FR-1998-11-18.pdf - Govinfo.gov

fede

ral r

egiste

r

1

WednesdayNovember 18, 1998

Vol. 63 No. 222Pages 63969–64168

11–18–98

Briefings on how to use the Federal RegisterFor information on briefings in Washington, DC, seeannouncement on the inside cover of this issue.

Now Available Online via

GPO AccessFree online access to the official editions of the FederalRegister, the Code of Federal Regulations and other FederalRegister publications is available on GPO Access, a serviceof the U.S. Government Printing Office at:

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/index.html

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]

Attention: Federal Agencies

Plain Language Tools Are Now Available

The Office of the Federal Register offers Plain LanguageTools on its Website to help you comply with thePresident’s Memorandum of June 1, 1998—Plain Languagein Government Writing (63 FR 31883, June 10, 1998). Ouraddress is: http://www.nara.gov/fedreg

For more in-depth guidance on the elements of plainlanguage, read ‘‘Writing User-Friendly Documents’’ on theNational Partnership for Reinventing Government (NPR)Website at: http://www.plainlanguage.gov

.

II

2

Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 222 / Wednesday, November 18, 1998

The FEDERAL REGISTER is published daily, Monday throughFriday, except official holidays, by the Office of the FederalRegister, National Archives and Records Administration,Washington, DC 20408, under the Federal Register Act (44 U.S.C.Ch. 15) and the regulations of the Administrative Committee ofthe Federal Register (1 CFR Ch. I). The Superintendent ofDocuments, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC20402 is the exclusive distributor of the official edition.The Federal Register provides a uniform system for makingavailable to the public regulations and legal notices issued byFederal agencies. These include Presidential proclamations andExecutive Orders, Federal agency documents having generalapplicability and legal effect, documents required to be publishedby act of Congress, and other Federal agency documents of publicinterest.Documents are on file for public inspection in the Office of theFederal Register the day before they are published, unless theissuing agency requests earlier filing. For a list of documentscurrently on file for public inspection, see http://www.nara.gov/fedreg.The seal of the National Archives and Records Administrationauthenticates the Federal Register as the official serial publicationestablished under the Federal Register Act. Under 44 U.S.C. 1507,the contents of the Federal Register shall be judicially noticed.The Federal Register is published in paper and on 24x microfiche.It is also available online at no charge as one of the databaseson GPO Access, a service of the U.S. Government Printing Office.The online edition of the Federal Register is issued under theauthority of the Administrative Committee of the Federal Registeras the official legal equivalent of the paper and microfiche editions(44 U.S.C. 4101 and 1 CFR 5.10). It is updated by 6 a.m. eachday the Federal Register is published and it includes both textand graphics from Volume 59, Number 1 (January 2, 1994) forward.GPO Access users can choose to retrieve online Federal Registerdocuments as TEXT (ASCII text, graphics omitted), PDF (AdobePortable Document Format, including full text and all graphics),or SUMMARY (abbreviated text) files. Users should carefully checkretrieved material to ensure that documents were properlydownloaded.On the World Wide Web, connect to the Federal Register at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara. Those without World Wide Web accesscan also connect with a local WAIS client, by Telnet toswais.access.gpo.gov, or by dialing (202) 512-1661 with a computerand modem. When using Telnet or modem, type swais, then login as guest with no password.For more information about GPO Access, contact the GPO AccessUser Support Team by E-mail at [email protected]; by fax at(202) 512–1262; or call (202) 512–1530 or 1–888–293–6498 (tollfree) between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern time, Monday–Friday,except Federal holidays.The annual subscription price for the Federal Register paperedition is $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, MasterCard or Discover. Mail to: New Orders,Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA15250–7954.There are no restrictions on the republication of material appearingin the Federal Register.How To Cite This Publication: Use the volume number and thepage number. Example: 63 FR 12345.

SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COPIESPUBLIC

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

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

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

FEDERAL AGENCIESSubscriptions:

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

NOW AVAILABLE ONLINE

The October 1998 Office of the Federal Register DocumentDrafting Handbook

Free, easy online access to the newly revised October 1998Office of the Federal Register Document Drafting Handbook(DDH) is now available at:

http://www.nara.gov/fedreg/draftres.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]

FEDERAL REGISTER WORKSHOP

THE FEDERAL REGISTER: WHAT IT IS ANDHOW TO USE IT

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

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

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

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

3. The important elements of typical Federal Registerdocuments.

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

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

WASHINGTON, DCWHEN: Tuesday, Nov. 24, 1998 at 9:00 am.WHERE: Office of the Federal Register

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

RESERVATIONS: 202–523–4538

Contents Federal Register

III

Vol. 63, No. 222

Wednesday, November 18, 1998

Agricultural Marketing ServicePROPOSED RULESCherries (tart) grown in—

Michigan et al., 64008–64013

Agriculture DepartmentSee Agricultural Marketing ServiceSee Food and Nutrition ServiceSee Forest ServiceNOTICESMeetings:

Research Facilities Strategic Planning Task, 64035

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

Centers for Disease Control and PreventionNOTICESFertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act;

implementation:Embryo laboratories certification; model program;

comment request; correction, 64144

Children and Families AdministrationNOTICESAgency information collection activities:

Submission for OMB review; comment request, 64089–64090

Civil Rights CommissionNOTICESMeetings; State advisory committees:

District of Columbia, 64036Missouri, 64036

Coast GuardPROPOSED RULESDrawbridge operations:

Louisiana, 64022–64023

Commerce DepartmentSee International Trade AdministrationSee National Institute of Standards and TechnologySee National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationSee National Technical Information ServiceNOTICESAgency information collection activities:


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

Brazil, 64066–64067Hong Kong, 64067–64068India, 64068–64069Nepal, 64069–64070Thailand, 64070–64071

Export visa requirements; certification, waivers, etc.:Mauritius, 64071

Education DepartmentNOTICESAgency information collection activities:

Proposed collection; comment request, 64071–64072Submission for OMB review; comment request, 64072

Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.:High School Equivalency and College Assistance Migrant

programs, 64167–64168

Energy DepartmentSee Federal Energy Regulatory CommissionPROPOSED RULESAcquisition regulations:

Management and operating contracts; financialmanagement clauses, 64024–64031

NOTICESGrants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.:

Comprehensive nuclear-test-ban treaty research anddevelopment program, 64072–64074

Meetings:Environmental Management Site-specific Advisory

Board—Rocky Flats, CO, 64074

Environmental Protection AgencyRULESAir programs; approval and promulgation; State plans for

designated facilities and pollutants:Alabama, 63988–63990

Air programs; State authority delegations:Arizona, 63990–63993

Air quality implementation plans; approval andpromulgation; various States:

Alaska, 63983–63986Air quality implementation plans; federally-enforceable

plans for all States; availability, 63986–63988PROPOSED RULESAir programs; approval and promulgation; State plans for

designated facilities and pollutants:Alabama, 64023–64024

Air programs; State authority delegations:Arizona, 64024

NOTICESMeetings:

Effluent Guidelines Task Force, 64083–64084Superfund program:

Prospective purchaser agreements—Talisman Sugar Corp. properties, FL, 64084

Water pollution control:Clean Water Act—

Class I administrative penalty assessments, 64084–64085

Farm Credit AdministrationPROPOSED RULESFarm credit system:

Federal regulatory review, 64013

Federal Aviation AdministrationRULESAirworthiness directives:

British Aerospace, 63975–63977

IV Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 222 / Wednesday, November 18, 1998 / Contents

Class D airspace, 63977Class E airspace, 63977PROPOSED RULESAircraft:

Noise standards—Propeller-driven small airplanes, 64145–64151

Airworthiness directives:Boeing, 64013–64016

Class B airspace, 64016–64020Class E airspace, 64021NOTICESMeetings:

RTCA, Inc., 64140Passenger facility charges; applications, etc.:

Alexandria International Airport, LA, 64140

Federal Communications CommissionRULESCommon carrier services:

Telecommunications Act of 1996; implementation—Local exchange carriers, non-rural; Federal-State Joint

Board on Universal Service and forward-lookingmechanism for high cost support, 63993–64005

NOTICESMeetings:

2000 World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC2000) Advisory Committee, 64085

Public safety radio communications plans:Arizona, 64085–64086North Central Texas, 64086Northern California, 64086

Rulemaking proceedings; petitions filed, granted, denied,etc., 64087

Federal Energy Regulatory CommissionNOTICESElectric rate and corporate regulation filings:

Medical Area Total Energy Plant, Inc. et al., 64079–64083Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:

ANR Pipeline Co., 64074–64075Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Co., 64075KN Wattenberg Transmission L.L.C., 64075NorAm Gas Transmission Co., 64075–64076Northern Border Pipeline Co., 64076OkTex Pipeline Co., 64076–64077Portland Natural Gas Transmission System, 64077Questar Pipeline Co., 64077–64078Southern Natural Gas Co., 64078Texas Eastern Transmission Corp., 64078–64079Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co., 64079Wisconsin Public Service Corp., 64079

Federal Labor Relations AuthorityNOTICESAmicus curiae briefs in representation proceedings pending

before FLRA; opportunity to submit, 64087–64088

Federal Reserve SystemNOTICESBanks and bank holding companies:

Change in bank control, 64088Formations, acquisitions, and mergers, 64088–64089Permissible nonbanking activities, 64089

Fish and Wildlife ServiceNOTICESCommittees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.:

North American Wetlands Conservation Council; termrotation policy, 64096

Environmental statements; availability, etc.:Incidental take permit—

Monroe County, FL; Key Largo woodrat, etc., 64097–64099

Food and Drug AdministrationRULESAdministrative practice and procedure:

Internal review of agency decisions, 63978–63982Animal drugs, feeds, and related products:

Fenbendazole suspension, 63982–63983Food for human consumption:

Food labeling—Fruit and vegetable juice products; warning and notice

statement; correction, 63982Medical devices:

Corrections and removal reports, 63983NOTICESAgency information collection activities:


Medical devices:Class II devices; exemptions from premarket notification,

64091–64092Meetings:

Blood and blood components; licensure streamlining;pilot program; workshop, 64092

Blood Products Advisory Committee, 64092–64093Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies Advisory

Committee, 64093Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.:

Chemistry, manufacturing and controls information andestablishment description information for biologicalin vitro diagnostic product; content and format

Correction, 64143Fast track drug development programs, 64093–64094Microbial effects of antimicrobial new drugs intended for

use in food-producing animals; human health impactevaluation; industry guidance, 64094–64096

Food and Nutrition ServiceRULESChild nutrition programs:

Women, infants, and children; special supplementalnutrition program—

Healthy Meals for Healthy Americans Act, Pro-ChildrenAct, etc.; nondiscretionary incorporated provisions,63969–63975

Forest ServiceNOTICESEnvironmental statements; availability, etc.:

Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison NationalForest, CO, 64035–64036

General Accounting OfficeNOTICESMeetings:

Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board, 64089

Health and Human Services DepartmentSee Centers for Disease Control and PreventionSee Children and Families AdministrationSee Food and Drug Administration

Immigration and Naturalization ServiceNOTICESAgency information collection activities:

Submission for OMB review; comment request, 64102

VFederal Register / Vol. 63, No. 222 / Wednesday, November 18, 1998 / Contents

Interior DepartmentSee Fish and Wildlife ServiceSee Land Management BureauSee National Park ServiceSee Reclamation Bureau

Internal Revenue ServiceNOTICESPrivacy Act:

Systems of records, 64141–64142

International Trade AdministrationNOTICESAntidumping:

Dynamic random access memory semiconductors of onemegabit or above from—

Taiwan, 64040–64042Magnesium, pure, from—

Canada, 64042Stainless steel round wire from—

Canada et al., 64042–64049Countervailing duties:

Iron-metal castings from—India, 64050–64061

Export trade certificates of review, 64061–64062

International Trade CommissionNOTICESImport investigations:

Live cattle from—Canada et al., 64100–64101

U.S. forest products trade conditions of competition;public hearing, 64101–64102

Justice DepartmentSee Immigration and Naturalization ServiceSee Justice Programs Office

Justice Programs OfficeNOTICESAgency information collection activities:


Labor DepartmentSee Mine Safety and Health Administration

Land Management BureauNOTICESCoal lease, exploration licenses, etc.:

Montana, 64099Survey plat filings:

Colorado, 64099–64100

Medicare Payment Advisory CommissionNOTICESMeetings, 64104

Mine Safety and Health AdministrationNOTICESSafety standard petitions:

Consolidation Coal Co., et al., 64103–64104

National Foundation on the Arts and the HumanitiesNOTICESSenior Executive Service:

Performance Review Board; membership, 64104–64105

National Institute of Standards and TechnologyNOTICESInformation processing standards, Federal:

Sixteen FIPS publications; withdrawn, 64062–64063

National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationRULESFishery conservation and management:

Northeastern United States fisheries—Summer flounder, 64006–64007

International fisheries regulations:Fraser River sockeye and pink salmon; inseason orders,

64005–64006PROPOSED RULESFishery conservation and management:

Alaska; fisheries of Exclusive Economic Zone—Gulf of Alaska groundfish, 64034

Caribbean, Gulf, and South Atlantic fisheries—Gulf of Mexico reef fish, 64031–64032

Northeastern United States fisheries—Atlantic sea scallop, 64032–64033

West Coast States and Western Pacific fisheries—Bottomfish and seamount groundfish, 64033

International fisheries regulations:Pacific tuna, 64031

NOTICESEnvironmental statements; availability, etc.:

Stellwagon Bank National Marine Sanctuary, MA;meeting, 64063

Permits:Endangered and threatened species, 64063–64065Marine mammals, 64065–64066

National Park ServiceNOTICESNative American human remains and associated funerary

objects:University of Nebraska State Museum, NE; inventory,

64100

National Science FoundationNOTICESAntarctic Conservation Act of 1978; permit applications,

etc., 64105

National Technical Information ServiceNOTICESMeetings:

Advisory Board, 64066

Nuclear Regulatory CommissionNOTICESMeetings:

Reactor Safeguards Advisory Committee, 64105–64106Operating licenses, amendments; no significant hazards

considerations; biweekly notices, 64106–64132Radiation protection standards:

NRC-licensed facilities; radiological criteria fordecommissioning (license termination)—

Lands and structure; supplemental information, 64132–64134

Personnel Management OfficePROPOSED RULESEmployment:

Temporary appointment pending the establishment of aregister (TAPER) authority; promotion possibility ofemployees appointed as worker-trainees, 64008

VI Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 222 / Wednesday, November 18, 1998 / Contents

Presidio TrustPROPOSED RULESManagement of Presidio; general provisions, etc., 64023

Public Health ServiceSee Centers for Disease Control and PreventionSee Food and Drug Administration

Railroad Retirement BoardNOTICESMeetings; Sunshine Act, 64134–64135

Reclamation BureauPROPOSED RULESFarm operations in excess of 960 acres, information

requirements; and formerly excess land eligibility toreceive non-full cost irrigation water, 64153–64165

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

Depository Trust Co., 64135–64136National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., 64136–

64137

Social Security AdministrationNOTICESMedicare buy-in programs:

Federal-State partnership for low-income beneficiaries;demonstration to improve enrollment, 64137–64139

State DepartmentNOTICESNigeria; immigrants and nonimmigrants; entry restrictions;

Presidential proclamation terminated, 64139Passport travel restrictions, U.S.:

Libya, 64139–64140

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

Livonia, Avon & Lakeville Railroad Corp., 64141

Textile Agreements Implementation CommitteeSee Committee for the Implementation of Textile

Agreements

Transportation DepartmentSee Coast GuardSee Federal Aviation AdministrationSee Surface Transportation Board

Treasury DepartmentSee Internal Revenue Service

Separate Parts In This Issue

Part IIDepartment of Transportation, Federal Aviation

Administration, 64145–64151

Part IIIDepartment of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 64153–

64165

Part IVDepartment of Education, 64167–64168

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

CFR PARTS AFFECTED IN THIS ISSUE

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

VIIFederal Register / Vol. 63, No. 222 / Wednesday, November 18, 1998 / Contents

5 CFRProposed Rules:316...................................64008

7 CFR246...................................63969Proposed Rules:930...................................64008

12 CFRProposed Rules:Ch. VI...............................64013

14 CFR39.....................................6397571 (2 documents) ............63977Proposed Rules:36.....................................6414639.....................................6401371 (2 documents) ...........64016,

64021

21 CFR10.....................................63978101...................................63982520...................................63982806...................................63983


36 CFRProposed Rules:1001.................................640231002.................................640231003.................................640231004.................................640231005.................................640231006.................................64023

40 CFR52 (2 documents) ...........63983,

6398662.....................................6398863.....................................63990Proposed Rules:62.....................................6402363.....................................64023


47 CFR36.....................................6399354.....................................6399369.....................................63993


50 CFR300...................................64005648...................................64006Proposed Rules:300...................................64031622...................................64031648...................................64032660...................................64033679...................................64034

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

63969

Vol. 63, No. 222


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Food and Nutrition Service

7 CFR Part 246

RIN 0584–ACO2

Special Supplemental NutritionProgram for Women, Infants andChildren (WIC): Implementation of WICMandates of Public Law 103–448, theHealthy Meals for Healthy AmericansAct of 1994 and Public Law 103–227,the Pro-Children Act of 1994

AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service,USDA.ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule amendsregulations governing the SpecialSupplemental Nutrition Program forWomen, Infants and Children (WIC) toincorporate certain nondiscretionaryprovisions of the Healthy Meals forHealthy Americans Act of 1994, enactedon November 2,1994, the Pro-ChildrenAct of 1994, enacted on August 31,1994, the Cash ManagementImprovement Act of 1990, enacted onOctober 24, 1990, and the PersonalWork Responsibility and ReconciliationAct of 1996, enacted on August 22,1996. The provisions in this final ruleinclude: prohibiting smoking in WICfacilities; increasing by one the familysize of an otherwise income ineligiblepregnant woman for purposes ofdetermining WIC eligibility; allowingState agencies to deem income eligiblepregnant women presumptively eligible(for a period not to exceed 60 days)without a determination of nutritionalrisk; increasing the nationalbreastfeeding promotion and supportexpenditure; and providing WICservices at more Community andMigrant Health Centers and IndianHealth Service facilities. Theseprovisions are intended to strengthenservices to participants, increase State

agency flexibility and promote goodhealth practices.

DATES: This rule is effective January 19,1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Barbara Hallman, Supplemental FoodPrograms Division, Food and NutritionService, USDA, 3101 Park Center Drive,Room 542, Alexandria, Virginia 22302,(703) 305–2730.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Order 12866

This final rule has been determined tobe significant and was reviewed by theOffice of Management and Budget(OMB) under Executive Order 12866.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

This final rule has been reviewedwith regard to the requirements of theRegulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.601–612). Pursuant to that review,Shirley R. Watkins, Under Secretary forFood, Nutrition and Consumer Services,has certified that this rule will not havea significant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entities.This rule provides State and localagencies with greater flexibility: (1) in acertification process, (2) in the use offunds recovered as a result of violationsin the food delivery system, and (3) theadministration of their infant formularebate contracts and management oftheir food funds. However, theeconomic impact on program operationswill not be significant.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This final rule imposes no newreporting or recordkeeping requirementsthat are subject to OMB for review inaccordance with the PaperworkReduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507).The information collection burden forthis final rule was previously approvedunder OMB #0584–0043.


The Special Supplemental NutritionProgram for Women, Infants andChildren (WIC) is listed in the Catalogof Federal Domestic AssistancePrograms under 10.557 and is subject toExecutive Order 12372, which requiresintergovernmental consultation withState and local officials (7 CFR part3015, subpart V, and 48 FR 29114 June24, 1983).


This final rule has been reviewedunder Executive Order 12988, CivilJustice Reform. This rule is intended tohave preemptive effect with respect toany State or local laws, regulations orpolicies which conflict with itsprovisions, or which would otherwiseimpede its full implementation. Thisrule is not intended to have retroactiveeffect unless so specified in the DATESparagraph of this preamble. Prior to anyjudicial challenge to the application ofthe provisions of this rule, all applicableadministrative procedures must beexhausted.

Public Law 104–4

Title II of the Unfunded MandatesReform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.L.104–4, establishes requirements forFederal agencies to assess the effects oftheir regulatory actions on State, local,and tribal governments and the privatesector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,the Food and Nutrition Servicegenerally must prepare a writtenstatement, including a cost-benefitanalysis, for proposed and final ruleswith ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that mayresult in expenditures to State, local, ortribal governments, in the aggregate, orto the private sector of $100 million ormore in any one year. When such astatement is needed for a rule, section205 of the UMRA generally requires theFood and Nutrition Service to identifyand consider a reasonable number ofregulatory alternatives and adopt theleast costly, more cost-effective or leastburdensome alternative that achievesthe objectives of the rule.

