DEFERRALS—AS OF MARCH 1, 1997[Amounts in thousands of dollars]

Agency/Bureau/Account DeferralNo.

Amounts transmitted

Date ofmessage

Releases (¥)

Con-gres-sionalaction

Cumu-lative

adjust-ments

(+)

Amount de-ferred as of

3–1–97Original re-quest

Subse-quent

change(+)

Cumu-lativeOMB

agency

Con-gres-

sionallyre-

quired

FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THEPRESIDENT

International Security Assistance:Economic support fund and Inter-

national Fund for Ireland.D97–1 1,258,292 ............ 12–4–96 200 ............ ............ ............ 1,258,092

Foreign military financing program .. D97–2 1,412,375 ............ 12–4–96 ................ ............ ............ ............ 1,412,375Foreign military financing loan pro-

gram.D97–3 60,000 ............ 12–4–96 ................ ............ ............ ............ 60,000

Foreign military financing direct loanfinancing account.

D97–4 540,000 ............ 12–4–96 ................ ............ ............ ............ 540,000

Agency for International Development:International disaster assistance,

Executive.D97–5 147,800 ............ 12–4–96 71,090 ............ ............ ............ 76,710

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Other:United States emergency refugee

and migration assistance fund.D97–6 118,486 ............ 12–4–96 53,000 ............ ............ ............ 65,486


1 The underlined language in paragraph (a) treatsas if adopted the language changes alreadyproposed in file SR–NASD–96–38. File SR–NASD–96–38 has been published for comment inSecurities Exchange Act Release No. 37994(November 27, 1996), 61 FR 64549 (December 5,1996).

ATTACHMENT D.—STATUS OF FY 1997 DEFERRALS—AS OF MARCH 1, 1997—Continued[Amounts in thousands of dollars]

Agency/Bureau/Account DeferralNo.

Amounts transmitted

Date ofmessage

Releases (¥)

Con-gres-sionalaction

Cumu-lative

adjust-ments

(+)

Amount de-ferred as of

3–1–97Original re-quest

Subse-quent

change(+)

Cumu-lativeOMB

agency

Con-gres-

sionallyre-

quired

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Limitation on administrative ex-penses.

D97–7 7,365 ............ 12–4–96 ................ ............ ............ ............ ....................

D97–7A .................... 4 2–10–97 ................ ............ ............ ............ 7,369

Total, deferrals .............................. 3,544,318 4 ................ 124,290 ............ ............ 0 3,420,032


SECURITIES AND EXCHANGECOMMISSION

Issuer Delisting; Notice of ApplicationTo Withdraw From Listing andRegistration; (Medeva PLC, AmericanDepositary Shares, Each OneRepresenting Four Ordinary Shares,Par Value 10 Pence Sterling Per Share)File No. 1–10817

March 12, 1997.Medeva PLC (‘‘Company’’) has filed

an application with the Securities andExchange Commission (‘‘Commission’’),pursuant to Section 12(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Act’’)and Rule 12d2–2(d) promulgatedthereunder, to withdraw the abovespecified security (‘‘Security’’) fromlisting and registration on the AmericanStock Exchange, Inc. (‘‘Amex’’ or‘‘Exchange’’).

The reasons alleged in the applicationfor withdrawing the Security fromlisting and registration include thefollowing:

According to the Company, it hascomplied with Rule 18 of the Amex byfiling with such Exchange a certifiedcopy of preambles and resolutionsadopted by the Company’s Board ofDirectors authorizing the withdrawal ofits Security from listing on the Amexand by setting fourth in detail to suchExchange the reasons for such proposedwithdrawal, and the facts in supportthereof. The Company has listed fortrading the Security on the New YorkStock Exchange, Inc. (‘‘NYSE’’) effectiveMarch 4, 1997. Trading in the Securityon the NYSE commenced at the openingof business on March 5, 1997. In makingthe decision to withdraw the Securityfrom listing on the Amex, the Companyconsidered that the direct and indirectcosts and expenses and the division of

the market do not justify maintainingthe dual listing of the Security on theAmex and the NYSE. The Amex hasinformed the Company that it has noobjection to the withdrawal of theSecurity from listing on the Exchange.

Any interested person may, on orbefore April 2, 1997, submit by letter tothe Secretary of the Securities andExchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street,NW., Washington, DC 20549, factsbearing upon whether the applicationhas been made in accordance with therules of the exchanges and what terms,if any, should be imposed by theCommission for the protection ofinvestors. The Commission, based onthe information submitted to it, willissue an order granting the applicationafter the date mentioned above, unlessthe Commission determines to order ahearing on the matter.

For the Commission, by the Division ofMarket Regulation, pursuant to delegatedauthority.Jonathan G. Katz,Secretary.[FR Doc. 97–6713 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

[Release No. 34–38380; File No. SR–NASD–97–11]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Noticeof Filing of Proposed Rule Change andAmendment No. 1 by NationalAssociation of Securities Dealers, Inc.Relating to the Release of DisciplinaryInformation

March 10, 1997.Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934(‘‘Act’’), 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1), notice ishereby given that on February 11, 1997,the NASD Regulation, Inc. (‘‘NASDRegulation’’) filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rulechange and on March 10, 1997,

proposed Amendment No. 1. Theproposed rule change and AmendmentNo. 1 are described in Items I, II, and IIIbelow, which Items have been preparedby NASD Regulation. The Commissionis publishing this notice to solicitcomments on the proposed rule changefrom interested persons.

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’sStatement of the Terms of Substance ofthe Proposed Rule Change

NASD Regulation is proposing toamend the Interpretation on the Releaseof Disciplinary Information in IM–8310–2 of the Rules of the NationalAssociation of Securities Dealers, Inc.(‘‘NASD’’ or ‘‘Association’’). Below isthe text of the proposed rule change.Proposed new text is in italics; deletedtext is in brackets.

IM–8310–2 Release of DisciplinaryInformation 1

(a) The Association shall, in responseto a written inquiry, electronic inquiry,or telephonic inquiry via a toll-freetelephone listing, release certaininformation [as] contained in its filesregarding the employment anddisciplinary history of members andtheir associated persons, includinginformation regarding past and presentemployment history with Associationmembers; all final disciplinary actionstaken by federal, [or] state, or foreignsecurities agencies or self-regulatoryorganizations that relate to securities orcommodities transactions; all pendingdisciplinary actions that have beentaken by federal or state securitiesagencies or self-regulatory organizationsthat relate to securities and commoditiestransactions and are required to be


reported on Form BD or U–4 and allforeign government or self-regulatoryorganization disciplinary actions that[are] relate to securities or commodities[related] transactions and are requiredto be reported on Form BD or U–4 andall criminal indictments, informationsor convictions that are required to bereported on Form BD or Form U–4. TheAssociation will also releaseinformation required to be reported onForm BD or Form U–4 concerning civiljudgments and arbitration decisions insecurities and commodities disputesinvolving public customers, pendingand settled customer complaints,arbitrations and civil litigation, currentinvestigations involving criminal orregulatory matters, terminations ofemployment after allegations involvingviolations of investment related statutesor rules, theft or wrongful taking ofproperty, bankruptcies less than ten (10)years old, outstanding judgments orliens, any bonding company denial, payout or revocation, and any suspensionor revocation to act as an attorney,accountant or federal contractor.

(b) The Association shall, in responseto a request, release to the requestingparty a copy of any identifieddisciplinary complaint or disciplinarydecision issued by the Association orany subsidiary or Committee thereof;provided, however, that each copy of:

(1) a disciplinary complaint shall beaccompanied by [a] the followingstatement [that]: ‘‘The issuance of adisciplinary complaint represents theinitiation of a formal proceeding by theAssociation in which findings as to theallegations in the complaint have notbeen made and does not represent adecision as to any of the allegationscontained in the complaint. Becausethis complaint is unadjudicated, youmay wish to contact the respondentbefore drawing any conclusionsregarding the allegations in thecomplaint.’’

(2) a disciplinary decision that isreleased prior to the expiration of thetime period provided under the [Code ofProcedure] Rule 9000 Series for appealor call for review within the Associationor while such an appeal or call forreview is pending, shall beaccompanied by a statement that thefindings and sanctions imposed in thedecision may be increased, decreased,modified, or reversed by theAssociation;

(3) a final decision of the Associationthat is released prior to the time periodprovided under the [SecuritiesExchange] Act [of 1934] for appeal tothe Commission or while such anappeal is pending, shall be accompaniedby a statement that the findings and

sanctions of the Association are subjectto review and modification by theCommission; and

(4) a final decision of the Associationthat is released after the decision isappealed to the Commission shall beaccompanied by a statement as towhether the effectiveness of thesanctions has been stayed pending theoutcome of proceedings before theCommission.

(c) (1) The Association shall release tothe public information with respect toany disciplinary complaint initiated bythe Department of Enforcement ofNASD Regulation, Inc., the NASDRegulation, Inc. Board of Directors, orthe NASD Board of Governorscontaining an allegation of a violationof a designated statute, rule orregulation of the Commission, NASD, orMunicipal Securities Rulemaking Board,as determined by the NASD Regulation,Inc. Board of Directors (a ‘‘DesignatedRule’’); and may also release suchinformation with respect to anydisciplinary complaint or group ofdisciplinary complaints that involve asignificant policy or enforcementdetermination where the release ofinformation is deemed by the Presidentof NASD Regulation, Inc. to be in thepublic interest.

(2) Information released to the publicpursuant to subparagraph (c)(1) shall beaccompanied by the statement requiredunder subparagraph (b)(1).

[(c)](d) (1) The Association shall[report to the membership and to thepress pursuant to the procedures and atthe times outlined herein any order of]release to the public information withrespect to any disciplinary decisionissued pursuant to the Rule 9000 Seriesimposing a suspension, cancellation orexpulsion of a member: or suspension orrevocation of the registration of a personassociated with a member; orsuspension or barring of a member orperson associated with a member fromassociation with all members; orimposition of monetary sanctions of$10,000 or more upon a member orperson associated with a member; orcontaining an allegation of a violationof a Designated Rule; and may alsorelease such information with respect toany disciplinary decision or group ofdecisions that involve a significantpolicy or enforcement determinationwhere the release of information isdeemed by the President of NASDRegulation, Inc. to be in the publicinterest. The [Board of Governors]National Business Conduct Committee(NBCC) may, in its discretion, determineto waive the [notice provisions set forthherein as to an order of imposition ofmonetary sanctions of $10,000 or more

upon a member or person associatedwith a member,] requirement to releaseinformation with respect to adisciplinary decision under thoseextraordinary circumstances where[notice] the release of such informationwould violate fundamental notions offairness or work an injustice.

(2) Information released to the publicpursuant to subparagraph (d)(1) shall beaccompanied by a statement to theextent required for that type ofinformation under subparagraphs(b)(2)–(4).

[(d)] (e) If a decision [of a DistrictBusiness Conduct Committee] issuedpursuant to the Rule 9000 Series otherthan by the NBCC is not appealed to orcalled for review by the NBCC, the[order of the District Business ConductCommittee] decision shall becomeeffective on a date set by the Associationbut not before the expiration of 45 daysafter the date of decision. [Notices ofdecisions imposing monetary sanctionsof $10,000 or more or penalties ofexpulsion, revocation, suspension and/or the barring of a person from beingassociated with all members shallpromptly be transmitted to themembership and to the press,concurrently; provided, however, nosuch notice shall be sent prior to theexpiration of 45 days from the date ofthe said decision.]

[(e)] (f) Notwithstanding paragraph[(d)] (e), expulsions and bars imposedpursuant to the provisions of Rules 9217and 9226 shall become effective uponapproval or acceptance by the [NationalBusiness Conduct Committee] NBCC,and [publicity] information regardingany sanctions imposed pursuant tothose Rules may be [issued] released tothe public pursuant to paragraph (d)immediately upon such approval oracceptance.

[(f)](g) If a decision [of a DistrictBusiness Conduct Committee] issuedpursuant to the Rule 9000 Series isappealed to or called for review by theNASD Regulation, Inc. Board of[Governors] Directors or called forreview by the NASD Board of Governors,[the order of the District BusinessConduct Committee is] the decisionshall be stayed pending a finaldetermination and decision by theBoard [and notice of the action of theDistrict Business Conduct Committeeshall not be sent to the membership orthe press during the pendency ofproceedings before the Board ofGovernors].

[(g)](h) If a final decision of theAssociation is not appealed to theCommission, the sanctions specified inthe decision (other than bars andexpulsions) shall become effective on a


2 This rule filing relates to ‘‘disciplinarycomplaints,’’ and does not address ‘‘customercomplaints.’’

3 See, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 37797(October 9, 1996); 61 FR 53984 (October 16, 1996).

4 The Interpretation was previously cited as‘‘Resolution of the Board of Governors—Notice toMembership and Press of Suspensions, Expulsions,Revocations, and Monetary Sanctions and Releaseof Certain Information Regarding DisciplinaryHistory of Members and Their Associated Persons’’and appeared after paragraph 2301 of the NASDManual, following Article V, Section 1 of the Rulesof Fair Practice.

5 The publication of information is normally donethrough a monthly press release containinginformation about significant disciplinary actionsthat have become final during the preceding month.In addition, a more detailed press release may beissued on a more expedited basis about a case ofparticular importance.

date established by the Association butnot before the expiration of 30 days afterthe date of the decision. Bars andexpulsions, however, shall becomeeffective upon issuance of the decision,unless the decision specifies otherwise.[Notices of decisions imposingmonetary sanctions of $10,000 or moreor penalties of expulsion, revocation,suspension and/or the barring of aperson from being associated with allmembers shall promptly be transmittedto the membership and to the pressconcurrently; provided, however, thatany notice shall be sent prior to theexpiration of 30 days from the date ofa decision imposing sanctions otherthan expulsion, revocation, and/or thebarring of a person from beingassociated with all members].

[(h)](i) If a decision of the [Board ofGovernors] Association imposingmonetary sanctions of $10,000 or moreor a penalty of expulsion, revocation,suspension and/or barring of a memberfrom being associated with all membersis appealed to the Commission, noticethereof shall be given to themembership and to the press as soon aspossible after receipt by the Associationof notice from the Commission of suchappeal and the Association’s noticeshall state whether the effectiveness ofthe Board’s decision has [or has not]been stayed pending the outcome ofproceedings before the Commission.

[(i)](j) In the event an appeal to thecourts is filed from a decision by theCommission in a case previouslyappealed to it from a decision of the[Board of Governor] Association,involving the imposition of monetarysanctions of $10,000 or more or apenalty of expulsion, revocation,suspension and/or barring of a memberfrom being associated with all members,notice thereof shall be given to themembership as soon as possible afterreceipt by the Association of a formalnotice of appeal. Such notice shallinclude a statement [that] whether theorder of the Commission has [or has not]been stayed.

[(j)](k) Any order issued by theCommission of revocation or suspensionof a member’s broker/dealer registrationwith the Commission; or the suspensionor expulsion of a member from theAssociation; or the suspension orbarring of a member or personassociated with a member fromassociation with all broker/dealers ormembership; or the imposition ofmonetary sanctions of $10,000 or moreshall be [made known to themembership of the Association]released to the public through a noticecontaining the effective date thereof sentas soon as possible after receipt by the

Association of the order of theCommission.

[(k)](l) Cancellation of membership orregistration pursuant to theAssociation’s By-Laws, Rules andInterpretative Material shall be [sent tothe membership and, when appropriate,to the press] released to the public assoon after the effective date of thecancellation as possible.

[(l)](m) [Notices to the membershipand r] Releases to the [press] publicreferred to in paragraphs (c) and (d)above shall identify the Rules and By-Laws of the Association or the SECRules violated, and shall describe theconduct constituting such violation.[Notices] Releases may also identify themember with which an individual wasassociated at the time the violationsoccurred if such identification isdetermined by the Association to be inthe public interest.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’sStatement of the Purpose of, andStatutory Basis for, the Proposed RuleChange

In its filing with the Commission,NASD Regulation included statementsconcerning the purpose of and basis forthe proposed rule change and discussedany comments it received on theproposed rule change. The text of thesestatements may be examined at theplaces specified in Item IV below.NASD Regulation has preparedsummaries, set forth in Sections (A), (B),and (C) below, of the most significantaspects of such statements.

(A) Self-Regulatory Organization’sStatement of the Purpose of, andStatutory Basis for, the Proposed RuleChange

1. Purpose

The NASD’s Public DisclosureProgram (‘‘Program’’) currently providesthrough the Central RegistrationDepository (‘‘CRD’’) a synopsis of allpending NASD disciplinary informationregarding members and associatedpersons, including information ondisciplinary complaints 2 when they areissued by the Association anddisciplinary decisions when they areissued by any Committee or Board of theAssociation. Recently, the SECapproved an amendment that alsorequires the Association to providecopies of disciplinary complaints anddecisions upon request.3

The Interpretation on the Release ofDisciplinary Information(‘‘Interpretation’’), contained in IM–8310–2,4 currently permits theAssociation to issue informationregarding certain specified significantdisciplinary decisions when theybecome final.5 The specified decisionsare those that impose sanctions of asuspension, bar or fine of $10,000 ormore.

As the Program has expanded toprovide through CRD a synopsis of allpending NASD disciplinary informationregarding members and associatedpersons, including information on thefiling of disciplinary complaints,concerns have arisen that there is adisparity of access to information. Thoseindividuals that are not familiar withthe Program are not apprised by NASDpublication to the membership and thepress of the issuance of a significantcomplaint regarding a member orassociated person with whom theindividual., does business. Moreover,although individuals that are aware ofthe Program can obtain information onany NASD disciplinary decision fromCRD, the current provisions of IM–8310–2 do not permit the Association tobe proactive in providing notification tothe membership and the press of non-final disciplinary decisions and doesnot permit the Association to alsopublicize other (final and non-final)disciplinary decisions that do not meetthe current publication criteria butnonetheless involve a significant policyor enforcement issue that should bebrought to the attention of the public.

In considering this issue, NASDRegulation believes that the interests ofthe public in obtaining improved accessto information concerning significantdisciplinary matters must be balancedagainst the legitimate interests ofrespondents not to be subject to unfairpublicity concerning unadjudicatedallegations of violations (i.e.,complaints) and non-finaldeterminations of violations (i.e., non-final decisions). The proposed rulechange seeks to balance these interestsby providing for publicity at the


6 NASD Regulation maintains the authority andresponsibility to enforce compliance with MSRBrules with respect to member firms.

7 With respect to the methodology for the releaseof information on complaints and decisions, it isanticipated that information will be releasedthrough an omnibus press release (that is

subsequently included in an NASD Notice toMembers), a press release on an individual matter,or through the NASD Regulation WebSite.

Association’s initiative of thosedisciplinary matters that could mostsignificantly affect investor interests andby enhancing the disclosureaccompanying the release ofdisciplinary complaints. NASDRegulation is, therefore, proposing toamend IM–8310–2 to authorize theAssociation to release information onthose disciplinary complaints that: (1)contain an allegation of violation ofsignificant designated SEC, NASD, orMunicipal Securities Rulemaking Board(‘‘MSRB’’) 6 rules; or (2) the President ofNASD Regulation determines should bepublicized in the public interest. Inaddition, the Association would beauthorized to release information on

final and non-final disciplinary mattersthat: (1) meet the current criteria forsignificant disciplinary decisions; (2)meet the specific criteria proposed fordisciplinary complaints, or (3) thePresident of NASD Regulationdetermines should be publicized in thepublic interest.

Notice of Disciplinary ComplaintsNASD Regulation is proposing to

amend IM–8310–2 to authorize theAssociation to release information onthose disciplinary complaints thatpresent the most significant investorprotection issues, i.e., violations of anti-fraud, anti-manipulation, and salespractices rules that impact investors.New paragraph (c) to IM–8310–2 would

authorize the Association to release tothe public information on NASD-initiated 7 disciplinary complaints thatcontain an allegation of a violation of aspecifically identified statute, rule orregulation of the SEC, NASD, or MSRBthat is determined by the NASDRegulation Board of Directors to involveserious misconduct that affects investors(‘‘Designated Rules’’). NASD Regulationis proposing to adopt a list ofDesignated Rules that includes onlythose SEC, NASD, and MSRB rules thatprohibit significant fraudulent activityor egregious conduct. Following is thelist of Designated Rules that relate tocomplaints as to which informationwould be automatically released:

LIST OF DESIGNATED RULES

Sec Rules

Rule 10b–5 ............................................................................................... Employment of Manipulative and Deceptive Devices.Rules 15g–1 to 15g–9 .............................................................................. Sales Practice Requirements for Certain Low-Priced Securities (Penny

Stock Rules).Section 17(a) ............................................................................................ Fraudulent Interstate Transactions.

NASD Rules

Rule No. Title

2110 .......................................................................................................... Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade. (Only if thecomplaint alleges unauthorized trading, churning, conversion, mate-rial misrepresentations or omissions to a customer, front-running,trading ahead of research reports, excessive mark-ups).

2120 .......................................................................................................... Use of Manipulative, Deceptive, or Other Fraudulent Devices.2310 .......................................................................................................... Recommendations to Customers (Suitability).2330 .......................................................................................................... Customers’ Securities or Funds.2440 .......................................................................................................... Fair Prices and Commissions.3310 .......................................................................................................... Publication of Transactions and Quotations.3330 .......................................................................................................... Payment Designed to Influence Market Prices, Other than Paid Adver-

tising.

MSRB Rules

Rule Title

Rule G–19 ................................................................................................. Suitability of Recommendations and Transactions.Rule G–30 ................................................................................................. Prices and Commissions (Mark-ups).Rules G–37 (b) & (c) ................................................................................ Political Contributions and Prohibitions on Municipal Securities Busi-

ness.

This list of Designated Rules would beincluded in the Notice to Membersannouncing SEC approval of thisproposed rule change. In the future, anychanges to the list will be published bythe Association in a Notice to Members,after approval by the Board.

For the same reasons that support therelease of information concerningcomplaints, NASD Regulation alsobelieves that the Association shouldhave authority to release information on

disciplinary complaints that containallegations of violations of other rulesand regulations not included on the listof Designated Rules but that nonethelessinvolved serious misconduct that couldaffect investors. It is, therefore, alsoproposed that new subparagraph (c)(1)to IM–8310–2 include a provision thatwould grant authority to the Presidentof NASD Regulation to issueinformation on ‘‘any complaint or groupof complaints’’ that involve a significant

policy or enforcement determinationwhere the release of the information isdeemed to be in the public interest.

In order to ensure that appropriatedisclosures accompany information onany disciplinary complaint, NASDRegulation is also proposing to requirein new subparagraph (c)(2) of theInterpretation that any disciplinarycomplaint be accompanied bydisclosure regarding the status of thecomplaint. Subparagraph (b)(1) of the


8 At the time this language was originallyadopted, it was most likely assumed that onlyNASD members would have access to informationpublished to the membership and the generalpublic would have access to such information onlythrough the press. Today, NASD Notices toMembers that contain information on disciplinarydecisions and cancellations of membership areavailable through a number of electronic third-partyvendors, including LEXIS, with the result thatpersons outside of the membership have the sameaccess to releases to the ‘‘membership’’ as they doto information published by the press. It is alsoanticipated that the Association’s WebSite on theInternet will post information that was previouslyissued through press releases and Notices to

Members, further blurring the distinction betweenthese two forms of publication. Finally, the ‘‘press’’now makes information available to the publicthrough different technologies, including broadcastand computer-accessed media.

9 15 U.S.C. § 78o–3.

Interpretation currently requiresdisclosure that ‘‘the issuance of adisciplinary complaint represents theinitiation of a formal proceeding by theAssociation in which findings as to theallegations in the complaint have notbeen made and does not represent adecision as to any of the allegationscontained in the complaint.’’ Theproposed amendment would expandthis disclosure to include the followingstatement: ‘‘Because this complaint isunadjudicated, you may wish to contactthe respondent before drawing anyconclusions regarding the allegations inthe complaint.’’ NASD Regulationbelieves that this disclosure will help toenable recipients of the information toview it in an appropriate context and,thereby, provide appropriate protectionsto the respondent.

Notice of Non-Final DisciplinaryDecisions

With respect to non-final disciplinarydecisions, NASD Regulation isproposing to amend the Interpretation torequire that the current significance testfor release of information on finaldecisions also be applied to the releaseof information on non-final decisions—with the additional requirement thatnon-final decisions be accompanied byappropriate disclosures as to the statusof the case. It is proposed, therefore, thatcurrent paragraph (c) of theInterpretation be amended to beredesignated as subparagraph (d)(1) andto delete the provisions that currentlyprevent the Association from releasinginformation on non-final disciplinarydecisions. As a result of these changes,the Association would be authorized torelease information on non-finaldisciplinary decisions that imposemonetary sanctions of $10,000 or moreor penalties of expulsion, revocation,suspension, or a bar from beingassociated with members firms.

In addition, redesignatedsubparagraph (d)(1) is proposed to beamended to require that information onall non-final and final decisions thatcontain an allegation of a DesignatedRule be released, regardless of the extentof the sanction or whether any sanctionhad, in fact, been imposed. NASDRegulation believes that whereinformation on a disciplinary complaintis released because it includes anallegation of violation of one or moreDesignated Rules, information on thedecision involving the same mattershould also be released based on thesame public policy interests that justifythe release of complaint information—regardless of whether the decisionresults in the finding of a violation andthe imposition of sanctions, a dismissal

of the allegation, or a reversal of earlierfindings.

Moreover, consistent with the sameprovision proposed in subparagraph(c)(1), it proposed that renumberedsubparagraph (d)(1) be amended toauthorize the President of NASDRegulation to release information on‘‘any decision or group of decisions’’that involve a significant policy orenforcement determination where therelease of the information is deemed tobe in the public interest.

Renumbered subparagraph (d)(1)allows a waiver of the release ofinformation in a particular case wherethe release of information would bedeemed to violate fundamental notionsof fairness or work an injustice. NASDRegulation is proposing to amend thisprovision to transfer the authority togrant exceptions from the Board ofGovernors of the NASD to the NationalBusiness Conduct Committee (‘‘NBCC’’),in order to facilitate consideration ofany application for an exceptionpursuant to the standard NBCC reviewprocedures for motions by respondents.

Finally, NASD Regulation isproposing to add new subparagraph(d)(2) to require that the informationrequired by subparagraphs (b)(2)–(4)accompany such a non-final decision,thereby providing appropriatedisclosures regarding the status of anynon-final disciplinary decision.

GeneralThe Interpretation is proposed to be

amended to replace references to the‘‘membership and the press’’ with ageneral reference requiring the ‘‘public’’release of information on complaintsand decisions. Such a general referencewill permit the Association to chooseany appropriate methodology to releaseinformation in an environment wherethe methodologies for informing thepublic are changing frequently. It isbelieved that the current focus of theInterpretation on releasing information‘‘to the membership and the press’’makes a distinction between forms ofpublication that is no longermeaningful.8

Moreover, renumbered subparagraphs(e), (g), and (h) are proposed to beamended to delete current languageprohibiting the release of informationuntil the expiration of the time forappeal or call for review or during thependency of any appeal. As a result ofthese changes, the Association will bepermitted to release information on non-final disciplinary decisions pursuant tothe standards adopted in newsubparagraph (d)(1).

Other conforming amendments areproposed to renumbered subparagraphs(e)–(m).

Implementation of Proposed RuleChange

NASD Regulation is proposing thatthe proposed rule change be effective 30days after the date a Notice to Membersis issued announcing adoption of theproposed rule change and containingthe list of Designated Rules. The Noticeto Members will be issued within 45days of SEC approval.

2. Statutory BasisNASD Regulation believes that the

proposed rule change is consistent withthe provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) ofthe Act 9 in that the proposed rulechange to expand the Association’sauthority to release information onsignificant disciplinary complaints andsignificant final and non-finaldisciplinary decisions is consistent withthe Association’s obligations to protectinvestors and the public interest.

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization’sStatement on Burden on Competition

NASD Regulation does not believethat the proposed rule change will resultin any burden on competition that is notnecessary or appropriate in furtheranceof the purposes of the Act, as amended.

(C) Self-Regulatory Organization’sStatement on Comments on theProposed Rule Change Received fromMembers, Participants, or Others

Written comments were neithersolicited nor received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of theProposed Rule Change and Timing forCommission Action

Within 35 days of the date ofpublication of this notice in the FederalRegister or within such longer period (i)as the Commission may designate up to90 days of such date if it finds such


10 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12) (1989).

longer period to be appropriate andpublishes its reasons for so finding or(ii) as to which the self-regulatoryorganization consents, the Commissionwill:

A. by order approve such proposedrule change, or

B. institute proceedings to determinewhether the proposed rule changeshould be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

Interested persons are invited tosubmit written data, views, andarguments concerning the foregoing.Persons making written submissionsshould file six copies thereof with theSecretary, Securities and ExchangeCommission, 450 Fifth Street, N.W.,Washington, D.C. 20549. Copies of thesubmission, all subsequentamendments, all written statementswith respect to the proposed rulechange that are filed with theCommission, and all writtencommunications relating to theproposed rule change between theCommission and any person, other thanthose that may be withheld from thepublic in accordance with theprovisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will beavailable for inspection and copying inthe Commission’s Public ReferenceRoom. Copies of such filing will also beavailable for inspection and copying atthe principal office of the NASD. Allsubmissions should refer to the filenumber in the caption above and shouldbe submitted by April 8, 1997.

For the Commission, by the Division ofMarket Regulation, pursuant to delegatedauthority.10

Margaret H. McFarland,Deputy Secretary.[FR Doc. 96–6714 Filed 3–17–95; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 2518]

Advisory Committee for Study ofEastern Europe and the IndependentStates of the Former Soviet Union;Notice of Meeting

The Department of State announcesthat the Advisory Committee for Studyof Eastern Europe and the IndependentStates of the Former Soviet Union (TitleVIII) will convene on April 11, 1997,beginning at 10:00 a.m. in Room 1105,U.S. Department of State, 2201 C Street,NW, Washington, DC.

The Advisory Committee willrecommend grant recipients for the FY

1997 competition of the Program forStudy of Eastern Europe and theIndependent States of the Former SovietUnion in connection with the ‘‘Researchand Training for Eastern Europe and theIndependent States of the Former SovietUnion Act of 1983, as amended.’’ Theagenda will include opening statementsby the Chairman and members of theCommittee and, within the Committee,discussion, approval, andrecommendation that the Department ofState negotiate grant agreements withcertain ‘‘national organizations with aninterest and expertise in conductingresearch and training concerning thecountries of Eastern Europe and theindependent states of the former SovietUnion,’’ based on the guidelinescontained in the call for applicationspublished in the Federal Register onOctober 4, 1996. Following committeedeliberation, interested members of thepublic may make oral statementsconcerning the Title VIII program ingeneral.