This rule contains no Federalmandates (under the regulatoryprovisions of Title II of the UMRA) forState, local, and tribal governments orthe private sector of $100 million ormore in any one year. Thus today’s ruleis not subject to the requirements ofsections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

Background

Section 204 of Public Law 103–448,the Healthy Meals for HealthyAmericans Act of 1994, enacted onNovember 2, 1994, reauthorized theSpecial Supplemental NutritionProgram for Women, Infants andChildren (WIC). The statutoryauthorities for a wide range of WICProgram functions in areas such asincome eligibility determinations,

63970 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 222 / Wednesday, November 18, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

program outreach, referral and access,coordination, breastfeeding promotion,program operations, and costcontainment were amended by section204. In addition, section 1043 of Pub.L.103–227, the Pro-Children Act of 1994,enacted on August 31, 1994, prohibitssmoking within any indoor facilityowned or leased or contracted for by anentity that receives Federal funds for theprovision of regular or routine healthcare or day care, or early childhooddevelopment (Head Start) services. WICProgram clinics are included among theservices covered by this legislation.These provisions serve the interests ofthe President and Congress byimproving coordination amongprograms, promoting positive pregnancyoutcomes and healthy babies, andreducing administrative burdens forState and local agencies. In addition,section 724(e)(1)(B)(i) of Pub.L. 104–193, the Personal Responsibility andWork Opportunity Reconciliation Act of1996, made a further amendmentregarding coordination with otherprograms and section 4 of Pub.L. 101–453, the Cash ManagementImprovement Act of 1990, made achange requiring States to pay theUnited States interest on advances ofFederal funds. These provisions are allnondiscretionary. Further, Stateagencies have already been informedthat these provisions may beimplemented prior to the issuance ofamendments to the program regulations.For these reasons, the Under Secretaryfor Food, Nutrition and ConsumerServices has determined that, inaccordance with 5 U.S.C. 553 priornotice and comment is unnecessary andcontrary to the public interest. Sincethis rule merely codifies the citedstatutory provisions, it also constitutesan interpretive rule for which noticeand comment are not required by 5U.S.C. 553.

1. Definition of Nutritional Risk—246.2Section 204(a) of Public Law 103–448

amended section 17(b)(8)(B) of the ChildNutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C.1786(b)(8)(B)) (CNA) to change thelegislative categorization of alcoholismand drug abuse from predisposingnutritional risk conditions to conditionsthat directly affect the nutritional healthof a person. This reclassification isconsistent with new nutrition andhealth knowledge, and better representsthe classification of these conditionscurrently used by States. As a result,homelessness and migrancy nowbecome the only specific legislativeexamples of conditions that predisposepersons to inadequate dietary patternsor nutritionally related medical

conditions in the CNA. Accordingly, thedefinition of nutritional risk in Section246.2 has been revised to reflect thesechanges.

2. Prohibition on Smoking in WICClinics Provision—246.6(b)(4)

Sections 1043 (b) and (d) of Pub. L.103–227, the Pro-Children Act of 1994,require that after December 26, 1994,smoking shall not be permitted in anyindoor facility, or portion thereof, that isowned, leased, or contracted for by anyperson that receives Federal funds forchildren’s services funded under certainprograms administered by the U.S.Department of Health and HumanServices, the U.S. Department ofEducation, and the U.S. Department ofAgriculture. Section 1042(2) of the Actdefines ‘‘children’s services’’ as: theprovision on a routine or regular basisof health, day care, education, or libraryservices; WIC clinics are specificallyidentified in the Act as ‘‘children’sservices’’. The definition of ‘‘person’’includes State and local agencies as wellas corporations and individuals.Additionally, fiscal year 1996, 1995 and1994 appropriations acts for the WICProgram contained provisionsprohibiting the use of appropriatedfunds to pay administrative expenses ofWIC clinics that had no announcedpolicy prohibiting smoking within thespace used to carry out the Program.The no-smoking provision in Pub. L.103–227 is intended to protect childrenunder the age of 18 from exposure toenvironmental tobacco smoke whilethey are receiving education, library,day care, health care, and earlychildhood development services inindoor facilities. The Administration’sgoal in implementing this legislativerequirement reflects a strong healthprotection policy regarding smoking andenvironmental tobacco smoke exposure.

In response to the legislativeprovisions contained in Pub. L. 103–227, section 246.6 is amended to requireall local agency agreements to contain aprovision prohibiting smoking in thespace used to carry out the WIC Programduring the time any aspect of WICservices are performed. The smokingprohibition applies to the portion of thefacility used for WIC Program services.If that portion of the building issimultaneously used for other purposes,such as community activities orprivately sponsored events, smokingmust be prohibited at these other eventsas well. This change to the regulationsmerely formalizes the current policydirective, which all State agencies havebeen operating under since fiscal year1994. That directive prohibits theallocation of nutrition service and

administrative funds to any WIC clinicthat does not prohibit smoking withinthe space used for WIC services duringthe time the services are beingperformed. This regulation thereforemerely codifies the current policy, andplaces no additional burden on State orlocal agencies.

3. Service to Pregnant WomenProvisions—246.7(d)(1)(iv),246.7(d)(1)(v), 246.7(d)(2)(vii),246.7(e)(1)(iii)

a. Family Size ProvisionSection 204(c)(1) of Pub. L. 103–448

amended Section 17(d) of the CNA toadd a new subparagraph section17(d)(2)(C), which extends WICeligibility for certain pregnant women.The provision stipulates that an income-ineligible pregnant woman satisfiesincome guidelines if the guidelineswould be met by increasing the numberof individuals in her family by oneindividual. Although the law states thatthe family size of the pregnant womanis to be increased by ‘‘one,’’ we do notbelieve, in cases where the pregnantwoman is expecting multiple births, thatCongress intended to totally precludecounting such multiple births. As such,section 246.7(d)(2)(vii) is amended toallow the family size of a pregnantwoman to be increased by the numberof embryos or fetuses in utero. Thisprovision allows the WIC Program touse the same definition of family sizecurrently used by the Department ofHealth and Human Services’ (DHHS)Medicaid Bureau, thereby improvingcoordination between the WIC andMedicaid Programs. It also results incertain women having access to thehealth benefits of WIC during pregnancywho previously would have had to waitfor the birth of their babies to beeligible.

The legislation does not specificallyaddress whether the same incomeeligibility determination process can beused for the pregnant woman’s otherfamily members, who may also applyfor WIC services. However, it isimpractical and administrativelyburdensome to require two differentincome-screening procedures, based oncategorical status, for one family. To doso forces a WIC local agency to activatethe adjunctive eligibility processunnecessarily because the local agencywould have to first refer the familymembers to the Medicaid Program forcertification, and then ask the familymembers to return to the WIC Programso that they may be determined asadjunctively income eligible for WIC.Therefore, in situations where thefamily size has been increased for a

63971Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 222 / Wednesday, November 18, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

pregnant woman, the same increasedfamily size may also be used for any ofher categorically eligible familymembers.

In rare instances, the consideration ofunborn children in this manner mayconflict with an applicant’s cultural,personal, or religious beliefs. Inrecognition of these issues, theregulation requires State agencies toallow such applicants to waive theautomatic increase in family size.

b. Certification Prior to Documentationof Nutritional Risk

Program regulations permitcategorically eligible applicants to becertified for WIC benefits only if, inaddition to meeting residency andincome requirements, they aredetermined to be at nutritional risk. Inorder to determine nutritional risk,height, weight, and bloodwork must beobtained. Many State agencies haveexpressed concerns regarding theavailability of bloodwork data forpregnant women at the time of theirapplication. In some cases, State or localagencies may not have the essentialequipment or staff onsite to perform thebloodwork assessment. In thesesituations, the agencies usually have tocontract out for that service, or refer thewomen to health centers and/orproviders to obtain the necessary data.State agencies also reported that thebloodwork data requirement hasresulted in barriers to participation forpregnant women. They also reportedthat this requirement could, in fact, bean impediment to enrollment of eligiblepregnant women early in pregnancy.Early enrollment is an importantprogram objective, as well as alegislative requirement.

In response to concerns related toimproved and expedited access toprogram benefits for pregnant women,section 204(c)(2) of Pub.L. 103–448,amended section 17(d)(3)(B) of the CNAto allow State agencies to considerpregnant women who are incomeeligible for the WIC Program to bepresumed to be nutritionally at risk andthus eligible to participate in theprogram. These women may be certifiedimmediately without the results of anutritional risk evaluation. The lawrequires that a nutritional riskevaluation be completed, however, notlater than 60 days from the date thepregnant woman is certified forparticipation. The law stipulates that, ifthe subsequent assessment determinesthat the woman does not meetnutritional risk criteria, her certificationterminate on the date of thedetermination. The joint statement ofexplanation accompanying S.1614

(Congressional Record, October 6, 1994,S14454) clarifies the positions of theSenate Committee on Agriculture,Nutrition and Forestry and the HouseCommittee on Education and Labor onthis provision concerning presumptiveeligibility for pregnant women. TheCommittees expressed their view thatthe dietary risk assessment beperformed before—or as soon aspossible after—the presumptivelyeligible pregnant woman beginsreceiving WIC benefits. Local agenciesthus should strive to complete thedietary assessment at certification.Ideally, local agencies should completethe full nutrition risk assessment atcertification or at the earliest possibledate thereafter. This allows the WICstaff to begin to offer appropriatecounseling on program nutrition anddiet, as well as complete, appropriatehealth care referrals at the earliestopportunity. This information also isinvaluable in developing an appropriatefood package.

While the law uses the word‘‘terminate’’ in connection with thenecessary action when a pregnantwoman is later found not to meet thenutritional risk criteria, what is reallyhappening is that the pregnant womanis being found ineligible for theprogram. Accordingly, this action willbe treated like an initial determination.That is, while the pregnant woman mustbe given an opportunity to appeal theaction, as required under section246.7(j)(5), there is no requirement of 15days notice of the action as forsuspensions and most disqualifications(under section 246.7(j)(6)) and for theexpiration of certification periods(under section 246.7(j)(8)). Nor will thepregnant woman be able to receivebenefits while awaiting the fair hearingdecision. Section 246.9(g) will continueto require benefits pending resolution ofthe fair hearing only for thoseparticipants who timely appeal anaction under section 246.7(j)(6).

Further, if the nutritional riskevaluation is not completed within the60-day timeframe, the pregnantwoman’s participation may not beextended beyond the initial 60-daycertification period. However, as setforth in section 246.7(j)(8) for all casesof the expiration of a certificationperiod, the pregnant woman must benotified not less than 15 days before theexpiration of the period that thecertification period is about to expire.Similarly, pregnant women who appealthe expiration of their certification maynot receive WIC benefits while awaitingthe fair hearing decision. Theregulations are amended at section

246.7(e)(1)(iii) to reflect these legislativeprovisions.

4. Coordination of WIC and MedicaidProgram Provisions—246.4(a)(8)

Section 204(e) of Pub.L. 103–448amended section 17(f)(1)(C)(iii) of theCNA to require coordination betweenthe WIC Program and State MedicaidPrograms, including Medicaid programsthat use coordinated care providersunder a contract entered into undersection 1903(m) or a waiver grantedunder section 1915 (b) of the SocialSecurity Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 b(m) or1396n(b)).

Soon after enactment of Pub.L. 103–448, section 729(e)(1)(B)(i) of Pub.L.104–193, the Personal Responsibilityand Work Opportunity ReconciliationAct of 1996 (Pub.L. 104–193), amendedsection 17(f)(1)(C)(iii) of the CNA toreplace the listing of specific programswith which WIC must coordinate witha plan to coordinate WIC operationswith other services or program that maybenefit participants in, or applicants for,the program. As such, the State agencynow determines which services orprograms it will coordinate with to meetthe specific needs of its participants andapplicants. Section at 246.4(a)(8) isamended to reflect this later change.Although no longer required by law, theDepartment strongly encourages Stateagencies to continue to coordinate withMedicaid managed-care providers toensure that WIC participants haveaccess to medical benefits, therebyimproving their health status.

5. WIC Services at Community andMigrant Health Centers—246.4(a)(8)and 246.7(b)(3)

Section 204(u) of Pub.L. 103–448amended section 17(j) of the CNA torequire that the Secretary of Agricultureand the Secretary of the Department ofHealth and Human Services establishand carry out an initiative to provideWIC services at substantially morecommunity and migrant health centers.The legislation stipulates that theinitiative shall include: (1) Activities toimprove the coordination of WIC andhealth care services at facilities fundedby the Indian Health Service (IHS); and(2) the development andimplementation of strategies to ensurethat, to the maximum extent feasible,new community and migrant healthcenters and other federally-supportedhealth care facilities established inmedically underserved areas provideWIC services. The law further stipulatesthat the initiative may also include: (1)Outreach and technical assistance forState and local agencies and thefacilities named above; (2)


demonstration projects in selectedStates or local areas; and (3) otheractivities as the Secretaries findappropriate.

This mandate also reinforcesopportunities for the WIC Program,community and migrant health centersand IHS facilities to further implementmutual objectives that are consistentwith this legislation. The objectives are:(1) To increase coordination and co-location of WIC with Community andMigrant Health Centers and with IHSfacilities; (2) to ensure that newlyconstructed, federally supported healthfacilities are coordinated with WIC Stateagencies to maximize serviceintegration; improve access to healthcare for participants of all threeprograms, especially underserved,vulnerable, and hard-to-reach potentialeligibles; and (3) to enlist the support ofprimary care personnel at health centersand IHS clinics and WIC personnel toreinforce health messages such asbreastfeeding promotion, immunizationscreening and delivery, drug abuseeducation and referrals. The WICProgram will benefit from this initiativethrough improved access to health carefor WIC participants as well as byexpansion of opportunities for newlyco-located clinic sites to accommodaterapidly increasing WIC participationlevels. Projected participation levels aremore likely to be met with increasedfacility infrastructure capacity for WIC.In addition, community and migranthealth centers and IHS facilities maybenefit from increased co-location andcoordination with WIC by enhancingservice utilization by clients seeking aone-stop, health care shoppingopportunity. In compliance with thislegislative provision, this rule amendssection 246.7(b)(3) to require that, wherefeasible, State agencies provide WICservices at community and migranthealth centers, Indian Health Servicesfacilities, and other federally supportedhealth care facilities established inmedically underserved areas.

These changes are intended toimprove access to health care for WICparticipants, and will make WIC moreaccessible to high-risk populationsserved at community and migrant healthcenters, IHS facilities and otherfederally supported health care facilitiesestablished in medically underservedareas provide supplemental foods andnutrition education under the specialsupplemental nutrition program. TheDepartment will supplement theseregulatory requirements with numerousother promotional activities designed tofacilitate increased co-location andcoordination between WIC and theseservice providers. These efforts include

a cataloging of site locations, thedevelopment of a best practices guide,and continued provision ofinfrastructure and other funding andsupport that facilitate improved WICaccess to eligible persons also beingserved in IHS facilities, community andmigrant health centers, and otherfederally health care supported facilitiesestablished in medically underservedareas provide supplemental foods andnutrition education under the specialsupplemental nutrition program.

6. Income Eligibility GuidelinesProvision Section—246.7(d)(1)(iii)

Section 204(g) of Pub.L. 103–448amended Section 17(f)(18) of the CNA toallow State agencies to implementannual WIC income eligibilityguidelines concurrently with theimplementation of annual incomeeligibility guidelines under theMedicaid Program established underTitle XIX of the Social Security Act (42U.S.C. 1396 et seq.). Section 17(f)(18)was subsequently redesignated assection 17(f)(17) by section 729(e)(10) ofPub.L. 104–193. Congress’ purpose inallowing this concurrentimplementation is to facilitate closercoordination between the programs andease Program access for applicants.Section 246.7(d)(1)(iii) is amendedaccordingly. State agencies that choosenot to coordinate implementation withthe Medicaid guidelines mustimplement the amended WIC incomeeligibility guidelines not later than July1 of each year.

7. Priority Consideration for MigrantPopulations—246.7(f)(2)(iii)(A)

Section 204(f) of Pub.L. 103–448amended section 17(f)(3) of the CNA torequire State agencies to ensure localagencies provide priority considerationto serving migrant participants who areresiding in the State for a limited periodof time. Current WIC regulations alreadyaddress this legislative change at section246.7(f)(2)(iii)(A).

8. Breastfeeding Promotion andSupport Activities—246.14(c)(1)

Section 123(a)(6) of Pub.L. 101–147amended section 17(h)(3) of the CNA toearmark $8 million annually in Stateagency Nutrition Services andAdministration (NSA) grants for thepromotion and support of breastfeedingamong WIC mothers. Section 204(l) ofPub.L. 103–448 further amended section17(h)(3) to establish a new formula fordetermining the minimum nationalbreastfeeding promotion and supportexpenditure. The new formula increasedthe national annual minimumexpenditure from $8 million to an

amount equal to $21 per pregnant andbreastfeeding woman participating inthe WIC Program nationwide, based onthe average number of pregnant womenand breastfeeding women participatingduring the last three months for whichthe Department has final data.Beginning on October 1, 1996, and eachOctober 1 thereafter, this per participantamount will be adjusted for inflationusing the same index that is used forNSA funds. The Department applaudsCongress’ support for breastfeeding asthe optimal method of infant feeding.

To ease transition in fiscal year 1995,section 17(h)(3)(F) provided that Stateagencies could spend the same amountit expended for breastfeeding promotionand support expenditures in fiscal year1994, in lieu of meeting the $21 perpregnant and breastfeeding womanminimum. This provision allowed thoseState agencies that were unable to meetthe $21 per pregnant and breastfeedingwoman target immediately to graduallymove in that direction.

Section 17(h)(3)(G) provided a similarallowance for fiscal year 1996, exceptthat the State agency must expend morethan the amount expended in fiscal year1995 for breastfeeding promotion andsupport and must have the Secretary’sapproval. All State agencies wererequired to expend the minimum $21per pregnant and breastfeeding womanfor breastfeeding promotion and supportexpenditure beginning in fiscal year1997. Because the transition period isnow past and the new formula ismandatory, this final rule only reflectsthe new formula and not the transitionperiod exceptions for fiscal years 1995and 1996. This rule amends section246.14(c)(1) to reflect the new formula.

9. Standards for the Collection ofBreastfeeding Data—246.25(b)(3)

Section 204(m) of Pub.L. 103–448 andsection 729(g)(1)(A) of Pub.L. 104–193amended section 17(h)(4) of the CNA torequire the development of standardsfor the collection of breastfeeding data.The legislation requires that not laterthan 1 year after the date of enactment,the Secretary must develop uniformrequirements for collection of dataregarding the incidence and duration ofbreastfeeding among participants in theprogram. The Department, afterconsulting with the NationalAssociation of WIC Directors, hasdeveloped the breastfeeding dataspecifications. This information will becollected as part of the biennialreporting in section 246.25(b)(3).


10. Use of Recovered Program Funds inYear Collected—246.14(e)

Section 246.14(e) of the WICregulations allows the State agency toretain funds collected through (a) therecovery of claims assessed against foodvendors or (b) funds not paid to foodvendors as a result of reviews of foodinstruments prior to payment. However,Federal guidelines on refunds limitedState agencies in their use and retentionof vendor collections (Title 7, section5.4.B.1., of the General AccountingOffice’s Manual for the Guidance ofFederal Agencies). This guidanceprovides that ‘‘unless otherwiseauthorized by law, refunds should bedeposited to the credit of theappropriation account initially chargedwith the overpayment.’’ Thisprohibition from using vendorcollections to offset food costs in a yearother than the year of the initialobligation was problematic. Stateagencies reported that they frequentlydid not receive funds collected fromvendors until after closeout of the yearin which the initial obligation of fundsoccurred. As a result, they wererequired to remit most of their vendorcollections to FNS for reallocationrather than receiving the opportunity touse these funds to offset their own WICProgram’s food costs. Section 204(h) ofPub.L. 103–448 amended section 17(f)of the CNA of 1966 to provide that ‘‘aState agency may use funds recovered asa result of violations in the fooddelivery system in the year in which thefunds are collected for the purpose ofcarrying out the program.’’ Thislegislative provision overrides theGeneral Accounting Office’s guidance,and permits State agencies to usevendor collections received after thesource fiscal year is closed out to offsetprogram expenditures from the year inwhich collected. In addition, thelegislation expands the purposes forwhich vendor collections may be usedto include any program cost, rather thanbeing restricted to food costs.Regulations at 246.14(e) are amended toreflect these legislative changes.

11. Prohibition on Interest Liability toFederal Government on Rebate Funds—246.15(a)

Section 4 of the Cash ManagementImprovement Act of 1990 (CMIA)(Pub.L. 101–453) amended 31 U.S.C.6503(c) to require States to pay theUnited States interest on advances ofFederal funds. This change becameeffective November 1992. Section6503(d) of Title 31 of the U.S. Code andimplementing regulations at 31 CFR Part205 require an annual reconciliation of

interest earned by States on advances ofFederal funds and interest lost to Statesas a result of being forced to use theirown funds in anticipation of receivingFederal funds. Congress, through Pub.L.103–448, has provided an exception tothis requirement, however, for receiptsearned by WIC State agencies for rebatesfrom infant formula and other foods.Section 204(p) of Pub.L. 103–448amended section 17(h)(8)(J) of the CNAto stipulate that State agencies shall notincur any interest liability to the Federalgovernment on rebate funds from infantformula and other foods, provided thatall interest earned by the State is usedfor program purposes. Section 246.15(a)is revised to conform with theapplicable provisions of the CMIA, andthe specific WIC exemptions of thePub.L. 103–448.

12. Funds for Technical Assistance andResearch Evaluation Projects—246.16(a)(6)

Section 17(g)(5) of the CNA, asreflected at section 246.16(a)(6) of theWIC regulations, states that up to one-half of 1 percent of the sumsappropriated for each fiscal year, not toexceed $5,000,000, shall be available tothe Secretary for evaluating programperformance, evaluating health benefits,providing technical assistance toimprove State agency administrativesystems, preparing the biennialParticipation Report to Congressdescribed in section 246.25(b)(3), andadministering pilot projects, includingprojects designed to meet the specialneeds of migrants, Indians, and ruralpopulations. Section 204(k) of Pub.L.103–448 amended 17(g)(5) of the CNAto expand the purposes to includetechnical assistance and researchprojects of the programs under section17. The effect of adding the reference to‘‘programs under this section’’ was toextend the permissible use of thesefunds to listed activities as they relateto the WIC Farmers’ Market NutritionProgram authorized under section 17(m)of the CNA. Section 246.16(a)(6) isamended accordingly to reflect thislegislative change.

13. Spendback Funds—246.16(b)(3)(i)Section 246.16(b)(3)(i) of the WIC

regulations reflects the provision insection 17(i)(3)(A)(i) of the CNA that notmore than 1 percent of the fundsallocated to a State agency for food costsincurred in any fiscal year may beexpended by the State agency for foodcosts incurred in the preceding fiscalyear. Section 204(s) of Pub.L. 103–448amended sections 17(i)(3)(A)(i) and17(i)(3)(H) of the CNA to increase themaximum spendback authority from 1

percent of the total food funds to 3percent of the total food funds, with theSecretary’s approval. A State agencymay be permitted to expend not morethan 3 percent of the amount of fundsallocated to a State for supplementalfoods for a fiscal year for expensesincurred for supplemental foods duringthe preceding fiscal year, if theSecretary determines that there was asignificant reduction in the State’sinfant formula cost containment savingsthat resulted in the State not being ableto at least maintain its level ofparticipation. Section 246.16(b)(3)(i) isamended to reflect the increase in thepercentage of spendback authority asper this provision.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 246Administrative practice and

procedure, Civil rights, Food assistanceprograms, Food donations, Grantprograms—health, Grant programs—social programs, Indians, Infants andchildren, Maternal and child health,Nutrition, Nutrition education,Penalties, Public assistance programs,Reporting and recordkeepingrequirements, WIC, Women.

For reasons set forth in the preamble,7 CFR part 246 is amended as follows:

PART 246—SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTALNUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN,INFANTS, AND CHILDREN

1. The authority citation for Part 246continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1786.

2. In § 246.2, the definition ofNutritional risk is revised to read asfollows:

§ 246.2 Definitions.

* * * * *Nutritional risk means:(a) Detrimental or abnormal

nutritional conditions detectable bybiochemical or anthropometricmeasurements;

(b) Other documented nutritionallyrelated medical conditions;

(c) Dietary deficiencies that impair orendanger health;

(d) Conditions that directly affect thenutritional health of a person, includingalcoholism or drug abuse; or

(e) Conditions that predispose personsto inadequate nutritional patterns ornutritionally related medical conditions,including, but not limited to,homelessness and migrancy.* * * * *

3. In § 246.4, paragraph (a)(8) isrevised to read as follows:

§ 246.4 State Plan.(a) * * *


(8) A description of how the Stateagency plans to coordinate programoperations with other services orprograms that may benefit participantsin, or applicants for, the program.* * * * *

4. In § 246.6, paragraphs (b)(4)through (b)(9) are redesignated as (b)(5)through (b)(10). A new paragraph (b)(4)is added to read as follows:

§ 246.6 Agreements with local agencies.

* * * * *(b) * * *(4) Prohibits smoking in the space

used to carry out the WIC Programduring the time any aspect of WICservices are performed.* * * * *

5. In § 246.7:a. Paragraphs (b)(3) through (b)(5) are

redesignated as paragraphs (b)(4)through (b)(6), and a new paragraph(b)(3) is added;

b. Paragraph (d)(1)(iii) is revised;c. Paragraphs (d)(2)(vii) and

(d)(2)(viii) are redesignated asparagraphs (d)(2)(viii) and (d)(2)(ix), anda new paragraph (d)(2)(vii) is added;

d. Paragraph (e)(1)(iii) is redesignatedas paragraph (e)(1)(iv), and a newparagraph (e)(1)(iii) is added.

The revisions and additions read asfollows:

§ 246.7 Certification of participants.

* * * * *(b) * * *(3) State agencies shall provide WIC

services at community and migranthealth centers, Indian Health Servicesfacilities, and other federally health caresupported facilities established inmedically underserved areas to theextent feasible.* * * * *

(d) * * *(1) * * *(iii) Implementation of the income

guidelines. On or before July 1 eachyear, each State agency shall announceand transmit to each local agency theState agency’s family size incomeguidelines, unless changes in thepoverty income guidelines issued by theDepartment of Health and HumanServices do not necessitate changes inthe State or local agency’s incomeguidelines. The State agency mayimplement revised guidelinesconcurrently with the implementationof income guidelines under theMedicaid program established underTitle XIX of the Social Security Act (42U.S.C. 1396 of et seq.). The State agencyshall ensure that conformingadjustments are made, if necessary, inlocal agency income guidelines. The

local agency shall implement (revised)guidelines not later than July 1 of eachyear for which such guidelines areissued by the State.

(2) * * *(vii) Income eligibility of pregnant

women. A pregnant woman who isineligible for participation in theprogram because she does not meetincome guidelines shall be consideredto have satisfied the income guidelinesif the guidelines would be met byincreasing the number of individuals inher family by the number of embryos orfetuses in utero. The same increasedfamily size may also be used for any ofthe pregnant woman’s categoricallyeligible family members. The Stateagency shall allow applicants to waivethis increase in family size.* * * * *

(e) * * *(1) * * *(iii) A pregnant woman who meets

income eligibility standards may beconsidered presumptively eligible toparticipate in the program, and may becertified immediately without anevaluation of nutritional risk for aperiod up to 60 days. A nutritional riskevaluation of such woman shall becompleted not later than 60 days afterthe woman is certified for participation.Under this subsequent determinationprocess, if the woman does not meetnutritional risk criteria, the woman shallbe determined ineligible and may notparticipate in the program after the dateof the determination. Notification of theineligibility determination shall begiven in accordance with paragraph(j)(5) of this section. In addition, if thenutritional risk evaluation is notcompleted within the 60 day timeframe,the woman’s participation shall endwhen her initial certification periodexpires. As set forth in paragraph (j)(8)of this section, notification must begiven prior to any expiration of thecertification period.* * * * *

6. In § 246.14:a. The second through the fifth

sentences of the introductory text ofparagraph (c)(1) are revised, the sixththrough the ninth sentences areremoved, and a new sixth sentence isadded;

b. Paragraph (e) is revised.The revisions read as follows:

§ 246.14 Program costs.

* * * * *(c) * * *(1) * * * During each fiscal year,

each State agency shall expend, fornutrition education activities andbreastfeeding promotion and support

activities, an aggregate amount that isnot less than the sum of one-sixth of theamount expended by the State agencyfor costs of NSA and an amount equalto its proportionate share of the nationalminimum expenditure for breastfeedingpromotion and support activities. Theamount to be spent on nutritioneducation shall be computed by takingone-sixth of the total fiscal year NSAexpenditures. The amount to be spentby a State agency on breastfeedingpromotion and support activities shallbe an amount that is equal to at least itsproportionate share of the nationalminimum breastfeeding promotionexpenditure as specified in paragraph(c)(1) of this section. The nationalminimum expenditure for breastfeedingpromotion and support activities shallbe equal to $21 multiplied by thenumber of pregnant and breastfeedingwomen in the Program, based on theaverage of the last three months forwhich the Department has final data. OnOctober 1, 1996 and each October 1thereafter, the $21 will be adjustedannually using the same inflationpercentage used to determine thenational administrative grant perperson. * * ** * * * *

(e) Recovery of vendor claims. TheState agency may retain funds collectedthrough the recovery of claims assessedagainst food vendors or funds not paidto food vendors as a result of reviews offood instruments prior to payment. TheState agency may use funds recoveredfrom vendors for food and/or nutritionservices and administration costs.Funds recovered as a result of violationsin the food delivery system of theprogram may be used for costs incurredin the year in which the funds arecollected, or in the year in which theinitial obligation of funds incurred. TheState agency shall not credit any vendorrecoveries until after the vendor has hadfull opportunity to correct or justify theerror or apparent overcharge inaccordance with § 246.12(r)(5)(iii). TheState agency shall report vendorcollections to FNS through routinereporting procedures. The State agencyshall maintain documentation tosupport the amount and use of fundsretained under this paragraph by theState agency.

7. In § 246.15, paragraph (a) is revisedto read as follows:

§ 246.15 Program income other thangrants.

(a) Interest earned on advances.Interest earned on advances of Programfunds at the State and local levels shallbe treated in accordance with theprovisions of 31 CFR Part 205, which


implement the requirements of the CashManagement Improvement Act of 1990.However, State agencies will not incuran interest liability to the Federalgovernment on rebate funds for infantformula or other foods, provided that allinterest earned on such funds is used forprogram purposes.* * * * *

8. In § 246.16, paragraphs (a)(6) and(b)(3)(i) are revised to read as follows:

§ 246.16 Distribution of funds.

(a) * * *(6) Up to one-half of 1 percent of the

sums appropriated for each fiscal year,not to exceed $5,000,000 shall beavailable to the Secretary for thepurpose of evaluating programperformance, evaluating health benefits,providing technical assistance toimprove State agency administrativesystems preparing the biennialParticipation Report to Congressdescribed in § 246.25(b)(3), andadministering pilot projects, includingprojects designed to meet the specialneeds of migrants, Indians, ruralpopulations, and to carry out technicalassistance and research evaluationprojects of this program and the WICFarmers’ Market Nutrition Program.

(b) * * *(3) * * *(i) Not more than 1 percent of the

amount of funds allocated to a Stateagency for supplemental foods for afiscal year may be expended by the Stateagency for food costs incurred in thepreceding fiscal year. FNS mayauthorize a State agency to expend notmore than 3 percent of the amount offunds allocated to the State agency forsupplemental foods for a fiscal year forexpenses incurred for supplementalfoods during the preceding fiscal year,if FNS determines that there has been asignificant reduction in infant formulacost containment savings that affectedthe State agency’s ability to at leastmaintain its participation level;* * * * *

Dated: November 14, 1998.

Shirley R. Watkins,Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, andConsumer Services.[FR Doc. 98–30753 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–30–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–NM–141–AD; Amendment39–10888; AD 98–24–01]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; BritishAerospace (Jetstream) Model 4101Airplanes

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

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts anew airworthiness directive (AD),applicable to certain British Aerospace(Jetstream) Model 4101 airplanes, thatrequires repetitive detailed visualinspections to detect cracking or otherdamage of certain diaphragm supportstructures of the forward equipmentcompartment; and repair, if necessary.This amendment is prompted by theissuance of mandatory continuingairworthiness information by a foreigncivil airworthiness authority. Theactions specified by this AD areintended to detect and correct failure ofthe two diaphragms that support theupper structure of the forwardequipment compartment, which couldaccelerate fatigue damage in adjacentstructure and result in reducedstructural integrity of the airframe.DATES: Effective December 23, 1998.

The incorporation by reference ofcertain publications listed in theregulations is approved by the Directorof the Federal Register as of December23, 1998.ADDRESSES: The service informationreferenced in this AD may be obtainedfrom AI(R) American Support, Inc.,13850 Mclearen Road, Herndon,Virginia 20171. This information may beexamined at the Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), TransportAirplane Directorate, Rules Docket,1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,Washington; or at the Office of theFederal Register, 800 North CapitolStreet, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Norman B. Martenson, Manager,International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2110;fax (425) 227–1149.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 British

Aerospace (Jetstream) Model 4101airplanes was published in the FederalRegister on January 8, 1998 (63 FR1074). That action proposed to requirerepetitive detailed visual inspections todetect cracking or other damage ofcertain diaphragm support structures ofthe forward equipment compartment;and repair, if necessary.

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

Request To Allow Flight With KnownCracks

One commenter, the manufacturer,requests that the proposed AD berevised to allow operators to continueoperation of an unrepaired airplane forup to 300 flight cycles followingdetection of cracking of certaindiaphragm support structures of theforward equipment compartment. Thecommenter states that, during full-scalefatigue testing, failure of bothdiaphragms occurred, and the testcontinued for another 24,000 flightcycles before either of the diaphragmswas replaced. The commenter furtherstates that, during the period betweendetection of the cracking andreplacement of the diaphragms, nodamage was detected that would causeconcern regarding the structuralintegrity of the airplane. In light of thesefatigue testing data, the commenternotes that the compliance time of 300flight cycles after detection of cracking,as specified in the service bulletin, isalready a very conservative threshold.

The FAA does not concur. It is theFAA’s policy to require repair of knowncracks prior to further flight, except incertain cases of unusual need, asdiscussed below.

This policy is based on the fact thatsuch damaged airplanes do not conformto the FAA-certificated type design and,therefore, are not airworthy until aproperly approved repair isincorporated. The FAA’s policyregarding flight with known cracks doesallow deferral of repairs in certain cases,if there is an unusual need for atemporary deferral. Unusual needsinclude such circumstances aslegitimate difficulty in acquiring parts toaccomplish repairs. Because the FAA isnot aware of any unusual need for repairdeferral in regard to this AD, the FAAhas determined that any subjectdiaphragm that is found to be crackedmust be repaired prior to further flightin accordance with a method approvedby the FAA. However, operators mayrequest approval of an alternativemethod of compliance if data are


provided to substantiate that such amethod would provide an acceptablelevel of safety.

Request To Remove Requirement forRepetitive Inspections After Repair

One commenter, the manufacturer,requests that the requirement tocontinue the repetitive inspectionsfollowing the installation of animproved diaphragm be removed fromthe proposal. The commenter states that,during full-scale fatigue testing, no newcracking of the diaphragms was detectedfollowing repair of the diaphragms until65,700 total flight cycles. Based on thesedata, the commenter states that aninspection threshold of 20,000 landingsafter installation of a new diaphragm,and a repetitive inspection intervalthereafter of 6,000 landings, would beadequate to ensure that any crackingwould be detected in a timely manner.The commenter further states that suchan inspection threshold and repetitiveinterval will be added to theAirworthiness Limitations specified inChapter 5 of the Jetstream 4100 AirplaneMaintenance Manual (AMM).

The FAA does not concur with thecommenter’s request to remove therequirement for repetitive inspections ofthe diaphragm following replacement.First, the commenter implies that animproved diaphragm is available;however, the FAA is not aware of anysuch improved part. Further, the lack ofspecific data in the service bulletinregarding the repair prevents the FAAfrom determining whether eliminationof the repetitive inspection requirementis warranted. Also, though the FAAacknowledges the manufacturer’s intentto incorporate a program of repetitiveinspections into the AirworthinessLimitations specified in Chapter 5 of theAMM, the FAA would have to engage infurther rulemaking in order to requiresuch an inspection program.

Although the FAA does not concurwith the request to remove the repetitiveinspection requirement followingaccomplishment of a repair, paragraph(b) of this AD contains a provision forrequesting approval of an alternativemethod of compliance to addressoperators’ unique circumstances. Inaccordance with paragraph (b) of thisAD, an operator may submit a repairmethod, along with a proposedrepetitive inspection program or data tosupport elimination of the repetitiveinspection requirement, forconsideration by the FAA. No change tothe final rule is necessary.

ConclusionAfter careful review of the available

data, including the comments noted

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

Interim Action

This is considered to be interimaction until final action is identified, atwhich time the FAA may considerfurther rulemaking.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 55 airplanesof U.S. registry will be affected by thisAD, that it will take approximately 1work hour per airplane to accomplishthe required inspection, and that theaverage labor rate is $60 per work hour.Based on these figures, the cost impactof the AD on U.S. operators is estimatedto be $3,300, or $60 per airplane, perinspection cycle.

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 Impact

The regulations adopted herein willnot have substantial direct effects on theStates, on the relationship between thenational government and the States, oron the distribution of power andresponsibilities among the variouslevels of government. Therefore, 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 Aviation

Administration amends part 39 of theFederal Aviation Regulations (14 CFRpart 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESSDIRECTIVES

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

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

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

adding the following new airworthinessdirective:98–24–01 British Aerospace Regional

Aircraft [Formerly Jetstream AircraftLimited British Aerospace (CommercialAircraft) Limited]: Amendment 39–10888. Docket 97–NM–141–AD.

Applicability: Jetstream Model 4101airplanes, constructors numbers 41004through 41098 inclusive; 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 (b) of this AD.The request should include an assessment ofthe effect of the modification, alteration, orrepair on the unsafe condition addressed bythis AD; and, if the unsafe condition has notbeen eliminated, the request should includespecific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unlessaccomplished previously.

To detect and correct failure of the twodiaphragms that support the upper structureof the forward equipment compartment,which could accelerate fatigue damage inadjacent structure and result in reducedstructural integrity of the airframe,accomplish the following:

(a) Prior to the accumulation of 4,500 totallandings, or within 300 landings after theeffective date of this AD, whichever occurslater: Perform a detailed visual inspection todetect cracking or other damage of thediaphragms installed between station 4 andstation 8 of the forward fuselage, inaccordance with Jetstream Alert ServiceBulletin J41–A53–023, dated December 2,1996.

(1) If no cracking or other damage isdetected, repeat the inspection thereafter atintervals not to exceed 3,000 landings.

(2) If any cracking or other damage isdetected, prior to further flight, repair thediaphragm in accordance with a methodapproved by the Manager, InternationalBranch, ANM–116, FAA, Transport AirplaneDirectorate. Thereafter, repeat the inspectionat intervals not to exceed 3,000 landings.

(b) An alternative method of compliance oradjustment of the compliance time thatprovides an acceptable level of safety may beused if approved by the Manager,


International Branch, ANM–116. Operatorsshall submit their requests through anappropriate FAA Principal MaintenanceInspector, who may add comments and thensend it to the Manager, International Branch,ANM–116.

Note 2: Information concerning theexistence of approved alternative methods ofcompliance with this AD, if any, may beobtained from the International Branch,ANM–116.

(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 inspections shall be done inaccordance with Jetstream Alert ServiceBulletin J41–A53–023, dated December 2,1996. 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 AI(R) American Support, Inc., 13850Mclearen Road, Herndon, Virginia 20171.Copies may be inspected at the FAA,Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 LindAvenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at theOffice of the Federal Register, 800 NorthCapitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington,DC.

Note 3: The subject of this AD is addressedin British airworthiness directive 007–12–96.

(e) This amendment becomes effective onDecember 23, 1998.

Issued in Renton, Washington, onNovember 9, 1998.Darrell M. Pederson,Acting Manager, Transport AirplaneDirectorate, Aircraft Certification Service.[FR Doc. 98–30536 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–13–P



14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 98–AWP–21]

Revision of Class D Airspace; SanDiego-Gillespie Field, CA

AGENCY: Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), DOT.ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation ofeffective date.

SUMMARY: This document confirms theeffective date of a direct final rule whichrevises the Class D airspace area at SanDiego-Gillespie Field, CA by loweringthe ceiling from 2,900 feet Mean SeaLevel (MSL) to 2,400 feet MSL. Theproposed modification of the San Diego,CA, Class B airspace area would createa narrow 300 foot corridor northeast ofGillespie Field. This corridor wouldreduce the available airspace for aircraftthat are approaching or overflying

Gillespie Field from the northeast.Lowering the Gillespie Field Class Dairspace ceiling will create an 800 footcorridor along this same route, therebyincreasing navigable airspace for aircraftoperating under Visual Flight Rules(VFR).