This meeting will be open to thepublic; however, attendance will belimited to the seating available. Entryinto the Department of State building iscontrolled and must be arranged inadvance of the meeting. Those planningto attend should notify Joanne Bramble,INR/RES, U.S. Department of State,(202) 736–4572, by April 8, 1997,providing their date of birth, SocialSecurity number, and any requirementsfor special needs. All attendees mustuse the 2201 C Street, NW, entrance tothe building. Visitors who arrivewithout prior notification and without aphoto ID will not be admitted.

Dated: February 11, 1997.Kenneth E. Roberts,Executive Director, Advisory Committee forStudy of Eastern Europe and the IndependentStates of the Former Soviet Union.[FR Doc. 97–6739 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4710–32–M

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATESTRADE REPRESENTATIVE

Trade Policy Staff Committee: Requestfor Comments Concerning FinancialServices Negotiations Under theGeneral Agreement on Trade inServices of the World TradeOrganization

ACTION: Notice and request forcomments.

SUMMARY: The Office of the U.S. TradeRepresentative (USTR) is solicitingpublic comments on the requests madeto U.S. negotiating partners in thenegotiations on financial services under

the General Agreement on Trade inServices (GATS). The GATS is one ofthe Uruguay Round agreementsadministered by the World TradeOrganization (WTO). Interested personsare invited to submit their comments onmarket-opening commitments thatshould be sought in the financialservices sector by April 17, 1997.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Peter Collins, Deputy Assistant U.S.Trade Representative for Services andInvestment, Office of the United StatesTrade Representative, (202) 395–7271(for insurance issues and for generalGATS issues), or Matthew Hennesy,Director, Office of Financial ServicesNegotiations, U.S. Department of theTreasury, (202) 622–0151 (for financialservices other than insurance).SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:Negotiations on financial services wereextended for six months at the end ofthe Uruguay Round to allow for furtherprogress. The current interim financialservices agreement of July 1995 willexpire at the end of 1997, when WTOMembers have a 60-day period in whichto modify (or withdraw) theircommitments. The negotiations willformally commence in April, at the firstmeeting of the WTO Committee onTrade in Financial Services, thenegotiating body.

The United States is a full participantin the interim arrangement and isentitled to all market access andnational treatment commitmentsscheduled by other participants. In itsschedule of commitments, in force sinceJune 30, 1995, the U.S. has committedto protect the existing investments offoreign financial services providers inthe United States. The U.S. took anMFN exemption, and thus reserved theright to provide differing levels oftreatment, with respect to expansionand new activities by these financialservices providers, and or with respectto new entrants to the U.S. financialmarket.

The United States is in the process ofpreparing requests for market-openingcommitments from other countriesparticipating in the negotiations. Theserequests may be submitted as early asMay 1997.

The U.S. objective in the negotiationsis to obtain significantly improvedcommitments that provide financialservices suppliers substantially fullmarket access and national treatment ona non-discriminatory basis. Interestedpersons are invited to submit theircomments on commitments the UnitedStates should seek in insurance,banking, securities, and other financialservices.


Comments should be filed no laterthan April 17, 1997. Comments must bein English and provided in 20 copies toPeter Collins, Deputy Assistant U.S.Trade Representative for Services andInvestment, Office of the United StatesTrade Representative, Room 301, 60017th Street, Washington, D.C. 20508.Non-confidential information receivedwill be available for public inspectionby appointment, in the USTR ReadingRoom, Room 101, Monday throughFriday, 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon and1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. For anappointment call Brenda Webb on 202–395–6186. Business confidentialinformation will be subject to therequirements of 15 CFR 2003.6. Anybusiness confidential material must beclearly marked as such on the coverletter or page and each succeeding page,and must be accompanied by a non-confidential summary thereof.Frederick L. Montgomery,Chairman, Trade Policy Staff Committee.[FR Doc. 97–6802 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3190–01–M


Coast Guard

[CGD08–97–006]

Notice of Public Hearing on theCanadian Pacific Railroad DrawbridgeAcross the Upper Mississippi River,Mile 699.8, at Lacrosse, WI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.ACTION: Notice of public hearing.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Coast Guardannounces a forthcoming public hearingfor the presentation of views concerningthe alteration of the Canadian PacificRailroad Drawbridge, at LaCrosse,Wisconsin.DATES: The hearing will be held at 1p.m., April 22, 1997.ADDRESSES: (a) The hearing will be heldin the Conference Room of U.S. Fishand Wildlife Resource Center, 555Lester Avenue, Onalaska, Wisconsin54650.

(b) Written comments may besubmitted to and will be available forexamination from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.,Monday through Friday, exceptholidays, at the office of the DirectorWestern Rivers Operations, BridgeBranch, 1222 Spruce Street, St. Louis,Missouri 63103–2398.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Mr. Roger Wiebusch, Director WesternRivers Operations, Bridge Branch, 1222Spruce Street, St. Louis, Missouri63103–2398.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CoastGuard has received numerouscomments from the public indicatingthe bridge is unreasonably obstructive tonavigation. Information available to theCoast Guard indicates there were 269marine collisions with the bridge since1980. These collisions have causedmoderate to heavy damage to the bridge.Based on this information, the bridgeappears to be a hazard to navigation.This may require increasing thehorizontal clearance on the bridge tomeet the needs of navigation. Allinterested parties shall have fullopportunity to be heard and to presentevidence as to whether any alteration ofthis bridge is needed, and if so, whatalterations are needed, giving dueconsideration to the necessities of freeand unobstructed water navigation. Thenecessities of rail traffic will also beconsidered.

Any person who wishes, may appearand be heard at this public hearing.Persons planning to appear and beheard are requested to notify theDirector Western Rivers Operations,Bridge Branch, 1222 Spruce Street, St.Louis, Missouri 63103–2398,Telephone: 314–539–3900 Ext 378, anytime prior to the hearing indicating theamount of time required. Dependingupon the number of scheduledstatements, it may be necessary to limitthe amount of time allocated to eachperson. Any limitations of timeallocated will be announced at thebeginning of the hearing. Writtenstatements and exhibits may besubmitted in place of or in addition tooral statements and will be made a partof the hearing record. Such writtenstatements and exhibits may bedelivered at the hearing or mailed inadvance to the Director, Western RiversOperations, Bridge Branch. Transcriptsof the hearing will be made available forpurchase upon request.

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 513; 49 CFR1.46(c)(3).

Dated: March 6, 1997.T.W. Josiah,Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander,Eighth Coast Guard District.[FR Doc. 97–6736 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–14–M

[CGD 96–063]

Incineration of Solid Waste AboardU.S. Coast Guard Cutters,Environmental Assessment andFinding of No Significant Impact

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has preparedan Environmental Assessment (EA) andproposed Finding of No SignificantImpact (FONSI) of marine incineratorson board its certain classes of cutters(vessels larger than 65 feet in length) forthe purpose of burning shipboard solidwaste to mitigate its accumulation. Anotice of availability of the EA and theFONSI was placed in the FederalRegister of 26 November 96 to invitecomments from the public. Nocomments were received during the 30-day comment period. This noticeannounces the availability of the finalEA and FONSI to concerned agenciesand the public.ADDRESSES: Requests to receive a copyof the EA and FONSI should be mailedto the Commanding Officer (ELC code024), 2401 Hawkins Point Road,Baltimore, MD 21226–5000. Thedocuments may also be picked up fromthe same address between 8 a.m. and 3p.m. EST, Monday through Friday,except Federal Holidays, by contactingMr. Hari Bindal at telephone (410) 762–6732, and FAX (410) 762–6868.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.Hari Bindal, Environmental ProtectionSpecialist, Engineering and LogisticsCenter, Equipment ManagementDivision (ELC 024), at (410) 762–6732.

Background

U.S. Coast Guard operates a fleet ofboats and cutters on the U.S. domesticand international waters to accomplishits major missions of Law Enforcement,Defense Operations, Search and Rescue,Ice Operations, Marine Science,Pollution Response, and Aids toNavigation. The cutters going longvoyages (5 days and more) and havinga large crew (over 50), face problemswith shipboard generated solid waste(trash, garbage), and waste oil. Tocomply with the InternationalConvention for the Prevention ofPollution from Ships (MARPOL) and theU.S. Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships(APPS), which prohibit disposal ofplastics anywhere at sea and restrictdischarge of other waste to certaindistances from shore, and to complywith other U.S. and internationalenvironmental laws and regulations, theCoast Guard considered severalalternatives of handling the shipboardgenerated solid waste and waste oil.After evaluating the pro and cons of allconsidered alternatives, Coast Guardproposed incineration as the means tohandle the shipboard solid waste andwaste oil.

An environmental assessment (EA)was prepared pursuant to the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA) of


1969; and the Coast Guard’s NEPAImplementing Procedures, to evaluatethe potential environmental impacts ofthe proposed installation of incineratorson certain classes of Coast Guardcutters. The EA concluded in to ‘findingof no significant impact (FONSI), thatmean the concentrations of pollutantsgenerated by the proposed installationof incinerators on board certain classesof Coast Guard cutters are low enoughthat the physical, biological, andatmospheric effects on the marineenvironment are insignificant for allareas of operation. Consequently, anEnvironmental Impact Statement wasnot required.

As required by NEPA, the EA andFONSI were made available toconcerned government agencies and a‘notice of availability’ appeared in theFederal Register of 26 November 1996[61 FR 60137] to invite peoples’comment. No adverse comments werereceived by the end of the 30-dayscomment period.

The EA and FONSI are now final.Concerned agencies and the public mayrequest copies of the EA and FONSIfrom the address above underADDRESSES, and by contacting Mr. HariBindal, at (410) 762–6732.

Dated: February 26, 1997.Debabrata Ghosh,Acting Chief, Equipment Management Div.(ELC–02).[FR Doc. 97–6737 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–14–M


[Summary Notice No. PE–97–16]

Petitions for Exemption; Summary ofPetitions Received; Dispositions ofPetitions Issued

AGENCY: Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), DOT.ACTION: Notice of petitions forexemption received and of dispositionsof prior petitions.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to FAA’s rulemakingprovisions governing the application,processing, and disposition of petitionsfor exemption (14 CFR Part 11), thisnotice contains a summary of certainpetitions seeking relief from specifiedrequirements of the Federal AviationRegulations (14 CFR Chapter I),dispositions of certain petitionspreviously received, and corrections.The purpose of this notice is to improvethe public’s awareness of, andparticipation in, this aspect of FAA’sregulatory activities. Neither publicationof this notice nor the inclusion or

omission of information in the summaryis intended to affect the legal status ofany petition or its final disposition.DATES: Comments on petitions receivedmust identify the petition docketnumber involved and must be receivedon or before March 18, 1997.ADDRESSES: Send comments on anypetition in triplicate to: FederalAviation Administration, Office of theChief Counsel, Attn: Rule Docket (AGC–200), Petition Docket No. llll, 800Independence Avenue, SW.,Washington, D.C. 20591.

Comments may also be sentelectronically to the following internetaddress: 9–NPRM–[email protected].

The petition, any comments received,and a copy of any final disposition arefiled in the assigned regulatory docketand are available for examination in theRules Docket (AGC–200), Room 915G,FAA Headquarters Building (FOB 10A),800 Independence Avenue, SW.,Washington, D.C. 20591; telephone(202) 267–3132.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Fred Haynes (202) 267–3939 or AngelaAnderson (202) 267–9681 Office ofRulemaking (ARM–1), Federal AviationAdministration, 800 IndependenceAvenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.

This notice is published pursuant toparagraphs (c), (e), and (g) of § 11.27 ofPart 11 of the Federal AviationRegulations (14 CFR Part 11).

Issued in Washington, D.C., on March 13,1997.Mardi R. Thompson,Acting Assistant Chief Counsel forRegulations.

Petitions for ExemptionDocket No.: 28849.Petitioner: Era Aviation, Inc.Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

119.5(g), 121.107, and 121.591.Description of Relief Sought: To

permit the petitioner to conduct VFRoperations from its Bethel base, and allVFR sightseeing/air tour operations,with ceiling and visibility requirementsthat will be no more restrictive thanthose specified in §§ 91.155 and135.205. Additionally, the petitionerrequests that it be allowed to conduct allscheduled and charter operations fromits Bethel base to utilize part 135 flightfollowing procedures currently in use inlieu of the dispatch requirementscontained in §§ 121.107 and 121.591.

Docket No.: 28850.Petitioner: Era Aviation, Inc.Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

121.356(b).Description of Relief Sought: To allow

the petitioner to operate its DC–3aircraft under requirements specified in

§ 135.180 as it concerns Traffic CollisionAvoidance System (TCAS).

Docket No.: 28854.Petitioner: Seaborne Seaplane

Adventures.Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

121.395.Description of Relief Sought: To allow

the petitioner relief from the phrase‘‘* * * shall provide enough qualifiedaircraft dispatchers * * *’’ contained in§ 121.395 and a 30 day extension tocomplete all of the requirements fortransition to Part 121 operations.

Docket No.: 28856.Petitioner: Frontier Flying Service,

Inc.Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

121.Description of Relief Sought: To

permit the petitioner an extension of thedeadline for transition from part 135operations to part 121 operations.[FR Doc. 97–6930 Filed 3–14–97; 2:46 pm]BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

RTCA, Inc.; Technical ManagementCommittee

Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of theFederal Advisory Committee Act (Pub.L. 92–463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), noticeis hereby given for the RTCA TechnicalManagement Committee meeting to beheld April 2, 1997, starting at 9 a.m. Themeeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1140Connecticut Avenue, NW., Suite 1020,Washington, DC 20036.

The agenda will include: (1)Chairman’s Remarks; (2) Review andApproval of Summary of the PreviousMeeting; (3) Consider and Approve: a.Proposed Final Draft, HumanEngineering Guidance for Data LinkSystems; b. Proposed Final Draft,Minimum Operational PerformanceStandards for AeronauticalTelecommunication Network Avionics;c. Proposed Update to the Terms ofReference for Special Committee 189/Working Group 53, Air Traffic ServicesSafety and Interoperability; d. ProposedUpdate to the Terms of Reference forSpecial Committee 182, MinimumOperational Performance Standard forAvionics Computer Resource; (4)Discuss/Take Position on: a. Report onActivities of Special Committee 169(Requirement for Change 1 to DO–219;Terms of Reference Review toDetermine if Special Committee 169 HasWork Remaining; Identify a PermanentChairman for Special Committee 169 IfThere Is Work Remaining); b. Report onAviation Community Desire for a ModeS-based Traffic Information Service DataLink; c. Report on Proposed Change toDO–204, Minimal Operational


Performance Standards for 406 MHzELT’s; d. Report on Inclusion of HIRF‘‘Pass-Fail’’ Criteria in DO–160D,Environmental Conditions and TestProcedures for Airborne Equipment; e.Proposed Letter to the FAA on NASArchitectural Issues Pertaining toCommunication, Navigation, andSurveillance; f. Technical ManagementCommittee Systems ManagementWorking Group Report; (5) OtherBusiness (RTCA Annual MembershipMeeting and Awards Luncheon); (6)Date and Place of Next Meeting.

Attendance is open to the interestedpublic but limited to space availability.With the approval of the chairman,members of the public may present oralstatements at the meeting. Personswishing to present statements or obtaininformation should contact the RTCASecretariat, 1140 Connecticut Avenue,NW., Suite 1020, Washington, DC20036; (202) 833–9339 (phone); (202)833–9434 (fax); or http://www.rtca.org(web site). Members of the public maypresent a written statement to thecommittee at any time.

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 12,1997.Janice L. Peters,Designated Official.[FR Doc. 97–6806 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4810–13–M

Intent To Rule on Application ToImpose a Passenger Facility Charge(PFC) at Pellston Regional Airport ofEmmet County, Pellston, MI

AGENCY: Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), DOT.ACTION: Notice of intent to rule onapplication.

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule andinvites public comment on theapplication to impose a PFC at PellstonRegional Airport of Emmet County,Pellston, Michigan, under theprovisions of the Aviation Safety andCapacity Expansion Act of 1990 (TitleIX of the Omnibus BudgetReconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L.101–508) and part 158 of the FederalAviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158).DATES: Comments must be received onor before April 17, 1997.ADDRESSES: Comments on thisapplication may be mailed or deliveredin triplicate to the FAA at the followingaddress: Federal AviationAdministration, Detroit Airports DistrictOffice, Willow Run Airport, East, 8820Beck Road Belleville, Michigan 48111.

In addition, one copy of anycomments submitted to the FAA must

be mailed or delivered to Mr. RaymondThompson, Airport Manager, of theCounty of Emmet, at the followingaddress: Pellston Regional Airport ofEmmet County, U.S. 31 North, Pellston,Michigan 49769.

Air carriers and foreign air carriersmay submit copies of written commentspreviously provided to the County ofEmmet under § 158.23 of part 158.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.Jon B. Gilbert, Program Manager,Federal Aviation Administration,Detroit Airports District Office, WillowRun Airport, East, 8820 Beck Road,Belleville, Michigan 48111 (313–487–7281). The application may be reviewedin person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAAproposes to rule and invites publiccomment on the application to imposea PFC at Pellston Regional Airport ofEmmet County under the provisions ofthe Aviation Safety and CapacityExpansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of theOmnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of1990) (Pub. L. 101–508) and part 158 ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations (14CFR part 158).

On February 27, 1997, the FAAdetermined that the application toimpose a PFC submitted by the Countyof Emmet was substantially completewithin the requirements of § 158.25 ofpart 158. The FAA will approve ordisapprove the application, in whole orin part, no later than June 10, 1997.

The following is a brief overview ofthe application.

PFC Application No.: 97–05–I–00–PLN.

Level of the proposed PFC: $3.00.Proposed charge effective date:

January 1, 1998.Proposed charge expiration date:

April 1, 1998.Total estimated PFC revenue:

$17,500.00.Brief description of proposed project:

Replace Aircraft Rescue Fire FightingVehicle.

Class or classes of air carriers whichthe public agency has requested not berequired to collect PFC’s: FAR Part 135operators who file FAA Form 1800–31.

Any person may inspect theapplication in person at the FAA Officelisted above under FOR FURTHERINFORMATION CONTACT.

In addition, any person may, uponrequest, inspect the application, notice,and other documents germane to theapplication in person at the County ofEmmet.

Issued in Des Plaines, IL, on March 11,1997.Benito De Leon,Manager, Planning/Programming Branch,Airports Division, Great Lakes Region.[FR Doc. 97–6807 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

Federal Highway Administration

Advanced Rural TransportationSystems Strategic Plan; Request forInformation

AGENCY: Federal HighwayAdministration (FHWA), DOT.ACTION: Notice; request for information.

SUMMARY: The Federal HighwayAdministration is seeking commentsfrom all sources (public, private,governmental, academia, professionalgroups, public interest groups, etc.) onthe Strategic Plan for Advanced RuralTransportation Systems (ARTS) portionof the Intelligent TransportationSystems (ITS) Program. The ARTSStrategic Plan defines the vision,mission and goals from the Federalperspective for achieving the benefits ofthe ITS program in rural areas. This isnot a request for proposals or aninvitation for bids.DATES: Your comments on thisannouncement should be submitted nolater than April 17, 1997.ADDRESSES: Your comment on theseimportant issues are greatly appreciated,but responses will not be acknowledged.Responses should be mailed to FHWA,Intelligent Transportation Systems JointProgram Office, HVH–1, Rm 3400,Washington, DC 20590. However, E-mail responses are encouraged, andshould be addressed [email protected] FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.Ray Resendes, ITS Joint Program Office,(202)366–2182, Department ofTransportation, 400 Seventh Street,SW., Washington, DC 20590. Officehours are from 7:15 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.,e.t., Monday through Friday, exceptFederal holidays.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ITS usesadvanced communications, computerand surveillance technologies to addresssurface transportation problems. Wheneffectively deployed, ITS services canprovide safer and more secure travel,improve traffic flow in congested areas,reduce the harmful environmentalimpacts of traffic congestion, and helptravelers and businesses achieveimproved levels of productivity. Thenational ITS program is being advancedas a partnership between the privatesector, academia and all levels of State


1 These ‘‘Few Good Measures’’ include measuresto meet goals in the following categories: Timesavings; Reductions in crashes; Reductions infatalities; Increased throughput; Cost savings; andImproved customer satisfaction. (‘‘Implementationof the National Intelligent Transportation SystemProgram: 1996 Report to Congress’’).

and local government. A completedescription of the ITS program iscontained in the March 1995, NationalITS Program Plan, developed jointly bythe US DOT and ITS AMERICA. TheNational ITS Program Plan is availablefrom ITS AMERICA, 400 VirginiaAvenue SW., Suite 800, Washington,DC. 20024–2730, phone (202) 484–4847.

This is a request for comment on theStrategic Plan for Advanced RuralTransportation Systems portion of theITS program. The ARTS Strategic Plandefines the vision, mission and goalsfrom the federal perspective forachieving the benefits of the ITSprogram in rural areas.

Advanced Rural TransportationSystems (ARTS) Strategic Plan

1. Executive Summary

The U.S. Department ofTransportation (U.S. DOT) created theIntelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)Joint Program Office (JPO) to manage theITS program. JPO is housed within theFHWA, but has liaisons with eachmodal Administration (except theFederal Aviation Administration)within the U.S. DOT. The JPO alsoreceives policy guidance directly fromthe ITS Management Council which ischaired by the Deputy Secretary ofTransportation. Although this documentwill be issued by the FHWA, thatagency will hereinafter be referred to asthe U.S. DOT in order to reflect thevariant roles of each modalAdministration in the ITS program.

This Strategic Plan has beendeveloped for the Advanced RuralTransportation Systems (ARTS) portionof the ITS Program. The plan focuses onthe Federal Government’s role indeveloping rural ITS options andprudently managing emerging ITStechnologies within rural settings fromconception to viable options forimplementation. The Strategic Planmeets the needs of the US DOT byproviding a basis for sound decision-making for program development, aswell as being consistent with theGovernment Performance and ResultsAct of 1993 (GPRA). Items in italics arereferences from, ‘‘Strategic Planning, AnOverview for Complying with GPRA,’’by Philip Blackerby.

The plan also looks at the ARTSprogram’s role in developing andfostering the application of ITS in ruralareas over the next twelve years. Itdescribes the program’s vision, mission,goals, objectives, and measures. Becauseof the diversity of needs and variedsettings in rural America, this plan alsodeveloped seven critical program areas(clusters) which provide areas of

common interest and focus within theoverall program. A companion programplan (which will be available inFebruary 1997), sets the strategicpriorities, and lays out the programprojects by year for the next five years.Together, both plans provide the roadmap for the ARTS Program.

Note: For Purposes of this report, ruralAmerica is defined as communities or areaswith less than 50,000 residents.

2. Introduction

The GPRA requires each Federalagency to prepare:

(1) Strategic plans that define anagency’s mission and long-term goals;(2) annual performance plans containingspecific targets; and (3) annual reportscomparing actual performance to thetargets set in the annual performanceplans.

US DOT has already put forthsignificant efforts to assure that theoverall ITS program is consistent withthe GPRA, including the preparation ofthe ITS Strategic Plan and thedevelopment of a set of measures forevaluating the program’s progress 1.While every element in the ITS programshould respond to the overall goals andobjectives provided in the overall ITSprogram, it is recognized that conditionsand needs vary greatly across the UnitedStates and, as a result, the focus of theITS program and its elements may varyfrom area to area. Accordingly, the ITSArchitecture identified the followingthree separate scenarios to aid inthinking about and analyzing thedifferent needs and required focus:

1. Urban;2. Inter-Urban;3. Rural.Each has its own set of needs,

priorities and concerns. For example,the major initiative for urban areasfocuses on the mitigation of congestionand improvement in traffic flow that ITStechnologies can offer.

On the other hand, the ARTS Programis concerned with travel within andthrough rural America. The conditionsfound in rural travel (including inter-urban travel through rural areas), thecharacteristics of the travelers, and thecosts of maintaining the rural system allpoint to the need for a focused programfor developing advanced technologysolutions for transportation in ruralAmerica. Some of the attributes found

in rural environments that make thisneed critical are:

1. Mix of users (rural and urbantravelers);

2. Secondary roads with less frequentmaintenance;

3. Steep grades/blind corners/curves/few passing lanes;

4. Large variance in travel speeds(frequent passing);

5. Long distance travel;6. Fewer convenient detour options;7. Adverse road surface and weather

conditions;8. Few navigational signs;9. Less existing infrastructure (per

square mile);10. Light usage/large geographical

areas impeding rapid emergencydetection and response;

11. More motor vehicle deaths withhigher frequency of accidents/vehiclemile traveled and more severe accidentsthan found in urban areas;

12. Recreational travelers needingtraveler information services;

13. Limited or non-existent publictransportation services;

14. Many, often uncoordinated,providers of transportation services tomeet health and human services needs;and

15. Very dispersed systems with highunit costs for service delivery,maintenance, and operations.

This document is the Strategic Planfor the US ARTS Program. It isimportant to note that this Strategic Planrepresents the US DOT perspective onrural ITS, and the US DOT’s roles andresponsibilities for improving the ruraltransportation system through advancedtechnologies. In this role, the US DOTprogram will work to bring rural ITStechnologies to maturity and examineinstitutional arrangements for theirdeployment, providing feasible optionsto rural areas. In this context, the roleof the ARTS Program is not to providelong term operational funding to ruralITS systems (though Federal funds maybe available from other programs).Rather, the role of the ARTS Program isto work in partnership with thoseresponsible for the implementation ofITS in rural areas—States and localagencies, and the private sector—toprovide appropriate and sustainable(i.e., Can be operated using existing andprojected funding and resources) ITSsolutions to rural problems and needs.Consequently, others will need todevelop their own plans to complimentand coincide with this one.

The latter portion of this documentidentifies the goals and objectives thatare the priority of the ARTS Program. Itoutlines the Federal role in advancedrural transportation systems and is


2 Compiled from Various tables in HighwayStatistics 1994. Federal Highway Administration,October 1995.

consistent with the guidelines providedby the GPRA.

The companion ARTS Program Planis also under development as describedin the final section of this document.The program plan includes the setting ofstrategic priorities, another key followup element in strategic planning, as wellas specifying candidate projects by yearto address the uncertainties andultimately lead to the deployment ofrural ITS.

3. Potential BarriersThere are three potential barriers to

the development and acceptance of theARTS Strategic Plan. These are:

1. Acceptance of the role of the USDOT and participation by others criticalto the process;

2. The focus of the Strategic Plan onthe US DOT role in rural ITS in lieu ofa ‘‘National’’ plan; and

3. The degree of variability within therural transportation system.

The development and implementationof the Strategic Plan depends upon itsacceptance by the key partners requiredfor its implementation. Throughout thestrategic planning process, a criticalguidance has been provided from thefield offices of the US DOT as well asrepresentatives of State and localagencies directly responsible forimplementing rural ITS in their areasand independent consultants. However,there may also be some dissatisfactionwith the ARTS program’s focus onfinding the answers to what is notknown about rural ITS through research,development, field tests, and targeteddeployments at the expense of directfunding of deployment alone. This maybecome an issue during the commentperiod prior to the final version of theplan. Given this, it is important toemphasize that reducing the gaps inknowledge is the focus of the ARTSprogram. Funds for transit operationsand other activities may still beprovided through traditional Federalfunding sources not part of the ARTSprogram.

The second issue concerns theStrategic Plan’s focus on the US DOT’sroles and responsibilities, rather thanthe development of an all encompassingNational Plan. As stated in theIntroduction, the US DOT is only onepartner in the ultimate development andimplementation of a sustainable mix ofITS Services in rural America. Otherparticipants include the State and localagencies and other providers of ITS, theprivate sector, and the public. Aconcerted effort was made to ensure thatthe ARTS Program incorporate theinterests of all of the participants;however, the Strategic and Program

Plans are still designed to reflect the USDOT role and activities in advancedrural transportation systems. Given thediverse nature of the participants andinterests across rural America, it wasnot feasible to develop a ‘‘National’’plan encompassing the views, roles, andresponsibilities of each participant.Development of a National rural ITSvision and plan may, however, be aworthy exercise to carry out in thefuture in coordination with ITSAmerica’s ARTS Committee and otherorganizations.

The last issue is a more difficultproblem to solve. The wide variety ofneeds found in rural settings across theUS has made it difficult for participantsto recognize similarities and agree toprogram goals, objectives, or programelements. For example, at first glance,people often perceive few similaritiesbetween the very disparate rural areas ofDeath Valley, The Upper Peninsula inMichigan, Jackson Hole, Wyoming, orCape Cod. It was found, however, thatmany of the perceived differences arereally associated with the differences inthe mix of needs within each rural area.Thus, US DOT has spent substantialeffort in developing a set of CriticalProgram Areas, or Clusters, to provide acommon identifiable set of views ofrural America, its needs, and how ITScan respond. These Critical ProgramsAreas have become key elements indeveloping the specific approaches forthe rural ITS program described later,and in minimizing the debate andconfusion over ‘‘What is Rural?’’

4. Vision and MissionThe Vision statement describes a

future that management envisions. Itprovides a description of what ruralAmerica will be like when the rural ITSprogram is fulfilled. The Missiondescribes the organization’s purpose orchanges that the organization intends todirectly effect. These two statementsprovide the direction and purpose uponwhich the ARTS program is based.

VisionAn enhanced quality of life for rural

residents through safer, more secure,available and efficient movement ofpeople and goods in rural Americathrough the judicious application ofadvanced ITS technologies.

Rural America accounts for a smalland dispersed portion of our nation’spopulation, yet it encompasses asignificant portion of the transportationsystem. Rural areas account for 80percent of the total US road mileage and40 percent of the vehicle miles traveled,and they have a unique set ofcharacteristics associated with the travel

upon them and their operations andmaintenance. Consequently, the ruraltraveler has a different set of prioritiesand needs than does his/her urbancounterpart. These differences reflectthe rural environment of long distances,relatively low traffic volumes, relativelyrare traffic congestion, travelersunfamiliar with the surroundings, andrugged terrain in remote areas.Furthermore, rural characteristics thatsolicit ITS solutions include an overrepresentation of fatal crashes (About 60percent of traffic fatalities and 55percent of work zone fatalities occur inrural areas), safety problems related tohigh speeds on non-interstate ruralroads and increased response time forEmergency Medical Services. Manyrural communities now have excellentall-weather road systems, but manyrural residents remain isolated becauseof their inability to travel. Presently, 38percent of the nation’s rural residentslive in areas without any public transitservice and another 28 percent live inareas in which the level of transitservice is negligible 2.