EFFECTIVE DATE: The direct final rulepublished at 63 FR 50140 is effective0901 UTC, December 31, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on thedirect final rule confirmation date intriplicate to: Federal AviationAdministration, Attn: Manager,Airspace Branch, AWP–520, Docket No.98–AWP–21, Air Traffic Division, P.O.Box 92007, Worldway Postal Center, LosAngeles, California 90009.

The official docket may be examinedin the Office of the Assistant ChiefCounsel, Western-Pacific Region,Federal Aviation Administration, Room6007, 15000 Aviation Boulevard,Lawndale, California 90261.

An informal docket may also beexamined during normal business hoursat the Office of the Manager, AirspaceBranch, Air Traffic Division at the aboveaddress.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Debra Trindle, Air Traffic Division,Airspace Specialist, AWP–520.10,Western-Pacific Region, FederalAviation Administration, 15000Aviation Boulevard, Lawndale,California 90261, telephone (310) 725–6613.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OnSeptember 21, 1998, the FAA publishedin the Federal Register a direct finalrule; request for comments, whichrevised the Class D airspace at SanDiego-Gillespie Field, CA by loweringthe ceiling of the Class D from 2,900 feetMean Sea Level (MSL) to 2,400 feetMSL. (FR Document 98–25208, 63 FR50140, Airspace Docket No. 98–AWP–21). 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, were receivedwithin the comment period, theregulation would become effective onDecember 31, 1998. No adversecomments were received; therefore thisdocument confirms that this direct finalrule will become effective on that date.

Issued in Los Angeles, California, onOctober 30, 1998.John G. Clancy,Manager, Air Traffic Division, Western-PacificRegion.[FR Doc. 98–30792 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–13–M



14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 98–AWP–20]

Revision of Class E Airspace, SanDiego, North Island NAS, CA

AGENCY: Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), DOT.ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation ofeffective date.

SUMMARY: This document confirms theeffective date of a direct final rule whichrevises the Class E airspace area at SanDiego North Island NAS, (NZY), CA.DATES: The direct final rule published in63 FR 46166 is effective at 0901 UTC,December 3, 1998.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Debra Trindle, Air Traffic Division,Airspace Specialist, AWP–520.10,Federal Aviation Administration, 15000Aviation Boulevard, Lawndale,California 90261; telephone: (310) 725–6613.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August31, 1998, the FAA published in theFederal Register a direct final rule;request for comments, which revised theClass E airspace area at NZY, CA. (FRDocument 98–23367, 63 FR 46166,Airspace Docket No. 98–AWP–20). TheFAA uses the direct final rulemakingprocedure for a non-controversial rulewhere the FAA believes that there willbe no adverse public comment. Thisdirect final rule advised the public thatno adverse comments were anticipated,and that unless a written adversecomment, or a written notice of intentto submit such an adverse comment,were received within the commentperiod, the regulation would becomeeffective on December 3, 1998. Noadverse comments were received,therefore this document confirms thatthis direct final rule will becomeeffective on that date.

Issued in Los Angeles, California onOctober 27, 1998.John G. Clancy,Manager, Air Traffic Division, Western PacificRegion.[FR Doc. 98–30790 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–13–M


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ANDHUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 10

[Docket No. 98N–0361]

Administrative Practices andProcedures; Internal Review ofDecisions

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

SUMMARY: The Food and DrugAdministration (FDA) is amending theregulations governing the internalreview of agency decisions by insertinga statement that sponsors, applicants, ormanufacturers of drugs (includinghuman drugs, animal drugs, and humanbiologics) or devices may request reviewof a scientific controversy by anappropriate scientific advisory panel, oradvisory committee. This amendmentimplements the ‘‘Dispute Resolution’’provision of the Food and DrugAdministration Modernization Act(FDAMA). This document is intended toclarify that sponsors, applicants, ormanufacturers of drugs, or devices mayrequest review of scientificcontroversies by an appropriatescientific advisory panel or advisorycommittee.EFFECTIVE DATE: December 18, 1998.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For information regarding this finalrule: Suzanne M. O’Shea, Office ofthe Chief Mediator andOmbudsman (HF–7), Food andDrug Administration, 5600 FishersLane, rm. 14–105, Rockville, MD20857, 301–827–3390.

For information about requestingsection 404 of FDAMA (21 U.S.C.360bbb-1) reviews in the Center forBiologics Evaluation and Research:Rebecca A. Devine, AssociateDirector for Policy, Center forBiologics Evaluation and Research(HFM–001), Food and DrugAdministration, 1401 RockvillePike, suite 200 North, Rockville,MD 20852–1448, 301–827–0373, or

For information about requestingsection 404 reviews in the Centerfor Devices and RadiologicalHealth: James G. Norman, SeniorPolicy Analyst-Acting Ombudsman,Center for Devices and RadiologicalHealth (HFZ–001), Food and DrugAdministration, 9200 CorporateBlvd., Rockville, MD 20850, 301–443–4690, or

For information about requestingsection 404 reviews in the Center

for Drug Evaluation and Research:Murray M. Lumpkin, DeputyDirector for Review Management,Center for Drug Evaluation andResearch (HFD–002), Food andDrug Administration, 5600 FishersLane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301–594–5400, or

For information about requestingsection 404 reviews in the Centerfor Veterinary Medicine: Marcia K.Larkins, Ombudsman, Center forVeterinary Medicine (HFV–230),Food and Drug Administration,7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD20855, 301–827–0137.


I. BackgroundOn November 21, 1997, President

Clinton signed into law FDAMA (Pub.L. 105–115). Section 404 of FDAMAamends the Federal Food, Drug, andCosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 301 etseq.) by adding a new provision,Dispute Resolution (section 562 of theact (21 U.S.C. 360bbb-1)). The disputeresolution provision states that:

If, regarding an obligation concerningdrugs or devices under this Act or section351 of the Public Health Service Act, thereis a scientific controversy between theSecretary and a person who is a sponsor,applicant, or manufacturer and no specificprovision of the Act involved, including aregulation promulgated under such Act,provides a right of review of the matter incontroversy, the Secretary shall, byregulation, establish a procedure underwhich such sponsor, applicant, ormanufacturer may request a review of suchcontroversy, including a review by anappropriate scientific advisory paneldescribed in section 505(n) or an advisorycommittee described in section 515(g)(2)(B).Any such review shall take place in a timelymanner. The Secretary shall promulgate suchregulations within 1 year after the date of theenactment of the Food and DrugAdministration Modernization Act of 1997.

Section 404 of FDAMA requires FDAto create a procedure to resolvescientific controversies if no othermechanism for resolving the dispute iscontained in the act or regulationsissued under the act. The act and agencyregulations currently set forth manyvaried processes that regulated industrymay use to resolve disputes undercertain specified circumstances. Inaddition to these specific processes,§ 10.75 (21 CFR 10.75) provides that anyinterested person may obtain review ofany agency decision by raising thematter with the supervisor of theemployee who made the decision. If theissue is not resolved at the supervisor’slevel, the interested person may requestthat the matter be reviewed at the nexthigher supervisory level. This processmay continue through the agency’s

entire supervisory chain of commandthrough the Centers to the DeputyCommissioner for Operations, and thento the Commissioner of Food and Drugs(the Commissioner).

FDA’s formal processes aresupplemented by several ombudsmanoffices to facilitate the resolution ofdisputes informally. The Office of theChief Mediator and Ombudsman hasbeen established within theCommissioner’s Office to resolveintercenter disputes, disputes that havegone through the Center Directors butare still at issue, or other disputes wherethe complainant has concerns aboutraising the issue with a Center. SeveralFDA Centers have established CenterOmbudsman’s offices to resolvedisputes most appropriately handled atthe Center level. For further informationabout any FDA ombudsman office,contact the information contact personslisted previously.

In the Federal Register of June 16,1998 (63 FR 32733 and 32772), FDApublished a direct final rule and acompanion proposed rule amending§ 10.75 to add another method ofresolving scientific controversies inlight of section 404 of FDAMA. Thisamendment stated that sponsors,applicants, or manufacturers of drugs(including human drugs, animal drugs,and human biologics), or devices mayrequest review of scientificcontroversies by an appropriatescientific advisory panel or advisorycommittee. (Hereafter in this document,the term advisory committee includesscientific advisory panels.) By thisamendment, FDA clarified thatsponsors, applicants, and manufacturersof drugs, biologics, and devices are notlimited solely to requesting internalsupervisory review, but also have theright to request review of scientificcontroversies by appropriate advisorycommittees. FDA believes that inappropriate circumstances, advisorycommittees can provide the agency withuseful insight and advice about theresolution of scientific controversies.

FDA initially used the direct final ruleapproach to rulemaking because itbelieved the amendment to § 10.75 wasnoncontroversial and in accord withFDAMA. In accordance with FDA’sprocedures for direct final rulemaking,the direct final rule stated that if FDAreceived no significant adversecomments, the direct final rule wouldgo into effect on October 29, 1998. Thedirect final rule stated further that ifFDA received any significant adversecomments, it would withdraw the directfinal rule and consider all commentsreceived on the companion proposedrule in the development of a final rule


using the usual notice and commentrulemaking procedures. The commentperiod for the companion proposed ruleended on August 31, 1998. FDAreceived significant adverse commentsin response to the direct final rule andthe companion proposed rule.Therefore, in the Federal Register ofSeptember 23, 1998 (63 FR 50757), FDAwithdrew the direct final rule.

The essence of the significant adversecomments was that the amendment to§ 10.75 failed to provide a procedurethat sponsors, applicants, andmanufacturers could follow to requestsection 404 reviews. The commentssuggested that the regulation called forby section 404 of FDAMA containinformation such as the process forselecting members of an advisorycommittee convened to conduct asection 404 review, the timeframes forconducting the reviews, the standardsfor granting or denying a section 404review, and the weight to be given toadvisory committee recommendations.

FDA acknowledges the usefulness ofmuch of this kind of information, butconcludes that it should not be includedin § 10.75. Because of the significantdifferences among FDA Centers inapplicable laws, existing appeal anddispute resolution mechanisms, andapproaches to advisory committeemanagement, FDA is adopting a Center-based approach to the implementationof section 404 of FDAMA. Each affectedCenter is responsible for developing andadministering its own processes forhandling requests for section 404reviews and is issuing a guidancedocument containing specificinformation of the type suggested by thecomments. The substantive differencesin the programs in the affected Centers,and the different matters that could bethe subject of a request for advisorycommittee review, preclude inclusion ofthis type of information in § 10.75.

In this final rule, information that isapplicable to all requests for section 404review has been added to the languageamending § 10.75. It is expected thatCenters will fully evaluate each requestfor section 404 review, and will notunreasonably deny a sponsor, applicant,or manufacturer such review. Theamendment to § 10.75 now providesthat if a Center denies a request forsection 404 review, the reason(s) forsuch denial will be set forth in writingto the requester. A Center’s decision todeny section 404 review may bereviewed through the agency’ssupervisory chain of command, to theDeputy Commissioner for Operations,then to the Commissioner. Personsshould ordinarily exhaust Centermechanisms for appealing denials of

section 404 review before seekingreview by the Deputy Commissioner.Denial of a request for section 404review is not final agency action subjectto judicial review.

Section 10.75 provides that requestsfor reviews of Center denials besubmitted to the Chief Mediator andOmbudsman who shall, by informalmeans, facilitate the review of the denialon behalf of the Deputy Commissionerfor Operations. The role of the ChiefMediator and Ombudsman in the reviewof a Center’s denial of a request forsection 404 review is to ensure that allappropriate means of informallyresolving the dispute have been usedbefore review by the DeputyCommissioner. The Chief Mediator andOmbudsman will not make anindependent determination of whether asection 404 review should be granted,but will work informally with theCenter and the person denied section404 review, to develop a mutuallyacceptable approach, taking intoaccount all relevant factors.

II. Response to CommentsFDA received five comments on the

proposed rule; two from tradeassociations, one from a privatecompany, one from a university medicalclinic, and one from an FDA employee.

1. One comment objected to FDA’sconclusion that it was required to issuea regulation establishing a procedure forrequesting review of scientificcontroversies only if procedures torequest review of scientificcontroversies do not otherwise exist.According to the comment, section 404of FDAMA requires FDA to establish aprocedure to be used when there are noother specific provisions for requestingreview of the particular type ofscientific controversy at issue.

FDA disagrees with thisinterpretation. Section 404 of FDAMAstates ‘‘If * * * there is a scientificcontroversy * * * and no specificprovision of the Act * * * includinga regulation * * * provides a right ofreview of the matter in controversy, theSecretary shall, by regulation, establisha procedure * * *.’’ The plainlanguage of section 404 of FDAMA isthat FDA must establish a procedure ifscientific controversies could arise forwhich the act or regulations currentlyprovide no right of review. In light of§ 10.75, which permits any interestedperson to obtain review of any FDAdecision, FDA concludes that noadditional procedure is required.

However, as explained in theproposed rule, notwithstanding theexistence of this universal disputeresolution provision, FDA recognizes

that in appropriate circumstances,review by an advisory committee canprovide the agency with useful insightand advice about the resolution of ascientific controversy. For this reason,FDA is amending § 10.75 to indicatethat sponsors, applicants, ormanufacturers seeking review ofscientific controversies are not limitedto internal supervisory review, but mayalso request review by an advisorycommittee.

2. One comment asserted thatCongress’ intent in enacting section 404of FDAMA was to provide a procedurefor resolving disputes by expertcommittees who are not part of FDA’snormal administrative processes. Thecomment also suggested that theprocedure should solicit nominees fromthe public and FDA for inclusion on anadvisory committee roster. According tothe comment, the procedure shouldrequire prompt conflict of interestchecks and periodic updates, in order toassure the timely disposition ofcontroversies. In order to simplify thecreation of a panel as much as possible,the comment suggested that the numberof persons participating on each panelshould be limited to three.

FDA disagrees with this comment.The comment did not identify anyspecific language in section 404 ofFDAMA suggesting that a proceduremust be developed to use committeesoutside FDA’s normal advisorycommittee processes. In fact, section404 of FDAMA suggests the opposite, byits references to sections 505(n) and515(g)(2)(B) of the act (21 U.S.C. 355(n)and 360e(g)(2)(B)), the statutoryprovisions covering FDA’s existing drugand device advisory committees.

As noted previously, FDAimplementation of section 404 ofFDAMA is Center-based. The Centers’existing advisory committee structuresand processes for managing advisorycommittees provide significantflexibility. Each Center may tailor itscurrent processes as necessary to ensurethat section 404 reviews are conductedin a timely way by persons withappropriate qualifications.

3. Two comments suggested specifictimeframes for conducting section 404reviews, and a third comment requestedadditional information about thetimeframe for section 404 review. Onesuggested timeframe would require thata committee be constituted within 10days of a written request for review, andthe request be immediately forwarded tothe committee. Also within 10 days ofthe request, FDA would be required tostate its agreement with or opposition tothe substantive points in the request,and forward its response to the


committee. Within 20 days of thecommittee’s receipt of FDA’s response,a 21 CFR part 14 informal hearingwould be convened, unless the partiesagree to have the committee decide onthe papers. If a hearing occurs, thecommittee would provide its writtendecision to the parties within 20 daysafter the end of the hearing. If there isno hearing, the committee’s decisionwould be required no later than 20 daysafter the committee receives FDA’sresponse to the request for review.

The second suggested timeframewould require FDA to respond torequests for section 404 review within30 days. When review is granted, theissue would be presented to thecommittee within 60 days. FDA wouldbe required to resolve the matter within90 days of receiving the advisorycommittee’s conclusions andrecommendations.

FDA recognizes that section 404 ofFDAMA requires that reviews take placein a timely manner, but concludes thatspecific timeframes should not beincluded in a regulation of generalapplicability. For example, the secondsuggested timeframe outlinedpreviously appears to be based on thetimeframes established in section 120 ofFDAMA and performance goalsassociated with the reauthorization ofthe Prescription Drug User Fee Act (21U.S.C. 379g et seq.), both of which applyonly to human drugs and biologics. Itwould be inappropriate to developgeneral timeframes based onrequirements and commitments that donot apply to all affected FDA Centers.Each Center’s section 404 processesincorporate timeframes as appropriate,taking into account applicable statutoryand regulatory provisions, existingappeal and dispute resolutionmechanisms, and approaches toadvisory committee management.

4. One comment suggested thatrepresentatives of the Office of the ChiefMediator and Ombudsman serve asexecutive secretaries of advisorycommittees convened to conductsection 404 reviews.

FDA disagrees with this suggestion.The efficiency of the Center-basedapproach to implementation of section404 of FDAMA could be diminished byappointment of an executive secretarywho is not an employee of the Center.Efficiency will be best promoted byusing executive secretaries who are fullyfamiliar with the advisory committeeprocedures. Center employees are mostlikely to have that expertise. The staffwithin the Office of the Chief Mediatorand Ombudsman will continue to serveas an additional informal dispute

resolution resource apart from theCenters.

5. A comment suggested that theadvisory committee’s conclusionsshould be accepted as binding unlessFDA determines that the weight ofrecord evidence does not support thedecision, that the committee appliedincorrect legal standards or that thecommittee otherwise actedinconsistently with the law.

FDA rejects this comment. Nothing inthe language of section 404 of FDAMA,section 505(n) of the act, or section515(g)(2)(B) of the act suggests that itwould be appropriate to treat advisorycommittee recommendations as binding.Section 505(n) of the act contemplatesconvening advisory committees toprovide ‘‘expert scientific advice andrecommendations * * *.’’ When FDAreceives a recommendation from anadvisory committee convened undersection 515(g)(2)(B) of the act, theagency is to affirm or reverse the orderreferred to the committee and state thereasons therefore. FDA accords therecommendations of all advisorycommittees significant weight, butbelieves it would be an unauthorizeddelegation of FDA authority to treatadvisory committee recommendationsas binding. FDA action on section 404advisory committee recommendations isnot final agency action subject tojudicial review, unless otherwiserequired by law.

6. A comment suggested that FDAmust grant advisory committee reviewunless the committee itself declines toreview the issue. Another commentseemed to assume that all requests forsection 404 reviews will be granted.

FDA disagrees with these comments.The plain language of section 404 ofFDAMA provides sponsors, applicants,and manufacturers only the right torequest review of a scientificcontroversy by an advisory committee.FDA believes that the agency, not aparticular advisory committee, is in thebest position to evaluate whetherindividual requests for section 404review present appropriate issues to beraised before an advisory committee.

Furthermore, although FDA endorsessection 404’s goal of facilitating theresolution of disputes by expandingaccess to the independent experts whoserve on advisory committees, itconcludes that § 10.75 should includeonly those aspects of the process forobtaining section 404 reviews that areapplicable to all affected Centers.Therefore, § 10.75 includes a generalmandate that requests for section 404reviews shall not be unreasonablydenied, and provides information about

the process to be followed if requests aredenied.

To implement the rule’s overallmandate that requests for section 404reviews shall not be unreasonablydenied, the Center guidance documentsprovide information about granting ordenying requests. Although Centersdiffer with respect to applicable laws,existing appeal and dispute resolutionmechanisms, and approaches toadvisory committee management, thereare some situations in which all Centerswould be likely to conclude that asection 404 review would not beappropriate. For example, the nature ofthe dispute may not be amenable toadvisory committee review, thecontroversy might be more quickly andeasily resolved in some other manner, orthe issue may not be material to FDA’sultimate decision. Additionally, asection 404 review would beappropriate only if the matter relates toagency action on the requestingsponsor’s own product. For example, asection 404 review would not beappropriate if it were requested for anti-competitive purposes, such as toprolong the review of a competitor’sproduct. Furthermore, some issues arereviewed by advisory committees underregulatory processes that alreadyprovide for advisory committee review,and so section 404 review may beinappropriate given the preceding, orsubsequent, regulatory processes.

7. A comment suggested that the term‘‘scientific controversy’’ be defined as‘‘one involving issues related to mattersof technical expertise requiring somespecialized education, training, orexperience to understand and resolve.’’

FDA concludes that a definition ofscientific controversy is not necessary in§ 10.75. The Center guidance documentsmay define a scientific controversy ifthe Centers conclude that a definitionwould be useful to its specificprocesses.

8. A comment suggested that § 10.75outline the steps an applicant, sponsor,or manufacturer must take to request asection 404 review. Another commentalso requested information about howthe review will take place and thegeneral content and required number ofcopies of requests.

FDA concludes that this informationshould not be included in § 10.75.Under the Center-based approach FDAhas selected to implement section 404 ofFDAMA, each Center is providinginformation about the steps anapplicant, sponsor, or manufacturermust take to request a section 404review in guidance documents. TheCenters’ processes are tailored to takeinto account their applicable statutory


and regulatory provisions, existingappeal and dispute resolutionmechanisms, and approaches toadvisory committee management. Itwould not be feasible to incorporate allthese particulars in one regulation ofgeneral applicability.