The vision aims to improve the safetyand security of the rural traveler,especially given the differences with theurban environment. Similarly, isolationis a factor that impacts both thetransportation disadvantaged and theeconomic vitality of the communities inrural America; therefore, reducingisolation is important. Additionally, asresources continue to become morescarce, using advanced technologies toimprove the efficiency and productivityof operating and maintainingtransportation services is crucial,especially given the high costsassociated with rural transportationoperations and maintenance.

MissionTo ensure the development and

application of Advanced RuralTransportation Systems throughresearch, demonstrations, evaluations,and the promotion of cost-effectivetechnologies ready for implementation,and including the provision of trainingand technical assistance totransportation providers planning orimplementing ITS technologies.

The US DOT will work with a widerange of constituents to identifypotential technological solutions torural problems, and to study thesepotential solutions to determine cost-effective ways to implement them. Asstated earlier, the role of the ARTSProgram is to develop rural ITS options


and husband emerging ITS technologieswithin rural settings from conception toviable options for implementation. Thiseffort will focus on developing theoptions for ITS in rural America andreducing the uncertainty surroundingtheir implementation. It includesexamining technological, political/institutional, and planning issues. Note,that the program may entail research,field operations tests, or targeted modeldeployments designed to reduce theuncertainty associated with particularrural ITS services. The specific elementsin the program will be described in thecompanion ARTS Program Plan.

Initially they may be stand-alonesubsystems, however in later years,these subsystems may be coordinatedand integrated as necessary. Once thesesystems and subsystems are defined, theUS DOT will assist others in theimplementation of these solutionsthrough a variety of outreach activities.Ultimately, these systems will bemainstreamed into participatingagencies’ long-range plans and capitalimprovement programs.

4. Values and PhilosophiesThe Values describe things that are

important to an organization that willimpact how the Vision and Mission arefulfilled, and yet may not be directlyaddressed in their statements. These arethe underlying principles of theorganization. The PhilosophyStatements either describe theunderlying philosophy that governs theorganization, or state managementcommitments describing the promisesmanagement may make to its customers,employees, or other stakeholders. It isthe values and philosophies thatprovide the underlying assumptionsupon which the program is built to meetthe vision and mission.

ValuesBuilding upon the values each

administration may have alreadydefined, the values that are consideredimportant to the organization indeveloping successful Advanced RuralTransportation Systems are:

Equity—The improvements made viathis program will be distributed in a fairand non-discriminatory manner;

Decision making—Balanced andappropriate decisions should be madereflecting the issues and concerns ofthose impacted and considering allfeasible alternatives (their costs,benefits, and outcomes);

Collaboration—Achieving the visionrequires many people from a variety ofdisciplines to work together. This valueis at the heart of the US DOT staff, andhas been clearly demonstrated through

the cross-cutting Rural Action Team;and

Leadership—A strong andenthusiastic proponent is needed to leadthe program.

PhilosophiesThe following philosophies, or

guiding principles, underlie theStrategic Plan for Advanced RuralTransportation Systems. Collectively,they provide the assumptions andfoundation for the goals, objectives, andprogram elements.

The Federal role for rural ITS is oneof support and fostering theimplementation of advanced ITStechnologies in rural America by others.It is an enabling program designed tobring rural ITS technologies to maturityand explore institutional arrangementsthat provide feasible options to ruralareas wanting to implement ITS.

The ARTS must be sustainable.They must be developed through

public/public and public/privatepartnering initiatives involving both thehighway community and the publictransportation community, businessinterests, etc. They must be seamlesslyconnected to the rest of ITS (i.e., urban,suburban-rural connectivity, andhighway-transit-ridesharingconnectivity) and also compatible withnon-ITS facilities and systems andshould employ innovative financingprinciples.

5. Goals and Strategic ObjectivesThe Goals describe the general results

or outcomes the organization intends toachieve. They are measurable butusually not measured. For each goal,strategic objectives are defined. StrategicObjectives are written statements thatdescribe an intended outcome. StrategicObjectives clearly describe measurabletargets of achievement.

As opposed to the abstract nature ofthe vision and mission, the goals andstrategic objectives are definable in realand measurable terms. The sixcharacteristics of Strategic Objectivesinclude: (1) An external focus, (2)measurable, (3) achievable, (4) clear, (5)comprehensive, and (6) supporting themission and goal statements. Strategicobjectives can also be defined for bothoutputs of the program and outcomes ofthe program. Outputs are the servicesand products that the program provides.Outcomes are measures of their impactin the rural environments.

The goals for the ARTS Program andtheir strategic objectives are providedbelow.

There are three types of objectives:Administrative outputs, programoutputs and outcomes. The

administrative output objectivesdescribe measurable internal oradministrative actions that the US DOTwill take, hence they are not externallyfocused. Program output objectivesmeasure the extent to which the USDOT has achieved its role asfacilitator—including the extent towhich others have been made aware ofthe solutions, and the extent to whichthese systems have been deployed.Outcome objectives are measures of theimpact that the implementation of therural ITS systems has on rural America.Outcomes capture the achievement ofthe overall goals. For example,developing and providing rural ITSawareness seminars would meet anadministrative objective. Deploying asafety information system would be anachievement of a program outputobjective, and reducing the rate andfrequency of crashes due to theimplementation of this system would bean achievement of an outcome objective.

The long-term outcome objectives areshown as part of this Strategic Plan. Theadministrative and program objectivesare by necessity tied to the specificelements of the companion ProgramPlan. Therefore, they will be specifiedas part of that document.

GoalsThe goals of the Rural ARTS Program

are closely tied to those of the overallITS program. Priority is given to thosegoals that will meet the more criticalneeds of travelers and transporters ofgoods in rural areas. Consequently, theprimary goals of the ARTS program aresafety and efficient mobility, versusthose of urban systems which arecongestion relief and increasedthroughput. The five goals of theprogram are: (1) Safety and security; (2)mobility, convenience and comfort; (3)efficiency, economic vitality andproductivity; and and environmentalconservation.

Safety and Security—Improve thesafety and security of users of the ruraltransportation system.

Improving safety and security arecontinually identified as critical goalsfor rural transportation and ITS. Ruralcrashes tend to be more severe, andhave longer response times due to thelong distances and isolated settings. Thecharacteristics of rural crashes mirrorthe diverse nature of the system, havinga wide variety of causal factors. In somecases, trip fatigue takes its toll, while inother cases poor visibility or unsafe roadconditions lead to crashes. ITS can playa major role in reducing the rate andfrequency of crashes through a widevariety of safety advisory systems. ITScan also help reduce the consequences


3 Understanding Rural America, EconomicResearch Service, US Department of Agriculture,Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 710,Washington, DC, February 1995.

of the crashes once they occur byenabling emergency responders toreduce response time and provideimproved care. Automatic vehiclelocation systems can expedite theresponse to emergency situations onboard transit vehicles. ITS can alsocreate a more secure rural transportationsystem by reducing the exposure tounsafe situations. This consists ofsystems that provide immediateassistance to travelers in rural areas thatexperience problems, such as, gettinglost or having a car breakdown. Inaddition, law enforcement agencies canapply advanced technologies to meettheir needs, including enhanced officersafety, improved dispatching, andsimplified reporting.

Safety and Security Strategic Objectives.

1. Reduce the frequency of crashes(via pre-crash warning systems);

2. Reduce the rate of crashes (via pre-crash warning and advisory systems);

3. Reduce the severity and fatalitylevel per incident from current levels(via improved response time and care);and

4. Reduce exposure to unsafesituations (e.g., getting lost, car breakingdown, etc.) (via emergency notificationsystem).

Mobility and Convenience—Enhancepersonal mobility and accessibility toservices, and enhance the convenienceand comfort of all users of thetransportation system.

One of the major characteristics acrossall of rural America is isolation and therelatively fewer available transportationoptions. People should have access totransportation, especially to enablethem to meet basic life needs such asgetting health care or buying staples.This goal consists of reducing isolationby increasing accessibility to services.This is especially true given the aging ofAmerica, and the increasing likelihoodthat rural Americans will be older withadditional transportation needs in theyears ahead. In some cases, there may beopportunities to implementtechnologies that enable older drivers toextend the period that they are able todrive. For those unable to drive, thisincrease in accessibility consists ofadvanced rural transit systems. Anotherimportant aspect of this goal includesproviding alternative means oftransportation to tourists in areas thatcannot accommodate a large number ofvehicles. It also addresses the need forconvenient and comfortable travelthrough the development of informationsystems that help people get the servicesthey need (gas stations, lodging,restaurants, hospitals, etc.).

The advances in communications andcomputing have created an alternativeto transportation. Improving the abilityof rural America to carry out theirdesired activities throughtelecommuting and remote computing isalso an important aspect of enhancingmobility. Therefore, this goal must alsoaddress the evaluation andadvancement of communicationsoptions for rural America as substitutesfor desired travel. Examples of howtransportation and ITS may helpimprove the connectivity of rural areasinclude: providing connectivity throughsharing communications trunk linesused for ITS services; and makingpublic right of ways available forcommunications link installation.

Mobility and Convenience StrategicObjectives

1. Increase the percentage ofpopulation with available andconvenient transportation services tomeet its mobility needs;

2. Improve access to services andtourist areas, and expand theavailability of information aboutservices; and

3. Improve the communicationsconnectivity of rural areas and theability to trade off communications withdesired travel.

Efficiency—Increase operationalefficiency and productivity of thetransportation system, focusing onsystem providers.

In rural America this goal addressesthe needs of rural transportation systemproviders, enabling them to carry outtheir services in a safe, efficient andproductive manner. To some extent, thisis a shift from the metropolitan ITSprogram whose primary goal is toreduce congestion. The long distancesand sparse network often makeoperations and maintenance veryexpensive on a cost per unit basis, andthe seasonally harsh nature of the ruralenvironment can put providers, such assnow plow and transit operators, at risk.Also, the manpower and equipment perroad mile, or transit vehicle is oftenmuch higher than in urban settings.Finally, weekend or seasonal peaks intraffic, severe weather conditions,backups due to crashes, or roadconstruction with limited alternaterouting all create congestion problems.Thus, improving the safety, efficiency,and productivity of operations andmaintenance activities of thetransportation providers, meet criticalneeds, especially through theapplication of coordinated advancedwide-area traffic management and trafficsignal systems.

Efficiency Strategic Objectives1. Reduce congestion and delay (e.g.,

in work zones, at events and touristareas, etc.);

2. Improve incident management andresponse time;

3. Improve vehicle routing anddiversion (e.g. trip coordination, pre-triproute selection, en-route delay and roadcondition information, and en-routenotification of detour options); and

4. Improve operations andmaintenance resource management andallocation.

Economic Vitality and Productivity—Enhance economic productivity ofindividuals, businesses, andorganizations.

Many rural areas are economicallydepressed and their economic viabilityis limited by their isolation.3 Rural ITScan improve their ability to compete byreducing their isolation, improving theefficiency of transportation services tobusinesses in the area, and letting thepublic know of their attributes.Likewise, tourist areas need to be ableto provide information to their visitorsand provide them mobility if they are tocontinue to attract visitors. The focus ofrural ITS in meeting this goal istherefore, to keep rural areas viable andhelping to provide the services neededto function competitively. Anotheraspect of this goal addresses the desiresof small communities that want tomaintain their communities as they are,and limit the amount of growth (e.g.,Aspen, CO). The rural ITS program willidentify opportunities to address theirtransportation needs, while alsorespecting their desire to controlgrowth.

As discussed within the Mobility andConvenience Goal, isolation can also bereduced by improving thecommunications connectivity of an area.As rural areas become more connected,they become more viable areas for livingand working. This goal, therefore, alsoaddresses the evaluation andadvancement of telecommuting fromrural America as a means of reducingisolation and making the ruralenvironment more livable.

Economic Vitality and ProductivityStrategic Objectives

1. Improve access to and from ruralcommunities for travel, goods andservices, and information;

2. Improve knowledge of goods,services, and opportunities in ruralcommunities (e.g. en-route information,


transportation service information, etc.);and

3. Improve transportation andcommunication facilities in and aroundrural communities.

Environmental Conservation—Reduceenergy consumption and environmentalcosts and negative impacts.

While rural areas may not have airquality problems of the same magnitudeas urban areas, there are still areaswhere there is a need to maintain goodair quality and address otherenvironmental problems. Consequently,opportunities to reduce the number ofsingle occupant vehicles, vehicle milestraveled (VMT), and increase publictransportation and ridesharingalternatives are essential. Many touristattractions, such as National Parks, alsosuffer from the negative environmentalimpacts of large numbers of visitors.This goal includes opportunities tominimize the effects of large influxes ofpeople into these sensitive areas. Inaddition, in rural areas there is a needto address the impacts of thetransportation infrastructure,operations, and maintenance on theenvironment, including the reduction ofimpacts due to hazardous materialspills, and the tracking of hazardousmaterials through the ruraltransportation system.

Environmental Conservation StrategicObjectives

1. Reduce Single Occupant Vehicles;2. Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled;3. Improve hazardous material

response (minimize environmentalimpacts); and

4. Reduce emissions per trip.

External Factors AssessmentExternal factors are key outside forces

that may influence the success of therural ITS program in achieving theabove mission and goals; or have otherimpacts on the delivery of the program,and yet are outside the control of theagency.

One set of external factors with afocus on changes in legislation and theenvironment in Washington, D.C. canhave a profound effect on the deliveryof a long-term program. Of particularinterest are the current hearingsconcerning Intermodal SurfaceTransportation Efficiency Act and its re-authorization in the next year. If themajor priorities or funding mechanismschange as a result of the new legislation,the strategic plan may have to bemodified and updated accordingly.

Likewise, shifts in the Federal andState Departments of Transportationroles and responsibilities may impactthe fulfillment of the program. However,

these shifts may not be due to specificchanges in legislation, but can also becaused by changes in administration.

Another important set of externalfactors are changes in the economy, fuelprices, or concerns of the nation broughtabout by unique events. Terrorist actscan raise the importance of securitythroughout the transportation system.Another energy crisis will impact theamount and type of rural travel.

Equally important are watershedchanges in technology that can totallychange the costs and potentialapplications within the ruralenvironment. Twenty years ago, no onecould have predicted the rapid adoptionof facsimile machines throughout thebusiness world, or even the use ofcellular phone technology that nowmakes many ITS applications possible.Significant developments of newcommunications systems by privateindustry, such as satellitecommunications networks, couldgreatly impact the cost-effectiveness ofadvanced rural transportation systems.Yet, the US DOT has little control overthese types of developments.

The last factor is the ability of localrural communities to adopt newtechnologies and systems. However, therapid infusion of new technologies inrural settings is hampered in a numberof ways. First, rural areas are often someof the most fiscally constrained inAmerica. There are large resourcerequirements for maintaining thecurrent systems, and little additionalfunds for implementing new systemsover the miles of rural network.Likewise, the staff resources are oftenlimited in rural environments with oneperson taking on the roles andresponsibilities typically filled by manyspecialists in denser areas, or evenwhole departments. ‘‘Mainstreaming’’the consideration and evaluation of ITSstrategies into multimodaltransportation planning processes isalso important if transportation plannersand decision makers are to understandthe costs and benefits of implementingcertain technologies, particularly incomparison with more traditional orconventional improvements. Staffs musthave the time and energy to plan andadopt the new systems to their currentenvironments.

Recognizing these external factors andupdating the strategic plan as conditionschange over the life of the program willkeep it aligned with the overall missionand goals described above.

7. StrategiesA Strategy is an approach, or an

implementation methodology, that willlead to achieving a specific objective. It

includes a description of how the goalsand objectives are to be achieved,including a description of theoperational processes, skills andtechnology, and the human, capital,information, and other resourcesrequired to meet those goals andobjectives.

Achieving the strategic objectives ofthe program means recognizing theextremely diverse nature of the ruraltransportation system. Diversity isexhibited in the system’s wide range ofmotorists, managers, maintenance staff,operators, road types, terrain, climates,jurisdictions, land use, and seasonalcharacteristics. These diversecharacteristics translate into a widevariety of needs, problems, andopportunities for improvement.Consequently, the ARTS solutions, i.e.,the application of advancedtechnologies to meet these disparateneeds, problems and opportunities,must be diverse as well. The strategiesto identify these solutions must alsorecognize this diversity.

Given this diversity of the ruraltransportation system, and the widebreadth of the program (i.e.,encompassing a large number of needsof a large number of users), the ARTSprogram has been organized into sevenCritical Program Areas (CPA’s). A majoreffort of the Rural Action Team duringthe development of the Strategic Plan,was the investigation of different clusterconcepts and ways to find commonareas of interest across rural America. Itwas found that while rural settingsdiffer greatly (Jackson Hole, WY, vs.Death Valley, CA, vs. Cape Cod, MA),there was general agreement on theclasses of needs that exist within eachsetting and the principal users of ITS.The clusters were therefore developedaround major needs and servicegroupings. They are:

1. Traveler Safety and Security;2. Emergency Services;3. Tourism and Traveler Information

Services;4. Public Traveler Services and Public

Mobility Services;5. Infrastructure Operations and

Maintenance;6. Fleet Operations and Maintenance;

and7. Commercial Vehicle Operations.The above division is the primary

dimension for this cluster concept andfocuses on identifiable needs andservices categories. The Tourism andTraveler Information Services CPA, forexample, refers to the needs andservices that a visitor (both driver andpassenger) unfamiliar with a rural areamay require, as well as the Visitors andTourism Bureaus, transit service


providers, information providers, etc.,that provide the services to meet theirneeds. In a tourist resort area, this maybe the main focus of the ITS program.In other areas, it may exist but plays asmaller role. Likewise, the PublicTraveler and Public Mobility Servicesfocus on reducing the isolation of thetransportation disadvantaged andincreasing the mobility for all of thepublic. Its constituents also includeboth the potential travelers and serviceproviders. The maintenance andoperations activities may also form theirown divisions because of the costs ofthe provision of these services in ruralareas. As ITS services are shown toreduce their costs, improve theirefficiency, etc., these areas and theorganizations responsible for thembecome natural constituents andadvocates for the programs.

The clusters are not necessarilymutually exclusive and will overlap intheir deployment in a specific region orrural setting. For example, servicesdeveloped around a ‘‘safety informationcluster’’ may also exist in the same areawith services developed to meet themobility needs. Similarly, clusters are‘‘fuzzy’’ and the boundary between tworelated clusters may be difficult todiscern at times (infrastructure versusfleet operations and maintenance).

Each rural area will have its ownenvironmental conditions andconstraints, frequency of needs,institutional settings, etc. These factorsdetermine the importance and priorityplaced upon each cluster within an area,and the mix of ITS services that may beconsidered for implementation.

The clusters provide common areas ofunderstanding and focus and, thus,make the ARTS Plan implementationmore manageable. The Program Plandescribes the user services, functionalrequirements, and knowledge gaps thatapply to each CPA. Aspects of aprogram element may address morethan one CPA. Consequently, Theactivities associated with some CPA’smay consist of a number of research andfield test activities, while activitiesassociated with another will focus ondeployment.

Though much needs to be done todetermine exactly which projects willbe initiated within each CPA, somegeneralizations can still be made. Theresearch and field testing efforts thattake place within this program will bebuilding upon the wealth of knowledgeand proven solutions that have beendeveloped under other parts of the ITSprogram. It is not expected that the ruraladvanced technologies will besignificantly different from their urbancounterparts, rather the difference

between the two will be characterizedthrough the implementation methods.Consequently, the bulk of the programwill probably not consist of basicresearch, but rather will focus onovercoming the rural barriers thathamper cost-effective implementation.While such a focus will ensure that theseamless connectivity between urbanand rural systems is achieved, care mustbe taken to avoid attempts to fit urbansolutions into rural problems.

Traveler Safety and Security

The rates and severity of accidentshave been repeatedly identified as oneof the most serious problems associatedwith rural transportation. Accidents per-vehicle-mile traveled are higher than inurban areas, and tend to be more severdue to higher operating speeds. Once anaccident occurs, the time to notify andrespond are also on the average longer,and trauma centers are located furtheraway. Consequently, improving safetyand security has been identified as a keycluster or critical program area.

The needs in this cluster centeraround improving the driver’s ability tooperate the vehicle in a safe andresponsible way and in reducing theinfluence of other factors that may helpcause an accident, such as, poor roadconditions, visibility, etc. This clusterfocuses on the prevention of accidentsbefore they occur and in reducing theseverity of the accident if it does takeplace.

Another aspect of this cluster isincreasing the security (both actual andperceived) of the traveler along his/hertrip. Providers of transportation serviceshave a responsibility to provide a safeand secure environment in which totravel. A traveler may be injured whiletraveling even though he/she has notbeen involved in a vehicular accident(i.e., a transit patron is assaulted whilewaiting for a vehicle, or someone usinga rural rest stop is robbed). Thus,providing a secure environment throughremote monitoring, silent alarms, etc., isan important ITS function within thiscluster.

Some of the advanced systems thatmay be explored and developed underthis cluster are:

1. Wide area informationdissemination systems (via radio,computer, TV, etc.) both pre-trip and en-route of safety information, such asweather and road conditions;

2. Site-specific safety advisories andwarnings (e.g., the enhanced radardetector for hazard warning, visibilitysensors, variable speed limits, collisionavoidance, work zone detection/intrusion alarms, rail crossing alerts,

shoulder detection, etc.) to alertmotorists of imminent problems;

3. Safety surveillance and monitoring(e.g., on transit vehicles (for malcontentsand for ill riders), at park-and-ride lots,rest areas, etc.); and

4. In-Vehicle monitoring anddetection systems including such itemsas driver monitoring (alertness, status),vision enhancement, perimeterdetection, shoulder detection, etc.

Emergency ServicesOnce an incident (accident or

emergency situation) occurs, there is aneed for emergency services. These canbe in the form of ambulances andmedical care, police, fire, tow trucks,and other vehicle assistance, etc. Theisolation of rural areas, extensive timefrom the incident to detection, andresponse once the incident is detectedall contribute to notifications andresponse times much longer than foundin denser areas, often of an hour ormore. This leads to much more severeconsequences than would occur withrapid response. Given an incident, theEmergency Management Team must benotified, a decision on how to addressthe emergency must be made, servicesdispatched and the location of theincident found and reached. In addition,the care givers are constantly having tomake critical decisions about the typeand extent of care to provide, both onthe scene and at the hospital or traumacenter.

This cluster focuses on the ITSservices required to provide thisemergency assistance. It includes boththe provision of communications, themanagement of the emergency servicesfleets, and the transmission of criticalinformation to better prepare the caregivers, both at the scene and in thehospital or trauma center. Assisting theemergency vehicle in reaching theincident through vehicle routing,identification, and warning systems, isalso an important aspect. A largenumber of this cluster’s needs also dealswith the coordination of differentservices and the need to share thecritical and appropriate information onthe emergency as rapidly as possible inreal time.


1. Mayday systems to alert dispatchersof location and nature and extent of aproblem (e.g., crash, breakdown, etc.);and

2. Advanced dispatching and vehicle-based response systems (e.g., onemergency medical services & lawenforcement vehicles, tow trucks, etc.)to get to the scene quickly, and provide


appropriate care (perhaps for thejudicious enforcement of traffic laws aswell).

Tourism and Traveler InformationServices

This cluster focuses on the needs ofa visitor or traveler that is unfamiliarwith the rural area they are in ortraveling through. It includes bothinformation services and the uniqueaspects of providing mobility services totourists and resorts, since many timesvisitors have little choice of mode (noauto) and require special services. Itaddresses aspects of both the ‘‘Mobilityand Convenience’’ and ‘‘EconomicVitality and Productivity’’ goals for theARTS program. Knowing where desireddestinations are, how to get to them, andconditions along the way adds to themobility and convenience of an area.Likewise, travelers must be aware ofdestinations before they can visit themand providing services to tourists andothers unfamiliar with the ruralsurroundings enhances the economicvitality of the area.

The needs and services that may bebundled in this cluster include suchactivities as electronic yellow pages,weather and condition forecasting, routeadvisory information, informationdissemination in hotels, roadside, wideband radio, etc. Once in a resort area,tourists often are hindered due to lackof a vehicle, or knowledge of the area.Providing mobility through transit,paratransit, and Global PositioningSystems (for rental cars) may also be animportant function. This cluster wouldalso be of primary interest to theTourism and Visitors Centers, EconomicDevelopment Bureaus, as well as thelocal service providers (departments ofstreet and traffic, transit authorities,State Department of Transportation, andPark Agencies).

Tourism may also be a concern in anyrural setting during major events andfestivals. At these events the traffic,local population, and transportationproblems of the participants, localresidents, and emergency services swellto many times their average levels.Event logistics, traffic and parkingmanagement, provision of emergencycommunications, etc., are crucial to thesuccess of these events and yet must betemporary in nature, and in most casesunderstandable to volunteers.


1. Information services (electronicyellow pages, route guidance, etc.)provided at fixed locations (e.g., inhotels, at rest areas, at modal transferstations, etc.), and en-route;

2. Mobility services (transit,paratransit, parking systems, etc.);

3. Smart card payment/transactionsystems for transit and touristtransactions; and

4. Portable event managementsystems that include such services astraffic management, variable messagesigns, hotel and service availability anddirections on how to reach serviceswhen they are available.

Public Traveler Services/PublicMobility Services

Isolation and accessibility to keyservices are critical concerns to manyrural inhabitants. Providing transit,paratransit, rural addressing, and otherservices associated with ability to makea desired trip fall within the MobilityServices cluster. As the nation ages, andbecomes more transportationdisadvantaged the need for MobilityServices and the safety net ofaccessibility will become more extreme.This is especially true for rural areaswhere neighbors are often miles apart,trip distances are long, and travel tocommon origins and destinationsinfrequent. All rural residents, visitorsto tourist areas, and human serviceproviders are constituents of thiscluster.

The first major need associated withthis cluster is finding those who needservices and providing the mobilitysafety net to them. Secondly,determining how to provide the servicesin an efficient and effective manner,since often those providing the servicehave very high operating expenses. Thisincludes the sharing of informationamong providers which can be used tohelp optimize routing, coordinatedelivery, and reduce fraud in claimingsubsidies from service providers. Lastly,addressing the need for coordinationand communication between the manyproviders of services that may beinvolved including transit agencies andsocial service providers. The clusterincludes not only providing mobility tothe travelers from their homes andorigins and destinations, but alsoincreasing the ability of people to reachthem in provision of other services(nursing, meals on wheels, hospital outpatient, etc.).


1. Advanced transit, paratransitsystems, etc., using AVL and improveddispatching (e.g., taking advantage ofimproved rural addressing (i.e., usingGlobal Positioning Satellites), etc.);

2. Smart card payment/transactionsystems for rider payment and tracking(beat fraud); and

3. Advanced ride sharing and ridematching systems.

Infrastructure Operations andMaintenance

Due to the isolation, distances, andsheer amount of rural road miles theprovision of infra-structure maintenanceand operation services are both costly,and often inefficient. Low volumes onthe roads make the detection ofproblems and conditions a concern.This cluster’s focus is on improving theefficiency of the maintenance andoperations activities for thetransportation systems within ruralareas. Improving and automating thehighway pavement managementsystems, providing early detection anddeployment of services to meet severeconditions (snow removal, salting, etc.),maintaining, operating, and linkinglocal and statewide traffic operationscenters, managing work zones areexamples of the ITS elements thatwould fall in this cluster. It is closelyrelated to the next cluster which focuseson the fleet operations in rural areas.

The maintenance of roads and theroad system for safe operation fallsunder the maintenance organizationactivities. Because of the nature of ruralsettings, the cost per mile, and simplyknowing the condition of the systemthat is out there, is very high and ofteninefficient. This cluster would focus onthe provision of services to helpmaintenance organizations performtheir functions more efficiently andsafely. Pavement management, andnormal road condition detection toreduce the costs of tracking andplanning the system upkeep is critical.Some of the other needs and servicesthat fall within this cluster include:Management of road crews and workzone location; road striping systems;weather information systems, detectionof road conditions; coordination ofmaintenance activities; and floodcontrol and detection.

Also general operations of thephysical infrastructure has a set ofneeds that can be met by rural ITS.These include traffic management,traffic signal systems, tracking of use ofthe system, assisting in the safety andmanagement of work zone areas, etc.This cluster would also focus on howthe needs and desires of the operationmanagers of the road and otherinfrastructure systems can be providedfor using ITS. Again, the overall focuswould be to provide services to helpreduce the costs of operations andmaintenance activities and improve theperformance and efficiency in ruralsettings.



1. Appropriate traffic signal andtraffic management systems for smallurban areas, ultimately linked together(as well as with large metropolitanTMCs) as part of a statewide, distributedinformation system;

2. Automated management systems(e.g., bridge, pavement, roadsidehardware, etc.); and

3. Advanced work zone managementand traffic control.

Fleet Operations and MaintenanceThe cost of providing services for

mobility and managing the fleets usedin rural settings is often extremely highfor the same reasons as found in the lastcluster. The distances are long, and theability to combine destinations andprovide efficient routing often poor. Thepotential for ITS to improve thecoordination of fleets, routing, andcommunications is especially high inrural areas.

Fleet operations of both transit andother rural fleets has a different focusthan infrastructure operations. Thevehicles must be scheduled, routed,located, and maintained. Managementof rural fleets takes on new significancedue to the cost and low use per mile ofoperations. This cluster would focus onthe coordination and provision ofservices for rural fleet operations andmanagement. It includes services totransit operators and paratransitproviders, as well as the fleets ofmaintenance and other areas. Vehiclelocation and routing, maintenancescheduling, rural addressing,coordination of services and billingbetween providers, etc. all would fallwithin this cluster.


1. Advanced dispatching and routingsystems (e.g., for snow plows, transitoperators, etc.) (includes centralprocessing systems and vehicle-basedsystems such as Automatic VehicleLocation);

2. Advanced vehicle tracking systems(e.g., guidance for snow plow operatorsto track through dangerous areascovered in snow); and

3. Fleet maintenance andmanagement systems.

Commercial Vehicle OperationsCommercial Vehicle Operations

(CVO) and ITS development andsupport is carried out through theparallel ITS CVO program under thedirection of the FHWA Office of MotorCarriers. The Vision Statement for the

ITS CVO program is stated as ‘‘Assistedby technology, trucks and buses willmove safely and freely throughout NorthAmerica.’’ It is a voluntary effortconsisting of public and privateorganizations working together toimprove highway safety and motorcarrier productivity through thedevelopment and application of theCVO User Services (Commercial VehicleElectronic Clearance, AutomatedRoadside Safety Inspections, On-boardSafety Monitoring, Commercial VehicleAdministrative Processes, HazardousMaterials Incident Response, andFreight Mobility).

Since many of the activitiesassociated with commercial vehicleoperations take place in ruralenvironments there are a number oftopics and services of mutual interestbetween the Rural and CVO ITSprograms. The rural ITS programfocuses on the overall ITS services andgeneral users found throughout ruralAmerica which may impact, but not betailored to, CVO operations. Many ofthese, such as, emergency response andMayday systems, may fall into otherclusters. The Rural CVO cluster’sprimary function would be to provide aCVO perspective to these other clustersto ensure that CVO needs andrequirements are also considered in thedevelopment of the overall ITSapplications. The Rural CVO clustermay also supplement the main CVO ITSProgram in uniquely rural commercialoperations such as services toagricultural harvesting and migrationoperations or small rural commercialactivities.

As stated, an important aspect of thiscluster would be to ensure that systemsdesigned to meet the other criticalprogram areas also included theelements and perspectives of thecommercial vehicle operators (collectingand tracking CVO specific data,monitoring and tracking specificvehicles, meeting unique CVOinformation needs, etc.). How can CVOoperations take advantage of theseclusters? Can CVO and generalbackbone systems be combined? Whatadditional requirements are necessary tomeet CVO needs? These are questionsthat may be addressed in fulfilling thisaspect of the CVO cluster.

Another major component of thiscluster centers around the agriculturalharvesting and roundups found in ruralareas. The annual migration of theharvesting combines in the Midwest, thesugar beet harvest in Minnesota, theroundups in ranch and sheep country,etc. all require focused transportationactivities in often a very narrow windowof opportunity. People need to know the

location of the combines. Logistics andthe movement of the trucks in and outof the area is critical; The roadmaintenance organizations may havespecial requirements before and afterthe event. All of these concerns point toa unique set of needs possiblyoverlooked under the provision ofnormal day-to-day services.


1. CVO-specific requirements/needswithin the other critical program areas(e.g., rural addressing, logistics, vehicleand driver monitoring), vehicle locationsystems for alerts to other travelers aswell as for other tracking needs,assistance for agricultural harvesting,collecting and tracking CVO specificinformation needs (e.g., CVO-enhancedweather advisories);

2. Services to assist AgriculturalHarvesting and Migration; and

3. Other services in support of smallrural commercial enterprises. On theroad communications and paging, lowcost vehicle location for employees inthe field, etc., to help make ruralcommercial activities more viable andcost-effective.

8. Next Steps: The Program Plan

This Strategic Plan for the ARTSprogram has described the vision,mission, objectives, and measures uponwhich the ARTS program is built.Because of the diversity of needs andsettings in rural America, it alsodeveloped seven critical program areas,or clusters, which provide areas ofcommon interest and focus within theoverall program. The ARTS ProgramPlan has been defined using theStrategic Plan and its critical programareas as a foundation. Strategic Planningis also a continuing process. As theimplementation of the program movesforward, a key element is the ongoingevaluation and adjustment of the plan toaccount for new knowledge gained bythe early research, shifting priorities,etc. This ‘‘Performance Feed Forward’’step of strategic planning will be carriedout as part of each budget cycle.

As stated, the ARTS Program Planwill be developed around the clusters,or critical program areas. The tasksassociated with the development of theProgram Plan are underway andinclude:

1. Continue assessment andevaluation of current rural ITS projects;

2. Determine what is known and notknown for each cluster;

3. Identify potential projects and costsassociated with answering theunknowns within each cluster;


4. Set strategic priorities within andbetween each cluster;

5. Select projects (research, fieldoperational tests, targeted modeldeployments) to reduce the unknownswithin each cluster, meet the goals,objectives and strategic priorities, andstay within budget allocations for eachfiscal year; and

6. Evaluate progress and update boththe Strategic Plan and Program Planduring each budget cycle (PerformanceFeed Forward).(23 U.S.C. 315; 49 CFR 1.48)

Issued on: March 7, 1997.Jane F. Garvey,Acting Administrator, Federal HighwayAdministration.[FR Doc. 97–6738 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–22–P

Surface Transportation Board

[Docket No. AB–433X]

Idaho Northern & Pacific RailroadCompany; Abandonment Exemption inWallowa and Union Counties, OR

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board—DOT.ACTION: Notice of exemption.

SUMMARY: The ICC Termination Act of1995, Pub. L. No. 104–88, 109 Stat. 803(the ICCTA), which was enacted onDecember 29, 1995, and took effect onJanuary 1, 1996, abolished the InterstateCommerce Commission (ICC) andtransferred certain functions andproceedings to the SurfaceTransportation Board (Board). Section204(b)(1) of the ICCTA provides, ingeneral, that proceedings pending beforethe ICC on the effective date of thatlegislation shall be decided under thelaw in effect prior to January 1, 1996,insofar as they involve functionsretained by the ICCTA. This decisionrelates to a proceeding that was pendingwith the ICC prior to January 1, 1996,and to functions that are subject toBoard jurisdiction pursuant to 49 U.S.C.10903. Therefore, this decision appliesthe law in effect prior to the ICCTA, andcitations are to the former sections ofthe statute, unless otherwise indicated.The Board, under 49 U.S.C. 10505exempts from the prior approvalrequirements of 49 U.S.C. 10903–04, theabandonment by Idaho Northern &Pacific Railroad Company of a 60.58-mile portion of its Joseph Branch line,in Wallowa and Union Counties, OR,subject to standard labor protectiveconditions and environmentalconditions.

DATES: Provided no formal expression ofintent to file an offer of financialassistance (OFA) has been received, thisexemption will be effective April 17,1997. Formal expressions of intent tofile an OFA under 49 CFR 1152.27(c)(2)must be filed by March 28, 1997;petitions to stay must be filed April 2,1997; requests for a public use conditionin conformity with 49 CFR 1152.28(a)(2)must be filed by April 7, 1997; andpetitions to reopen must be filed byApril 14, 1997.ADDRESSES: An original and 10 copies ofall pleadings referring to Docket No.AB–433X must be filed with: SurfaceTransportation Board, Office of theSecretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 KStreet, NW., Washington, DC 20423–0001. In addition, a copy of allpleadings must be served on petitioner’srepresentative: Robert A. Wimbish, 1920N Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Beryl Gordon, (202) 565–1600. [TDD forthe hearing impared: (202) 565–1695.]SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:Additional information is contained inthe Board’s decision. To purchase acopy of the full decision, write to, callor pick up in person from: DC News &Data, Inc., 1925 K Street, NW., Suite210, Washington, DC 20006 [Telephone:(202) 289–4357]. [Assistance for thehearing impaired is available throughTDD services (202) 565–1695.]

Decided: March 12, 1997.By the Board, Chairman Morgan and Vice

Chairman Owen.Vernon A. Williams,Secretary.[FR Doc. 97–6741 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4915–00–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Submission to OMB for Review;Comment Request

March 10, 1997.

The Department of Treasury hassubmitted the following publicinformation collection requirement(s) toOMB for review and clearance under thePaperwork Reduction Act of 1995,Public Law 104–13. Copies of thesubmission(s) may be obtained bycalling the Treasury Bureau ClearanceOfficer listed. Comments regarding thisinformation collection should beaddressed to the OMB reviewer listedand to the Treasury DepartmentClearance Officer, Department of theTreasury, Room 2110, 1425 New YorkAvenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)OMB Number: 1545–1380.Regulation ID Number: IA–17–90

(Final).Type of Review: Extension.Title: Reporting Requirements for

Recipients of Points Paid on ResidentialMortgages.

Description: To encourage compliancewith the tax laws relating to themortgage interest deduction, theregulations require the reporting onForm 1098 of points paid on residentialmortgages. Only businesses that receivemortgage interest in the course of a tradeor business are affected by this reportingrequirement.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.


Estimated Burden Hours PerRespondent: 7 hours, 31 minutes.

Frequency of Response: Annually.Estimated Total Reporting Burden:

283,056 hours.Clearance Officer: Garrick Shear,

(202) 622–3869, Internal RevenueService, Room 5571, 1111 ConstitutionAvenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.

OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt,(202) 395–7860, Office of Managementand Budget, Room 10226, NewExecutive Office Building, Washington,DC 20503.Dale A. Morgan,Departmental Reports Management Officer.[FR Doc. 97–6791 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4830–01–P

Office of the Comptroller of theCurrency


Preemption Determination

AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of theCurrency, Treasury.ACTION: Reopening of comment period.

SUMMARY: The Office of the Comptrollerof the Currency (OCC) is reopening thepublic comment period on the OCC’snotice and request for commentregarding a request it has received for apreemption determination regardingcertain provisions of the Rhode IslandFinancial Institution Insurance SalesAct.DATES: Comments must be received byMay 15, 1997.ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent tothe Communications Division, 250 EStreet, SW, Third Floor, Washington,DC 20219. Attention Docket No. 97–01.In addition, comments may be sent byfacsimile transmission to FAX number


(202) 874–5274 or by Internet mail [email protected] will be available forinspection and photocopying at the EStreet, SW, location. Appointments forinspection of comments can be made bycalling (202) 874–4700.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Suzette Greco, Senior Attorney,Securities and Corporate PracticesDivision, (202) 874–5210 or StuartFeldstein, Assistant Director, Legislativeand Regulatory Activities Division,(202) 874–5090.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The OCChas been asked to determine whethercertain provisions of the Rhode IslandFinancial Institution Insurance SalesAct (FIISA), pertaining to sales ofinsurance by financial institutions, arepreempted by provisions of Federal law.On January 14, 1997, the OCC soughtcomment on this request by noticepublished in the Federal Register (62FR 1950). The deadline for submissionof comments was February 13, 1997.

As the Federal Register notice andrequest for comment indicated, theRhode Island law imposes a number ofrequirements upon financial institutionsengaged in the solicitation and sale ofinsurance that differ from therequirements that apply to otherinsurance agents and agencies. Therequest for a preemption determinationcontends that these specialrequirements prevent or significantlyinterfere with the ability of a nationalbank to exercise its authority under 12U.S.C. 92. See Barnett Bank of MarionCounty, N.A. v. Bill Nelson, FloridaInsurance Commissioner, et al., 116S.Ct. 1103, 1109 (1996) (stating thatstate laws are applicable to nationalbanks provided they do not ‘‘prevent orsignificantly interfere’’ with nationalbanks’ exercise of their powers).

Section 92 authorizes a national bank‘‘located and doing business in anyplace the population of which does notexceed five thousand * * * [to] act asthe agent for any fire, life, or otherinsurance company,’’ to ‘‘solicit[] andsell[] insurance,’’ to ‘‘collec[t]premiums,’’ and to ‘‘receive for servicesso rendered * * * fees orcommissions,’’ subject to rules andregulations prescribed by theComptroller of the Currency. The FIISAspecial requirements include aprovision prohibiting banks fromrequiring or implying that the purchaseof insurance products from a bank isrelated to receiving another bankingproduct or service, a provisionrestricting where a bank’s licensed agentcan solicit the sale of insurance, aprovision prohibiting certain bank

employees from soliciting and sellinginsurance, a provision requiringseparate applications for loans andinsurance, and a provision limiting theability of a bank to use its customerinformation to solicit and sell insurance.

The OCC is reopening the commentperiod until May 15, 1997, to allowinterested parties the opportunity toconsider the effect, if any, of a pendingRhode Island regulation that wouldimplement the FIISA. On December 13,1996, the Rhode Island Department ofBusiness Regulation (DBR), InsuranceDivision, published notice of itsproposal to promulgate Regulation 90, arule that would apply to the sale ofinsurance by financial institutions inRhode Island. Copies of the proposedregulation are on file at the DBR.Subsequently, on February 10, 1997, theDBR held a public hearing on proposedRegulation 90. The DBR has stated thatit intends to file Regulation 90, asamended to reflect any changes from theproposed rule, with the Rhode IslandSecretary of State in early April, 1997.The final regulation is expected to takeeffect in mid-1997.

In addition, the comments received todate on this matter raise certain pointson which additional information wouldbe helpful to the OCC. Specifically, theOCC invites commenters to address thefollowing issues:

1. How would national banks have tochange the way they conduct theirinsurance sales activities to conform tothe provisions of the FIISA that aredescribed in the January 14, 1997Federal Register notice? Commentersshould address with specificity anybusiness or operational adjustments,and associated costs, involved inconforming their operations to the FIISAprovisions.

2. The FIISA contains certainrequirements intended to address thepotential for customer confusion withregard to bank sales of insurance. Whatother approaches, including otherformal mechanisms, are available toensure that consumers are adequatelyprotected?

3. Would any of the provisions of theFIISA described in the OCC’s previousnotice disproportionately impactcommunity banks with respect topersonnel or other costs?

4. To what extent would any of theFIISA provisions impact the ability ofbanks to use streamlined physicalfacilities which employ fewer staff andrely on technology to a greater extentthan a traditional branch? To the extentthere was any impact, how wouldcustomer convenience be affected?Would any of the provisions have adetrimental affect on convenient

availability of a full line of products tocustomers?

5. Banks operating in low-incomeareas increasingly are seeking todevelop more efficient, low-overheadfacilities and delivery systems whenproviding products and services in theseareas. Would compliance with anyprovisions of the FIISA result inoperating costs and burdens that woulddeter banks from providing insurance inlow-income areas and thereby lessenaccess to a full line of financial productsand services in low-incomecommunities?

6. What effect do recent amendmentsto the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15U.S.C. 1681 et seq., have on the FIISAprovisions limiting the ability of a bankto use its customer information to solicitand sell insurance? The OCC welcomescomments on these issues and on anyaspect of the FIISA on which the OCChas been asked to consider preemption.

Dated: March 11, 1997.Eugene A. Ludwig,Comptroller of the Currency.[FR Doc. 97–6708 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4810–33–P

Customs Service

Proposed Collection; CommentRequest; Certificate of Registration


SUMMARY: As part of its continuing effortto reduce paperwork and respondentburden, Customs invites the generalpublic and other Federal agencies tocomment on an information collectionrequirement concerning the Certificateof Registration. This request forcomment is being made pursuant to thePaperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub.L. 104–13; 44 U.S.C. 3505(c)(2)).DATES: Written comments should bereceived on or before May 19, 1997 tobe assured of consideration.ADDRESSES: Direct all written commentsto U.S. Customs Service, InformationServices Group, Room 6216, 1301Constitution Ave., NW, Washington,D.C. 20229.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Requests for additional information orcopies of the form(s) and instructionsshould be directed to U.S. CustomsService, Attn.: J. Edgar Nichols, Room6216, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW,Washington, D.C. 20229, Tel. (202) 927–1426.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Customsinvites the general public and otherFederal agencies to comment on


proposed and/or continuing informationcollections pursuant to the PaperworkReduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13;44 U.S.C. 3505(c)(2)). The commentsshould address: (a) Whether thecollection of information is necessaryfor the proper performance of thefunctions of the agency, includingwhether the information shall havepractical utility; (b) the accuracy of theagency’s estimates of the burden of thecollection of information; (c) ways toenhance the quality, utility, and clarityof the information to be collected; (d)ways to minimize the burden includingthe use of automated collectiontechniques or the use of other forms ofinformation technology; and (e)estimates of capital or start-up costs andcosts of operations, maintenance, andpurchase of services to provideinformation. The comments that aresubmitted will be summarized andincluded in the Customs request forOffice of Management and Budget(OMB) approval. All comments willbecome a matter of public record. In thisdocument Customs is solicitingcomments concerning the followinginformation collection:

Title: Certificate of Registration.OMB Number: 1515–0014.Form Number: Customs Forms 4455

and 4457.Abstract: The Certificate of

Registration is used to expedite freeentry or entry at a reduced rate onforeign made personal articles which aretaken abroad. There articles are dutiableeach time they are brought into theUnited States unless there is acceptableproof of prior possession.

Current Actions: There are no changesto the information collection. Thissubmission is being submitted to extendthe expiration date.

Type of Review: Extension (withoutchange).

Affected Public: Individuals, travelers.Estimated Number of Respondents:

200,000.Estimated Time Per Respondent: 3

minutes.Estimated Total Annual Burden

Hours: 10,000.Estimated Total Annualized Cost on

the Public: N/A.

Dated: March 10, 1997.J. Edgar Nichols,Information Services Group.[FR Doc. 97–6722 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4820–02–P

Proposed Collection; CommentRequest; Declaration of Free Entry ofReturned American Products(Customs Form 3311)


SUMMARY: As part of its continuing effortto reduce paperwork and respondentburden, Customs invites the generalpublic and other Federal agencies tocomment on an information collectionrequirement concerning the Declarationof Free entry of Returned AmericanProducts. This request for comment isbeing made pursuant to the PaperworkReduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13;44 U.S.C. 3505(c)(2)).DATES: Written comments should bereceived on or before May 19, 1997 tobe assured of consideration.ADDRESSES: Direct all written commentsto U.S. Customs Service, InformationServices Group, Room 6216, 1301Constitution Ave., NW, Washington,D.C. 20229.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Requests for additional information orcopies of the form(s) and instructionsshould be directed to U.S. CustomsService, Attn.: J. Edgar Nichols, Room6216, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW,Washington, D.C. 20229, Tel. (202) 927–1426.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Customsinvites the general public and otherFederal agencies to comment onproposed and/or continuing informationcollections pursuant to the PaperworkReduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13;44 U.S.C. 3505(c)(2)). The commentsshould address: (a) Whether thecollection of information is necessaryfor the proper performance of thefunctions of the agency, includingwhether the information shall havepractical utility; (b) the accuracy of theagency’s estimates of the burden of thecollection of information; (c) ways toenhance the quality, utility, and clarityof the information to be collected; (d)ways to minimize the burden includingthe use of automated collectiontechniques or the use of other forms ofinformation technology; and (e)estimates of capital or start-up costs andcosts of operations, maintenance, andpurchase of services to provideinformation. The comments that aresubmitted will be summarized andincluded in the Customs request forOffice of Management and Budget(OMB) approval. All comments willbecome a matter of public record. In thisdocument Customs is solicitingcomments concerning the followinginformation collection:

Title: Declaration of Free entry ofReturned American Products

OMB Number: 1515–0043Form Number: Customs Form 3311Abstract: This collection of

information is used as a supportingdocuments which substantiates theclaim for duty free status for returningAmerican products.


Type of Review: Extension (withoutchange)

Affected Public: Businesses,Individuals,

Estimated Number of Respondents:12,000

Estimated Time Per Respondent: 6minutes

Estimated Total Annual BurdenHours: 51,000

Estimated Total Annualized Cost onthe Public: $198,000.

Dated: March 10, 1997J. Edgar Nichols,Information Services Group.[FR Doc. 97–6723 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4820–02–P

Proposed Collection; CommentRequest; Protest


SUMMARY: As part of its continuing effortto reduce paperwork and respondentburden, Customs invites the generalpublic and other Federal agencies tocomment on an information collectionrequirement concerning the Protest.This request for comment is being madepursuant to the Paperwork ReductionAct of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13; 44 U.S.C.3505(c)(2)).DATES: Written comments should bereceived on or before May 19, 1997, tobe assured of consideration.ADDRESSES: Direct all written commentsto U.S. Customs Service, InformationServices Group, Room 6216, 1301Constitution Ave., NW, Washington,D.C. 20229.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Requests for additional information orcopies of the form(s) and instructionsshould be directed to U.S. CustomsService, Attn.: J. Edgar Nichols, Room6216, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW,Washington, D.C. 20229, Tel. (202) 927–1426.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Customsinvites the general public and otherFederal agencies to comment onproposed and/or continuing information


collections pursuant to the PaperworkReduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13;44 U.S.C. 3505(c)(2)). The commentsshould address: (a) Whether thecollection of information is necessaryfor the proper performance of thefunctions of the agency, includingwhether the information shall havepractical utility; (b) the accuracy of theagency’s estimates of the burden of thecollection of information; (c) ways toenhance the quality, utility, and clarityof the information to be collected; (d)ways to minimize the burden includingthe use of automated collectiontechniques or the use of other forms ofinformation technology; and (e)estimates of capital or start-up costs andcosts of operations, maintenance, andpurchase of services to provideinformation. The comments that aresubmitted will be summarized andincluded in the Customs request forOffice of Management and Budget(OMB) approval. All comments willbecome a matter of public record. In thisdocument Customs is solicitingcomments concerning the followinginformation collection:

Title: Protest.OMB Number: 1515–0056.Form Number: Customs Form 19.Abstract: This collection is used by an

importer, filer, or any party at interestto petition the Customs Service, orProtest, any action or charge, made bythe port director on or against any;imported merchandise, merchandiseexcluded from entry, or merchandiseentered into or withdrawn from aCustoms bonded warehouse.



Affected Public: Businesses,Individuals, Institutions.


Estimated Time Per Respondent: 30minutes.

Estimated Total Annual BurdenHours: 41,250.

Estimated Total Annualized Cost onthe Public: N/A.


Proposed Collection; CommentRequest; Crew Members Declaration


SUMMARY: As part of its continuing effortto reduce paperwork and respondentburden, Customs invites the generalpublic and other Federal agencies tocomment on an information collectionrequirement concerning the CrewMembers Declaration. This request forcomment is being made pursuant to thePaperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub.L. 104–13; 44 U.S.C. 3505(c)(2)).DATES: Written comments should bereceived on or before May 19, 1997, tobe assured of consideration.ADDRESSES: Direct all written commentsto U.S. Customs Service, InformationServices Group, Room 6216, 1301Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,D.C. 20229.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Requests for additional informationshould be directed to U.S. CustomsService, Attn.: J. Edgar Nichols, Room6216, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW,Washington, D.C. 20229, Tel. (202) 927–1426.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Customsinvites the general public and otherFederal agencies to comment onproposed and/or continuing informationcollections pursuant to the PaperworkReduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13;44 U.S.C. 3505(c)(2)). The commentsshould address: (a) Whether thecollection of information is necessaryfor the proper performance of thefunctions of the agency, includingwhether the information shall havepractical utility; (b) the accuracy of theagency’s estimates of the burden of thecollection of information; (c) ways toenhance the quality, utility, and clarityof the information to be collected; (d)ways to minimize the burden includingthe use of automated collectiontechniques or the use of other forms ofinformation technology; and (e)estimates of capital or start-up costs andcosts of operations, maintenance, andpurchase of services to provideinformation. The comments that aresubmitted will be summarized andincluded in the Customs request forOffice of Management and Budget(OMB) approval. All comments willbecome a matter of public record. In thisdocument Customs is solicitingcomments concerning the followinginformation collection:

Title: Crew Members Declaration.OMB Number: 1515–0063.Form Number: Customs Form 5129.Abstract: This document is used to

accept and record importations ofmerchandise by crew members, and toenforce agricultural quarantines, thecurrency reporting laws, and therevenue collection laws.



Affected Public: Individuals.Estimated Number of Respondents:

5,968,351.Estimated Time Per Respondent: 3

minutes.Estimated Total Annual Burden

Hours: 298,418.Estimated Total Annualized Cost on

the Public: N/A.Dated: March 12, 1997.

V. Carol Barr,Printing and Records Services Group.[FR Doc. 97–6725 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4820–02–P

Proposed Collection; CommentRequest; Foreign Assembler’sDeclaration (With Endorsement byImporter)


SUMMARY: As part of its continuing effortto reduce paperwork and respondentburden, Customs invites the generalpublic and other Federal agencies tocomment on an information collectionrequirement concerning the ForeignAssembler’s Declaration (withEndorsement by Importer). This requestfor comment is being made pursuant tothe Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995(Pub. L. 104–13; 44 U.S.C. 3505(c)(2)).DATES: Written comments should bereceived on or before May 19, 1997, tobe assured of consideration.ADDRESSES: Direct all written commentsto U.S. Customs Service, InformationServices Group, Room 6216, 1301Constitution Ave., NW, Washington,D.C. 20229.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Requests for additional information orcopies of the form(s) and instructionsshould be directed to U.S. CustomsService, Attn.: J. Edgar Nichols, Room6216, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW,Washington, D.C. 20229, Tel. (202) 927–1426.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Customsinvites the general public and otherFederal agencies to comment onproposed and/or continuing informationcollections pursuant to the PaperworkReduction Act of 1995 (Pub.L. 104–13;44 U.S.C. 3505(c)(2)). The commentsshould address: (a) Whether thecollection of information is necessaryfor the proper performance of thefunctions of the agency, including


whether the information shall havepractical utility; (b) the accuracy of theagency’s estimates of the burden of thecollection of information; (c) ways toenhance the quality, utility, and clarityof the information to be collected; (d)ways to minimize the burden includingthe use of automated collectiontechniques or the use of other forms ofinformation technology; and (e)estimates of capital or start-up costs andcosts of operations, maintenance, andpurchase of services to provideinformation. The comments that aresubmitted will be summarized andincluded in the Customs request forOffice of Management and Budget(OMB) approval. All comments willbecome a matter of public record. In thisdocument Customs is solicitingcomments concerning the followinginformation collection:

Title: Foreign Assembler’s Declaration(with Endorsement by Importer).

OMB Number: 1515–0088.Form Number: N/A.Abstract: The Foreign Assembler’s

Declaration with Importer’sEndorsement is used by Customs tosubstantiate a claim for duty freetreatment of U.S. fabricated componentssent abroad for assembly andsubsequently returned to the U.S.



Affected Public: Businesses,Individuals.






Proposed Collection; CommentRequest; Free Admittance UnderConditions of Emergency


SUMMARY: As part of its continuing effortto reduce paperwork and respondentburden, Customs invites the generalpublic and other Federal agencies tocomment on an information collectionrequirement concerning the Free

Admittance Under Conditions ofEmergency. This request for comment isbeing made pursuant to the PaperworkReduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13;44 U.S.C. 3505(c)(2)).DATES: Written comments should bereceived on or before May 19, 1997, tobe assured of consideration.ADDRESSES: Direct all written commentsto U.S. Customs Service, InformationServices Group, Room 6216, 1301Constitution Ave., NW, Washington,D.C. 20229.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Requests for additional information orcopies of the form(s) and instructionsshould be directed to U.S. CustomsService, Attn.: J. Edgar Nichols, Room6216, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW,Washington, D.C. 20229, Tel. (202) 927–1426.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Customsinvites the general public and otherFederal agencies to comment onproposed and/or continuing informationcollections pursuant to the PaperworkReduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13;44 U.S.C. 3505(c)(2)). The commentsshould address: (1) Whether thecollection of information is necessaryfor the proper performance of thefunctions of the agency, includingwhether the information shall havepractical utility; (b) the accuracy of theagency’s estimates of the burden of thecollection of information; (c) ways toenhance the quality, utility, and clarityof the information to be collected; (d)ways to minimize the burden includingthe use of automated collectiontechniques or the use of other forms ofinformation technology; and (e)estimates of capital or start-up costs andcosts of operations, maintenance, andpurchase of services to provideinformation. The comments that aresubmitted will be summarized andincluded in the Customs request forOffice of Management and Budget(OMB) approval. All comments willbecome a matter of public record. In thisdocument Customs is solicitingcomments concerning the followinginformation collection:

Title: Free Admittance UnderConditions of Emergency.

OMB Number: 1515–0130.Form Number: N/A.Abstract: This collection of

information will be used in the event ofemergency or catastrophic event tomonitor goods temporarily admitted forthe purpose of rescue or relief.



Affected Public: Nonprofit AssistanceOrganizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1.Estimated Time Per Respondent: 1

minute.Estimated Total Annual Burden

Hours: 1.Estimated Total Annualized Cost on

the Public: N/A.Dated: March 11, 1997.

J. Edgar Nichols,Information Services Group.[FR Doc. 97–6727 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4820–02–P

CUSTOMS SERVICE

Proposed Collection; CommentRequest; Harbor Maintenance Fee


SUMMARY: As part of its continuing effortto reduce paperwork and respondentburden, Customs invites the generalpublic and other Federal agencies tocomment on an information collectionrequirement concerning the HarborMaintenance Fee. This request forcomment is being made pursuant to thePaperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub.L. 104–13; 44 U.S.C. 3505(c)(2)).DATES: Written comments should bereceived on or before May 19, 1997, tobe assured of consideration.ADDRESSES: Direct all written commentsto U.S. Customs Service, InformationServices Group, Room 6216, 1301Constitution Ave., NW, Washington,D.C. 20229.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Requests for additional information orcopies of the form(s) and instructionsshould be directed to U.S. CustomsService, Attn.: J. Edgar Nichols, Room6216, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW,Washington, D.C. 20229, Tel. (202) 927–1426.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Customsinvites the general public and otherFederal agencies to comment onproposed and/or continuing informationcollections pursuant to the PaperworkReduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13;44 U.S.C. 3505(c)(2)). The commentsshould address: (1) Whether thecollection of information is necessaryfor the proper performance of thefunctions of the agency, includingwhether the information shall havepractical utility; (b) the accuracy of theagency’s estimates of the burden of thecollection of information; (c) ways toenhance the quality, utility, and clarity


of the information to be collected; (d)ways to minimize the burden includingthe use of automated collectiontechniques or the use of other forms ofinformation technology; and (e)estimates of capital or start-up costs andcosts of operations, maintenance, andpurchase of services to provideinformation. The comments that aresubmitted will be summarized andincluded in the Customs request forOffice of Management and Budget(OMB) approval. All comments willbecome a matter of public record. In thisdocument Customs is solicitingcomments concerning the followinginformation collection:

Title: Harbor Maintenance Fee.OMB Number: 1515–0158.Form Number: Customs Forms 349

and 350.Abstract: This collection of

information will be used to verify thatthe Harbor Maintenance Fee paid isaccurate and current for eachindividual, importer, exporter, shipper,or cruise line.



Affected Public: Businesses,Institutions.