9. One of the comments interpretedthe proposed amendment to § 10.75 torequire applicants, sponsors, andmanufacturers to seek review throughthe supervisory chain before submittinga request for a section 404 review.

FDA concludes that this issue is mostappropriately addressed in Center-guidance documents rather than § 10.75.The points at which it is appropriate torequest a section 404 review will varydepending on the scientific issuepresented, the regulatory mechanisminvolved, and the relevant Center’sorganizational structure. Both theapplicant, sponsor, or manufacturer andthe agency have an interest in resolvingscientific controversies at the earliestappropriate time.

10. Two comments suggested thatpersons other than sponsors,manufacturers, and applicants be giventhe right to request a review of ascientific controversy under section 404of FDAMA. According to one comment,physicians, pharmacists, and/or theirprofessional organizations should bepermitted to request section 404reviews. The comment identifiedcompounding and unlabeled indicationsas potential sources of scientificcontroversy that might benefit fromreview under section 404 of FDAMA.The other comment requested that FDAemployees be permitted to requestreview of disputes by advisorycommittees. According to this comment,advisory committee reviews wouldenable FDA to resolve issues withgreater public input and on a moretimely basis.

FDA disagrees with the suggestionsthat persons other than sponsors,manufacturers, and applicants be giventhe right to request a review of ascientific controversy under section 404of FDAMA. By limiting the right torequest a section 404 review tosponsors, applicants, andmanufacturers, Congress indicated thekind of scientific controversies it had inmind: Those arising within the contextof FDA’s regulation of a specificproduct. Thus, a section 404 reviewwould not be available to resolve broadpublic health controversies unrelated tothe regulation of a specific product, orto resolve FDA’s policy issues. Theagency will continue to use 21 CFR part15 hearings, public meetings, andadvisory committee meetings to help

resolve general scientific and policyissues.

Moreover, FDA regulations providepersons other than sponsors, applicants,and manufacturers other processes forseeking review of FDA decisions.Citizen petitions may be submitted byany person. A citizen petition mayrequest the Commissioner to issue,amend, or revoke any regulation ororder, or to take or refrain from takingany other form of administrative action.(See 21 CFR 10.30.) Any person mayrequest reconsideration of part or all ofa decision made by the Commissioner inresponse to any type of administrativepetition. (See 21 CFR 10.33 and 10.25.)Finally, as noted in the proposed rule,any person may request review of anydecision made by an FDA employee,other than the Commissioner, on anymatter. (See § 10.75.)

11. Two comments expressed concernthat FDA could retaliate against personswho request section 404 reviews, andfor this reason suggested that persons bepermitted to request section 404 reviewson behalf of sponsors, manufacturersand applicants, or that persons bepermitted to request section 404 reviewsanonymously.

Although FDA takes concerns aboutretaliation very seriously, it disagreeswith the comment because, as explainedin the previous response, the comments’proposed changes have the potential tosignificantly change the kinds ofcontroversies reviewed under section404.

FDA reiterates and reaffirms itscommitment to an environment inwhich challenges to agency decisionscan be raised without fear of adverseconsequences. By memo dated June 29,1995, Commissioner Kessler remindedall FDA employees that companies arefree to vigorously challenge agencypositions and requirements, and tofreely voice their views. By letter of thesame date, Commissioner Kesslerassured members of Congress that anyact or threat of retaliation by any FDAemployee is totally unacceptable andwill not be tolerated. Anyone whobelieves retaliation has occurred, or islikely to occur, is urged to contact theCenter Ombudsmen, CenterManagement, or the Office of the ChiefMediator and Ombudsman. If merited,specific allegations of retaliation will beforwarded to FDA’s Office of InternalAffairs which investigates allegations ofemployee misconduct in cooperationwith the Department’s InspectorGeneral’s Office. FDA believes that itsemployees are highly sensitive to theneed to avoid even the appearance ofimpropriety, and strive to makecomplex clinical, scientific, legal, and

factual decisions fairly and even-handedly. Accordingly, FDA believesthat sponsors, manufacturers, andapplicants will not be dissuaded fromrequesting review of issues undersection 404 of FDAMA.

III. Agency GuidanceAs explained previously, each FDA

Center is providing detailed informationin guidance documents about theimplementation of section 404 ofFDAMA. For further information, seethe FOR FURTHER INFORMATIONCONTACT section of this document.

IV. Environmental ImpactThe agency has determined under 21

CFR 25.30(h) that this action is of a typethat does not individually orcumulatively have a significant effect onthe human environment. Therefore,neither an environmental assessmentnor an environmental impact statementis required.

V. Analysis of ImpactsFDA has examined the impacts of the

final rule under Executive Order 12866and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5U.S.C. 601–612) (as amended by subtitleD of the Small Business RegulatoryFairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121))and the Unfunded Mandate Reform Actof 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). Executive Order12866 directs agencies to assess all costsand benefits of available regulatoryalternatives and, when regulation isnecessary, to select regulatoryapproaches that maximize net benefits(including potential economic,environmental, public health and safety,and other advantages; distributiveimpacts; and equity). The agencybelieves that this final rule is consistentwith the regulatory philosophy andprinciples identified in the ExecutiveOrder. In addition, the final rule is nota significant regulatory action as definedby the Executive Order and so is notsubject to review under the ExecutiveOrder.

The Regulatory Flexibility Actrequires agencies to analyze regulatoryoptions that would minimize anysignificant impact of a rule on smallentities. Because this rule does notimpose any requirements on theregulated industry, the agency certifiesthat the final rule will not have asignificant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entities.Therefore, under the RegulatoryFlexibility Act, no further analysis isrequired.

VI. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995The final rule contains no new

collections of information. Therefore,


clearance by the Office of Managementand Budget under the PaperworkReduction Act of 1995 is not required.


Administrative practice andprocedure, News media.

Therefore, under the Federal Food,Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the PublicHealth Service Act, and authoritydelegated to the Commissioner of Foodand Drugs, 21 CFR part 10 is amendedas follows:

PART 10—ADMINISTRATIVEPRACTICES AND PROCEDURES

1. The authority citation for 21 CFRpart 10 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 551–558, 701–706; 15U.S.C. 1451–1461; 21 U.S.C. 141–149, 321–397, 467f, 679, 821, 1034; 28 U.S.C. 2112; 42U.S.C. 201, 262, 263b, 264.

2. Section 10.75 is amended byredesignating paragraph (b) as paragraph(b)(1) and by adding paragraph (b)(2) toread as follows:

§ 10.75 Internal agency review ofdecisions.

* * * * *(b)(1) * * *(2) A sponsor, applicant, or

manufacturer of a drug or deviceregulated under the act or the PublicHealth Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262), mayrequest review of a scientificcontroversy by an appropriate scientificadvisory panel as described in section505(n) of the act, or an advisorycommittee as described in section515(g)(2)(B) of the act. The reason(s) forany denial of a request for such reviewshall be briefly set forth in writing to therequester. Persons who receive a Centerdenial of their request under this sectionmay submit a request for review of thedenial. The request should be sent to theChief Mediator and Ombudsman.


William B. Schultz,Deputy Commissioner for Policy.[FR Doc. 98–30812 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160–01–F



21 CFR Part 101


RIN 0910–AA43

Food Labeling: Warning and NoticeStatement: Labeling of Juice Products;Correction

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

SUMMARY: The Food and DrugAdministration is correcting a final rulethat appeared in the Federal Register ofJuly 8, 1998 (63 FR 37030). The finalrule revised the food labelingregulations to require a warningstatement on fruit and vegetable juiceproducts that have not been processedto prevent, reduce, or eliminatepathogenic microorganisms that may bepresent. The document was publishedwith several inadvertent editorial errors.This document corrects those errors.DATES: The regulation is effectiveSeptember 8, 1998; however,compliance for juice other than applejuice and apple cider is not requireduntil November 5, 1998.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Geraldine A. June, Center for FoodSafety and Applied Nutrition (HFS–158), Food and Drug Administration,200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204,202–205–5099.

In FR Doc. No. 98–18287, appearingin the Federal Register of Wednesday,July 8, 1998, the following correctionsare made:

1. On page 37038, in the thirdcolumn, in the fourth full paragraph, inthe sixth line, ‘‘(Ref. 9)’’ is corrected toread ‘‘(Ref. 7)’’.

2. On page 37040, in the first column,in the last line of the first full paragraph,‘‘(Ref. 10)’’ is corrected to read ‘‘(Ref.8)’’.

3. On page 37040, in the thirdcolumn, in the second full paragraph, inthe eleventh line, ‘‘(Ref. 11)’’ iscorrected to read ‘‘(Ref. 9)’’ and in thatsame paragraph, in the fifteenth andeighteenth lines, ‘‘(Ref. 12)’’ is correctedto read ‘‘(Ref. 10)’’.

5. On page 37041, in the last line ofthe third column, ‘‘(Ref. 13)’’ iscorrected to read ‘‘(Ref. 11)’’.

6. On page 37044, in the thirdcolumn, in the fourth paragraph, in thetwenty-fifth line, ‘‘(Ref. 14)’’ is correctedto read ‘‘(Ref. 12)’’.

7. On page 37047, in the secondcolumn, in the second full paragraph, inthe twentieth line, ‘‘(Ref. 15)’’ iscorrected to read ‘‘(Ref. 13)’’.

§ 101.17 [Corrected]8. On page 37056, in the third

column, in § 101.17(g)(7)(i)(B),beginning in the fourth line, ‘‘HazardAnalysis Critical Control Points’’ iscorrected to read ‘‘Hazard Analysis andCritical Control Point’’.

Dated: November 10, 1998.William K. Hubbard,Associate Commissioner for PolicyCoordination.[FR Doc. 98–30814 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4160–01–F



21 CFR Part 520

Oral Dosage Form New Animal Drugs;Fenbendazole Suspension; TechnicalAmendment

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

SUMMARY: The Food and DrugAdministration (FDA) is amending theanimal drug regulation concerningveterinary prescription use of HoechstRoussel Vet’s fenbendazole suspensionfor cattle. The amendment clarifies theoral dose of fenbendazole suspensionused as a dewormer in cattle.EFFECTIVE DATE: November 18, 1998.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Estella Z. Jones, Center for VeterinaryMedicine (HFV–135), Food and DrugAdministration, 7500 Standish Pl.,Rockville, MD 20855, 301–827–7575.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: HoechstRoussel Vet, 30 Independence Blvd.,P.O. Box 4915, Warren, NJ 07059, issponsor of new animal drug application(NADA) 128–620 that provides for oral,veterinary prescription use of Panacur(fenbendazole) 10 percent suspension.The drug is used as a dewormer incattle, including dairy cattle of breedingage at 5 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)of body weight, and only in beef cattleat 10 mg/kg of body weight. Theregulations are amended in 21 CFR520.905a to clarify the approval.

The amendments clarify the drug doseused to treat various classes of animalsand insert certain technical revisions.No additional safety or effectivenessdata were required. A revised freedom


of information summary is provided toreflect the clarification.


Animal drugs.Therefore, under the Federal Food,

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

PART 520—ORAL DOSAGE FORMNEW ANIMAL DRUGS

The authority citation for 21 CFR part520 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b.2. Section 520.905a is amended by

removing paragraph (a); byredesignating paragraphs (b) and (c) asparagraphs (a) and (b); by addingparagraph (c); by revising the heading ofparagraph (d)(2); by redesignatingparagraph (d)(3) as paragraph (d)(4); byredesignating paragraphs (d)(2)(ii),(d)(2)(ii)(A), and (d)(2)(ii)(B) asparagraphs (d)(3)(i), (d)(3)(ii), and(d)(3)(iii); by adding a heading for newlyredesignated paragraph (d)(3); byredesignating paragraphs (d)(2)(i)(A)and (d)(2)(i)(B) as paragraphs (d)(2)(ii)and (d)(2)(iii) to read as follows:

§ 520.905a Fenbendazole suspension.

* * * * *(c) Related tolerances. See § 556.275

of this chapter.(d) * * *(2) Cattle including dairy cows of

breeding age—* * ** * * * *

(3) Beef cattle—* * ** * * * *

Dated: November 9, 1998.Andrew J. Beaulieu,Acting Director, Office of New Animal DrugEvaluation, Center for Veterinary Medicine.[FR Doc. 98–30750 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4160–01–F



21 CFR Part 806


Medical Devices: Reports ofCorrections and Removals; Delay ofEffective Date

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration,HHS.ACTION: Direct final rule; delay ofeffective date.

SUMMARY: The Food and DrugAdministration (FDA) published in theFederal Register of August 7, 1998 (63FR 42229), a direct final rule. The directfinal rule notified the public of FDA’sintention to amend the regulations thatgovern reports of corrections andremovals of medical devices toeliminate the requirement fordistributors to make such reports. Thisdocument delays the effective date ofthe direct final rule.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of thedirect final published at 63 FR 42229rule is delayed until February 22, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RosaM. Gilmore, Center for Devices andRadiological Health (HFZ–215), Foodand Drug Administration, 1350 PiccardDr., Rockville, MD 20857, 301–827–2970.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDAsolicited comments concerning thedirect final rule for a 75-day periodending October 21, 1998. FDA statedthat the effective date of the direct finalrule would be on December 21, 1998, 60days after the end of the commentperiod, unless any significant adversecomment was submitted to FDA duringthe comment period. FDA did notreceive any significant adversecomment.

However, FDA has not yet receivedapproval under the PaperworkReduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520) of the information collectionrequirements in this rule. Therefore,FDA is revising the effective date of thisrule to February 22, 1999. By that date,FDA expects to have received clearancefrom the Office of Management andBudget (OMB) for the informationcollection requirements in the rule. Thisdocument delays the effective date ofthe direct final rule.

Therefore, under the Federal Food,Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and underauthority delegated to the Commissionerof Food and Drugs, notice is given thatno objections or requests for a hearingwere filed in response to the August 7,1998, final rule. Accordingly, theamendments issued thereby are effectiveFebruary 22, 1999.


William K. Hubbard,Associate Commissioner for PolicyCoordination.[FR Doc. 98–30876 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[AK 15–1703a; FRL–6188–7]

Approval and Promulgation of StateImplementation Plans; Alaska

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency.ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) is approving in part anddisapproving in part portions of therevisions to the State of AlaskaImplementation Plan which weresubmitted to EPA by the Director of theAlaska Department of EnvironmentalConservation (ADEC) on January 8, 1997and March 17, 1998. These revisionsconsist of certain changes to the ADECrules for air quality control (18 AAC 50),updated Alaska statutes related to airpollution, and the ‘‘In Situ BurningGuideline for Alaska (revised 5/94).’’These revisions were submitted inaccordance with the requirements ofsection 110 and Part D of the Clean AirAct (hereinafter the Act).DATES: This action is effective onJanuary 19, 1999.ADDRESSES: Copies of the State’s requestand other information supporting thisproposed action are available forinspection during normal businesshours at the following locations: EPA,Office of Air Quality (OAQ–107), 1200Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington98101, and State of Alaska, Departmentof Environmental Conservation, 410Willoughby Avenue, Juneau, Alaska,99801. Documents which areincorporated by reference are availablefor public inspection at the Air andRadiation Docket and InformationCenter, EPA, 401 M Street, SW,Washington, D.C. 20460, as well as theabove addresses.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:David C. Bray, Senior Air PollutionScientist, Office of Air Quality (OAQ–107), EPA, Seattle, Washington, (206)553–4253.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Clean Air Act Amendments of1990, Title V, require States to developoperating permit programs for moststationary sources. While Title Voperating permit programs are notapproved as part of the stateimplementation plan (SIP) undersection 110 of the Act, many provisionsof the SIP will interact closely with theTitle V operating permit program. As


such, many States will be revisingprovisions of their SIPs to facilitate andimprove the relationship between theirSIP and their Title V operating permitprogram. The ADEC amended numerousprovisions of its current rules for airpollution sources and submitted them toEPA on January 8, 1997, and March 17,1998, as revisions to the Alaska SIP.ADEC also submitted updated Alaskastatutes related to air pollution(specifically, the 1993 Alaska Act(Chapter 74 State Legislative Act 1993)),and the ‘‘In Situ Burning Guideline forAlaska (revised 5/94).’’

On August 18, 1998 (63 FR 44208),EPA proposed to approve portions ofthe rules submitted by ADEC, alongwith portions of the updated Alaskastatutes and the ‘‘In Situ BurningGuideline for Alaska (revised 5/94).’’ Inthat proposal, EPA indicated that it wastaking no action at that time on theprovisions relating to the permitting ofstationary sources, including theconstruction of new and modifiedstationary sources, Part D new sourcereview, and prevention of significantdeterioration (PSD) permitting, butwould propose action on thoseprovisions in a separate notice. Inaddition, EPA indicated that it wastaking no action on a number ofprovisions which are unrelated to thepurposes of the implementation plan.See the August 18, 1998 FederalRegister for complete descriptions of theportions of the ADEC submittals whichwere proposed for approval, theportions which will be acted on at alater date, and the portions which willnot be acted upon. The August 18, 1998Federal Register also contains adiscussion of EPA’s review of the ADECsubmittals and its findings with regardto the portions of the submittals whichEPA proposed for approval.

II. Response to CommentsEPA received comments from three

entities on its proposed approval ofportions of the ADEC submittal. Onecommentor (an Alaskan industry)supported EPA’s proposed approval andencouraged EPA to complete its actionon the provisions relating to thepermitting of new and modifiedstationary sources. One commentor (theADEC) supported EPA’s proposedapproval, but pointed out that EPA hadproposed to approve AS 46.14.110(e)and (g), which had been repealed by theAlaska Legislature and was no longer ineffect. EPA agrees with the commentorthat it cannot approve a repealedstatutory provision and is correcting itserror in this final action.

One commentor (representing threeenvironmental organizations) opposed

EPA’s proposed approval of the ADEC’srequest to remove 18 AAC 50.110 ‘‘AirPollution Prohibited’’ from thefederally-approved Alaska SIP. Thecommentor disagreed with EPA’scharacterization of this section as ageneral nuisance provision that is notrelied upon to meet any requirement ofthe Clean Air Act or EPA regulations.The commentor indicated that 18 AAC50.110 in fact provides a mechanism forregulating pollutants that are nototherwise regulated by ambient airquality standards and/or permittingrequirements and equipment-specificstandards, and cited examples of wherethis provision had been used in the pastto regulate sources of criteria pollutants.The commentor also pointed out thatneither ADEC nor EPA had provided anadequate justification for removing thissection from the EPA-approved SIP.

EPA has considered the commentsregarding its proposed approval of theremoval of 18 AAC 50.110 from the SIPand has reevaluated the documentationsubmitted by ADEC in support of itsrequest. In light of the informationprovided by the commentor and the lackof documentation submitted by ADEC,EPA finds the request for removal of 18AAC 50.110 to be unapprovable.Specifically, ADEC has notdemonstrated that the removal of 18AAC 50.110 would comply with therequirements for SIP revisions set forthin sections 110(l) and 193 of the Act.EPA is therefore disapproving the ADECrequest to remove 18 AAC 50.110 fromthe Alaska SIP. Note that EPA is notmaking any determination regardingwhether 18 AAC 50.110 could beremoved from the SIP, but only thatADEC has not submitted the necessarydemonstrations required by the Act andEPA regulations for EPA to approve thisspecific SIP submittal.

III. Final ActionEPA is approving in part and

disapproving in part portions of therules submitted by ADEC, and isapproving portions of the updatedAlaska statutes and the ‘‘In Situ BurningGuideline for Alaska (revised 5/94).’’Specifically, EPA is approving thefollowing provisions of 18 AAC 50 asadopted by ADEC and effective onJanuary 18, 1997: Section 005; Section010, except for subsections (7) and (8);Section 025; Section 030; Section 035;Section 045; Section 050; Section 055,except for paragraph (d)(2)(B) (note thatparagraph (a)(9) was not submitted byADEC); Section 060; Section 065;Section 070; Section 075; Section 200;Section 201; Section 205; Section 220;Section 240; Section 245; Section 400,paragraphs (a), (b)(1), and (c); Section

420; Section 430; Section 900; andSection 990, subsections (2), (3), (4), (5),(6), (8), (9), (10), (11), (14), (15), (16),(17), (19), (20), (23), (24), (25), (26), (29),(31), (32), (33), (34), (35), (37), (39), (40),(42), (43), (45), (47), (48), (50), (51), (53),(58), (59), (60), (61), (62), (63), (65), (66),(67), (69), (70), (71), (72), (74), (75), (78),(79), (80), (81), (83), (84), (85), (86), (89),(90), (91), (92), (93), (94), (95), (96), (97),(99), and (100). (Note that 18 AAC 50,Sections 700 through 735 were alreadyapproved by EPA on September 27,1995 (60 FR 49765).) EPA is alsoapproving the requested revocation of18 AAC 50: Section 010 ‘‘Applicabilityof Local Government Regulations;’’Section 070 ‘‘Motor Vehicle Emissions;’’and Section 900 ‘‘Definitions,’’subsections (19) ‘‘emission allowance,’’(27) ‘‘maximum combustion efficiency,’’(30) ‘‘opacity,’’ (45) ‘‘ug/m3,’’ (46)‘‘regional supervisor,’’ and (48) ‘‘woodsmoke control area.’’ EPA is approvingas federally enforceable provisions ofthe SIP, the following provisions of theAlaska Statutes: AS 46.14.510(b); AS46.14.550; AS 46.14.560; AS46.14.990(1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), (10),(13), (15), (16), (17), (18), (22), (24), and(25); and AS 45.45.400(a) (enacted1993). Finally, EPA is approving the ‘‘InSitu Burning Guidelines for Alaska(revised 5/94).’’