Customs Service

Proposed Collection; CommentRequest; Electronic Entry Filing


SUMMARY: As part of its continuing effortto reduce paperwork and respondentburden, Customs invites the generalpublic and other Federal agencies tocomment on an information collectionrequirement concerning the ElectronicEntry Filing. This request for commentis being made pursuant to thePaperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub.L. 104–13; 44 U.S.C. 3505(c)(2)).

DATES: Written comments should bereceived on or before May 19, 1997, tobe assured of consideration.ADDRESSES: Direct all written commentsto U.S. Customs Service, InformationServices Group, Room 6216, 1301Constitution Ave., NW, Washington,D.C. 20229.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Requests for additional information orcopies of the form(s) and instructionsshould be directed to U.S. CustomsService, Attn.: J. Edgar Nichols, Room6216, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW,Washington, D.C. 20229, Tel. (202) 927–1426.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Customsinvites the general public and otherFederal agencies to comment onproposed and/or continuing informationcollections pursuant to the PaperworkReduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13;44 U.S.C. 3505(c)(2)). The commentsshould address: (1) Whether thecollection of information is necessaryfor the proper performance of thefunctions of the agency, includingwhether the information shall havepractical utility; (b) the accuracy of theagency’s estimates of the burden of thecollection of information; (c) ways toenhance the quality, utility, and clarityof the information to be collected; (d)ways to minimize the burden includingthe use of automated collectiontechniques or the use of other forms ofinformation technology; and (e)estimates of capital or start-up costs andcosts of operations, maintenance, andpurchase of services to provideinformation. The comments that aresubmitted will be summarized andincluded in the Customs request forOffice of Management and Budget(OMB) approval. All comments willbecome a matter of public record. In thisdocument Customs is solicitingcomments concerning the followinginformation collection:

Title: Electronic Entry Filing.OMB Number: 1515–0174.Form Number: N/A.Abstract: The Electronic Entry Filing

Regulations define the requirements forqualified Brokers, Importers, andService Bureaus to file electronicallythrough the Automated Broker Interface(ABI) entry and entry summary data.



Affected Public: Businesses,Institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 14million.

Estimated Time Per Respondent: 1second.




Proposed Collection; CommentRequest; Importers ID Input Record


SUMMARY: As part of its continuing effortto reduce paperwork and respondentburden, Customs invites the generalpublic and other Federal agencies tocomment on an information collectionrequirement concerning the ImportersID Input Record. This request forcomment is being made pursuant to thePaperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub.L. 104–13; 44 U.S.C. 3505(c)(2)).DATES: Written comments should bereceived on or before May 19, 1997, tobe assured of consideration.ADDRESSES: Direct all written commentsto U.S. Customs Service, InformationServices Group, Room 6216, 1301Constitution Ave., NW, Washington,D.C. 20229.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Requests for additional informationshould be directed to U.S. CustomsService, Attn.: J. Edgar Nichols, Room6216, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW,Washington, D.C. 20229, Tel. (202) 927–1426.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Customsinvites the general public and otherFederal agencies to comment onproposed and/or continuing informationcollections pursuant to the PaperworkReduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13;44 U.S.C. 3505(c)(2)). The commentsshould address: (1) whether thecollection of information is necessaryfor the proper performance of thefunctions of the agency, includingwhether the information shall havepractical utility; (b) the accuracy of theagency’s estimates of the burden of thecollection of information; (c) ways toenhance the quality, utility, and clarityof the information to be collected; (d)ways to minimize the burden includingthe use of automated collectiontechniques or the use of other forms ofinformation technology; and (e)estimates of capital or start-up costs andcosts of operations, maintenance, andpurchase of services to provide


information. The comments that aresubmitted will be summarized andincluded in the Customs request forOffice of Management and Budget(OMB) approval. All comments willbecome a matter of public record. In thisdocument Customs is solicitingcomments concerning the followinginformation collection:

Title: Importers ID Input Record.OMB Number: 1515–0191.Form Number: Customs Form 5106.Abstract: This document is filed with

the first formal entry which is submitted

or the first request for services that willresult in the issuance of a bill or arefund check upon adjustment of a cashcollection.



Affected Public: Businesses/Institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents:500.


Estimated Total Annual BurdenHours: 100.


Dated: March 12, 1997.V. Carol Barr,Printing and Records Services Group.[FR Doc. 97–6730 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4820–02–P

fede

ral r

egiste

r

12891

TuesdayMarch 18, 1997

Part II

Department ofTransportationFederal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71Proposed Modification of Class DAirspace South of Abbotsford, BritishColumbia (BC), on the United States Sideof the U.S./Canadian Border, and theProposed Establishment of a Class CAirspace Area in the Vicinity of PointRoberts, Washington (WA); ProposedRule




14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 93–AWA–16]

RIN 2120–AA66

Proposed Modification of Class DAirspace South of Abbotsford, BritishColumbia (BC), on the United StatesSide of the U.S./Canadian Border, andthe Proposed Establishment of a ClassC Airspace Area in the Vicinity of PointRoberts, Washington (WA)

AGENCY: Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This notice proposes toestablish a Class C airspace area in theUnited States (U.S.) in the vicinity ofPoint Roberts, Washington, with aceiling of 12,500 feet mean sea level(MSL) and a floor of 2,500 feet MSL. Inaddition, this notice proposes to extendthe existing Abbotsford Class D airspacearea, into airspace which is currentlyClass E airspace, and lower the ceilingfrom 3,000 to 2,500 feet MSL in U.S.airspace southwest of the AbbotsfordAirport along the U.S./Canadian border.The FAA is proposing these actions toassist Transport Canada’s efforts toreduce the risk of midair collision,enhance safety, and improve air trafficflows within the Vancouver andAbbotsford, BC, International Airportareas.

DATES: Comments must be received onor before May 2, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on theproposal in triplicate to: FederalAviation Administration, Office of theChief Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket[AGC–200], Airspace Docket No. 93–AWA–16, 800 Independence Avenue,SW., Washington, DC 20591.

The official docket may be examinedin the Rules Docket, Office of the ChiefCounsel, Room 916, weekdays, exceptFederal holidays, between 8:30 a.m. and5:00 p.m. An informal docket may alsobe examined during normal businesshours at the office of the Regional AirTraffic Division, 1601 Lind Avenue,SW., Renton, WA 98055–4056.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: KenMcElroy, Airspace and Rules Division,ATA–400, Office of Air Traffic AirspaceManagement, 800 IndependenceAvenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;telephone: (202) 267–8783.


Comments InvitedInterested parties are invited to

participate in this proposed rulemakingby submitting such written data, views,or arguments as they may desire.Comments that provide the factual basissupporting the views and suggestionspresented are particularly helpful indeveloping reasoned regulatorydecisions on the proposal. Commentsare specifically invited on the overallregulatory, aeronautical, economic,environmental, and energy-relatedaspects of the proposal.Communications should identify theairspace docket number and besubmitted in triplicate to the addresslisted above. Commenters wishing theFAA to acknowledge receipt of theircomments on this notice must submitwith those comments a self-addressed,stamped postcard on which thefollowing statement is made:‘‘Comments to Airspace Docket No. 93–AWA–16.’’ 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 notice may be changed in lightof comments received. All commentssubmitted will be available forexamination in the Rules Docket bothbefore and after the closing date forcomments. A report summarizing eachsubstantive public contact with 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 the FederalAviation Administration, Office of AirTraffic Airspace Management, 800Independence Avenue, SW.,Washington, DC 20591, or by calling(202) 267–8783. 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, whichdescribes the application procedure.

BackgroundOn April 22, 1982, the National

Airspace Review (NAR) plan waspublished in the Federal Register (47FR 17448). The plan encompassed areview of airspace use and proceduralaspects of the air traffic control (ATC)system. Among the main objectives ofthe NAR was the improvement of theATC system by increasing efficiency

and reducing complexity. In its reviewof terminal airspace, NAR Task Group1–2 concluded that Terminal RadarService Areas (TRSA’s) should bereplaced. Four types of airspaceconfigurations were considered asreplacement candidates, of whichModel B, since redesignated AirportRadar Service Area (ARSA), wasrecommended by a consensus of thetask group.

The FAA published NARRecommendation 1–2.2.1, ‘‘ReplaceTerminal Radar Service Areas withModel B Airspace and Service’’ inNotice 83–9 (July 28, 1983; 48 FR34286) proposing the establishment ofARSA’s at the Robert Mueller MunicipalAirport, Austin, TX, and the Port ofColumbus International Airport,Columbus, OH. ARSA’s were designatedat these airports on a temporary basis bySFAR No. 45 (October 28, 1983; 48 FR50038) to provide an operationalconfirmation of the ARSA concept forpotential application on a nationalbasis.

Following a confirmation period ofmore than a year, the FAA adopted theNAR recommendation and, on February27, 1985, issued a final rule (50 FR9252; March 6, 1985) defining ARSAairspace and establishing air traffic rulesfor operation within such an area.

Concurrently, by separate rulemakingaction, ARSA’s were permanentlyestablished at the Austin, TX,Columbus, OH, and the Baltimore/Washington International Airports (50FR 9250; March 6, 1985). The FAAstated that future notices would proposeARSA’s for other airports at whichTRSA procedures were in effect.

Additionally, the NAR Task Grouprecommended that the FAA developquantitative criteria for proposing toestablish ARSA’s at locations other thanthose which were included in the TRSAreplacement program. The task grouprecommended that these criteriainclude, among other things, traffic mix,flow and density, airport configuration,geographical features, collision riskassessment, and ATC capabilities toprovide service to users. These criteriahave been developed and are beingpublished via the FAA directivessystem.

The FAA has established ARSA’s at121 locations under a pacedimplementation plan to replace TRSA’swith ARSA’s. This is one of a series ofnotices to implement ARSA’s atlocations with TRSA’s or locationswithout TRSA’s that warrantimplementation of an ARSA. AirspaceReclassification, effective September 16,1993, reclassified ARSA’s as Class Cairspace areas. This change in


terminology is reflected in theremainder of this NPRM.

This notice proposes Class C airspacedesignation at locations which were notidentified as candidates for Class C inthe preamble to Amendment No. 71–10(50 FR 9252). Other candidate locationswill be proposed in future noticespublished in the Federal Register.

This proposal would affect airspacecurrently served by the Vancouver andAbbotsford air traffic facilities in thevicinity of Point Roberts, WA, along theCanadian border. Vancouver andAbbotsford Airports are bothinternational and public-use airportslocated in Canada. The U.S. airspacesubject to the provisions of this proposalis currently designated as a Class Eairspace area. Passenger enplanementsreported at the Vancouver in 1995 was312,000, up from 301,000 in 1994. Thisvolume of passenger enplanements andaircraft operations meets the FAAcriteria for establishing Class C airspaceto enhance safety.

Pre-NPRM Public InputAs announced in the Federal Register

on March 22, 1995 (60 FR 15172), twopre-NPRM airspace meetings were heldon May 9–10, 1995, in Friday Harborand Bellingham, WA. The purpose ofthese meetings was to provide localairspace users with an opportunity topresent input on the Transport Canadaproposal prior to initiating anyregulatory action. In the ensuingcomment period, which closed on July10, 1995, over 300 comments werereceived in overwhelming opposition tothe proposal. The majority of thisopposition centered around thesignificant amount of airspace requiredfor the original proposal. The originalproposal would have required thereclassification of airspace in fivecontiguous areas from AbbotsfordAirport, across Bellingham Airport, to apoint south of San Juan Island. As aresult, subsequent meetings were heldbetween Transport Canada, FAA, andgeneral aviation groups to mitigate theseconcerns. These meetings resulted in anagreement to revise Transport Canada’sJuly 1994 proposal. Of the original fiveairspace areas, only three would berecommended for inclusion in therevised proposal. This revisionsignificantly reduced the amount ofClass C airspace required.

On April 5, 1996, the FAA publisheda Notice of Public Meeting (61 FR15331), to announce another informalairspace meeting to solicit commentsfrom airspace users, and others,regarding Transport Canada’s revisedproposal. Since only three areas wereretained in the Transport Canada

revised proposal request, only thosecomments pertaining to these areas wereconsidered and incorporated in thisNPRM and are summarized below.

Analysis of Comments

Comments Summary

The FAA agrees with the majority ofthe commenters that the significantamount of airspace to be reclassified inthe original proposal was not in the bestinterest of the aviation community. TheFAA recognizes that flight safety is theparamount concern, and agrees that alesser amount of airspace could meetthe needs of Transport Canada’s flightsafety concerns. In coordination withaviation groups and Transport Canada,the original proposal was modified. Themodified proposal redefines the U.S.airspace west and southwest of PointRoberts, WA, within a 16-nautical-mile(NM) arc of the Vancouver Very HighFrequency Omnidirectional Range(VOR), from above 2,500 feet to 12,500feet MSL. This area would in effectdesignate a wedge of U.S airspacebetween Vancouver and Victoria asClass C airspace. Redefining this areawith reference to the Vancouver VORwould make the proposed area easilynavigable by aircraft transiting theproposed area. The proposed Class Cand the modified Class D airspace areasin this proposal are immediately southof the U.S./Canadian border on theinstrument approach to AbbotsfordAirport. This proposal would reduce thepotential for near midair collisionsbetween instrument flight rules (IFR)and unknown visual flight rules (VFR)aircraft engaged in north-south bordercrossings in U.S. airspace controlled byNAV-Canada. In addition, the extensionof the Abbotsford Class D airspace area,with the overlay of Class C airspace,would provide protection for aircraftengaged in flight training fromunidentified VFR aircraft.

Comments

One commenter stated that Area 1[referred to in this document as thewedge of airspace located southwest ofPoint Roberts, WA] is larger than itneeds to be. The commenter suggestedthat the eastern border should be movedwest about 2 miles to lessen the impacton Point Roberts, and thereby conformmore to the traffic needs that exist.

Another commenter stated that Area 2[U.S. airspace south and east of PointRoberts] makes it easy for TransportCanada to design traffic flow patternsinto and out of Vancouver InternationalAirport. In addition, this commenterstated that increased traffic flow wouldlead to expanded approaches and

departures at Vancouver. Thiscommenter’s concern is that theresulting increase in air traffic will bererouted into U.S. airspace instead ofCanadian airspace. This commentersuggested that the proposed airspaceredesignations are unnecessary becauseTransport Canada has sufficient airspacewithin Canadian territory toaccommodate its safety concerns.

The FAA does not agree, and furtherbelieves that safety will be enhanced byremoving the gap in the Vancouverterminal control area, by reducing thepotential for conflicts between IFR andVFR aircraft.

One commenter stated that the reasonTransport Canada has requestedincreased control of U.S. airspace isbecause Abbotsford Airport’s role as aninstrument flight training facility hascaused a significant increase in airtraffic. The commenter recommendsrelocating the Abbotsford approachprocedure turn to the north side of theapproach course. According to thecommenter, this would place theprotected airspace for the procedureturn in Canadian territory. Thecommenter believes that thismodification would remove theperceived encroachment on BlaineAirport, WA.

The FAA does not agree. The heavyvolume of instrument flight trainingbeing conducted in the Abbotsford area,coupled with north-south bordercrossings, requires the modification ofthe existing airspace. Further, the FAAbelieves that if the procedure turn wasmoved north, Abbotsford’s protectedairspace could conflict with Langley,BC, Airport’s control zone. Finally, theFAA does not believe that the proposedmodification would result in anencroachment on Blaine Airport. Theceiling of the proposed Class D airspaceis 1,500 feet MSL and would notinterfere with operations at the BlaineAirport because the traffic patternaltitude is 900 feet MSL.

Noise CommentOne commenter stated that Transport

Canada did not provide anenvironmental impact statement foractions that would impact anenvironmentally sensitive area. Thiscommenter believes that VFR pilotsoperating in the subject airspace areaswould avoid contacting the controllingagency by operating at lower altitudesand thereby creating unnecessary noiseand reducing safety. The commenteralso believes that if U.S. airspace ismodified, Transport Canada may beinclined to route arrivals/departures oflarge jet aircraft through this area. Thisinflux in traffic could result in increased


noise levels which would reduceproperty values. Another perceiveddrawback could be reduced safety forlocal aircraft operators.

The FAA is not required to conductenvironmental assessments for certainairspace actions. FAA Order, 1050.1D,on ‘‘Policies and Procedures forConsidering Environmental Impacts,’’implements the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act of 1969. This Orderestablishes FAA policies andprocedures for the preparation ofEnvironmental Impact Statements andfor preparing and processingenvironmental assessments of FAAactions. FAA Order 1050.1D providesthat the establishment of Class C or Dairspace is categorically excluded fromthe environmental process.

The Proposal

The FAA is proposing an amendmentto part 71 of the Federal AviationRegulations (14 CFR part 71) toredesignate existing Class E airspace toClass C airspace in the area of PointRoberts, WA, and to extend the existingClass D airspace at Abbotsford, BC. Theproposed Class C airspace designationapplies to an area lying within U.S.airspace along the U.S./Canadianborder. This notice addresses only thatairspace contained within the U.S.

The FAA adopted the NAR TaskGroup recommendation that each ClassC airspace area conform to a standardairspace configuration, insofar as ispracticable. The standard Class Cairspace area consists of that airspacewithin 5 NM of the primary airport,extending from the surface to an altitudeof 4,000 feet above that airport’selevation, and that airspace between 5and 10 NM from the primary airportfrom l,200 feet above the surface to analtitude of 4,000 feet above that airport’selevation. Proposed deviations from thisstandard have been necessary at someairports because of adjacent regulatoryairspace, international boundaries,topography, or unusual operationalrequirements.

The Class C airspace configurationproffered in this proposal does notconform to the standard Class C airspacedimensions. In this case, the outer ringof the Vancouver Airport Class Cairspace area is established at 16 NMfrom the Vancouver VOR, as opposed tothe standard 10 NM. The altitudeswould extend from above 2,500 feet to12,500 feet MSL. This wedge of U.S.airspace would consequently abutCanadian airspace and eliminate the gapbetween the Vancouver terminal controlarea and the Victoria Class C airspacearea as they presently exist.

This proposal would also establishClass C airspace and extend the existingClass D airspace areas at AbbotsfordAirport. Both proposed airspace areaswould be located immediately south ofthe international border on theinstrument approach west of AbbotsfordAirport. The airspace presentlydesignated as Class E would becomeClass C, and would adjoin the existingVancouver Class C airspace. Thisairspace would extend from 2,500 feetto 12,500 feet MSL. The existing ClassD airspace at Abbotsford would beextended approximately 7 NM to thewest. The proposed Class C airspacearea would be established directly abovethe modified Class D airspace. Since theproposed Class C floor is at 2,500 feetMSL, the existing Class D airspaceceiling would be lowered from 3,000feet to 2,500 feet MSL. This proposedaction would provide protection toaircraft conducting procedure turnsduring instrument approaches toAbbotsford Airport from aircrafttraversing the U.S./Canadian border in anorth-south direction.

Definitions and operatingrequirements applicable to Class Cairspace may be found in section 71.51of part 71 and sections 91.1 and 91.130of part 91 of the Federal AviationRegulations (14 CFR parts 71, 91),effective September 16, 1993. Thecoordinates for this airspace docket arebased on North American Datum 83.Class C and Class D airspacedesignations are published,respectively, in paragraphs 4000 and5000 of FAA Order 7400.9D datedSeptember 4, 1996, and effectiveSeptember 16, 1996, which isincorporated by reference in 14 CFR71.1. The Class C and Class D airspacedesignations listed in this documentwould be published subsequently in theOrder.

Statistics provided by TransportCanada meet U.S. criteria for thedesignation of Class C airspace providedin FAA Order 7400.2D, ‘‘Procedures forHandling Airspace Matters.’’Documented air traffic activity for 1994,which combines air carrier, military andgeneral aviation, exceeded 200,000annual operations. See FAA Order7400.2D, paragraph 26–20(a).

International AgreementsIn accordance with international

agreements, the FAA reviews andconsiders proposals from neighboringcountries to enhance the safety ofaircraft operations in the vicinity ofinternational borders. It is not unusualfor a neighboring country to provide airtraffic services in the adjacent country’sairspace. Establishing such services by

agreement works to the benefit of bothcountries.

Regulatory Evaluation SummaryProposed changes to Federal

regulations must undergo severaleconomic analyses. First, ExecutiveOrder 12866 directs that each Federalagency shall propose or adopt aregulation only upon a reasoneddetermination that the benefits of theintended regulation justify its costs.Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Actrequires agencies to analyze theeconomic effect of regulatory changeson small entities. Third, the Office ofManagement and Budget directsagencies to assess the effect ofregulatory changes on small entitieschanges on international trade. Inconducting these analyses, the FAA hasdetermined that this NPRM: (1) Wouldgenerate benefits that justify its minimalcosts and is not ‘‘a significant regulatoryaction’’ as defined in the ExecutiveOrder; (2) would not be significant asdefined in Department ofTransportation’s Regulatory Policies andProcedures; (3) would not have asignificant impact on a substantialnumber of small entities; (4) would notconstitute a barrier to internationaltrade; and (5) would not contain anyFederal intergovernmental or privatesector mandate. These analyses aresummarized here in the preamble andthe full Regulatory Evaluation is in thedocket.

Cost-Benefits AnalysisThe FAA has determined that the

proposed establishment of Class C andmodification of Class D airspace areas inthe vicinity of Vancouver andAbbotsford, BC, would result inminimal, if any, cost to either theagency or aircraft operators.

CostsThe FAA has determined the

proposed establishment of Class C andmodification of Class D airspace areas inthe vicinity of Vancouver andAbbotsford, BC, would impose minimalcost, if any, to either aircraft operatorsor the FAA. Those potential costcomponents (navigational equipment foraircraft operators and operationssupport equipment for the FAA,including additional cost for air trafficcontrollers) that could be imposed bythe proposed rule are discussed asfollows:

Cost Impact on Aircraft Operators

Establishment of Class C AirspaceAircraft operators would incur

minimal, if any, additional costs bycomplying with the proposed rule. This


assessment is based on the most recentGeneral Aviation and Avionics SurveyReport. The Report indicates anestimated 82 percent of all generalaviation (GA) aircraft operators arealready equipped with the necessaryequipment required to operate in a ClassC airspace area (i.e., two-way radios andMode C transponders). Moreover, theFAA has traditionally accommodatedGA aircraft operators without two-wayradio communication, via letters ofagreement, whenever possible withoutjeopardizing safety. Further, the FAAhas determined there would be minimalcost to GA operators, who would utilizecircumnavigation procedures to avoidthe proposed Class C and Class Dairspace area, or who could fly beneaththe 2,500 feet MSL floor. Therefore, theFAA has determined that the proposedrule would impose minimal, if any,additional cost impact oncircumnavigating operators.

Modification of Class D Airspace

Aircraft operators would incurminimal, if any, costs with compliancefrom the proposed rule. This assessmentis based on the most recent GeneralAviation and Avionics Survey Report.The Report indicates an estimated 85percent of all GA aircraft operators arealready equipped with the necessaryequipment to operate in a Class Dairspace area (i.e., two-way radios). TheFAA has determined thatnonparticipating operators would beable to circumnavigate the Class Dairspace area, by altering their currentflight paths between 2 and 7 NM, toavoid the new airspace. Therefore, theFAA has determined for theaforementioned reasons, that theproposed rule would impose minimal, ifany, cost impact on nonparticipatingaircraft operators.

Cost Impact on the FAA

A letter of agreement between theFAA and Transport Canada, signed onMay 1, 1995, establishes standardprocedures for coordinating air trafficoperations between Seattle Air RouteTraffic Control Center and VancouverAir Control Centre. The Letter ofAgreement also establishes the ATCresponsibilities for each of the centers.The U.S. has relinquished control of theproposed Class C and Class D airspaceareas to Canada. Transport Canadaalready provides radar service for theadditional 10 NM radar area that theproposed rule would establish. Inaddition, Transport Canada currentlyprovides VFR Advisory service for theproposed modified Class D airspacearea.

The FAA would not incur anyadditional charting and pilot educationexpenses as a result of the modificationsincurred from the proposed rule. TheFAA currently revises sectional chartsevery six months. Changes of thesetypes are required and made routinelyto depict Class C and Class D airspaceareas during these cycles, and areconsidered an ordinary operating cost.Further, pilots would not incur anyadditional costs obtaining current chartsdepicting Class C and Class D airspaceareas because they should be using onlythe most current charts.

In order to advise the public ofproposed changes to airspace areas, theFAA holds informal public meetings ateach location where Class Cestablishments or modifications areproposed. These meetings provide pilotswith the best opportunity to learn aboutClass C airspace operating procedures inthe proposed areas. The routineexpenses associated with these publicmeetings are incurred regardless ofwhether Class C is ultimatelyestablished. If either of the proposedairspace changes occur, the FAA woulddistribute a ‘‘Letter to Airmen’’ to allpilots residing within 50 miles of theClass C airspace site that would explainmodifications to aircraft operation andairspace configuration. In addition, FAAdistrict offices conduct aviation safetyseminars on a regular basis. Theseseminars are provided by the FAA todiscuss a variety of aviation safetyissues, including Class C airspace areas.The one-time incurred cost of the‘‘Letter to Airmen’’ would be $535 (1995dollars). This one-time negligible costwould be incurred upon theestablishment of the proposed Class Cairspace.

Benefits

The FAA has determined theproposed establishment of Class C andmodification of Class D airspace areaswould promote the efficient control ofair traffic and reduce the risk of midaircollision in the terminal area. The FAAestimates that the total number ofoperations at Vancouver InternationalAirport in 1995 was 312,000, up from301,000 in 1994, and these estimates areprojected to increase to 347,000 by theyear 2000. Also, passengerenplanements were estimated at 12.2million in 1995, up from 11.1 million in1994, and these estimates are projectedto increase to 14.8 million by the year2000. In view of the increases inpassenger enplanements and aircraftoperations, the FAA has concluded thatthe proposed rule would enhanceaviation safety.

Impact on Aviation SafetyThe proposed rule would enhance

aviation safety by imposing equipment(i.e., two-way radios and Mode Ctransponders) on aircraft operators,while providing services such as (i.e.,separation procedures and safety alerts)in the proposed Class C airspace.Imposing these equipment andoperational requirements for theproposed establishment of Class Cairspace and expansion of Class Dairspace in the vicinity of Vancouver,BC, would reduce the risk of midaircollisions between aircraft operating onIFR and aircraft operating in accordancewith VFR in that airspace area. Thisdetermination is based on the FAA’sexpertise in airspace management, buthas not been quantified for this proposalin light of the minimum cost involved.

Impact on Operational EfficiencyUnder the proposed rule, Transport

Canada would provide aircraft operatorsoperational services such as trafficadvisories, separation and sequencing ofarrivals, when transiting the subjectairspace. As a result of the proposedrule, aircraft operators would obtainservices provided by Transport Canada.

ConclusionIn view of the minimal, if any, cost of

compliance and the benefits ofenhanced aviation safety and increasedoperational efficiency, the FAA hasdetermined that the proposed rulewould be cost-beneficial.

Initial Regulatory FlexibilityDetermination

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980(RFA) was enacted by

Congress to ensure that small entitiesare not unnecessarily anddisproportionately burdened by Federalregulations. The RFA requires aRegulatory Flexibility Analysis if aproposed rule would have a ‘‘significanteconomic impact on a substantialnumber of small entities.’’ FAA Order2100.14A outlines the FAA’s proceduresand criteria for implementing the RFA.

The small entities that potentiallymay incur minimal, if any, cost with theimplementation of the proposed rule areoperators of aircraft who do not meetClass C or Class D navigationalequipment standards. But the smallentities potentially impacted by theproposed rule (primarily parts 121 and135 aircraft without two-way radios andMode C transponders) would not incurany additional cost for navigationalequipment or the more stringentoperating procedures because theyroutinely fly into airspace where thoserequirements are already in place. As


the result of the previouslyimplemented ‘‘Mode C rule,’’ all ofthese commercial operators are assumedto have Mode C transponders. Inaddition, the FAA has traditionallyaccommodated GA aircraft operatorswithout two-way radio communicationequipment when it was possible to doso without jeopardizing safety, vialetters of agreement. Therefore, the FAAhas determined that the proposed rulewould not have a significant economicimpact on a substantial number of smallentities.

International Trade Impact Assessment

The proposed rule would notconstitute a barrier to internationaltrade, including the export of Americangoods and services to foreign countriesand the import of foreign goods andservices into the United States. Thisassessment is based on the fact that theproposed rule would not impose costson aircraft operators or aircraftmanufacturers (U.S. or foreign).

Unfunded Mandate Assessment

Title II of the Unfunded MandatesReform Act of 1995 (the Act), enacted asPub. L. 104–4 on March 22, 1995,requires each Federal agency, to theextent permitted by law, to prepare awritten assessment of the effects of anyFederal mandate in a proposed or finalagency rule that may result in theexpenditure of $100 million or moreadjusted annually for inflation in anyone year by State, local, and tribalgovernments, in the aggregate, or by theprivate sector. Section 204(a) of the Act,2 U.S.C. 1534(a), requires the Federalagency to develop an effective processto permit timely input by electedofficers (or their designees) of State,local and tribal governments on aproposed ‘‘significant intergovernmentalmandate.’’ A ‘‘significantintergovernmental mandate’’ under theAct is any provision in a Federal agencyregulation that would impose an

enforceable duty upon State, local, andtribal governments, in the aggregate of$100 million (adjusted annually forinflation) in any one year. Section 203of the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1533, whichsupplements section 204(a), providesthat before establishing any regulatoryrequirements that might significantly oruniquely affect small governments, theagency shall have developed a plan thatamong other things, provides for noticeto potentially affected smallgovernments, if any, and for ameaningful and timely opportunity toprovide input in the development ofregulatory proposals.

This NPRM does not contain anyFederal intergovernmental or privatesector mandate. Therefore, therequirements of Title II of the UnfundedMandates Reform Act of 1995 do notapply.


Airspace, Incorporation by reference,Navigation (air).


In consideration of the foregoing, theFederal Aviation Administrationproposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 asfollows:

PART 71—[AMENDED]


Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113,40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.

§ 71.1 [Amended]

2. The incorporation by reference in14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal AviationAdministration Order 7400.9D, AirspaceDesignations and Reporting Points,dated September 4, 1996, and effectiveSeptember 16, 1996, is amended asfollows:

Paragraph 4000—Subpart C—Class CAirspace

* * * * *

ANM BC C Vancouver, BC [New]

Vancouver International Airport, BC, Canada(Lat. 49°11′’38′′ N, long. 123°11′04′′ W)

Vancouver VORTAC(Lat. 49°04′38′′ N, long. 123°08′57′′ W)That airspace extending upward from

2,500 feet MSL to 12,500 feet MSL beginningat lat. 49°00′00′′ N, long. 123°19′20′′ W;thence east along the U.S./Canadianboundary to lat. 49°00′08′′ N, 122°33′50′′ W;thence south to lat. 48°57′59′′ N, long.122°33′50′′ W; thence west to lat. 48°57′59′′N, long. 122°47′12′′ W; thencesouthwestward via a 16 NM arc of theVancouver VORTAC to lat. 48°49′52′′ N,long. 123°00′31′′ W; thence northwest alongthe U.S./Canadian boundary to the point ofbeginning.

* * * * *

Paragraph 5000—Subpart D—Class DAirspace

* * * * *

ANM BC D Abbotsford, BC [Revised]

Abbotsford Airport, BC, Canada(Lat. 49°01′31′′ N, long. 122°21′48′′ W)

Vancouver VORTAC(Lat. 49°04′38′′ N, long. 123°08′57′′ W)That airspace extending upward from the

surface to 2,500 feet MSL beginning at lat.48°57′59′′ N, long. 122°18′57′′ W, thencecounterclockwise along the 4-mile radius ofthe Abbotsford Airport to lat. 49°00′05′′ N,122°16′08′′ W; thence west along the US-Canadian border to lat. 49°00′05′′ N, long.122°45′58′′ W, thence clockwise along the 16-mile ARC of the Vancouver VORTAC, to lat.48°57′59′′ N, long. 122°47′12′′ W; thence eastalong lat. 48° 57′59′′ N to the point ofbeginning; excluding the airspace within theVancouver, BC, Class C airspace and theairspace west of long. 122°33′50′′ W below1,500 feet MSL.

* * * * *Issued in Washington, DC, on March 10,

1997.Reginald C. Matthews,Acting Program Director for Air TrafficAirspace Management.

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P


[FR Doc. 97–6685 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–13–C

fede

ral r

egiste

r

12899


Part III

EnvironmentalProtection AgencyAllotment of Drinking Water StateRevolving Fund Monies; Notice


1 Other Areas include: the Virgin Islands,American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth ofthe Northern Mariana Islands.


[FRL–5708–2]

Allotment of Drinking Water StateRevolving Fund Monies; Notice

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency.

SUMMARY: The Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) is announcing itsdecision on allotment of Drinking WaterState Revolving Fund (DWSRF) moniesto States. For fiscal year 1997, fundswill be allotted based on the formulaused to distribute public water systemssupervision grants in fiscal year 1995.For fiscal year 1998 and subsequentfiscal years, funds will be allotted basedon each State’s proportional share of thetotal eligible needs for the States,derived from the Drinking WaterInfrastructure Needs Survey: FirstReport to Congress. Each State will beallotted at least one percent of the fundsavailable to the States.

IntroductionThe DWSRF program was established

by the reauthorized Safe Drinking WaterAct (SDWA), signed by PresidentClinton on August 6, 1996. The SDWAauthorizes $9.599 billion for the DWSRFprogram through FY 2003. For FY 1997,EPA’s budget includes $1.275 billion forthe DWSRF program. EPA’s Office ofWater is the national program managerfor the SDWA, including the DWSRFprogram. As intended by Congress, theDWSRF program will be implementedlargely by the States.

Fiscal Year 1997Funds available for allotment to States

in FY 1997 will be allotted based on theformula used to distribute public watersystem supervision grant funds in FY1995 (SDWA Section 1452(a)(1)(D)(i)).In accordance with the law, each State,including the District of Columbia, willbe allotted at least one percent of thefunds available for allotment to all theStates. The law also requires that theVirgin Islands, the Commonwealth ofthe Northern Mariana Islands, AmericanSamoa, and Guam together receive anallotment not to exceed 0.33 percent ofthe total funds available for allotment.The formula results are shown below foreach State in dollar terms as well as inpercentages of the funds available to theStates. Allotment amounts are roundedto the nearest one hundred dollars.Under the law, the funds available forallotment to the States are determinedby deducting national set-asides fromthe total DWSRF appropriation. In fiscalyear 1997, this means that the one and

one half percent set-aside for NativeAmericans, which totals $19,125,000, isremoved from the total appropriation tocalculate the level of funds available tothe States. In fiscal year 1997,$1,255,875,000 is the level of fundsavailable to the States.

Fiscal Year 1997 DWSRF FinalAllotment ResultsAlabama $12,558,800 (1.00%);Alaska $ 27,039,000 (2.15%);Arizona $16,938,300 (1.35%);Arkansas $12,558,800 (1.00%);California $75,682,600 (6.03%);Colorado $16,784,100 (1.34%);Connecticut $21,408,200 (1.70%);Delaware $12,558,800 (1.00%);District of Columbia $12,558,800

(1.00%);Florida $45,132,600 (3.59%);Georgia $25,775,000 (2.05%);Hawaii $12,558,800 (1.00%);Idaho $14,157,800 (1.13%);Illinois $38,502,400 (3.07%);Indiana $25,712,100 (2.05%);Iowa $16,857,300 (1.34%);Kansas $14,095,000 (1.12%);Kentucky $12,558,800 (1.00%);Louisiana $20,420,300 (1.63%);Maine $12,653,200 (1.01%);Maryland $17,640,900 (1.40%);Massachusetts $14,344,600 (1.14%);Michigan $59,681,100 (4.75%);Minnesota $42,086,000 (3.35%);Mississippi $16,474,200 (1.31%);Missouri $21,857,600 (1.74%);Montana $14,826,200 (1.18%);Nebraska $12,824,000 (1.02%);Nevada $12,558,800 (1.00%);New Hampshire $13,754,800 (1.10%);New Jersey $27,947,300 (2.23%);New Mexico $12,759,800 (1.02%);New York $59,167,700 (4.71%);North Carolina $46,114,100 (3.67%);North Dakota $12,558,800 (1.00%);Ohio $43,073,000 (3.43%);Oklahoma $17,561,900 (1.40%);Oregon $18,920,500 (1.51%);Pennsylvania $53,270,700 (4.24%);Puerto Rico $12,558,800 (1.00%);Rhode Island $12,558,800 (1.00%);South Carolina $14,821,600 (1.18%);South Dakota $12,558,800 (1.00%);Tennessee $12,776,200 (1.02%);Texas $70,153,800 (5.59%);Utah $12,558,800 (1.00%);Vermont $12,558,800 (1.00%);Virginia $29,442,400 (2.34%);Washington $31,145,900 (2.48%);West Virginia $12,558,800 (1.00%);Wisconsin $41,546,400 (3.31%);Wyoming $12,558,800 (1.00%);Other Areas 1 $4,144,400 (0.33%)

Fiscal Year 1998 and Subsequent FiscalYears

Under SDWA Section1452(a)(1)(D)(ii), Congress has directed

that capitalization grants for FY 1998and subsequent years be allotted amongStates based on each State’sproportional share of the State needsidentified in the most recent DrinkingWater Needs Survey, provided that eachState be allotted a minimum share ofone percent of the funds available forallotment to all the States. The firstDrinking Water Needs Survey wasconducted over the last two years withthe cooperation of every State. Theresults of the Survey were presented toCongress on January 29, 1997.

Options Presented for Public CommentOn October 31, 1996, EPA solicited

public comment on six options for usingthe results of the Drinking Water NeedsSurvey to allocate DWSRF moniesamong States (61 FR 56231). Theoptions presented in that FederalRegister notice are summarized below.All of the options discussed belowassume that each State, and the Districtof Columbia, will be allotted aminimum share of one percent of thefunds available for allotment to all theStates, as required by law. All of theoptions also assume, as required by law,that the Virgin Islands, theCommonwealth of the Northern MarianaIslands, American Samoa, and Guam,will together receive an allotment not toexceed 0.33 percent of the fundsavailable for allotment to the States. Thefunds available for allotment to theStates will be the level of fundsappropriated by Congress, less thenational set-asides, which include fundsreserved for Indian Tribes and AlaskaNative water systems. This frameworkwas specified by Congress in the 1996amendments to the SDWA (Section1452).

• Option 1 was a formula that wouldallocate DWSRF monies to States basedon each State’s share of the total need.Total need is the capital infrastructureneed faced by publicly and privatelyowned community water systemsnationwide. Total need includes bothcurrent and future needs for the 20-yearperiod from January 1995 throughDecember 2014. This option was the onemost favored by commenters, and wasselected by EPA, with somemodifications, as the basis for theallotment formula. As discussed below,total eligible need is the basis forallocation of DWSRF monies.

• Option 2 was a formula based oneach State’s share of Current Need.Current Need is identified as allinfrastructure improvement projectsneeded now to protect public health.

• Option 3 was a formula based onCurrent SDWA Need, which representscapital improvement projects needed


2 The State of Alaska Department ofEnvironmental Conservation submitted twoseparate responses.

now to ensure compliance with existingSDWA regulations. Current SDWA Needdoes not include distribution need tiedto the Total Coliform Rule (TCR).

• Option 4 was a formula based onTotal SDWA Need. This component ofneed includes Current SDWA Need andFuture SDWA Need. Future SDWA needincludes projects needed over the next20 years for compliance with existingregulations, as well as for the proposedDisinfectants and DisinfectionByproducts and Enhanced SurfaceWater Treatment Rules. Total SDWANeed does not include distribution needtied to the TCR.

EPA also solicited comments onhybrid options that would takeadvantage of the strengths of differentoptions and/or address concerns formeeting the needs of small systems.EPA presented two such options in itsrequest for comments:

• Option 5 was a hybrid of CurrentNeed and Current SDWA Need (e.g.,50% of the formula based on a State’sshare of Current Need, with the other50% based on Current SDWA Need).Such an approach would combine thebenefits of formulas based on both typesof need. The Current SDWA Needcomponent would place emphasis onthe projects required now forcompliance with regulations, while theCurrent Need component would takeinto account all projects needed now—including current distribution needassociated with the TCR.

• Option 6 was a hybrid formulaemphasizing the needs of small systems(e.g., basing 50% on total need and 50%on small system need). Giving addedweight to small system need wouldacknowledge the special problems ofsmall systems. Small water systemshave both a higher per-household needand more trouble in maintainingcompliance with drinking waterregulations than larger systems.

In addition to comments on thesehybrid options, EPA requestedsuggestions for other hybrid options.EPA also requested comment on thepercentages to employ in any hybrid.EPA requested that commenterssuggesting alternative hybrids or otheroptions not included in the FederalRegister notice keep those optionswithin the scope of the law. The lawrequires that funds be allotted to Statesbased on each State’s proportional shareof the State needs identified in the mostrecent Drinking Water Needs Survey.

Summary of Comments

EPA received 23 responses to itsrequest for comments. Thesecommenters included the following:

• 12 State representatives.2• 6 regional or city water agencies.• 5 associations.Almost three-fourths of the

commenters (15) favored Option 1, totalneed, as their first choice. In addition,6 commenters supported the total needoption as either their second choice, oras the most significant factor in a hybridformula. Thus, 21 of the 23 commenterssupported use of total need in somesignificant manner. The other optionsthat received support were: Option 2,Current Need (1 commenter); Option 6,Total or SDWA Need with an emphasison small systems need (5 commenters);and two allotment formula options notpresented in the request for comments(2 commenters). A summary ofcomments appears below.

Comments Favoring Total NeedAs stated above, the majority of

comments supported Option 1, totalneed. Commenters from all but oneState favored this option, and all Staterepresentatives participating in theOctober 14, 1996, meeting of theAssociation of State Drinking WaterAdministrators favored this option.

Commenters in favor of total needargued that this option is mostconsistent with the intent of SDWA.They noted that total need was thebottom-line of the Drinking Water NeedsSurvey. Section 1452(a)(1)(D) of theSDWA requires that DWSRF monies forfiscal year 1998 and following years beallotted to States based on each State’sproportional share of the State needsidentified in the most recent DrinkingWater Infrastructure Needs Survey.These commenters interpreted thisprovision to mean the bottom line totalneed in the survey. Additionally,statistical precision associated with totalneed is the highest.

According to the commenters, thisapproach appropriately provides Stateswith flexibility to determine whichneeds are critical for protecting publichealth, does not put States with themost active SDWA complianceprograms at a disadvantage, includesdistribution system needs associatedwith the TCR, and encourages proactivehealth protection. In addition, thesecommenters noted that many of theprojects identified as future needs whenthe information was collected, are nowor will become current needs during thelifetime of this formula.

EPA is persuaded by the arguments ofthe commenters that supported Option1, total need. The Agency feels that this

approach recognizes the differences inneed among States and gives themaximum degree of flexibility. TheAgency will allot funds to each Statebased on the State’s proportional shareof total eligible needs reported for themost recent Drinking Water NeedsSurvey conducted under SDWA Section1452(h). Each State shall be allocated aminimum of one percent of the fundsavailable to States, as required underSDWA Section 1452(a)(1)(D)(ii). Oncefunds have been allotted, States mustthen choose projects for funding basedon the criteria in the law. The lawrequires that State Intended Use Plans,to the maximum extent practicable, givepriority for funding to projects thataddress the most serious risk to humanhealth, are necessary to ensurecompliance with SDWA requirements(including filtration), and assist systemsmost in need on a per household basis,according to State affordability criteria.

Total eligible need for the purpose ofthe allotment formula will include mostbut not all types of need under thecategory of total need reported for theDrinking Water Infrastructure NeedsSurvey: First Report to Congress. Totaleligible need for the allotment formula(or total eligible need) will not containprojects that are ineligible for DWSRFfunding. Projects not eligible for fundingthat are included in the Drinking WaterInfrastructure Needs Survey: FirstReport to Congress are new andimproved dams and reservoirs. Theseineligible projects total just over threepercent of the total need identified inthe Drinking Water Infrastructure NeedsSurvey: First Report to Congress.

Comments Favoring Current NeedOne commenter provided an

argument against Option 1, total need,stating that it would require publicwater systems or States to project futureneeds, which depend on a variety offactors. For this reason, the commenteradvocated Option 2, Current Need.However, EPA notes that the DrinkingWater Needs Survey included only well-documented future needs that affect thecurrent population and are very likely tobe implemented. Furthermore, theAgency notes that most future needs areno more than five years away, becausesystems generally plan only five years inadvance. Consequently, EPA believesthat basing the allotment formula upontotal needs will not result in an unfairdistribution of funds.

Comments Favoring Small System NeedIn addition to the commenters that

favored total need and the onecommenter that favored Current Need,five commenters favored a hybrid


option that emphasizes small systemneeds. Four commenters advocated ahybrid of total need and total need forsmall systems, and one commenteradvocated a hybrid of Total SDWA Needand Total SDWA Need for smallsystems.

One commenter supported a hybridoption emphasizing small system needsbecause the commenter felt that itwould be most beneficial to thecommenter’s State. Some commentersbelieved that the Drinking Water NeedsSurvey underestimated small systemneed because many small systems donot have the resources available todocument current and future needs.Additionally, commenters argued thatthis option was most consistent with theSDWA’s intent to provide relief to smallsystems and address the most seriousthreats to public health.

EPA disagrees that small systemneeds have been underestimated. Theapproach for estimating small systemneeds was developed by a workgroupthat included State representatives.Under this approach, a statisticallysignificant sample of small systemsparticipated in the Drinking WaterNeeds Survey. Because the workgroupwas aware that many small systemswould not have the capacity todocument their needs, the approachcalled for site visits to all selectedsystems. EPA staff and other watersystem professionals, oftenaccompanied by State personnel,interviewed small system operators,examined all system components, anddeveloped documentation on site. Ifproject costs were not available, thisdocumentation, along with dataprovided by States, engineering firms,and other water systems, was used tomodel small system costs. EPA believesthis methodology yielded a veryaccurate estimate of need for smallsystems.

It was not feasible to conduct a surveyof small systems that was statisticallysignificant on a State-by-State basisbecause the Drinking Water NeedsSurvey approach emphasized theimportance of accurately capturingsmall system needs through site visits.Therefore, the workgroup’s approachcalled for a survey that was statisticallysignificant on a national basis. (Formedium and large systems, the surveywas statistically significant on a State-by-State basis.) The national smallsystem need was distributed amongStates based on the number of smallsystems in each State, taking system sizeand type (surface vs. ground) andregional construction cost trends intoaccount. Since small system needs werenot based on State-by-State samples,

EPA concludes that it would not beappropriate to assign adisproportionately heavy weight tosmall system needs in the allotmentformula.

Additionally, EPA notes that thedecision to utilize Option 1, total need,does not diminish access by smallsystems to DWSRF funding. Theformula allocates money to States,which in turn determine how todistribute the funds to systems. Asrequired under SDWA 1452(a)(2), Statesmust make available to small systems aminimum of fifteen percent of DWSRFfunds, and it is within their purview todistribute a greater percentage. There isno reason to believe that weightingsmall system needs in the allotmentformula would affect States’’ decisionsto provide DWSRF funding to smallsystems. The Agency adds that thereauthorized SDWA provides otherrelief for small systems. The Actincludes provisions that allow States toissue subsidized loans to‘‘disadvantaged communities’’. Further,it allows States to use two percent oftheir allotments for technical assistanceto small systems serving 10,000 or fewerpeople. In addition, the SDWA requiresthat States make available a minimum of15 percent of all dollars credited to aDWSRF for loan assistance to smallsystems that serve fewer than 10,000persons.

Comments Suggesting Other Options

Two commenters advocated allotmentformula options not presented in theOctober 31, 1996, Federal Registernotice requesting comments. Onecommenter suggested a formula thatwould take into account either thenumber of individuals without pipedwater or State populations. However,EPA notes that SDWA Section1452(a)(1)(D)(ii) requires that DWSRFfunding be allocated to States based ona State’s proportional share of the Stateneeds identified in the most recentDrinking Water Needs Survey of eligiblewater systems. No provision is made inthe law to distribute DWSRF funds toStates based on the number ofindividuals without piped water or onpopulation.

Another commenter suggested ahybrid formula based 50 percent ontotal need and 50 percent on CurrentSDWA Need. While EPA recognizes thatcurrent SDWA need emphasizes manyof the most serious threats to publichealth, many commenters pointed outthat the category does not cover allprojects needed to protect public health.

There were no comments received infavor of Options 3 or 4.

The commenters also addressed other,related issues. Most significantly,commenters requested that EPAreevaluate the allotment formula afterthe completion of the next DrinkingWater Needs Survey. The results of thenext Drinking Water Needs Survey aredue to Congress in February 2001(SDWA Section 1452(h)). In late 2000,EPA intends to again solicit commentson the allotment formula for thepurpose of evaluating whether theDWSRF allotment formula should bemodified.

Some commenters also questionedwhether comments on the allotmentformula should have been solicitedbefore the results of the Drinking WaterInfrastructure Needs Survey were madeavailable. The Agency believes thatseeking comments on the options for theallotment formula before the surveyresults were available invitedcommenters to provide impartialcomments on which option best meetsthe intent of the reauthorized SDWA.EPA is confident that this approachhelped ensure that the chosen allotmentmethod was equitable and would meetthe intent of the SDWA.

EPA appreciates the participation ofall commenters in this process. Toreiterate, the Agency will use anallotment formula that allocates to eachState a share of funding proportional tothe State’s total eligible need asdetermined by the Drinking WaterInfrastructure Needs Survey: FirstReport to Congress (SDWA Section1452(a)(1)(D)). Each State, and theDistrict of Columbia, shall be allotted aminimum of one percent of the fundsavailable for allotment to States (SDWASection 1452(a)(1)(D)(ii)). The VirginIslands, American Samoa, Guam, andthe Commonwealth of the NorthernMariana Islands, will together receive anallotment not to exceed 0.33 percent ofthe funds available for allotment to theStates (SDWA Section 1452(j)). Thefunds available for allotment to theStates will equal the level of fundsappropriated by Congress, less thenational set-asides.

The national set-asides for fiscal year1998 include funds for Indian Tribesand Alaska Native Village water systemsat the level of one and one half of onepercent of the total appropriation.(SDWA Section 1452(i)). This comes to$10,875,000 for Indian Tribes andAlaska Native Villages in fiscal year1998. Also, a national set-aside of$2,000,000 is anticipated to be used formonitoring for unregulatedcontaminants. If funds are appropriatedfor the DWSRF at the level of thePresident’s budget of $725 million andif the anticipated national set-asides do


3 Other Areas include: the Virgin Islands,American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth ofthe Northern Mariana Islands.

not change, the total funds available tothe States would equal $712,125,000.Each State’s allotment, based on theseassumptions, is shown below. Becausethe percentages are based on the totalfunds available for allotment to theStates, they can be used for planningpurposes for future years. Once theappropriated amount and national set-asides are known, a State’s allotmentcan be estimated by subtracting thenational set-asides from the total fundsavailable for allotment and thenapplying the appropriate percentageshown below.

Fiscal Year 1998 DWSRF AllotmentResults (Based on the President’sBudget of $725 Million and NationalSet-Aside Assumptions)Alabama $8,465,600 (1.19%);Alaska $7,121,300 (1.00%);Arizona $7,257,400 (1.02%);Arkansas $10,132,200 (1.42%);California $77,108,200 (10.83%);Colorado $9,581,800 (1.35%);Connecticut $7,121,300 (1.00%);Delaware $7,121,300 (1.00%);District of Columbia $7,121,300

(1.00%);Florida $20,642,800 (2.90%);Georgia $15,253,300 (2.14%);Hawaii $7,121,300 (1.00%);Idaho $7,121,300 (1.00%);Illinois $ 24,753,200 (3.48%);Indiana $8,687,500 (1.22%);Iowa $11,238,700 (1.58%);Kansas $10,008,100 (1.41%);

Kentucky $10,851,600 (1.52%);Louisiana $9,949,200 (1.40%);Maine $7,121,300 (1.00%);Maryland $7,121,300 (1.00%);Massachusetts $27,414,400 (3.85%);Michigan $20,951,400 (2.94%);Minnesota $11,856,100 (1.66%);Mississippi $8,271,700 (1.16%);Missouri $9,574,900 (1.34%);Montana $7,121,300 (1.00%);Nebraska $7,121,300 (1.00%);Nevada $7,121,300 (1.00%);New Hampshire $7,121,300 (1.00%);New Jersey $17,347,900 (2.44%);New Mexico $7,121,300 (1.00%);New York $45,061,600 (6.33%);North Carolina $12,859,400 (1.81%);North Dakota $7,121,300 (1.00%);Ohio $22,806,200 (3.20%);Oklahoma $10,224,200 (1.44%);Oregon $10,567,800 (1.48%);Pennsylvania $22,404,800 (3.15%);Puerto Rico $10,225,000 (1.44%);Rhode Island $7,121,300 (1.00%);South Carolina $7,669,400 (1.08%);South Dakota $7,121,300 (1.00%);Tennessee $9,557,400 (1.34%);Texas $54,014,400 (7.58%);Utah $7,121,300 (1.00%);Vermont $7,121,300 (1.00%);Virginia $13,895,300 (1.95%);Washington $19,169,100 (2.69%);West Virginia $7,121,300 (1.00%);Wisconsin $9,548,400 (1.34%);Wyoming $7,121,300 (1.00%);Other Areas 3 $2,350,000 (0.33%)

Submission to Congress and theGeneral Accounting Office

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as addedby the Small Business RegulatoryEnforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPAsubmitted a report containing this ruleand other required information to theU.S. Senate, the U.S. House ofRepresentatives and the ComptrollerGeneral of the General AccountingOffice prior to publication of the rule intoday’s Federal Register. This rule isnot a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5U.S.C. 804(2).

ADDRESSES: A copy of the publiccomment received regarding thisallotment formula is available for reviewat the EPA Drinking Water Docket, 401M ST, SW, Washington, DC 20460. Foraccess to the docket materials, call (202)260–3027 between 9:00 a.m. and 3:30p.m. The allotment formula results forfiscal year 1998 will be published in theFederal Register once national set-asideamounts have been finalized.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.Clive Davies (202) 260–1421.

Dated: March 12, 1997.Robert Perciasepe,Assistant Administrator for Water.[FR Doc. 97–6827 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

fede

ral r

egiste

r

12905


Part IV

Department ofHealth and HumanServicesPublic Health Service

42 CFR Part 67Health Services Research, Evaluation,Demonstration, and DisseminationProjects; Peer Review of Grants andContracts; Final Rule


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ANDHUMAN SERVICES

Public Health Service

42 CFR Part 67

RIN 0919–AAOO

Health Services Research, Evaluation,Demonstration, and DisseminationProjects; Peer Review of Grants andContracts

AGENCY: Agency for Health Care Policyand Research, HHS.ACTION: Final regulations.

SUMMARY: This final rule establishesregulations for grants for health servicesresearch, evaluation, demonstration,and dissemination projectsadministered by the Agency for HealthCare Policy and Research (AHCPR). Itrevises existing regulations governinghealth services research grants asadministered by the former NationalCenter for Health Services Research(NCHSR). The regulations set outprogram and administrativerequirements for grantees and potentialgrant applicants, and describe thetechnical and scientific peer review bywhich applications for grants are to beevaluated. The regulations also establishprocedures for the conduct of peerreview of AHCPR contracts for healthservices research, evaluation,demonstration, and disseminationprojects.EFFECTIVE DATE: The final regulations areeffective March 18, 1997.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Phyllis M. Zucker, Director, Office ofPlanning and Evaluation, Agency forHealth Care Policy and Research,Executive Office Center, Suite 603, 2101East Jefferson Street, Rockville, MD20852. Phone: (301) 594–2453.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The finalregulations revise the existingregulations at 42 CFR part 67, subpart A,and substitute a new subpart B, toreflect the establishment of the Agencyfor Health Care Policy and Research(AHCPR) and its legislative mandates asset forth in Pub. L. 101–239, theOmnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of1989 (OBRA of 1989), enacted onDecember 19, 1989. Section 6103 ofPub. L. 101–239 added a new Title IXto the Public Health Service (PHS) Act(42 U.S.C. 299–299c–6), whichestablished AHCPR and provided thatthe Secretary of Health and HumanServices (HHS) shall act through theAdministrator of AHCPR in carrying outthe authorities under Title IX. Pub. L.102–410, the Agency for Health Care

Policy and Research ReauthorizationAct (October 13, 1992), further amendedTitle IX, and these amendments arereflected in the final regulations, aswell. Technical amendments to Title IXsubsequently included in section 2013of Pub. L. 103–43, the NationalInstitutes of Health Revitalization Act of1993, did not affect this rule.

A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking(NPRM) was published in the FederalRegister on November 16, 1993 (58 FR60510), with a 60-day comment period.No public comments were received.

BackgroundThe AHCPR is charged with

enhancing the quality, appropriateness,and effectiveness of health care services,and access to such services. The AHCPRachieves these goals through theestablishment of a broad base ofscientific research, and through thepromotion of improvements in clinicalpractice (including the prevention ofdiseases and other health conditions)and in the organization, financing, anddelivery of health services. In carryingout these functions, AHCPR has built onand expanded the work supported overtwenty years by its predecessor, theNational Center for Health ServicesResearch and Health Care TechnologyAssessment (NCHSR).

Title IX, in particular sections 902and 925(c), authorizes the Administratorto award grants to, and enter intocooperative agreements with, public andprivate nonprofit entities andindividuals to support research,demonstration projects, evaluations, anddissemination of information, on healthcare services and systems for thedelivery of these services. Whenappropriate, the Administrator also mayenter into contracts with individuals, aswell as public and private entities.

Section 902(d) of the PHS Act, asamended by Pub L. 102–410, specifiesthat the Administrator may providefinancial assistance for the costs ofdeveloping and operating centers formultidisciplinary health servicesresearch, demonstration projects,evaluations, training, and policyanalysis for carrying out the purposes ofTitle IX.

Under section 902(e), as amended byPub. L. 102–410, AHCPR may use itsTitle IX authorities to carry out, andcoordinate appropriately with, activitiesauthorized by the Social Security Act,including experiments, demonstrationprojects, and other related activities.Further, section 902(e) requires thatresearch and other activities conductedunder Title IX on the outcomes of healthcare services and procedures whichaffect the Medicare and Medicaid

programs be consistent with theprovisions of section 1142 of the SocialSecurity Act, which, like Title IX, wasenacted by section 6103 of Pub. L. 101–239 (OBRA of 1989). The authorities insection 1142 (42 U.S.C. 1320–12b)enhance and elaborate on AHCPR’smandate to conduct and supportoutcomes and effectiveness researchunder Title IX.

Section 1142(a)(1) directs theSecretary, acting through theAdministrator of AHCPR, to supportresearch with respect to the outcomes,effectiveness, and appropriateness ofhealth care services and procedures, inorder to identify the manner in whichdiseases, disorders, and other healthconditions can be prevented, diagnosed,treated, and managed most effectively.Section 1142(a)(2) authorizesevaluations of the comparative effectson health and functional capacity and ofalternative services and procedures forpreventing, diagnosing, treating, andmanaging health conditions.

Also provided for in section 1142(c),for the purpose of facilitating outcomesand effectiveness research, are variousauthorities to conduct and supportactivities such as the improvement ofmethodologies, criteria, and data basesused in outcomes and effectivenessresearch; and research anddemonstrations on the use of claimsdata and data on the clinical andfunctional status of patients.

Section 1142(e) requires the Secretary(through AHCPR) to provide fordissemination of the findings ofoutcomes and effectiveness researchconducted or supported under section1142 and clinical practice guidelinesunder sections 911–914 of the PHS Act.Section 1142(e)(2) provides that theSecretary (through AHCPR) will workwith professional associations, medicalorganizations, and other relevant groupsto identify and implement effectivemeans to educate health care providers,practitioners, educators, consumers, andpolicymakers in using research findingsand guidelines. Authority to supportevaluations of the impact of suchdissemination activities, and authorityto support research with respect toimproving methods of disseminatinginformation on the effectiveness andappropriateness of health care servicesand procedures, are provided undersections 1142 (f) and (g).

Pub. L. 102–410 amended section924(a) of the PHS Act to require that theAdministrator define by regulation whatconstitutes financial interests that couldreasonably be expected to create a biasin the results of AHCPR-supportedgrants, cooperative agreements, orcontract projects; and the actions that


will be taken in response to any suchinterests. Pub. L. 103–43 includedsimilar requirements for the NationalInstitutes of Health (NIH) regardingprotection against financial conflicts ofinterest in certain projects of research. Afinal regulation on Objectivity inResearch was published by theDepartment in the Federal Register onJuly 11, 1995 (60 FR 35810). This finalrule implements both AHCPR and NIHstatutory requirements for regulationson conflicts of interest in researchprojects, and also applies broadly to allresearch funded by the Public Healthservice agencies of the Department,except Phase I projects under the SmallBusiness Innovation Research (SBIR)program.