EPA is disapproving the ADECrequest to remove 18 AAC 50.110 ‘‘AirPollution Prohibited’’ (effective 5/26/72)from the EPA-approved SIP.

EPA is taking no action at this time onthe following provisions of 18 AAC 50which relate to the permitting of newand modified stationary sources:Section 015; Section 020; Section 100;Section 210; Section 215; Section 225;Section 230; Section 250; Section 300;Section 305; Section 310; Section 315;Section 320; Section 400, paragraphs(b)(2) through (b)(5); Section 910; andSection 990, subsections (1), (7), (13),(21), (22), (27), (28), (30), (36), (38), (41),(44), (46), (49), (52), (54), (55), (56), (57),(64), (68), (73), (76), (77), (82), and (98).Additionally, EPA is taking no action atthis time on the revocation of Section520 ‘‘Emission and AmbientMonitoring’’ (effective 7/21/91) andSection 900 ‘‘Definitions,’’ subsections(52) and (54) (effective 4/23/94). Finally,EPA is taking no action at this time onthe following provisions of the AlaskaStatutes which relate to the permittingof new and modified stationary sources:AS 46.14.120(a); AS 46.14.130(a); AS46.14.240(a); AS 46.14.250(a); and AS46.14.990(4), (5), (9), (11), (12), (14),(19), (20), (21), and (23) (enacted 1993).

EPA is taking no action on thefollowing provisions of 18 AAC 50which do not relate to the purposes of


the SIP under section 110 of the Act, orwhich implement other provisions ofthe Clean Air Act (e.g., NSPS, NESHAP,Title V): Section 010, subsections (7)and (8); Section 040; Section 055,paragraph (d)(2)(B); Section 080; Section235; Section 300, paragraphs (f) and(h)(10); Section 310, paragraph (h);Section 315, paragraph (e)(6); Section322; Sections 325 through 380; Section400, paragraphs (b)(6) through (b)(10);Section 410; and Section 990,subsections (12), (18), (87), and (88) .

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866 and 13045

The Office of Management and Budget(OMB) has exempted this regulatoryaction from review under E.O. 12866,entitled, ‘‘Regulatory Planning andReview’’ review.

The final rule is not subject to E.O.13045, entitled, ‘‘Protection of Childrenfrom Environmental Health Risks andSafety Risks’’ because it is not an‘‘economically significant’’ action underE.O. 12866.

B. Executive Order 12875: Enhancingthe Intergovernmental Partnership

Under Executive Order 12875, EPAmay not issue a regulation that is notrequired by statute and that creates amandate upon a State, local or tribalgovernment, unless the Federalgovernment provides the fundsnecessary to pay the direct compliancecosts incurred by those governments, orEPA consults with those governments. IfEPA complies by consulting, ExecutiveOrder 12875 requires EPA to provide tothe Office of Management and Budget adescription of the extent of EPA’s priorconsultation with representatives ofaffected State, local and tribalgovernments, the nature of theirconcerns, copies of any writtencommunications from the governments,and a statement supporting the need toissue the regulation. In addition,Executive Order 12875 requires EPA todevelop an effective process permittingelected officials and otherrepresentatives of State, local and tribalgovernments ‘‘to provide meaningfuland timely input in the development ofregulatory proposals containingsignificant unfunded mandates.’’

Today’s rule does not create amandate on state, local or tribalgovernments. The rule does not imposeany enforceable duties on these entities.Accordingly, the requirements ofsection 1(a) of E.O. 12875 do not applyto this rule.

C. Executive Order 13084: Consultationand Coordination With Indian TribalGovernments

Under Executive Order 13084, EPAmay not issue a regulation that is notrequired by statute, that significantly oruniquely affects the communities ofIndian tribal governments, and thatimposes substantial direct compliancecosts on those communities, unless theFederal government provides the fundsnecessary to pay the direct compliancecosts incurred by the tribalgovernments, or EPA consults withthose governments. If EPA complies byconsulting, Executive Order 13084requires EPA to provide to the Office ofManagement and Budget, in a separatelyidentified section of the preamble to therule, a description of the extent of EPA’sprior consultation with representativesof affected tribal governments, asummary of the nature of their concerns,and a statement supporting the need toissue the regulation. In addition,Executive Order 13084 requires EPA todevelop an effective process permittingelected officials and otherrepresentatives of Indian tribalgovernments ‘‘to provide meaningfuland timely input in the development ofregulatory policies on matters thatsignificantly or uniquely affect theircommunities.’’

Today’s rule does not significantly oruniquely affect the communities ofIndian tribal governments. Accordingly,the requirements of section 3(b) of E.O.13084 do not apply to this rule.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must preparea regulatory flexibility analysisassessing the impact of any proposed orfinal rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certifythat the rule will not have a significantimpact on a substantial number of smallentities. Small entities include smallbusinesses, small not-for-profitenterprises, and government entitieswith jurisdiction over populations ofless than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 andsubchapter I, part D, of the Clean AirAct do not create any new requirementsbut simply approve requirements thatthe State is already imposing. Therefore,because the Federal SIP approval doesnot impose any new requirements, theAdministrator certifies that it does nothave a significant impact on any smallentities affected. Moreover, due to thenature of the Federal-State relationshipunder the CAA, preparation of aflexibility analysis would constituteFederal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of State action. TheClean Air Act forbids EPA to base itsactions concerning SIPs on suchgrounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA,427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.7410(a)(2).

EPA’s disapproval of a portion of theState request under Section 110 andsubchapter I, part D of the CAA does notaffect any existing requirementsapplicable to small entities. Any pre-existing federal requirements remain inplace after this disapproval. Federaldisapproval of the state submittal doesnot affect its state-enforceability.Moreover, EPA’s disapproval of thesubmittal does not impose any newFederal requirements. Therefore, EPAcertifies that this disapproval actiondoes not have a significant impact on asubstantial number of small entitiesbecause it does not remove existingrequirements and impose any newFederal requirements.

E. Unfunded MandatesUnder Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signedinto law on March 22, 1995, EPA mustprepare a budgetary impact statement toaccompany any proposed or final rulethat includes a Federal mandate thatmay result in estimated costs to State,local, or tribal governments in theaggregate, or to the private sector, of$100 million or more. Under Section205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least burdensomealternative that achieves the objectivesof the rule and is consistent withstatutory requirements. Section 203requires EPA to establish a plan forinforming and advising any smallgovernments that may be significantlyor uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approvalaction promulgated does not include aFederal mandate that may result inestimated costs of $100 million or moreto either State, local, or tribalgovernments in the aggregate, or to theprivate sector. This Federal actionapproves pre-existing requirementsunder State or local law, and imposesno new requirements. Accordingly, noadditional costs to State, local, or tribalgovernments, or to the private sector,result from this action.

F. Submission to Congress and theComptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5U.S.C. § 801 et seq., as added by theSmall Business Regulatory EnforcementFairness Act of 1996, generally providesthat before a rule may take effect, theagency promulgating the rule mustsubmit a rule report, which includes a


copy of the rule, to each House of theCongress and to the Comptroller Generalof the United States. EPA will submit areport containing this rule and otherrequired information to the U.S. Senate,the U.S. House of Representatives, andthe Comptroller General of the UnitedStates prior to publication of the rule inthe Federal Register. This rule is not amajor rule as defined by 5 U.S.C.§ 804(2).

G. Petitions for Judicial ReviewUnder section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review ofthis action must be filed in the UnitedStates Court of Appeals for theappropriate circuit by January 19, 1999.Filing a petition for reconsideration bythe Administrator of this final rule doesnot affect the finality of this rule for thepurposes of judicial review nor does itextend the time within which a petitionfor judicial review may be filed, andshall not postpone the effectiveness ofsuch rule or action. This action may notbe challenged later in proceedings toenforce its requirements. (See section307(b)(2).)

H. Alaska’s Audit LawNothing in this action should be

construed as making any determinationor expressing any position regardingAlaska’s audit privilege and penaltyimmunity law (Alaska Audit Act, AS09.25.450 et seq., enacted in 1997) or itsimpact upon any approved provision inthe SIP, including the revision at issuehere. The action taken herein does notexpress or imply any viewpoint on thequestion of whether there are legaldeficiencies in this or any other CleanAir Act program resulting from theeffect of Alaska’s audit privilege andpenalty immunity law. A state auditprivilege and immunity law can affectonly state enforcement and cannot haveany impact on federal enforcementauthorities. EPA may at any time invokeits authority under the Clean Air Act,including, for example, sections 113,167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce therequirements or prohibitions of the stateplan, independently of any stateenforcement effort. In addition, citizenenforcement under section 304 of theClean Air Act is likewise unaffected bya state audit privilege or immunity law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,Hydrocarbons, Incorporation byreference, Intergovernmental relations,Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,Particulate matter, Reporting andrecordkeeping requirements, Sulfuroxides, Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: November 5, 1998.Chuck Findley,Acting Regional Administrator, Region X.

Note: Incorporation by reference of theImplementation Plan for the State of Alaskawas approved by the Director of the Office ofthe Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Codeof Federal Regulations is amended asfollows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]


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

Subpart C—Alaska

2. Section 52.70 is amended byadding paragraph (c)(28) to read asfollows:

§ 52.70 Identification of plan.

* * * * *(c) * * *(28) On January 8, 1997, the Director

of the Alaska Department ofEnvironmental Conservation submittedthe Alaska air quality regulations, 18Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 50(with the exception of 18 AAC50.055(a)(9), 50.085, 50.090, 50.110,50.300(g), and 50.310(l) which were notsubmitted), as effective on January 18,1997. On March 17, 1998, the Directorof the Alaska Department ofEnvironmental Conservationresubmitted 18 AAC 50.055(a)(3) and(b)(6). EPA has approved the followingprovisions of 18 AAC 50, as effective onJanuary 18, 1997: Section 005; Section010, except for subsections (7) and (8);Section 025; Section 030; Section 035;Section 045; Section 050; Section 055,except for paragraph (d)(2)(B) and (a)(9);Section 060; Section 065; Section 070;Section 075; Section 200; Section 201;Section 205; Section 220; Section 240;Section 245; Section 400, paragraphs (a),(b)(1), and (c); Section 420; Section 430;Section 900; and Section 990,subsections (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (8), (9),(10), (11), (14), (15), (16), (17), (19), (20),(23), (24), (25), (26), (29), (31), (32), (33),(34), (35), (37), (39), (40), (42), (43), (45),(47), (48), (50), (51), (53), (58), (59), (60),(61), (62), (63), (65), (66), (67), (69), (70),(71), (72), (74), (75), (78), (79), (80), (81),(83), (84), (85), (86), (89), (90), (91), (92),(93), (94), (95), (96), (97), (99), and (100).On January 8, 1997, the Director of theAlaska Department of EnvironmentalConservation submitted the currentAlaska Statutes for air pollution control,specifically the 1993 Alaska Act(Chapter 74 State Legislative Act 1993).EPA has approved as federallyenforceable provisions of the SIP, the

following provisions of the AlaskaStatutes, as effective June 25, 1993: AS46.14.510(b); AS 46.14.550; AS46.14.560; AS 46.14.990(1), (2), (3), (6),(7), (8), (10), (13), (15), (16), (17), (18),(22), (24), and (25); and AS 45.45.400(a).On January 8, 1997, the Director of theAlaska Department of Conservationsubmitted the ‘‘In Situ BurningGuidelines for Alaska (revised 5/94).’’

(i) Incorporation by reference.(A) 18 AAC 50.005; 18 AAC 50.010,

except for subsections (7) and (8); 18AAC 50.025; 18 AAC 50.030; 18 AAC50.035; 18 AAC 50.045; 18 AAC 50.050;18 AAC 50.055, except for paragraphs(d)(2)(B) and (a)(9); 18 AAC 50.060; 18AAC 50.065; 18 AAC 50.070; 18 AAC50.075; 18 AAC 50.200; 18 AAC 50.201;18 AAC 50.205; 18 AAC 50.220; 18 AAC50.240; 18 AAC 50.245; 18 AAC 50.400,paragraphs (a), (b)(1), and (c); 18 AAC50.420; 18 AAC 50.430; 18 AAC 50.900;and 18 AAC 50.990, subsections (2), (3),(4), (5), (6), (8), (9), (10), (11), (14), (15),(16), (17), (19), (20), (23), (24), (25), (26),(29), (31), (32), (33), (34), (35), (37), (39),(40), (42), (43), (45), (47), (48), (50), (51),(53), (58), (59), (60), (61), (62), (63), (65),(66), (67), (69), (70), (71), (72), (74), (75),(78), (79), (80), (81), (83), (84), (85), (86),(89), (90), (91), (92), (93), (94), (95), (96),(97), (99), and (100); as effective onJanuary 18, 1997.

(B) AS 46.14.510(b); AS 46.14.550; AS46.14.560; AS 46.14.990(1), (2), (3), (6),(7), (8), (10), (13), (15), (16), (17), (18),(22), (24), and (25); and AS 45.45.400(a);as effective on June 25, 1993.

(C) Remove the following provisionsof 18 AAC 50, as effective on June 2,1988, from the current incorporation byreference: 18 AAC 50.010; 18 AAC50.070; 18 AAC 50.900, subsections(19), (27), (30), (45), (46), and (48).

[FR Doc. 98–30721 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560–50–U


40 CFR Part 52

[EPA #1–10–98; FRL–6189–4]

Availability of Federally-EnforceableState Implementation Plans for AllStates

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

SUMMARY: Section 110(h) of the CleanAir Act, as amended in 1990 (the‘‘Act’’), requires EPA by November 15,1995, and every three years thereafter, toidentify the Federally-enforceable StateImplementation Plans (SIPs) in each


State and to publish notice in theFederal Register of the availability ofsuch documents. This notice ofavailability fulfills the three-yearrequirement of making these SIPcompilations for each State available forpublic inspection. The original notice ofavailability was published on November1, 1995 (60 FR 55459).EFFECTIVE DATE: November 18, 1998.ADDRESSES: You may contact theregional offices regarding requirementsof applicable implementation plans fortheir States. The SIP compilations areavailable for public inspection duringnormal business hours at theappropriate EPA regional office listedbelow. If you want to view thesedocuments, you should make anappointment with the appropriate EPAoffice and arrange for a mutuallyagreeable time.

Region 1: Connecticut, Maine,Massachusetts, New Hampshire, RhodeIsland, and Vermont

Regional Contact: Donald Cooks (617/565–3508)

EPA, Office of Ecosystem Protection,John F. Kennedy Federal Building,One Congress Street, Boston, MA02203–2211

Region 2: New Jersey, New York,Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands

Regional Contacts: Paul Truchan (212/637–4249)

EPA, Air Programs Branch, 290Broadway, New York, NY 10007–1866

Region 3: Delaware, District ofColumbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania,Virginia, and West Virginia

Regional Contact: Harold A. Frankford(215/814–2108)

EPA, Office of Air Programs (3AP20),Air Protection Division, 1650 ArchStreet, Philadelphia, PA 19103. Seealso: www.epa.gov/reg3artd/index.htm

Region 4: Alabama, Florida, Georgia,Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina,South Carolina, and Tennessee

Regional Contact: Dick Schutt (404/562–9033)

EPA, Air Planning Branch, 61 ForsythStreet, S.W., Atlanta, GA 30303

Region 5: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin

Regional Contacts: Madelin Rucker forthe States of Michigan, Minnesota andWisconsin (312/886–0661); Ryan Bahr(312/353–4366) for the States ofIllinois, Indiana, and Ohio

EPA, Air and Radiation Division, 77West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, IL 60604–3507. See alsohttp://www.epa.gov/ARD–R5/sips/

Region 6: Arkansas, Louisiana, NewMexico, Oklahoma, and TexasRegional Contact: Bill Deese (214/665–

7253)EPA, Multimedia Planning and

Permitting Division, Air PlanningSection (6PD–L), 1445 Ross Avenue,Suite 700, Dallas, TX 75202–2733. Seealso: http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6pd/air/sip/sip.htm

Region 7: Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, andNebraskaRegional Contact: Ed West (913–551–

7330)EPA, Air and Toxics Division, Air

Branch, 726 Minnesota Avenue,Kansas City, KS 66101. See also:http://www.epa.gov/region07/

Region 8: Colorado, Montana, NorthDakota, South Dakota, Utah, andWyomingRegional Contact: Laurie Ostrand (303/

312–6437)EPA, Air & Radiation Program, Air

Quality Planning and ManagementUnit, 999 18th Street, Suite 500,Denver, CO 80202–2466

Region 9: Arizona, California, Hawaii,Nevada, American Samoa, and GuamRegional Contacts: Julie Rose (415/744–

1184) and Cynthia Allen (415/744–1189)

EPA, Air Division, AIR–4, 75Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA94105

Region 10: Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, andWashingtonRegional Contact: Montel Livingston

(206/553–0180)EPA, Office of Air Quality (OAQ 107),

1200 6th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101.See also: hhtp://www.epa.gov/r10earth/

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: JulieRose, (415) 744–1184.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Nationalambient air quality standards (NAAQS)are set for criteria pollutants, which arewidespread common pollutants knownto be harmful to human health andwelfare. The present criteria pollutantsare: Carbon monoxide, Lead, Nitrogendioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, andSulfur oxides. See 40 CFR Part 50 for atechnical description of how the levelsof these standards are measured andattained. SIPs provide forimplementation, maintenance, andenforcement of the standard in eachstate. Areas within each state that aredesignated nonattainment are subject toadditional planning and control

requirements. Accordingly, differentregulations or programs in the SIP willapply to different areas. EPA lists thedesignation of each area at 40 CFR part81.

States are required to develop SIPscontaining strategies for controllingemissions from pollution sources. SeeCAA title I; 40 CFR Part 51—Requirements for Preparation,Adoption, and Submittal ofImplementation Plans. SIPs are legaldocuments, formally adopted,committing States to carry out their airpollution control strategies andincluding regulations, which are bothspecific and enforceable, for sources ofair pollution. These control strategiesand regulations are submitted inaccordance with the Act and, uponapproval by EPA, become part of theFederally-enforceable SIP. (See 40 CFRPart 52—Approval and Promulgation ofImplementation Plans (with Subpartspresenting the status for each State andterritory). The first section in theSubpart for each State is the‘‘Identification of plan’’ section whichprovides chronological development ofthe State SIP. The identification of plansection identifies the State-submittedrules and plan elements which havebeen Federally approved. The goal ofthe State-by-State SIP compilation is toidentify those rules under the‘‘Identification of plan’’ section whichare currently Federally enforceable. Inaddition, some of the SIP compilationsmay include control strategies, such astransportation control measures, localordinances, State statutes, and emissioninventories, or may include regulationsprovided in other sections of the State-specific subpart of part 52. Some of theSIP compilations may not identify theseother Federally enforceable elements.

In some cases, further information onthe content of approved SIPs is availablefrom the Internet. For those regionswhere such information is available, anaddress for this information is providedin the regional contacts list above.

You should note that, when Stateshave submitted their most current Stateregulations for inclusion into Federally-enforceable SIPs, EPA will begin itsreview process of submittals as soon aspossible. Until EPA approves asubmittal, State-submitted regulationswill be State-enforceable only; therefore,State-enforceable SIPs may exist whichdiffer from Federally-enforceable SIPs.As EPA approves these State-submittedregulations, the regional offices willcontinue to update the SIP compilationsto include these applicablerequirements.

This notice identifies the appropriateEPA regional offices to which you may


address questions of SIP availability andSIP requirements. In response to the110(h) requirement, the original noticeof availability was published in theFederal Register on November 1, 1995at 60 FR 55459.