The Final RegulationsThe provisions in AHCPR final

regulations are essentially the same asthose in the NPRM. Modificationsincorporated for improved clarity andincreased flexibility are discussedbelow. Other technical and editorialchanges have also been incorporated.

Subpart AThe regulations at subpart A establish

program and administrativerequirements governing grants andcooperative agreements to carry out thepurposes of Title IX of the PHS Act andsection 1142 of the Social Security Act.The regulations set out the technicaland scientific peer review proceduresand criteria by which applications forgrants and cooperative agreements are tobe reviewed, in accordance with section922(e) of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 229c–1(e)).

Section 67.13 Eligible ProjectsThe listing of eligible projects dealing

with ‘‘health care technology’’(paragraph (d)) has been reworded fromthe NPRM to read: ‘‘Health caretechnologies, facilities, and equipment,including assessments of health caretechnologies and innovative approachesto such assessments, and technologydiffusion.’’ This new language reflectsthe emphasis of Pub. L. 102–410 oninnovation in approaches to technologyassessments. The category dealing withspecial populations now explicitly listswomen and children, and disseminationhas been expanded to include examplesof the range of audiences to whomAHCPR efforts are directed.

Section 67.15 Peer Review ofApplications

Proposed § 67.15(a), by exempting‘‘small grants’’ from review byestablished peer review groups andprocedures, would have inadvertently

restricted the flexibility for review ofsmall grants provided by section922(d)(2) of the PHS Act. Section922(d)(2) permits the Administrator tomake adjustments in the standardreview procedures for ‘‘small grant’’applications, which have direct coststhat will not exceed the amountspecified in 922(d)(2) (currently$50,000). These adjustments may bemade for the purpose of encouraging theentry of individuals into the field ofresearch and promoting clinicalpractice-oriented research, as well as forother purposes which the Administratormay determine.

Accordingly, paragraphs (a) and (b)have been modified and retitled to allowfor ‘‘small grants’’ to be reviewed byestablished peer review groups, as wellas to permit adjustments in theprocedures, such as review by fieldreaders and ad hoc groups. Paragraph(b) describes the procedures foradjusting the peer review process for‘‘small grants.’’ The new titles are,respectively, ‘‘General procedures forpeer review’’ and ‘‘Proceduraladjustments for small grants.’’ Thesemodifications will ensure maximumflexibility for the Administrator, whichis consistent with section 922(d)(2).

Section 67.15(c)(1) General ReviewCriteria

The NPRM included as a proposedreview criterion, ‘‘The degree to whichthe proposed project addresses thepurposes of Title IX of the PHS Act andsection 1142 of the Social Security Act* * *’’ This has been moved to § 67.16,‘‘Evaluation and disposition ofapplications.’’ Assuring that broadlegislative mandates are being met ispart of AHCPR’s overall program andfunding decision processes, rather thanthe scientific and technical review ofindividual applications. The second halfof the proposed criterion, the degree towhich the proposed project addresses‘‘any special AHCPR priorities that havebeen announced by the Administrator,’’has been retained for reviewers’consideration, as applicable.

Also, the review criteria under§ 67.15(c)(1) have been expanded toinclude, ‘‘The extent to which womenand minorities are adequatelyrepresented in study populations.’’ Thisis consistent with AHCPR’scommitment and current requirements,as provided in application materials, toensure wide and appropriaterepresentation in study populations.

Section 67.15(c)(2) Review Criteria forConference Grants

This section has been streamlined sothat the final regulation includes only

the broad general review criteria forconference grants, comparable to thecriteria for non-conference grants.Additional detailed criteria may beincluded in published programannouncements, which permit moreflexibility for AHCPR in assuring thatthe criteria are responsive to thechanging needs of the health carecommunity.

Also, included in the final reviewcriteria is: ‘‘The extent to which thehealth concerns of women andminorities will be addressed inconference topic(s), as appropriate.’’This addition makes the conferencegrants criteria parallel to the criteriaunder § 67.15(c)(1) and reflectsAHCPR’s commitment to encouragewide and appropriate representation ofthe health concerns of women andminorities in all of its activities.

Consistent with § 67.15(c)(1), ‘‘Thedegree to which the proposed projectaddresses the purposes of Title IX of thePHS Act and section 1142 of the SocialSecurity Act * * *’’ has been moved to§ 67.16. The degree to which a proposedproject addresses ‘‘any special AHCPRpriorities that have been announced bythe Administrator’’ has been retained forreviewers’ consideration, as applicable.

Section 67.16 Evaluation andDisposition of Applications

‘‘The degree to which the proposedproject addresses the purposes of TitleIX of the PHS Act and section 1142 ofthe Social Security Act’’ included in theNPRM as a peer review criterion iscontained in the final regulations underparagraph § 67.16(a). As discussedabove, the degree to which the overalllegislative purposes are being addressedis a part of the AHCPR program andpolicy funding decision process, as theAdministrator seeks to ensure a broadand balanced portfolio of health servicesresearch. (See discussions of§ 67.15(c)(1) and § 67.15(c)(2).)

Section 67.17 Grant AwardProposed § 67.17(g) regarding

supplemental awards has beenreworded to improve clarity.

Proposed § 67.17(h) would havecontinued to require peer review of allnoncompeting continuationapplications for projects with a projectperiod in excess of 2 years and withdirect costs in excess of the amountspecified in section 922(d)(2) of the PHSAct (small grants currently at $50,000).This was consistent with longstandingAHCPR requirements and practices.AHCPR believes that, in keeping withthe Administration’s ReinventingGovernment Initiative, it is important toallow more flexibility in these review


procedures and to use peer reviewers inthe most efficient way. The finalregulations ensure this flexibility byproviding that AHCPR may require peerreview of noncompeting continuationapplications, but do not mandate suchreviews.

Subpart BThe existing regulations at subpart B

pertain to grants for health servicesresearch centers under former section305(e) of the PHS Act (originally section305(d)), which described specific typesof research centers to be supported, andmandated particular requirements foreach center. Pub. L. 101–239 repealedsection 305 of the PHS Act in itsentirety and provided broad authorityfor support to multidisciplinary healthservices research centers under Title IXof the PHS Act. See section 902(d), asamended by Pub. L. 102–410 (42 U.S.C.299a(d)). Pub. L. 101–239 also providedbroad authority for support of researchcenters for the conduct of outcomesresearch under section 1142(c) of theSocial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320b–12(c)(4)). Grants for centers under TitleIX of the PHS Act and section 1142(c)of the Social Security Act are made inaccordance with subpart A. Therefore,the Department is removing the existingsubpart B, which is obsolete, and addinga new subpart B pertaining to the peerreview of contract proposals as requiredby section 922(e) of the PHS Act (42U.S.C. 299c–1(e)). All other aspects ofAHCPR contract administration andmanagement are conducted inaccordance with the Federal AcquisitionRegulations (FAR) and the Health andHuman Services AcquisitionRegulations (HHSAR).

Section 922 of the PHS Act requiresthat technical and scientific peer reviewshall be conducted not only withrespect to each application for a grant orcooperative agreement, but also withrespect to each proposal for a contractunder Title IX. Section 922(e) furtherrequires that regulations be issued forthe conduct of such peer review. Thenew Subpart B satisfies this requirementwith respect to the peer review ofcontracts. The regulations in thissubpart are to be used in conjunctionwith the FAR and the HHSAR, whichgovern all Department contracts.

The regulations apply to the peerreview of contract proposals undersection 1142 of the Social Security Act(42 U.S.C. 1320b–12), as well as Title IXof the PHS Act. This is consistent withthe interrelationship between the twoauthorities. The peer reviewrequirements in § 67.102 are applicableto all contract proposals, regardless ofthe projected costs of the contracts.

(Section 922(d)(2) of the PHS Act doesnot provide for procedural adjustmentsin the peer review process for contractproposals as it does for applications forsmall grants as set out in § 67.15(b) ofsubpart A.)

Smoke-Free Workplace

The Department and its Public HealthService agencies strongly encourage allgrant and contract recipients to providea smoke-free workplace and promote thenon-use of all tobacco products. Inaddition, Pub. L. 103–227, The Pro-Children Act of 1994, prohibits smokingin certain facilities (or in some cases,any portion of a facility) in whichregular or routine education, library,day care, health care, or early childhooddevelopment services are provided tochildren. This is consistent with thePublic Health Service mission to protectand advance the physical and mentalhealth of the American people.

Executive Order 12866 and RegulatoryFlexibility Act

The final regulations have beenreviewed in accordance with therequirements of Executive Order No.12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning andReview.’’ The Secretary, therefore, hasdetermined that the regulations do notconstitute a major rule, as defined underthe order and, as a result, have not beenreviewed by the Office of Managementand Budget. In addition, pursuant to theprovisions of the Regulatory FlexibilityAct (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), it is certifiedthat the regulations will not have asignificant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entities.The regulations make minor revisions tothe existing grant and contractprocedures, and do not impose anyconsequential costs on the grantees orcontractors. Therefore, the Secretary hasdetermined that a regulatory impactanalysis is not required.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

The final regulations do not containany new reporting or recordkeepingrequirements subject to review andclearance under the PaperworkReduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.Chapter 35). The applications used forthe programs covered by the regulationsat 42 CFR part 67, subpart A, (PHS Form398 ‘‘Application for Public HealthService Grant and HS Form 2590‘‘Application for Continuation of PublicHealth Service Grant,’’ and PHS Form5161 ‘‘Application for State and LocalGovernments’’), are approved underOMB Approval Nos. 0925–0001 and0937–0189.

List of Subjects in 42 CFR Part 67Grant programs—Health services

research, evaluation, demonstration,and dissemination projects; peer reviewof grants and contracts.

Dated: February 14, 1997.Clifton R. Gaus,Administrator, Agency for Health Care Policyand Research.(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No.93n226—Health Services Research andDevelopment Grants, and No. 93.180—Medical Effectiveness Research)

Accordingly, 42 CFR part 67 isrevised to read as follows:

Part 67—Agency for Health Care Policyand Research Grants and Contracts

Subpart A—Research Grants for HealthServices Research, Evaluation,Demonstration, and Dissemination ProjectsSec.67.10 Purpose and scope.67.11 Definitions.67.12 Eligible applicants.67.13 Eligible projects.67.14 Application.67.15 Peer review of applications.67.16 Evaluation and disposition of

applications.67.17 Grant award.67.18 Use of project funds.67.19 Other applicable regulations.67.20 Confidentiality.67.21 Control of data and availability of

publications.67.22 Additional conditions.

Subpart B—Peer Review of Contracts forHealth Services Research, Evaluation,Demonstration, and Dissemination Projects67.101 Purpose and scope.67.102 Definitions.67.103 Peer review of contract proposals.67.104 Confidentiality.67.105 Control of data and availability of

publications.Authority: Pub. L. 103–43, 107 Stat. 214–

215, Pub. L. 102–410, 106 Stat. 2094–2101and sec. 6103, Pub. L. 101–239, 103 Stat.2189–2208, Title IX of the Public HealthService Act (42 U.S.C. 299–299c–6); and sec.1142, Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320b–12).

Subpart A—Research Grants forHealth Services Research, Evaluation,Demonstration, and DisseminationProjects

§ 67.10 Purpose and scope.The regulations of this subpart apply

to the award by AHCPR of grants andcooperative agreements under:

(a) Title IX of the Public HealthService Act to support research,evaluation, demonstration, anddissemination projects, includingconferences, on health care services andsystems for the delivery of suchservices, as well as to establish and


operate multidisciplinary healthservices research centers.

(b) Section 1142 of the Social SecurityAct to support research on theoutcomes, effectiveness, andappropriateness of health care servicesand procedures, including but notlimited to, evaluations of alternativeservices and procedures; projects toimprove methods and data bases foroutcomes, effectiveness, and otherresearch; dissemination of researchinformation and clinical guidelines,conferences, and research ondissemination methods.

§ 67.11 Definitions.As used in this subpart—Administrator means the

Administrator and any other officer oremployee of the Agency for Health CarePolicy and Research to whom theauthority involved may be delegated.

Agency for Health Care Policy andResearch (AHCPR) means that unit ofthe Department of Health and HumanServices established by section 901 ofthe Public Health Service Act.

Direct costs means the costs that canbe identified specifically with aparticular cost objective, such ascompensation of employees for the timeand effort devoted specifically to theapproved project, and the costs ofmaterials acquired, consumed, orexpended specifically for the purpose ofthe approved project.

Grant means an award of financialassistance as defined in 45 CFR parts 74and 92, including cooperativeagreements.

Grantee means the organizationalentity or individual to which a grant,including a cooperative agreement,under Title IX of the Public HealthService Act or section 1142 of the SocialSecurity Act and this subpart isawarded and which is responsible andaccountable both for the use of thefunds provided and for the performanceof the grant-supported project oractivities. The grantee is the entire legalentity even if only a particularcomponent is designated in the awarddocument.

Nonprofit as applied to a privateentity, means that no part of the netearnings of such entity inures or maylawfully inure to the benefit of anyshareholder or individual.

Peer review group means a panel ofexperts, established under section922(c) of the PHS Act, who by virtue oftheir training or experience areeminently qualified to carry out theduties of such peer review group as setout in this subpart. Officers andemployees of the United States may notconstitute more than 25 percent of the

membership of any such group underthis subpart.

PHS Act means the Public HealthService Act, as amended.

Principal investigator means a singleindividual, designated in the grantapplication and approved by theAdministrator, who is responsible forthe scientific and technical direction ofthe project.

Social Security Act means the SocialSecurity Act, as amended.

§ 67.12 Eligible applicants.

Any public or nonprofit private entityor any individual is eligible to apply fora grant under this subpart.

§ 67.13 Eligible projects.

Projects for research, evaluations,demonstrations, dissemination ofinformation (including research ondissemination), and conferences, relatedto health care services and the deliveryof such services, are eligible for grantsupport. These include, but are notlimited to, projects in the followingcategories:

(a) Effectiveness, efficiency, andquality of health care services;

(b) Outcomes of health care servicesand procedures;

(c) Clinical practice, includingprimary care and practice-orientedresearch;

(d) Health care technologies, facilities,and equipment, including assessmentsof health care technologies andinnovative approaches to suchassessments, and technology diffusion;

(e) Health care costs and financing,productivity, and market forces;

(f) Health promotion and diseaseprevention;

(g) Health statistics and epidemiology;(h) Medical liability;(i) AID/HIV infection, particularly

with respect to issues of access anddelivery of health care services;

(j) Rural health services;(k) The health of low-income,

minority, elderly, and otherunderserved populations, includingwomen and children; and

(l) Information dissemination andresearch on disseminationmethodologies, directed to health careproviders, practitioners, consumers,educators, review organizations, andothers.

§ 67.14 Application(a) To apply for a grant, an entity or

individual must submit an applicationin the form and at the time that theAdministrator requires. The applicationmust be signed by an individualauthorized to act for the applicant andto assume on behalf of the applicant the

obligations imposed by the PHS Act andthe Social Security Act, as pertinent, theregulations of this subpart, and anyadditional terms or conditions of anygrant awarded.

(b) In addition to informationrequested on the application form, theapplicant must provide such otherinformation as the Administrator mayrequest.

§ 67.15 Peer review of applications.

(a) General procedures for peerreview. (1) All applications for supportunder this subpart will be submitted bythe Administrator for review to a peerreview group, in accordance withsection 922(a) of the PHS Act, exceptthat applications eligible for reviewunder section 922(d)(2) of the PHS Act(‘‘small grants’’) may be reviewed underadjusted procedures in accordance withparagraph (b) of this section.

(2) Members of the peer review groupwill be selected based upon theirtraining and experience in relevantscientific and technical fields, takinginto account, among other factors:

(i) The level of formal education (e.g.,M.A., Ph.D., M.D., D.N.Sc.) completedby the individual and/or theindividual’s pertinent experience andexpertise;

(ii) The extent to which the individualhas engaged in relevant research, thecapacities (e.g., principal investigator,assistant) in which the individual hasdone so, and the quality of suchresearch;

(iii) The extent of the professionalrecognition received by the individualas reflected by awards and other honorsreceived from scientific andprofessional organizations outside theDepartment of Health and HumanServices;

(iv) The need of the peer review groupto include within its membershipexperts representing various areas ofspecialization within relevant scientificand technical fields, or specific healthcare issues; and

(v) Appropriate representation basedon gender, racial/ethnic origin, andgeography.

(3) Review by the peer review groupunder paragraph (a) of this section isconducted by using the criteria set outin paragraph (c) of this section.

(4) The peer review group to which anapplication has been submitted underparagraph (a) of this section shall makea written report to the Administrator oneach application, which shall containthe following parts:

(i) The first part of the report shallconsist of a factual summary of theproposed project, including a


description of its purpose, scientificapproach, location, and total budget.

(ii) The second part of the report shalladdress the scientific and technicalmerit of the proposed project with acritique of the proposed project withregard to the factors described inparagraphs (c)(1)(i) through (c)(1)(x) or(c)(2)(i) through (c)(2)(vii) of this sectionas applicable. This portion of the reportshall include a set of recommendationsto the Administrator with respect to thedisposition of the application basedupon its scientific and technical merit.The peer review panel may recommendto the Administrator that an application:

(A) Be given consideration forfunding,

(B) Be deferred for a later decision,pending receipt of additionalinformation, or

(C) Not be given further consideration.(iii) For each application

recommended for further considerationby the Administrator, the report shallalso provide a priority score based onthe scientific and technical merit of theproposed project, and makerecommendations on the appropriateproject period and level of support. Thereport may also address, as applicable,the degree to which the proposedproject relates to AHCPR-announcedpriorities.

(b) Procedural adjustments for smallgrants. (1) The Administrator may makeadjustments in the peer reviewprocedures established in accordancewith paragraph (a) of this section forgrant applications with total direct coststhat do not exceed the amount specifiedin section 922(d)(2) of the PHS Act,hereafter referred to as ‘‘small grants.’’

(2) Non-Federal and Federal expertswill be selected by the Administrator forthe review of small grant applicationson the basis of their training andexperience in particular scientific andtechnical fields, their knowledge ofhealth services research and theapplication of research findings, andtheir special knowledge of the issue(s)being addressed or methods andtechnology being used in the specificproposal.

(3) Review of applications for smallgrants may be by a review groupestablished in accordance withparagraph (a) of this section, or byindividual field readers, or by an ad hocgroup of reviewers.

(4) The review criteria set forth inparagraph (c) of this section shall beused for the review of small grantapplications.

(5) Each reviewer or group ofreviewers to whom an application hasbeen submitted under paragraph (b) ofthis section shall make a written report

to the Administrator on eachapplication. Each report shallsummarize the findings of the reviewand provide a recommendation to theAdministrator on whether theapplication should be given furtherconsideration. For applicationsrecommended for further consideration,the report may also address, asapplicable, the degree to which theproposed project relates to AHCPR-announced priorities.

(c) Review criteria. The review criteriaset out in this paragraph apply to bothapplications reviewed by peer reviewpanels in accordance with paragraph (a)of this section, and applications forsmall grants reviewed in accordancewith paragraph (b) of this section.

(1) General review criteria. In carryingout a review under this section forgrants (other than conference grants),the following review criteria will betaken into account, where appropriate:

(i) The significance and originalityfrom a scientific or technical standpointof the goals of the project;

(ii) The adequacy of the methodologyproposed to carry out the project;

(iii) The availability of data or theadequacy of the proposed plan to collectdata required in the analyses;

(iv) The adequacy andappropriateness of the plan fororganizing and carrying out the project;

(v) The qualifications and experienceof the principal investigator andproposed staff;

(vi) The reasonableness of the budgetand the time frame for the project, inrelation to the work proposed;

(vii) The adequacy of the facilities andresources available to the grantee;

(viii) The extent to which women andminorities are adequately represented instudy populations;

(ix) Where an application involvesactivities which could have an adverseeffect upon humans, animals, or theenvironment, the adequacy of theproposed means for protecting againstor minimizing such effects; and

(x) Any additional criteria that may beannounced by the Administrator fromtime to time for specific categories ofgrant applications (e.g., proposedprojects for support of research centers)eligible for support under this subpart.

(xi) In addition to the scientific andtechnical criteria above, peer reviewersmay be asked to consider the degree towhich a proposed project addresses anyspecial AHCPR priorities that have beenannounced by the Administrator, asapplicable.

(2) Review criteria for conferencegrants. In carrying out reviews ofconference grants under paragraphs (a)and (b) of this section, the following

review criteria will be taken intoaccount, as appropriate:

(i) The significance of the proposedconference, specifically the importanceof the issue or problem being addressed,including methodological or technicalissues for dealing with the development,conduct, or use of health servicesresearch;

(ii) The qualifications of the staffinvolved in planning and managing theconference;

(iii) The adequacy of the facilities andother resources available for theconference;

(iv) the appropriateness of theproposed budget, including othersources of funding;

(v) The extent to which the healthconcerns of women and minorities willbe addressed in the conference topic(s),as appropriate;

(vi) The plan for evaluating anddisseminating the results of theconference; and

(vii) Any additional criteria that maybe announced by the Administrator.

(viii) In addition to the scientific andtechnical criteria above, peer reviewersmay be asked to consider the degree towhich a proposed project addresses anyspecial AHCPR priorities that have beenannounced by the Administrator, asappropriate.

(d) Conflict of interest. (1) Members ofpeer review groups will be screened forpotential conflicts of interest prior toappointment and will be required tofollow Department policies andprocedures consistent with theStandards of Ethical Conduct forEmployees of the Executive Branch (5CFR part 2635), Executive Order 12674(as modified by Executive Order 12731).

(2) In addition to any restrictionsreferenced under paragraph (d)(1) of thissection:

(i) No member of a peer review group(or individual reviewer) may participatein or be present during any review bysuch group of a grant application inwhich, to the member’s knowledge, anyof the following has a financial interest:

(A) The number or his or her spouse,minor child, or partner;

(B) Any organization in which themember is serving as an officer, director,trustee, general partner, or employee; or

(C) Any organization with which themember is negotiating or has anyarrangement concerning prospectiveemployment or other similarassociation, and further;

(ii) In the event that any member ofa peer review group or his or herspouse, parent, child, or partner iscurrently or expected to be the principalinvestigator or member of the staffresponsible for carrying out any


research or development activitiescontemplated as part of a grantapplication, that member of the group,or the group, may be disqualified fromthe review and the review conducted byanother group with the expertise to doso. An ad hoc group selected inaccordance with § 67.15(a), or § 67.15(b)as applicable, may also be used for thereview. Any individual reviewer towhom the conditions of this paragraphapply would also be disqualified as areviewer.

(iii) No member of a peer reviewgroup or individual may participate inany review under this subpart of aspecific grant application for which themember has had or is expected to haveany other responsibility or involvement(whether preaward or postaward) as anofficer or employee of the United States.

(3) Where permissible under thestandards and order(s) cited inparagraph (d)(1) of this section, theAdministrator may waive therequirements in paragraph (d)(2) of thissection if it is determined that there isno other practical means for securingappropriate expert advice on aparticular grant application.

§ 67.16 Evaluation and disposition ofapplication.

(a) Evaluation. After appropriate peerreview in accordance with § 67.15, theAdministrator will evaluate applicationsrecommended for further consideration,taking into account, among otherfactors:

(1) The degree to which the purposesof Title IX of the PHS Act and section1142 of the Social Security Act, asapplicable, are being addressed;

(2) Recommendations made byreviewers pursuant to § 67.15;

(3) Any recommendations made bythe National Advisory Council forHealth Care Policy, Research, andEvaluation, as applicable;

(4) The appropriateness of the budget;(5) The extent to which the research

proposal and the fiscal plan provideassurance that effective use will bemade of grant funds;

(6) The demonstrated businessmanagement capability of the applicant;

(7) The demonstrated competence andskill of the staff, especially the seniorpersonnel, in light of the scope of theproject;

(8) The probable usefulness of theresults of the project for dealing withnational health care issues, policies, andprograms; and

(9) The degree to which AHCPR-announced priorities or purposes arebeing addressed.

(b) Disposition. On the basis of theevaluation of the application as

provided in paragraph (a) of thissection, the Administrator shall: giveconsideration for funding, defer for alater decision, pending receipt ofadditional information, or give nofurther consideration for funding, to anyapplication for a grant under thissubpart; except that the Administratormay not fund an application which hasnot been recommended for furtherconsideration as a result of peer reviewin accordance with § 67.15. Arecommendation against furtherconsideration shall not precludereconsideration, if the application isrevised, responding to issues andquestions raised during the review, andresubmitted for peer review at a laterdate.

§ 67.17 Grant award.(a) Within the limits of available

funds, the Administrator may awardgrants to those applicants whoseprojects are being considered forfunding, which in the judgment of theAdministrator, will promote best thepurposes of Title IX of the PHS Act and(if applicable) section 1142 of the SocialSecurity Act, AHCPR priorities, and theregulations of this subpart.

(b) The Notice of Grant Awardspecifies how long the Administratorintends to support the project withoutrequiring the project to recompete forfunds. This period, called the projectperiod, will usually be for 3–5 years,except for small grants, which usuallyare 1 year awards. The project period asspecified in the Notice of Grant Awardshall begin no later than 9 monthsfollowing the date of the award, exceptthat the project period must begin in thesame fiscal year as that from whichfunds are being awarded.

(c) Upon request from the grantee,Department grants policy permits anextension of the project period for up to12 months, without additional funds,when more time is needed to completethe research. The Administrator mayapprove a request for an additionalextension of time based on unusualcircumstances with written justificationsubmitted by the grantee, prior to thecompletion of the project period. In nocase will an additional extension ofmore than 12 months be approved.

(d) Generally, a grant award will befor 1 year, and subsequent continuationawards will be for 1 year at a time. Agrantee must submit a separatecontinuation application to have thesupport continued for each subsequentyear. Decisions regarding continuationawards and the funding level of suchawards will be made after considerationof such factors as the grantee’s progressand management practices and the

availability of funds. In all cases,continuation awards require adetermination by the Administrator thatcontinuation is in the best interest of theFederal Government.

(e) Neither the approval of anyapplication nor the award of any grantcommits or obligates the FederalGovernment in any way to make anyadditional, supplemental, continuation,or other award with respect to anyapproved application.

(f) Small grants. For particularcategories of small grants, such asdissertation research support, theAdministrator may establish a limit ontotal direct costs to be awarded. Anycategorical limits will be announced inadvance of the deadline for receipt ofapplications for such small grants.

(g) Supplemental awards. (1) Exceptfor small grants, supplemental awardsthat would exceed 20 percent of theAHCPR approved direct costs of theproject during the project period, or thatrequest an increase in funds to supporta change or a significant expansion ofthe scope of the project, will bereviewed as competing supplementalgrants in accordance with § 67.15(a). Asupplemental award for preparation ofdata in suitable form for transmittal inaccordance with § 67.21 shall beexcluded from the 20 percent aggregate.

(2) In the case of small grants, asdefined in section 922(d)(2) of the PHSAct, the Administrator will not approvea supplemental award during the projectperiod (excluding any supplementalaward for preparation of data in suitableform for transmittal in accordance with§ 67.21) that will, in the aggregate,exceed 10 percent of the AHCPRapproved direct costs of the project.

(h) Noncompeting continuationawards. Each project with a projectperiod in excess of 2 years and withdirect costs over the project period inexcess of the amount specified insection 922(d)(2) may be reviewedduring the second budget period andduring each subsequent budget periodby at least two members of the peerreview group that reviewed the initialapplication, or individuals whoparticipated in that review, to the extentpracticable. Recommendations to theAdministrator for continuation supportwill be based upon evaluation of:

(1) The progress of the project inmeeting project objectives;

(2) The appropriateness of themanagement of the project andallocation of resources within theproject;

(3) The adequacy and appropriatenessof the plan for carrying out the projectduring the budget period in light of the


accomplishments during previousbudget periods; and

(4) The reasonableness of theproposed budget for the subsequentbudget period.

§ 67.18 Use of project funds.

Grant funds must be spent solely forcarrying out the approved project inaccordance with Title IX of PHS Act,section 1142 of the Social Security Act(if applicable), the regulations of thissubpart, the terms and conditions of theaward, and the provisions of 45 CFRpart 74, or part 92 for State and localgovernment grantees.

§ 67.19 Other applicable regulations.

Several other regulations apply togrants under this subpart. Theseinclude, but are not limited to:37 CFR Part 401—Inventions and patents42 CFR Part 50 Subpart A—Responsibility of

PHS awardee and applicant institutionsfor dealing with and reporting possiblemisconduct in science

42 CFR Part 50 Subpart D—Public HealthService grant appeals procedure

42 CFR Part 50 Subpart F—Responsibility ofapplicants for promoting objectivity inresearch for which PHS funding issought

45 Part 16—Procedures of the departmentalgrant appeals board

45 CFR Part 46—Protection of humansubjects

45 CFR Part 74—Administration of grants45 CFR Part 76—Governmentwide debarment

and suspension (nonprocurement) andgovernmentwide requirements for drug-free workplace (grants)

45 CFR Part 80—Nondiscrimination underprograms receiving Federal assistancethrough the Department of Health andHuman Services effectuation of Title VIof the Civil Rights Act of 1964

45 CFR Part 81—Practice and procedure forhearings under Part 80 of this title

45 CFR Part 84—Nondiscrimination on thebasis of handicap in programs andactivities receiving or benefiting fromFederal financial assistance

45 CFR Part 86—Nondiscrimination on thebasis of sex in education programs andactivities receiving or benefiting fromFederal financial assistance

45 CFR Part 91—Nondiscrimination on thebasis of age in DHHS programs oractivities receiving Federal financialassistance

45 CFR Part 92—Uniform administrativerequirements for grants and cooperativeagreements with State and localgovernments

45 CFR Part 93—New restrictions onlobbying

§ 67.20 Confidentiality.