Dated: November 10, 1998.Carol M. Browner,U.S. EPA Administrator.[FR Doc. 98–30743 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560–50–P


40 CFR Part 62

[AL–048–1–9901a; FRL–6188–9]

Approval and Promulgation of StatePlans for Designated Facilities andPollutants: Alabama

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency.ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA)is approving the sections 111(d)/129State Plan submitted by the AlabamaDepartment of EnvironmentalManagement (ADEM) for the State ofAlabama on September 11, 1998, forimplementing and enforcing theEmissions Guidelines (EG) applicable toexisting Municipal Waste Combustors(MWCs) with capacity to combust morethan 250 tons per day of municipal solidwaste (MSW). See 40 CFR part 60,subpart Cb.DATES: This direct final rule is effectiveJanuary 19, 1999 without further notice,unless EPA receives adverse commentsby December 18, 1998. If adversecomment is received, EPA will publisha timely withdrawal of the direct finalrule in the Federal Register and informthe public that the rule will not takeeffect.ADDRESSES: All comments should beaddressed to: Kimberly Bingham, EPARegion 4, Air Planning Branch, 61Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia30303–3104.

Copies of materials submitted to EPAmay be examined during normalbusiness hours at the followinglocations: EPA Region 4, Atlanta FederalCenter, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta,Georgia 30303–3104; and at theAlabama Department of EnvironmentalManagement, Air Division, 1751Congressman W.L. Dickinson Drive,Montgomery, Alabama 36109.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Kimberly Bingham at (404) 562–9038 orScott Davis at (404) 562–9127.


I. BackgroundOn December 19, 1995, pursuant to

sections 111 and 129 of the Clean AirAct (Act), EPA promulgated new sourceperformance standards (NSPS)applicable to new MWCs and EGapplicable to existing MWCs. The NSPSand EG are codified at 40 CFR part 60,Subparts Eb and Cb, respectively. See 60FR 65387. Subparts Cb and Eb regulatethe following: Particulate matter,opacity, sulfur dioxide, hydrogenchloride, oxides of nitrogen, carbonmonoxide, lead, cadmium, mercury, anddioxins and dibenzofurans.

On April 8, 1997, the United StatesCourt of Appeals for the District ofColumbia Circuit vacated subparts Cband Eb as they apply to MWC units withcapacity to combust less than or equalto 250 tons per day of MSW (smallMWCs), consistent with their opinion inDavis County Solid Waste Managementand Recovery District v. EPA, 101 F.3d1395 (D.C. Cir. 1996), as amended, 108F.3d 1454 (D.C. Cir. 1997). As a result,subparts Cb and Eb apply only to MWCunits with individual capacity tocombust more than 250 tons per day ofMSW (large MWC units).

Section 129(b)(2) of the Act requiresStates to submit to EPA for approvalState Plans that implement and enforcethe EG. State Plans must be at least asprotective as the EG, and becomeFederally enforceable upon approval byEPA. The procedures for adoption andsubmittal of State Plans are codified in40 CFR part 60, subpart B. EPAoriginally promulgated the subpart Bprovisions on November 17, 1975. EPAamended subpart B on December 19,1995, to allow the subparts developedunder section 129 to includespecifications that supersede the generalprovisions in subpart B regarding theschedule for submittal of State Plans,the stringency of the emissionlimitations, and the complianceschedules. See 60 FR 65414.

This action approves the State Plansubmitted by ADEM for the State ofAlabama to implement and enforcesubpart Cb, as it applies to large MWCunits only.

II. DiscussionADEM submitted to EPA on

September 11, 1998, the following intheir 111(d)/129 State Plan forimplementing and enforcing the EG forexisting MWCs under their directjurisdiction in the State of Alabama:Public Participation Demonstration Thatthe Public Had Adequate Notice andOpportunity to Submit WrittenComments and Attend the Public

Hearing; Legal Authority; EmissionLimits and Standards; ComplianceSchedule; Inventory of MWC Plant/Units; MWC Emissions Inventory;Source Surveillance, ComplianceAssurance, and EnforcementProcedures; Submittal of ProgressReports to EPA; Federally EnforceableState Operating Permit (FESOP) for theSolid Waste Disposal Authority of theCity of Huntsville MWC facility; andapplicable State of Alabama statutes andrules of the ADEM. ADEM submitted itsPlan after the Court of Appeals vacatedsubpart Cb as it applies to small MWCunits. Thus, the Alabama State Plancovers only large MWC units. As aresult of the Davis decision andsubsequent vacatur order, there are noEG promulgated under sections 111 and129 that apply to small MWC units.Accordingly, EPA’s review and approvalof the Alabama State Plan for MWCsaddresses only those parts of theAlabama State Plan which affect largeMWC units. Small units are not subjectto the requirements of the Federal Ruleand not part of this approval. Until EPAagain promulgates EG for small MWCunits, EPA has no authority undersection 129(b)(2) of the Act to reviewand approve State Plans applying staterules to small MWC units.

The approval of the Alabama StatePlan is based on finding that: (1) ADEMprovided adequate public notice ofpublic hearings for the proposed planand FESOP which allow ADEM toimplement and enforce the EG for largeMWCs, and (2) ADEM alsodemonstrated legal authority to adoptemission standards and complianceschedules applicable to the designatedfacility; enforce applicable laws,regulations, standards, and complianceschedules; seek injunctive relief; obtaininformation necessary to determinecompliance; require recordkeeping;conduct inspections and tests; requirethe use of monitors; require emissionreports of owners and operators; andmake emission data publicly available.

In part F and attachment C of thePlan, ADEM cites the followingreferences for the legal authority:Opinion of the Region 4 Administratorin response to the Governor of the Stateof Alabama; The AlabamaEnvironmental Management Act,section 22–22A, Code of Alabama 1975,as amended; The Alabama Air PollutionControl Act, section 22–28, Code ofAlabama 1975, as amended; The ADEMAdministrative Code, Rule 335–3–1–.04.These statutes and regulations arecontained in appendix C. On the basisof these statutes and rules of the Stateof Alabama, the State Plan and FESOPare approved as being at least as


protective as the Federal requirementsfor existing large MWC units.

ADEM cites all emission standardsand limitations for the major pollutantcategories as conditions in the FESOPfor the City of Huntsville MWC, the onlydesignated facility in the State ofAlabama subject to these standards andlimitations (in appendix B of the Plan).These standards and limitations in theFESOP have been approved as being atleast as protective as the Federalrequirements contained in subpart Cbfor existing large MWC units.

ADEM submitted the complianceschedule for the City of HuntsvilleMWC, the only large MWC under theirdirect jurisdiction in the State ofAlabama. Part G of the Plan and theFESOP contain conditions consistentwith 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and Cb,specifications for compliance schedules.This portion of the Plan and FESOPhave been reviewed and approved asbeing at least as protective as Federalrequirements for existing large MWCunits.

In part G of the Plan, ADEMsubmitted an emissions inventory of alldesignated pollutants for the City ofHuntsville MWC, the only large MWCunder their direct jurisdiction in theState of Alabama. This portion of thePlan has been reviewed and approved asmeeting the Federal requirements forexisting large MWC units.

ADEM includes its legal authority torequire owners and operators ofdesignated facilities to maintain recordsand report to their Agency the natureand amount of emissions and any otherinformation that may be necessary toenable their Agency to judge thecompliance status of the facilities inpart G of the State Plan and asconditions in the FESOP for the City ofHuntsville MWC. In part G, the ADEMalso cites its legal authority to providefor periodic inspection and testing andprovisions for making reports of MWCemissions data, correlated withemission standards that apply, availableto the general public. Part G of the StatePlan outlines the authority to meet therequirements of monitoring,recordkeeping, reporting, andcompliance assurance. These referencedState of Alabama rules are contained inappendix C of the Plan. This portion ofthe Plan and FESOP have been reviewedand approved as being at least asprotective as the Federal requirementsfor existing large MWC units.

As stated in part G of the Plan, ADEMwill provide progress reports of Planimplementation updates to the EPA onan annual basis. These progress reportswill include the required items pursuantto 40 CFR part 60, subpart B. This

portion of the Plan has been reviewedand approved as meeting the Federalrequirement for State Plan reporting.

This action approves the State Plansubmitted by ADEM for the State ofAlabama to implement and enforcesubpart Cb, as it applies to large MWCunits only.

III. Final Action

This action approves the State Plansubmitted by ADEM for the State ofAlabama to implement and enforceSubpart Cb, as it applies to large MWCunits only. The EPA is publishing thisrule without prior proposal because theAgency views this as a noncontroversialsubmittal and anticipates no adversecomments. However, in the proposedrules section of this Federal Registerpublication, EPA is publishing aseparate document that will serve as theproposal to approve the SIP revisionshould adverse comments be filed. Thisrule will be effective January 19, 1999without further notice unless theAgency receives adverse comments byDecember 18, 1998.

If the EPA receives such comments,then EPA will publish a documentwithdrawing the final rule andinforming the public that the rule willnot take effect. All public commentsreceived will then be addressed in asubsequent final rule based on theproposed rule. The EPA will notinstitute a second comment period.Parties interested in commenting shoulddo so at this time. If no such commentsare received, the public is advised thatthis rule will be effective on January 19,1999 and no further action will be takenon the proposed rule.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget(OMB) has exempted this regulatoryaction from Executive Order (E.O.)12866, entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planningand Review.’’

B. Executive Order 12875

Under E.O. 12875, EPA may not issuea regulation that is not required bystatute and that creates a mandate upona state, local, or tribal government,unless the Federal government providesthe funds necessary to pay the directcompliance costs incurred by thosegovernments. If EPA complies byconsulting, E.O. 12875 requires EPA toprovide to the Office of Managementand Budget a description of the extentof EPA’s prior consultation withrepresentatives of affected state, local,and tribal governments, the nature oftheir concerns, copies of written

communications from the governments,and a statement supporting the need toissue the regulation. In addition, E.O.12875 requires EPA to develop aneffective process permitting electedofficials and other representatives ofstate, local, and tribal governments ‘‘toprovide meaningful and timely input inthe development of regulatory proposalscontaining significant unfundedmandates.’’

Today’s rule does not create amandate on state, local or tribalgovernments. The rule does not imposeany enforceable duties on these entities.Accordingly, the requirements ofsection 1(a) of E.O. 12875 do not applyto this rule.

C. Executive Order 13045Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and SafetyRisks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),applies to any rule that: (1) Isdetermined to be ‘‘economicallysignificant’’ as defined under E.O.12866, and (2) concerns anenvironmental health or safety risk thatEPA has reason to believe may have adisproportionate effect on children. Ifthe regulatory action meets both criteria,the Agency must evaluate theenvironmental health or safety effects ofthe planned rule on children, andexplain why the planned regulation ispreferable to other potentially effectiveand reasonably feasible alternativesconsidered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045because it does not involve decisionsintended to mitigate environmentalhealth or safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13084Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue

a regulation that is not required bystatute, that significantly affects oruniquely affects the communities ofIndian tribal governments, and thatimposes substantial direct compliancecosts on those communities, unless theFederal government provides the fundsnecessary to pay the direct compliancecosts incurred by the tribalgovernments. If EPA complies byconsulting, E.O. 13084 requires EPA toprovide to the Office of Managementand Budget, in a separately identifiedsection of the preamble to the rule, adescription of the extent of EPA’s priorconsultation with representatives ofaffected tribal governments, a summaryof the nature of their concerns, and astatement supporting the need to issuethe regulation. In addition, ExecutiveOrder 13084 requires EPA to develop aneffective process permitting elected andother representatives of Indian tribalgovernments ‘‘to provide meaningful


and timely input in the development ofregulatory policies on matters thatsignificantly or uniquely affect theircommunities.’’

Today’s rule does not significantly oruniquely affect the communities ofIndian tribal governments. This actiondoes not involve or impose anyrequirements that affect Indian Tribes.Accordingly, the requirements ofsection 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not applyto this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)generally requires an agency to conducta regulatory flexibility analysis of anyrule subject to notice and commentrulemaking requirements unless theagency certifies that the rule will nothave a significant economic impact ona substantial number of small entities.Small entities include small businesses,small not-for-profit enterprises, andsmall governmental jurisdictions. Thisfinal rule will not have a significantimpact on a substantial number of smallentities because SIP approvals undersection 110 and subchapter I, part D ofthe Clean Air Act do not create any newrequirements but simply approverequirements that the State is alreadyimposing. Therefore, because theFederal SIP approval does not createany new requirements, I certify that thisaction will not have a significanteconomic impact on a substantialnumber of small entities. Moreover, dueto the nature of the Federal-Staterelationship under the Clean Air Act,preparation of flexibility analysis wouldconstitute Federal inquiry into theeconomic reasonableness of state action.The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to baseits actions concerning SIPs on suchgrounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S.EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded 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 rulethat includes a Federal mandate thatmay result in estimated annual costs toState, local, or tribal governments in theaggregate; or to private sector, of $100million or more. Under section 205,EPA must select the most cost-effectiveand least burdensome alternative thatachieves the objectives of the rule andis consistent with statutoryrequirements. Section 203 requires EPAto establish a plan for informing andadvising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquelyimpacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approvalaction promulgated does not include aFederal mandate that may result inestimated annual costs of $100 millionor more to either State, local, or tribalgovernments in the aggregate, or to theprivate sector. This Federal actionapproves pre-existing requirementsunder State or local law, and imposesno new requirements. Accordingly, noadditional costs to State, local, or tribalgovernments, or to the private sector,result from this action.

G. Submission to Congress and theComptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the SmallBusiness Regulatory EnforcementFairness Act of 1996, generally providesthat before a rule may take effect, theagency promulgating the rule mustsubmit a rule report, which includes acopy of the rule, to each House of theCongress and to the Comptroller Generalof the United States. EPA will submit areport containing this rule and otherrequired information to the U.S. Senate,the U.S. House of Representatives, andthe Comptroller General of the UnitedStates prior to publication of the rule inthe Federal Register. This rule is not a‘‘major’’ rule as defined by 5 U.S.C.804(2).

H. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CleanAir Act, petitions for judicial review ofthis action must be filed in the UnitedStates Court of Appeals for theappropriate circuit by January 19, 1999.Filing a petition for reconsideration bythe Administrator of this final rule doesnot affect the finality of this rule for thepurposes of judicial review nor does itextend the time within which a petitionfor judicial review may be filed, andshall not postpone the effectiveness ofsuch rule or action. This action may notbe challenged later in proceedings toenforce its requirements. (See section307(b)(2).)


Environmental protection,Administrative practice and procedure,Air pollution control, Intergovernmentalrelations, Municipal waste combustors,Reporting and recordkeepingrequirements.

Dated: November 4, 1998.A. Stanley Meiburg,Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

40 CFR part 62 of the Code of FederalRegulations is amended as follows:

PART 62—[AMENDED]


Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7642.

Subpart B—Alabama

2. Part 62.100 is amended by addingparagraphs (b)(4) and (c)(4) to read asfollows:

§ 62.100 Identification of plan.

* * * * *(b) * * *(4) State of Alabama Plan for

Implementation of 40 CFR part 60,Subpart Cb, For Existing MunicipalWaste Combustors, submitted onSeptember 11, 1998, by the AlabamaDepartment of EnvironmentalManagement.

(c) * * *(4) Existing municipal waste

combustors.3. Subpart B is amended by adding a

new § 62.104 and a new undesignatedcenter heading to read as follows:

Metals, Acid Gases, OrganicCompounds and Nitrogen OxideEmissions From Existing MunicipalWaste Combustors With the CapacityTo Combust Greater Than 250 Tons PerDay of Municipal Solid Waste

§ 62.104 Identification of sources.

The plan applies to existing facilitieswith a municipal waste combustor(MWC) unit capacity greater than 250tons per day of municipal solid waste(MSW) at the following MWC sites:

(a) Solid Waste Disposal Authority ofthe City of Huntsville MWC, Huntsville,Alabama.

(b) [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 98–30602 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560–50–P


40 CFR Part 63

[FRL–6175–2]

Delegation of National EmissionStandards for Hazardous Air Pollutantsfor Source Categories; State ofArizona; Pinal County Air QualityControl District

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA).ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct finalaction to delegate the authority toimplement and enforce specific national


emission standards for hazardous airpollutants (NESHAPs) to the PinalCounty Air Quality Control District(PCAQCD) in Arizona. The preambleoutlines the process that PCAQCD willuse to receive delegation of any futureNESHAP, and identifies the NESHAPcategories to be delegated by today’saction. EPA has reviewed PCAQCD’srequest for delegation and has foundthat this request satisfies all of therequirements necessary to qualify forapproval. Thus, EPA is hereby grantingPCAQCD the authority to implementand enforce the unchanged NESHAPcategories listed in this rule.DATES: This rule is effective on January19, 1999 without further notice, unlessEPA receives adverse comments byDecember 18, 1998. If EPA receives suchcomment, it will publish a timelywithdrawal in the Federal Registerinforming the public that this rule willnot take effect.ADDRESSES: Written comments must besubmitted to Andrew Steckel at theRegion IX office listed below. Copies ofthe request for delegation and othersupporting documentation are availablefor public inspection (docket numberA–96–25) at the following location: U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,Region IX, Rulemaking Office (AIR–4),Air Division, 75 Hawthorne Street, SanFrancisco, California 94105–3901.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MaeWang, Rulemaking Office (AIR–4), AirDivision, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Region IX, 75 HawthorneStreet, San Francisco, California 94105–3901, (415) 744–1200.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. BackgroundSection 112(l) of the Clean Air Act, as

amended in 1990 (CAA), authorizesEPA to delegate to state or local airpollution control agencies the authorityto implement and enforce the standardsset out in 40 CFR Part 63, NationalEmission Standards for Hazardous AirPollutants for Source Categories. OnNovember 26, 1993, EPA promulgatedregulations, codified at 40 CFR Part 63,Subpart E (hereinafter referred to as‘‘Subpart E’’), establishing proceduresfor EPA’s approval of state rules orprograms under section 112(l) (see 58FR 62262).

Any request for approval under CAAsection 112(l) must meet the approvalcriteria in 112(l)(5) and 40 CFR Part 63,Subpart E. To streamline the approvalprocess for future applications, a state orlocal agency may submit a one-timedemonstration that it has adequateauthorities and resources to implementand enforce any CAA section 112

standards. If such demonstration isapproved, then the state or local agencywould no longer need to resubmit ademonstration of these same authoritiesand resources for every subsequentrequest for delegation of CAA section112 standards. However, EPA maintainsthe authority to withdraw its approval ifthe State does not adequatelyimplement or enforce an approved ruleor program.

On October 30, 1996, EPA approvedthe Pinal County Air Quality ControlDistrict’s (PCAQCD’s) program foraccepting delegation of section 112standards that are unchanged fromFederal standards as promulgated (see61 FR 55910). The approved programreflects an adequate demonstration byPCAQCD of general resources andauthorities to implement and enforcesection 112 standards. However, formaldelegation for an individual standarddoes not occur until PCAQCD obtainsthe necessary regulatory authority toimplement and enforce that particularstandard, and EPA approves PCAQCD’sformal delegation request for thatstandard.

PCAQCD informed EPA that itintends to obtain the regulatoryauthority necessary to accept delegationof section 112 standards byincorporating section 112 standards intothe Pinal County Air Quality ControlDistrict Code of Regulations. The detailsof this delegation mechanism are setforth in a Memorandum of Agreement(MOA) between PCAQCD and EPA, andare available for public inspection at theU.S. EPA Region IX office (docket No.A–96–25).

On August 18, 1998, PCAQCDrequested delegation for severalindividual section 112 standards thathave been incorporated by referenceinto the Pinal County Air QualityControl District Code of Regulations.The standards that are being delegatedby today’s action are listed in a table atthe end of this rule.

II. EPA Action

A. Delegation for Specific Standards

After reviewing PCAQCD’s request fordelegation of various national emissionsstandards for hazardous air pollutants(NESHAPs), EPA has determined thatthis request meets all the requirementsnecessary to qualify for approval underCAA section 112(l) and 40 CFR 63.91.Accordingly, PCAQCD is granted theauthority to implement and enforce therequested NESHAPs. These delegationswill be effective on January 19, 1999. Atable of the NESHAP categories that willbe delegated to PCAQCD is shown at theend of this rule. Although PCAQCD will

have primary implementation andenforcement responsibility, EPA retainsthe right, pursuant to CAA section112(l)(7), to enforce any applicableemission standard or requirement underCAA section 112. In addition, EPA doesnot delegate any authorities that requireimplementation through rulemaking inthe Federal Register, or where Federaloverview is the only way to ensurenational consistency in the applicationof the standards or requirements of CAAsection 112.

After a state or local agency has beendelegated the authority to implementand enforce a NESHAP, the delegatedagency becomes the primary point ofcontact with respect to that NESHAP.Pursuant to 40 CFR sections63.9(a)(4)(ii) and 63.10(a)(4)(ii), EPARegion IX waives the requirement thatnotifications and reports for delegatedstandards be submitted to EPA as wellas to PCAQCD.