The confidentiality of identifyinginformation obtained in the course ofconducting or supporting grant andcooperative agreement activities under

this subpart is protected by section903(c) of the PHS Act. Specifically:

(a) No information obtained in thecourse of conducting or supportinggrant and cooperative agreementactivities under this subpart, if theentity or individual supplying theinformation or described in it isidentifiable, may be used for anypurpose other than the purpose forwhich it was supplied, unless theidentifiable entity or individualsupplying the information or describedin it has consented to such other use, inthe recorded form and manner as theAdministrator may require; and

(b) No information obtained in thecourse of grant and cooperativeagreement activities conducted orsupported under this subpart maybepublished or released in other form ifthe individual who supplied theinformation or who is described in it isidentifiable, unless such individual hasconsented, in the recorded form andmanner as the Administrator mayrequire, to such publication or release.

§ 67.21 Control of data and availability ofpublications.

Except as otherwise provided in theterms and conditions of the award andsubject to the confidentialityrequirements of section 903(c) of thePHS Act, section 1142(d) of the SocialSecurity Act, and § 67.20 of this subpart:

(a) All data collected or assembled forthe purpose of carrying out healthservices research, evaluation,demonstration, or disseminationprojects supported under this subpartshall be made available to theAdministrator, upon request:

(b) All publications, reports, papers,statistics, or other materials developedfrom work supported, in whole or inpart, by an award made under thissubpart must be submitted to theAdministrator in a timely manner. Allsuch publications must include anacknowledgement that such materialsare the results of, or describe, a grantactivity supported by AHCPR;

(c) The AHCPR retains a royalty-free,non-exclusive, and irrevocable licenseto reproduce, publish, use, ordisseminate any copyrightable materialdeveloped in the course of or under agrant for any purpose consistent withAHCPR’s statutory responsibilities, andto authorize others to do so for theaccomplishment of AHCPR purposes;and

(d) Except for identifying informationprotected by section 903(c) of the PHSAct, the Administrator, as appropriate,will make information obtained withAHCPR grant support available, andarrange for dissemination of such

information and material on as broad abasis as practicable and in such form asto make them as useful as possible to avariety of audiences, including healthcare providers, practitioners,consumers, educators, andpolicymakers.

§ 67.22 Additional conditions.The Administrator may, with respect

to any grant awarded under this subpart,impose additional conditions prior to orat the time of any award when in theAdministrator’s judgment suchconditions are necessary to assure orprotect advancement of the approvedproject, the interest of the public health,or the conservation of grant funds.

Subpart B—Peer Review of Contractsfor Health Services Research,Evaluation, Demonstration, andDissemination Projects

§ 67.101 Purpose and scope.(a) The regulations of this subpart

apply to the peer review of contractsunder:

(1) Title IX of the Public HealthService Act to support research,evaluation, demonstration, anddissemination projects, includingconferences, on health care services andsystems for the delivery of suchservices; and development of clinicalpractice guidelines, quality standards,performance measures, and reviewcriteria.

(2) Section 1142 of the Social SecurityAct to support research on theoutcomes, effectiveness, andappropriateness of health care servicesand procedures, including, but notlimited to, evaluations of alternativeservices and procedures; projects toimprove methods and data bases foroutcomes and effectiveness research;dissemination of research informationand clinical practice guidelines, as wellas quality standards, performancemeasures, and review criteria;conferences; and research ondissemination methods.

(b) The regulations of this subpart alsocontain provisions respectingconfidentiality of research data, controlof data, and availability of information.

§ 67.102 Definitions.Contract proposal means a written

offer to enter into a contract submittedto a contracting officer by an individualor non-Federal organization, andincluding at a minimum a description ofthe nature, purpose, duration, cost ofproject and methods, personnel, andfacilities to be utilized in carrying outthe requirements of the contract.

Peer review group means a panel ofexperts, as required by section 922(c) of


the PHS Act, established to conducttechnical and scientific review ofcontract proposals and to makerecommendations to the Administratorregarding the merits of such proposals.

Request for proposals means aGovernment solicitation to prospectiveofferors, under procedures fornegotiated contracts, to submit aproposal to fulfill specific agencyrequirements based on terms andconditions defined in the solicitation.The solicitation contains informationsufficient to enable all offerors toprepare competitive proposals, and is ascomplete as possible with respect to:The nature of work to be performed;descriptions and specifications of itemsto be delivered; performance schedule;special requirements, clauses or othercircumstances affecting the contract;and criteria by which the proposals willbe evaluated.

§ 67.103 Peer review of contractproposals.

(a) All contract proposals for AHCPRsupport will be submitted by theAdministrator for review to a peerreview group, as required in section922(a) of the PHS Act. Proposals will bereviewed in accordance with theFederal Acquisition Regulations and theHealth and Human Services AcquisitionRegulations (48 CFR Ch. I and III) andthe requirements of the pertinentRequest for Proposal.

(b) Establishment of peer reviewgroups. In accordance with section922(c) of the PHS Act, the Administratorshall establish such peer review groupsas may be necessary to review allcontract proposals submitted to AHCPR.

(c) Composition of peer review groups.The peer review groups shall becomposed of individuals, in accordancewith section 922(c) of the PHS Act, asamended, who by virtue of their trainingor experience are eminently qualified tocarry out the duties of such a peerreview group. Officers and employees ofthe United States may not constitutemore than 25 percent of the membershipof any such group. Members of the peerreview group will be selected basedupon their training or experience inrelevant scientific and technical fields,taking into account, among otherfactors:

(1) The level of formal education (e.g.,M.A., Ph.D., M.D., D.N.Sc.) completedby the individual and/or, as appropriate,the individual’s pertinent experienceand expertise;

(2) The extent to which the individualhas engaged in relevant research, thecapacities (e.g., principal investigator,assistant) in which the individual has

done so, and the quality of suchresearch;

(3) The extent of the professionalrecognition received by the individualas reflected by awards and other honorsreceived from scientific andprofessional organizations outside theDepartment of Health and HumanServices;

(4) The need of the peer review groupto include in its membership expertsrepresenting various areas ofspecialization in relevant scientific andtechnical fields, or specific health careissues; and

(5) Appropriate representation basedon gender, racial/ethnic origin, andgeography, to the extent practicable.

(d) Term of peer review groupmembers. Notwithstanding section922(c)(3) of the PHS Act, members ofpeer review groups appointed to reviewcontract proposals will be appointed tosuch groups for a limited period of time,as determined by the Administrator;such as on an annual basis, or until thepeer review of the contract proposals iscompleted, or until the expiration of thecontract(s) awarded as a result of thepeer review.

(e) Conflict of interest. (1) Members ofpeer review groups will be screened forpotential conflicts of interest prior toappointment and will be required tofollow Department policies andprocedures consistent with theStandards of Ethical Conduct forEmployees of the Executive Branch (5CFR part 2635) and Executive Order12674 (as modified by Executive Order12731).

(2) In addition to any restrictionsreferenced under paragraph (e)(1) of thissection:

(i) No member of a peer review groupmay participate in or be present duringany review by such group of a contractproposal in which, to the member’sknowledge, any of the following has afinancial interest:

(A) The member or his or her spouse,minor child, or partner;

(B) Any organization in which themember is serving as an officer, director,trustee, general partner, or employee; or

(C) Any organization with which themember is negotiating or has anyarrangement concerning prospectiveemployment or other similarassociation, and further;

(ii) In the event any member of a peerreview group or his or her spouse,parent, child, or partner is currently orexpected to be the project director ormember of the staff responsible forcarrying out any contract requirementsas specified in the contract proposal,that member is disqualified and will bereplaced as appropriate.

§ 67.104 Confidentiality.Identifying information obtained in

the course of conducting AHCPRcontract activities under this subpart isprotected by section 903(c) of the PHSAct. Specifically:

(a) No information obtained in thecourse of conducting AHCPR contractactivities under this subpart, if theentity or individual supplying theinformation or described in it isidentifiable, may be used for anypurpose other than the purpose forwhich it was supplied, unless theidentifiable entity or individualsupplying the information or describedin it has consented to such other use, inthe recorded form and manner as theAdministrator may require.

(b) No information obtained in thecourse of conducting AHCPR contractactivities under this subpart may bepublished or released in other form ifthe individual who supplied theinformation or who is described in it isidentifiable, unless such individual hasconsented, in the recorded form andmanner as the Administrator mayrequire, to such publication or release.

§ 67.105 Control of data and availability ofpublications.

(a) Data will be collected, maintained,and supplied as provided in eachcontract subject to the confidentialityrequirements of section 903(c) of thePHS Act, section 1142(d) of the SocialSecurity Act, and § 67.104 of thissubpart.

(b) All publications, reports, papers,statistics, or other materials developedfrom work supported in whole or in partby contracts under Title IX of the PHSAct or section 1142 of the SocialSecurity Act, if applicable, must besubmitted to the Administrator inaccordance with the terms of thecontract. All publications must includean acknowledgment that such materialsare the results of, or describe, acontractual activity supported byAHCPR.

(c) In accordance with 48 CFR52.227–14, unless otherwise specified inthe contract, AHCPR will retain alicense to use, disclose, reproduce,prepare derivative works from,distribute copies to the public, andperform publicly and display publiclyany copyrightable materials producedunder a contract for any purposeconsistent with AHCPR’s statutoryresponsibilities, and to have or permitothers to do so for accomplishment ofAHCPR purposes.

(d) Except for identifying informationprotected by section 903(c) of the PHSAct, the Administrator, as appropriate,will make information provided in


accordance with paragraphs (a) and (b)of this section available, and arrange fordissemination of such information andmaterials on as broad a basis aspracticable and in such form as to makethem as useful as possible to a varietyof audiences, including health careproviders, practitioners, consumers,educators, and policymakers.


i

Reader Aids Federal Register

Vol. 62, No. 52


CUSTOMER SERVICE AND INFORMATION

Federal Register/Code of Federal RegulationsGeneral Information, indexes and other finding

aids202–523–5227

LawsFor additional information 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 523–3187TDD for the hearing impaired 523–5229

ELECTRONIC BULLETIN BOARD

Free Electronic Bulletin Board service for Public Law numbers,Federal Register finding aids, and list of documents on publicinspection. 202–275–0920

FAX-ON-DEMAND

You may access our Fax-On-Demand service. You only need a faxmachine and there is no charge for the service except for longdistance telephone charges the user may incur. The list ofdocuments on public inspection and the daily Federal Register’stable of contents are available using this service. The documentnumbers are 7050-Public Inspection list and 7051-Table ofContents list. The public inspection list will be updatedimmediately for documents filed on an emergency basis.

NOTE: YOU WILL ONLY GET A LISTING OF DOCUMENTS ONFILE AND NOT THE ACTUAL DOCUMENT. Documents onpublic inspection may be viewed and copied in our office locatedat 800 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 700. The Fax-On-Demandtelephone number is: 301–713–6905

FEDERAL REGISTER PAGES AND DATES, MARCH

9349–9678............................. 39679–9904............................. 49905–10184........................... 510185–10410......................... 610411–10680......................... 710681–11068.........................1011069–11306.........................1111307–11756.........................1211757–12066.........................1312067–12530.........................1412531–12738.........................1712739–12914.........................18

CFR PARTS AFFECTED DURING MARCH

At the end of each month, the Office of the Federal Registerpublishes separately a List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA), whichlists parts and sections affected by documents published sincethe revision date of each title.

3 CFR

Proclamations:6974...................................96776975...................................99056976...................................99076977.................................110676978.................................11069Executive Orders:12171 (Amended by

13039) ..........................1252912958 (See Order of

February 26,1997) ..............................9349

12957 (Continued byNotice of March 5,1997) ............................10185

12959 (See Notice ofMarch 5, 1997).............10185

13037...............................1018513038...............................1206513039...............................12529Administrative Orders:Notices:Notice of March 5,

1997. ............................10409Presidential

Determinations:No. 97–17 of February

21, 1997 .........................9903Order of February 26,

1997 ...............................9349No. 97–18 of February

28, 1997 .......................11588

5 CFR

351...................................10681630...................................106812635.................................125312638.................................11307Proposed Rules:551.....................................9995

7 CFR

20.....................................10411210...................................10187220...................................10187225...................................10187226...................................10187301...................................10412401...................................12067457...................................12067906...................................11757925...................................10419932...................................11314959...................................104201910.......................9351, 119531941.................................119531943.................................119531945.................................119531951.................................101181956.................................101181962.................................10118

1965.................................101181980.................................11953Proposed Rules:28.....................................1257729.....................................117731131...................................93811240.................................10481250...................................12108251...................................12108253...................................121081610.................................104831717...................................93821735.................................104831737.................................104831739.................................104831746.................................104833403.................................11256

8 CFR1.......................................103123.......................................10312103...................................10312204...................................10312207...................................10312208...................................10312209...................................10312211...................................10312212...................................10312213...................................10312214.......................10312, 10422216...................................10312217...................................10312221...................................10312223...................................10312232...................................10312233...................................10312234...................................10312235...................................10312236...................................10312237...................................10312238...................................10312239...................................10312240...................................10312241...................................10312242...................................10312243...................................10312244...................................10312245...................................10312246...................................10312248...................................10312249...................................10312251...................................10312252...................................10312253...................................10312274a.................................10312286...................................10312287...................................10312299...................................10312316...................................10312318...................................10312329...................................10312

9 CFR78.....................................10192

ii Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 52 / Tuesday, March 18, 1997 / Reader Aids

201...................................11758Proposed Rules:92.......................................9387130.....................................9387145...................................11111147...................................11111318...................................12117

10 CFR

170...................................10626171...................................10626

11 CFR

111...................................11317

12 CFR

208.....................................9909226...................................10193344.....................................9915350...................................10199613...................................11071614...................................11071615...................................11071618...................................11071619...................................11071620...................................11071626...................................11071935...................................120731806.................................10668Proposed Rules:25.........................12531, 12730204...................................11117208...................................12730209...................................11117211...................................12730369...................................12730Ch. VII .................11773, 11778701...................................11779712...................................11779740...................................11779

13 CFR

107...................................11759121...................................11317

14 CFR

21.......................................992325.....................................1107239 .......9359, 9361, 9679, 9925,

10201, 11318, 11320, 11760,11763, 11764, 12081, 12531,

12533, 12739, 1274071 .....9363, 9681, 9928, 10425,

10427, 10684, 11073, 11074,11075, 11076, 11077, 11078,11766, 12082, 12534, 12535,12536, 12537, 12538, 12743

73.....................................1176891.........................11768, 1268793.........................11768, 1268795.....................................1020297 ................9681, 9683, 11078121.......................11768, 12687135.......................11768, 12687Proposed Rules:25.....................................1211939 ...9388, 9390, 10224, 10226,

10228, 10231, 10233, 10236,10237, 10240, 10488, 10490,10492, 10754, 10756, 11384,11386, 11388, 11390, 11392,12121, 12123, 12126, 12768,

12771, 1277471 .......9392, 9393, 9394, 9395,

9396, 9397, 9398, 9399,

9400, 9720, 9995, 11120,11121, 11122, 11123, 11124,11125, 11126, 11127, 11128,

12578, 12892108...................................12724221...................................10758243...................................11789250...................................10758293...................................10758

15 CFR

746.....................................9364921...................................12539923...................................12539930...................................12539

16 CFR

Proposed Rules:308...................................11750

17 CFR

1 ..............10427, 10434, 104415.......................................1043430 ............10445, 10447, 1044931.....................................10441210...................................12743228...................................11321229...................................11321239...................................11321240.......................11321, 12743242...................................11321300...................................10450Proposed Rules:230...................................10898239...................................10898270...................................10898274...................................10898

18 CFR

35.....................................1227437.....................................12484284.......................10204, 10684

19 CFR

Proposed Rules:7.........................................940110.......................................9401145.....................................9401146...................................12129173.....................................9401174.....................................9401181.....................................9401191.....................................9401

20 CFR

216...................................11323801...................................10666802...................................10666

21 CFR

176...................................10452178.....................................9365200...................................12083250...................................12083310...................................12083341.....................................9684520...................................12085522...................................10219524...................................10220556...................................12085558.........................9929, 12085600...................................11769601...................................11769812...................................12085Proposed Rules:Chapter I............................9721

2.......................................10242101 ............9826, 11129, 12579161.....................................9826163...................................10781501.....................................9826

22 CFR

505...................................10630

23 CFR

657...................................10178658...................................10178

24 CFR

203.....................................9930Proposed Rules:Ch. I .................................10247570...................................11284982...................................10786

25 CFR

45.....................................11324Proposed Rules:290...................................10494

26 CFR

1 ..............11324, 12096, 1254120.....................................12542301...................................11769602...................................12687Proposed Rules:1...........................11394, 12582301...................................12582

28 CFR

Proposed Rules:16.....................................10495511...................................10164524...................................10164

29 CFR

102...........................9685, 9930500...................................117344003.................................125424007.................................125424011.................................125424041.....................12521, 125424041A ..............................125424043.................................125424044.................................120984050.................................12542Proposed Rules:1404.................................117971910...................................94021915.................................121331625.................................107872200.................................121342203.................................121342204.................................121344001.................................125084006.................................125084041.................................125084050.................................12508

30 CFR

901.....................................9932902.....................................9932904.....................................9932906.....................................9932913.....................................9932914.....................................9932915.....................................9932916.....................................9932917.....................................9932918.....................................9932

920.....................................9932925.....................................9932926.....................................9932931.....................................9932934.....................................9932935.....................................9932936.....................................9932938.....................................9932943.....................................9932944.....................................9932946.....................................9932948.....................................9932950.....................................9932Proposed Rules:56.......................................940457.......................................940462.......................................940470.......................................940471.......................................9404202...................................10247206...................................10247906...................................11805914.......................11807, 12776946...................................12776

31 CFR536.....................................9959

32 CFR296...................................12544543...................................12544544...................................12544706.......................11325, 11326

33 CFR100.........................9367, 12750110.....................................9368117 ..............9369, 9370, 10453334.....................................9968Proposed Rules:100.....................................9405117.....................................9406165...................................10496207.....................................9996

34 CFR75.....................................10398206...................................10398231...................................10398235...................................10398369...................................10398371...................................10398373...................................10398375...................................10398376...................................10398378...................................10398380...................................10398381...................................10398385...................................10398386...................................10398387...................................10398388...................................10398389...................................10398390...................................10398396...................................10398610...................................10398612...................................10398630...................................10398

35 CFR

61.....................................12751Proposed Rules:103.....................................9997

36 CFRProposed Rules:1190.................................11130

iiiFederal Register / Vol. 62, No. 52 / Tuesday, March 18, 1997 / Reader Aids

1191.................................11130

38 CFR1.........................................996921.....................................10454

40 CFR

52 .............9970, 10455, 10457,10690, 11079, 11327, 11332,11334, 11337, 11769, 12544

63.....................................1254679.........................12564, 1257280 ..............9872, 11346, 1257281 ...........10457, 10463, 10690,

1133782.....................................1070086.....................................11082132...................................11724141...................................10168180 ...9974, 9979, 9984, 10703,

11360271.......................10464, 12100300...........................9370, 9371Proposed Rules:Chapter I..........................1113051.....................................1258352 ...........10000, 10001, 10002,

10497, 10498, 10500, 10501,11131, 11394, 11395, 11405,

12137, 1258670.........................10002, 1277880.........................11405, 1258681 ...........10500, 10501, 11405,

1213786.....................................1113892.....................................11141123...................................11270141...................................10168268...................................10004372...................................10006501...................................11270

41 CFR302–1...............................10708302–2...............................10708302–3...............................10708

302–7...............................10708302–8...............................10708302–9...............................10708302–11.............................10708

42 CFR

67.....................................12906100...................................10626Proposed Rules:484 .........11004, 11005, 11035,

11953

44 CFR

64.......................................937265.............................9685, 968767.......................................9690Proposed Rules:67.......................................9722

45 CFR

1611.................................12751Proposed Rules:16.....................................1000974.....................................1000975.....................................1000995.....................................100091610.................................12101

46 CFR

10.....................................11298586.....................................9696

47 CFR

1.........................................96362.............................9636, 1046622.....................................1161624.....................................1275225.....................................1108327.......................................963632.....................................1022053.........................10220, 1022159.......................................970468.......................................998973 .......9374, 9375, 9989, 9990,

10222, 12104

76.....................................1136487.....................................1108390.....................................1161697.......................................9636101...................................12752Proposed Rules:1.......................................1079322........................11407, 11638,36.......................................940851.......................................940861.......................................940869.......................................940873 .....9408, 9409, 9410, 10010,

10011, 1215276.....................................1001190.....................................11638101...................................11407

48 CFR

Ch. I.....................12690, 127213...........................10709, 126915...........................10709, 126926.......................................107099...........................10709, 1269311.....................................1070912.....................................1070913.........................10709, 1272014.....................................1269215.........................10709, 1269216.....................................1269519.....................................1070923.....................................1269625.....................................1269826.....................................1270231.........................12703, 1270432.....................................1270533.........................10709, 1271835.....................................1269336.....................................1070937.........................10709, 1269342.....................................1070944.....................................1271852 ...........10709, 12691, 12692,

12695, 12696, 12698, 12702,12705, 12719, 12720

234.........................9990, 11953

239.....................................9375242.........................9990, 11953252.........................9990, 119531833.................................111071852.................................111073509.................................11770Proposed Rules:225...................................11142242...................................11142252...................................11142

49 CFR

1.......................................113821002...................................97141180...................................9714571...................................10710Proposed Rules:223...................................10248239...................................10248571...................................10514572...................................10516

50 CFR

17.....................................10730285.....................................9376300...................................12759622.....................................9718648 ...........9377, 10473, 10478,

10747, 11108, 12105649.........................9993, 10747679 ...9379, 9718, 9994, 10222,

10479, 10752, 11109, 11770,11771

Proposed Rules:17...........................9724, 1001620.........................12054, 12524300...................................11410600...................................10249630 ............9726, 10821, 11410648.......................10821, 11411678...................................10822679...................................10016697...................................10020

iv Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 52 / Tuesday, March 18, 1997 / 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 MARCH 18, 1997

ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCYAir quality implementation

plans; approval andpromulgation; variousStates:

Colorado; published 1-17-97

Florida; published 1-17-97

Indiana; published 1-17-97

New Jersey; published 1-17-97

Air quality implementationplans; √A√approval andpromulgation; variousStates; air quality planningpurposes; designation ofareas:

California; published 1-17-97

Toxic substances:

Testing requirements—

Phenol; published 1-17-97

HEALTH AND HUMANSERVICES DEPARTMENTPublic Health ServiceFellowships, internships,

training:

Health services research,evaluation, demonstration,and disseminationprojects; peer review ofgrants and contracts;published 3-18-97

LEGAL SERVICESCORPORATIONLegal assistance eligibility:

Maximum income levels;published 3-18-97

PANAMA CANALCOMMISSIONHealth, sanitation, and

communicable diseasesurveillance; and radiocommunication:

Disinfecting vesselsrequirement; technicalamendments; correction;published 3-18-97

TRANSPORTATIONDEPARTMENTFederal AviationAdministrationAirworthiness directives:

AlliedSignal Avionics, Inc.;published 2-26-97

Boeing; published 3-3-97

COMMENTS DUE NEXTWEEK

AGRICULTUREDEPARTMENTAgricultural MarketingServiceMilk marketing orders:

Central Arizona; commentsdue by 3-18-97; published3-3-97

AGRICULTUREDEPARTMENTAnimal and Plant HealthInspection ServicePlant-related quarantine,

domestic:Fire ant, imported;

comments due by 3-17-97; published 1-31-97

AGRICULTUREDEPARTMENTFederal Crop InsuranceCorporationAdministrative regulations:

Social security accountnumbers and employeridentification numbers;collection and storage;comments due by 3-17-97; published 1-15-97

Crop insurance regulations:Onions; comments due by

3-17-97; published 2-13-97

Table grapes; commentsdue by 3-17-97; published1-15-97

AGRICULTUREDEPARTMENTForest ServiceNational Forest System timber;

disposal and sale:Timber sale contracts;

cancellationExtension of comment

period; comments dueby 3-17-97; published2-10-97

COMMERCE DEPARTMENTNational Oceanic andAtmospheric AdministrationFishery conservation and

management:Alaska; fisheries of

Exclusive EconomicZone—Bering Sea and Aleutian

Islands and Gulf ofAlaska groundfish;comments due by 3-20-97; published 3-5-97

Atlantic coastal fisheries;comments due by 3-17-97; published 2-14-97

CONSUMER PRODUCTSAFETY COMMISSIONConsumer Product Safety Act:

Multi-purpose lighters; child-resistance standard;comments due by 3-17-97; published 1-16-97

DEFENSE DEPARTMENTAcquisition regulations:

Foreign military sales;contingent fees;comments due by 3-18-97; published 1-17-97

Foreign purchaserestrictions; authority towaive; comments due by3-18-97; published 1-17-97

Overseas militaryconstruction; architect-engineer contracts;restriction; comments dueby 3-18-97; published 1-17-97

Overseas militaryconstruction; preferencefor U.S. firms; commentsdue by 3-18-97; published1-17-97

ENERGY DEPARTMENTInformation classification:

Restricted data and formerlyrestricted dataidentification; Federalprocedures; commentsdue by 3-17-97; published1-15-97

Nuclear waste repositories;site recommendations;general guidelines;comments due by 3-17-97;published 2-3-97

ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCYAir pollution; standards of

performance for newstationary sources:Sewage sludge incinerators;

comments due by 3-17-97; published 1-14-97

Air programs:Fuels and fuel additives—

Phoenix, AZ moderateozone nonattainmentarea; reformulatedgasoline programextension; commentsdue by 3-20-97;published 2-18-97

Air quality implementationplans; approval andpromulgation; variousStates:Indiana; comments due by

3-20-97; published 2-18-97

Tennessee; comments dueby 3-17-97; published 2-13-97

Air quality implementationplans; √A√approval andpromulgation; variousStates; air quality planningpurposes; designation ofareas:

Ohio; comments due by 3-20-97; published 2-18-97

Radiation protection programs:Spent nuclear fuel, high-

level and transuranicradioactive wastesmanagement anddisposal; waste isolationpilot plant complianceCriteria compliance

certification; commentsdue by 3-17-97;published 11-15-96

FEDERALCOMMUNICATIONSCOMMISSIONRadio and television

broadcasting:Broadcast services,

television ownership, andnewspaper/radio crossownership (national andlocal ownership andattribution proceedings);comments due by 3-21-97; published 2-18-97

Radio stations; table ofassignments:Arizona; comments due by

3-17-97; published 1-29-97

Arkansas; comments due by3-17-97; published 1-29-97

California; comments due by3-17-97; published 1-29-97

Colorado; comments due by3-17-97; published 1-29-97

Idaho; comments due by 3-17-97; published 1-29-97

Michigan; comments due by3-17-97; published 1-29-97

Texas; comments due by 3-17-97; published 1-29-97

Wyoming; comments due by3-17-97; published 1-29-97

Telecommunications Act of1996; implementation:Customer proprietary

network information, etc.;telecommunicationscarriers’ use; commentsdue by 3-17-97; published2-25-97

FEDERAL HOUSINGFINANCE BOARDFederal home loan bank

system:Bank or trust company

deposits; definition;comments due by 3-17-97; published 2-14-97

GOVERNMENT ETHICSOFFICEExecutive Branch financial

disclosure, qualified trusts,and certificates of

vFederal Register / Vol. 62, No. 52 / Tuesday, March 18, 1997 / Reader Aids

divestiture; comments dueby 3-17-97; published 1-15-97

HEALTH AND HUMANSERVICES DEPARTMENTFood and DrugAdministrationFood additives:

Adjuvants, production aids,and sanitizers—2,3,4,5-tetrachloro-6-

cyanobenzoic acid, etc.;comments due by 3-17-97; published 2-13-97

Medical devices:Cigarettes and smokeless

tobacco products;restriction of sale anddistribution to protectchildren and adolescents;comments due by 3-21-97; published 2-19-97

Investigational deviceexemptions; treatmentuse; comments due by 3-19-97; published 12-19-96

INTERIOR DEPARTMENTFish and Wildlife ServiceImportation, exportation, and

transportation of wildlife:Designated port status—

Laredo, TX, et al.;comments due by 3-17-97; published 1-16-97

INTERIOR DEPARTMENTReclamation BureauAcreage limitation:

Trusts subject to 1982Reclamation Reform Act;comments due by 3-18-97; published 12-18-96

INTERIOR DEPARTMENTSurface Mining Reclamationand Enforcement OfficePermanent program and

abandoned mine landreclamation plansubmissions:Indiana; comments due by

3-20-97; published 2-18-97

LABOR DEPARTMENTEmployment and TrainingAdministrationFederal-State unemployment

compensation program;unemployment insuranceperformance system;comments due by 3-17-97;published 1-16-97

PERSONNEL MANAGEMENTOFFICERetirement:

Civil Service RetirementSystem and FederalEmployees RetirementSystem—Disability retirement;

application procedures;comments due by 3-17-97; published 1-16-97

SECURITIES ANDEXCHANGE COMMISSIONSecurities:

‘‘Prepared by or on behalfof issuer’’; definition forpurposes of determining ifoffering document issubject to Stateregulation; comments dueby 3-20-97; published 2-18-97

TRANSPORTATIONDEPARTMENTFederal AviationAdministrationAirworthiness directives:

Airbus; comments due by 3-17-97; published 1-15-97

Airbus Industrie; commentsdue by 3-17-97; published2-25-97

Bell; comments due by 3-17-97; published 1-14-97

Boeing; comments due by3-20-97; published 2-7-97

Cessna; comments due by3-17-97; published 1-22-97

ConstruccionesAeronauticas, S.A.;comments due by 3-17-97; published 2-5-97

General Electric AircraftEngines; comments dueby 3-21-97; published 2-19-97

Class B airspace; commentsdue by 3-21-97; published2-4-97

Class E airspace; commentsdue by 3-20-97; published2-13-97

TREASURY DEPARTMENT

Foreign Assets ControlOffice

Foreign assets controlregulations and Cubanassets control regulations:

Civil penalties; administrativehearings; comments dueby 3-17-97; published 2-14-97

TREASURY DEPARTMENT

Internal Revenue Service

Excise taxes:

Gasoline and diesel fuelregistration requirements—

Alaska; comments due by3-17-97; published 12-17-96

Income taxes:

Empowerment zoneemployment credit;qualified zone employees;comments due by 3-17-97; published 12-16-96

TREASURY DEPARTMENT

Currency and foreigntransactions; financialreporting and recordkeepingrequirements:

Bank Secrecy Act;implementation—

Card clubs; commentsdue by 3-20-97;published 12-20-96

FR-1997-03-18.pdf - US Government Publishing Office

Documents

Transcript of FR-1997-03-18.pdf - US Government Publishing Office