In its August 18, 1998 request,PCAQCD included a request fordelegation of the regulationsimplementing CAA section 112(i)(5),codified at 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart D.These requirements apply to state orlocal agencies that have a permitprogram approved under title V of theAct (see 40 CFR 63.70). PCAQCDreceived final interim approval of itstitle V operating permits program onOctober 30, 1996 (see 61 FR 55910).State or local agencies implementing therequirements under Subpart D do notneed approval under section 112(l).Therefore, EPA is not taking action todelegate 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart D toPCAQCD.

PCAQCD also included a request fordelegation of the regulationsimplementing CAA sections 112(g) and112(j), codified at 40 CFR Part 63,Subpart B. These requirements apply tomajor sources only, and need not bedelegated under the section 112(l)approval process. When promulgatingthe regulations implementing section112(g), EPA stated its view that ‘‘the Actdirectly confers on the permittingauthority the obligation to implementsection 112(g) and to adopt a programwhich conforms to the requirements ofthis rule. Therefore, the permittingauthority need not apply for approvalunder section 112(l) in order to use itsown program to implement section112(g)’’ (see 61 FR 68397). Similarly,when promulgating the regulationsimplementing section 112(j), EPA statedits belief that ‘‘section 112(l) approvalsdo not have a great deal of overlap withthe section 112(j) provision, becausesection 112(j) is designed to use the titleV permit process as the primary vehiclefor establishing requirements’’ (see 59


FR 26447). Therefore, state or localagencies implementing the requirementsunder sections 112(g) and 112(j) do notneed approval under section 112(l). Asa result, EPA is not taking action todelegate 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart B toPCAQCD.

B. Delegation Mechanism for FutureStandards

Today’s document serves to notify thepublic of the details of PCAQCD’sprocedure for receiving delegation offuture NESHAPs. As set forth in theMOA, PCAQCD intends to incorporateby reference, into the Pinal County AirQuality Control District Code ofRegulations, each newly promulgatedNESHAP for which it intends to seekdelegation. PCAQCD will then submit aletter to EPA Region IX, along withproof of regulatory authority, requestingdelegation for each individual NESHAP.Region IX will respond in writing thatdelegation is either granted or denied. Ifa request is approved, the delegation ofauthorities will be considered effectiveupon the date of the response letter fromRegion IX. Periodically, EPA willpublish in the Federal Register a listingof the standards that have beendelegated. Although EPA reserves itsright, pursuant to 40 CFR section 63.96,to review the appropriateness of anyfuture delegation request, EPA will notinstitute any additional commentperiods on these future delegationactions. Any parties interested incommenting on this procedure fordelegating future unchanged NESHAPsshould do so at this time.

C. Opportunity for Public CommentEPA is publishing this rule without

prior proposal because the Agencyviews this as a noncontroversial actionand anticipates no adverse comments.However, in the Proposed Rules sectionof this Federal Register publication,EPA is publishing a separate documentthat will serve as the proposal for thisaction should adverse comments befiled. This rule will be effective January19, 1999 without further notice unlessthe Agency receives adverse commentsby December 18, 1998.

If EPA receives such comments, thenEPA will publish a timely withdrawal inthe Federal Register informing thepublic that the rule will not take effect.All public comments received will thenbe addressed in a subsequent final rulebased on the proposed rule. EPA willnot institute a second comment periodon this rule. Any parties interested incommenting on this rule should do soat this time. If no such comments arereceived, the public is advised that thisrule will be effective on January 19,

1999 and no further action will be takenon the proposed rule.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13045

The Office of Management and Budgethas exempted this regulatory actionfrom Executive Order (E.O.) 12866,entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning andReview.’’

This final rule is not subject to E.O.13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of Childrenfrom Environmental Health Risks andSafety Risks,’’ because it is not an‘‘economically significant’’ action underE.O. 12866.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Actgenerally requires an agency to conducta regulatory flexibility analysis of anyrule subject to notice and commentrulemaking requirements unless theagency certifies that the rule will nothave a significant economic impact ona substantial number of small entities.Small entities include small businesses,small not-for-profit enterprises, andsmall governmental jurisdictions.

This final rule will not have asignificant impact on a substantialnumber of small entities becausedelegations of authority to implementand enforce unchanged Federalstandards under section 112(l) of theClean Air Act do not create any newrequirements but simply transferprimary implementation authorities tothe State. Therefore, because this actiondoes not impose any new requirements,I certify that this action will not have asignificant impact on a substantialnumber of small entities.

C. Unfunded 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 rulethat includes a Federal mandate thatmay result in estimated annual costs tostate, local, or tribal governments in theaggregate, or to a private sector, of $100million or more. Under section 205,EPA must select the most cost-effectiveand least burdensome alternative thatachieves the objectives of the rule andis consistent with statutoryrequirements. Section 203 requires EPAto establish a plan for informing andadvising any small governments thatmay be significantly or uniquelyimpacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that thedelegation action promulgated does notinclude a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated annual costs of $100million or more to either state, local, ortribal governments in the aggregate, orto the private sector. This Federal actionapproves pre-existing requirementsunder state or local law, and imposes nonew Federal requirements. Accordingly,no additional costs to state, local, ortribal governments, or to the privatesector, result from this action.

D. Submission to Congress and theComptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the SmallBusiness Regulatory EnforcementFairness Act of 1996, generally providesthat before a rule may take effect, theagency promulgating the rule mustsubmit a rule report, which includes acopy of the rule, to each House of theCongress and to the Comptroller Generalof the United States. EPA will submit areport containing this rule and otherrequired information to the U.S. Senate,the U.S. House of Representatives, andthe Comptroller General of the UnitedStates prior to publication of the rule inthe Federal Register. This rule is not a‘‘major’’ rule as defined by 5 U.S.C.804(2).

E. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CleanAir Act, petitions for judicial review ofthis action must be filed in the UnitedStates Court of Appeals for theappropriate circuit by January 19, 1999.Filing a petition for reconsideration bythe Administrator of this final rule doesnot affect the finality of this rule for thepurposes of judicial review nor does itextend the time within which a petitionfor judicial review may be filed, andshall not postpone the effectiveness ofsuch rule or action. This action may notbe challenged later in proceedings toenforce its requirements (see section307(b)(2)).


Environmental protection,Administrative practice and procedure,Air pollution control, Hazardoussubstances, Intergovernmental relations,Reporting and recordkeepingrequirements.

Authority: This action is issued under theauthority of Section 112 of the Clean Air Act,as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 7412.

Date Signed: September 28, 1998.David P. Howekamp,Director, Air Division, Region IX.

Title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Codeof Federal Regulations is amended asfollows:


PART 63—[AMENDED]


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

Subpart E—Approval of StatePrograms and Delegation of FederalAuthorities

2. Section 63.99 is amended byrevising paragraph (a)(3) to read asfollows:

§ 63.99 Delegated Federal authorities.

(a) * * *(3) Arizona. The following table lists

the specific Part 63 standards that havebeen delegated unchanged to the airpollution control agencies in the State ofArizona. The (X) symbol is used toindicate each category that has beendelegated.

DELEGATION STATUS FOR PART 63 STANDARDS—ARIZONA

Subpart Description ADEQ 1 MCESD 2 PDEQ 3 PCAQCD 4

A .................... General Provisions ............................................................................... X XF .................... Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry ........................... X XG .................... Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry: Process Vents,

Storage Vessels, Transfer Operations, and Wastewater.X X

H .................... Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants: Equipment Leaks .......................... X XI ..................... Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants: Certain Processes Subject to the

Negotiated Regulation for Equipment Leaks.X X

L .................... Coke Oven Batteries ............................................................................ X XM ................... Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning ........................................................... X XN .................... Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anod-

izing Tanks.X X

O .................... Ethylene Oxide Sterilization Facilities .................................................. X XQ .................... Industrial Process Cooling Towers ....................................................... X XR .................... Gasoline Distribution Facilities ............................................................. X XT .................... Halogenated Solvent Cleaning ............................................................. X XU .................... Group I Polymers and Resins .............................................................. X XW ................... Epoxy Resins Production and Non-Nylon Polyamides Production ...... X XX .................... Secondary Lead Smelting .................................................................... X XCC ................. Petroleum Refineries ............................................................................ X XDD ................. Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations ............................................ X XEE .................. Magnetic Tape Manufacturing Operations ........................................... X XGG ................. Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities ................................. X XJJ ................... Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations .......................................... X XKK .................. Printing and Publishing Industry ........................................................... X XOO ................. Tanks—Level 1 ..................................................................................... X XPP .................. Containers ............................................................................................ X XQQ ................. Surface Impoundments ........................................................................ X XRR ................. Individual Drain Systems ...................................................................... X XVV .................. Oil-Water Separators and Organic-Water Separators ......................... X XJJJ ................. Group IV Polymers and Resins ............................................................ X X

1 Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.2 Maricopa County Environmental Services Department.3 Pima County Department of Environmental Quality.4 Pinal County Air Quality Control District.


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONSCOMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 36, 54 and 69

[CC Docket Nos. 96–45 and 97–160; FCC98–279]

Federal-State Joint Board on UniversalService, Forward-Looking Mechanismfor High Cost Support for Non-RuralLocal Exchange Carriers

AGENCY: Federal CommunicationsCommission.ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: In this Order, we select aplatform for the federal mechanism to

estimate non-rural carriers’ forward-looking cost to provide the supportedservices. The model platform we adoptcombines the best elements from each ofthe three models currently in the record.The model platform we adopt will allowthe Commission to estimate the cost ofbuilding a telephone network to servesubscribers in their actual geographiclocations, to the extent known. To theextent that telephone companies cannotsupply the actual geographic location ofthe customer, the model platformassumes that those customers arelocated near roads. The model alsoallows the Commission to adjustengineering assumptions to reflect anyevolution in the definition of supportedservices, and to assure that the modelassumes a network architecture that willnot impede rural Americans’ ability touse the internet and other advanced

telecommunications and informationservices. As such, we believe the federalmodel platform we adopt will serve asa solid foundation for further decisionsthat will determine the amount ofuniversal service support to be providedto non-rural eligibletelecommunications carriers.EFFECTIVE DATE: November 18, 1998.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Chuck Keller, Common Carrier Bureau,(202) 418–7400.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is asummary of the Commission’s FifthReport and Order in CC Docket Nos. 96–45 and 97–160, adopted October 22,1998 and released October 28, 1998. Thefull text is available for inspection andcopying during normal business hoursin the FCC Reference Center (Room239), 1919 M St., N.W., Washington, DC.


Summary of Fifth Report and Order inCC Docket Nos. 96–45 and 97–160

I. Overview1. Since well before passage of the

1996 Act, the Commission has had inplace policies to ensure the availabilityof telephone service in rural and highcost areas, as well as supportmechanisms for low income consumers.Traditionally, consumers in high costand rural areas of the nation havereceived universal service supportthrough implicit subsidies in interstateand intrastate rates. Universal servicehas helped ensure that consumers in allparts of the country, even the mostremote and sparsely populated areas,are not forced to bear prohibitively highrates in order to obtain phone service.Universal service also has beendesigned to ensure that low-incomeconsumers have access to local phoneservice at reasonable rates. Longdistance rates and rates for certainintrastate services have been pricedabove cost in many instances, in orderto keep local telephone rates ataffordable levels throughout thecountry. The universal service programhas benefited all telephone subscribersthroughout the country by helping toensure that all Americans are connectedto the network, and thereforetelephonically accessible to one another.Universal service support has increasedsubscribership levels by ensuring thatresidents in rural and high cost areas arenot prevented from receiving phoneservice because of prohibitively highlocal telephone rates. As of today,approximately 94 percent of thehouseholds in the United Statessubscribe to telephone service, asubscribership rate that is among thebest in the world.

2. In the 1996 Act, Congressestablished a ‘‘pro-competitive, de-regulatory national policy frameworkdesigned to accelerate rapidly privatesector deployment of advancedtelecommunications and informationtechnologies and services to allAmericans by opening up alltelecommunications markets tocompetition.’’ One of the principal goalsof the telephony provisions of the 1996Act is reforming universal servicesupport so that the universal serviceobjectives set forth in the 1996 Actcontinue to be met as local exchangeand exchange access markets move frommonopoly to competition. In the 1996Act, Congress codified theCommission’s long-standingcommitment to ensuring universalservice and directed that ‘‘[c]onsumers* * * in rural, insular, and high costareas should have access to

telecommunications and informationservices * * * that are reasonablycomparable to those services providedin urban areas and that are available atrates that are reasonably comparable to[those] in urban areas.’’ The 1996 Actalso directed the Commission to reformuniversal service support mechanismsto ensure that they are compatible withthe pro-competitive goals of the 1996Act. In requiring incumbents to opentheir local markets to competitive entry,Congress rendered unsustainable theexisting universal service supportsystem, which is based on a complexsystem of implicit and explicitsubsidies. Rate structures that containimplicit support flows, such asartificially inflated interstate accesscharges and business rates, aresustainable in a monopoly environmentbut not in a competitive environment.Absent restructuring of the universalservice system, competitors would entermarkets where rates are artificially highrelative to costs, and would not entermarkets where rates are kept artificiallylow. Moreover, absent rate restructuring,such systematic market entry strategieswould threaten to erode altogether thesystem of universal service. Incumbentswould continue to have to serve thehigh cost customers without theoffsetting benefit of the high-profitrevenue streams that previouslysubsidized serving these high cost areas.

3. In order to sustain universal servicein a competitive environment, Congressfound: (1) that universal service supportshould be explicit; (2) that all carriers(rather than only interexchange carriers)that provide telecommunicationsservice should contribute to universalservice on a competitively neutral,equitable, and non-discriminatory basis;and (3) that, as a general matter, anycarrier (rather than only the incumbentlocal exchange carrier) should beeligible to receive, on a competitivelyneutral, equitable, and non-discriminatory basis, the appropriatelevel of support for serving a customerin a high cost area.

4. In the Universal Service Order, 62FR 32862 (June 17, 1997), theCommission adopted its plan toimplement a system of universal servicesupport for rural, insular, and high costareas to replace the existing high costprograms and the implicit federalsubsidies with explicit, competitivelyneutral federal universal service supportmechanisms. The first steps wereimplemented on January 1, 1998. Forinstance, as of that date the newuniversal service rules require equitableand non-discriminatory contributionsfrom all providers of interstatetelecommunications service rather than

exclusively from interstate long distanceproviders. Also, as of January 1, 1998,competitive eligibletelecommunications carriers are alsoeligible to receive federal universalservice support for serving customers inhigh cost, rural, and insular areas. Thisorder, which adopts the platform of afederal mechanism that would allowsupport amounts to be determinedbased on forward-looking cost, is thefirst step towards further revisions offederal support mechanisms. Thisestimate will be used to determine thelevel of support provided to eligiblenon-rural telecommunications carriers,beginning July 1, 1999.

5. In the Universal Service Order, theCommission also agreed with the JointBoard that the appropriate level offederal universal service high costsupport should be based on forward-looking economic cost rather thanembedded cost. The Joint Board foundthat, for purposes of administering afederal high cost support system basedon forward-looking cost, a forward-looking cost model would be anessential part of determining supportlevels in an efficient way. The JointBoard also found that determining costswith a cost model would provide otherbenefits, such as the ability to determinecosts at smaller geographic levels thanwould be practical using the existingcost accounting system. By using a costmodel, universal service support can betargeted to support the high costcustomers within a carrier’s servicearea. Moreover, a forward-lookingeconomic cost mechanism eliminatesincentives to invest inefficiently. Also,because all eligible carriers will receivethe same level of support when theywin a customer and because the level ofsupport is not based on the specifictechnology that the carrier used todeliver the supported service, the newuniversal service mechanism will becompetitively and technologicallyneutral. Finally, the use of a forward-looking cost model allows theCommission to ensure that universalservice support amounts are based on anetwork that will provide the supportedservices and not impede the provisionof advanced services. In contrast, asupport system based on the existingnetwork, which is in some cases oflower quality, would not providesufficient support for necessaryupgrades. Basing support on theforward-looking cost of a network that iscapable of providing the supportedservices will ensure that universalservice support is based on a networkwith the capacity to ensure service


quality and access to advanced servicesin rural areas.

6. In determining the appropriatelevel of high cost support, theCommission is committed to ensuringthat ‘‘[q]uality services [are] available atjust, reasonable, and affordable rates,’’and that ‘‘[c]onsumers * * * in rural,insular, and high cost areas, shouldhave access to telecommunications andinformation services * * * that arereasonably comparable to those servicesprovided in urban areas and that areavailable at rates that are reasonablycomparable to rates charges for similarservices in urban areas,’’ as required bythe statute. In agreeing with the JointBoard that forward-looking economiccost will provide sufficient support foran efficient carrier to provide thesupported services for a particulargeographic area, the Commissionspecifically rejected arguments thatsupport should be based on a carrier’sembedded cost. As the Joint Boardrecognized, providing support based onembedded cost provides the wrongsignals to potential market entrants. Ifembedded costs exceed forward-lookingcosts, such support would encourageinefficient entry. In contrast, providingsupport based on embedded costs thatare below forward-looking economiccosts would dissuade market entry evenwhere such competition would beeconomically efficient. The Commissionconcurred with the Joint Board’s findingthat the use of forward-lookingeconomic costs as the basis fordetermining support will send thecorrect signals for entry, investment,and innovation. The Commission foundthat a forward-looking economic costmethodology creates the incentive forcarriers to operate efficiently and tendsnot to give carriers an incentive toinflate their costs or to refrain fromefficient cost-cutting.

7. As noted above, our process ofestimating forward-looking costs isproceeding in two stages. Consistentwith the Joint Board’s recommendation,the Commission in the UniversalService Order concluded that it wouldneed to estimate costs based on a carefulanalysis of efficient network design,engineering practices, availabletechnologies, and current technologycosts. That is, to estimate forward-looking costs accurately, theCommission decided to look at all of thecosts and cost-causative factors that gointo building a network. TheCommission decided to do this in twostages: first, it would look at thenetwork design, engineering, andtechnology issues relevant toconstructing a network to provide thesupported services. Second, the

Commission said that it would look atthe costs of the components of thenetwork, such as cabling and switchcosts, and various capital costparameters, such as debt-equity ratiosand depreciation rates (‘‘input values’’).

8. This Order includes ourconclusions as to the platform selection,the first of the two stages. In theUniversal Service Order, theCommission concluded that twoindustry-proposed cost models shouldcontinue to be considered anddeveloped further and stated that itmight also consider models or modelcomponents submitted by other partiesor developed by Commission staff. Bothof the industry-proposed models haveimproved in significant ways since theUniversal Service Order was adopted,and Commission staff has developed aseparate model. Below we adopt asynthesis of the best aspects of each ofthe three models before us in thisproceeding. We recognize that, ofnecessity, models estimate the forward-looking cost of providing the supportedservices. Such analysis is, however, theonly practicable method that presentlyexists for determining forward-lookingcosts on a widescale basis, and weexpect that the synthesis model willgenerate accurate estimates of theforward-looking of providing thesupported services. The federalmechanism that we select in this Orderto estimate forward-looking cost willserve as the foundation for determiningthe final universal service supportrequirements. The Commission intendsto issue Orders on the input values tobe used in the selected mechanism andthe further recommendations of theJoint Board in time to implement thefederal mechanism for non-rural carriersby July 1, 1999. Because inputs arecritical to determining the cost ofproviding the supported services, theOrder we adopt today does not identifythe amount of high cost support thatwill be provided to non-rural carriersbeginning July 1, 1999. The selectedplatform alone is not dispositive of thecost calculations generated by themechanism. That determination alsodepends upon the selection of inputvalues and the resolution of the issuesrecently referred back to the Joint Board,such as benchmark levels. Moreover, wenote that the selection of the synthesisplatform is based solely on ourevaluation of its performance fordetermining non-rural carriers’ forward-looking costs for universal servicepurposes. We have not evaluated it forany other purpose.

9. We recognize that the task ofestablishing a model to estimateforward-looking costs is a dynamic

process that will need to be reviewedand adjusted periodically. We mustbalance the needs to providepredictability and certainty with theneed to account for changes thatinevitably will occur over time, such astechnological advances. For example, aparty recently submitted data in supportof basing support on the use of wirelesstechnologies in some instances. TheCommission therefore intends, beforethe end of this year, to begin moredetailed consideration of possible futuremodification of the model to reflect newtechnologies. Among other things, theCommission may consider how themodel should be updated in the futureto account for changes in materialprices, technology, and othercircumstances. We also will addressissues related to the administration ofhigh cost support, including thetransition by which routine use of themodel and updating of model data willbe provided by the administrator ofuniversal service support mechanisms,subject to Commission oversight. Inaddition, we expect that, both before weimplement the model for non-ruralcarriers on July 1, 1999, and on anongoing basis, we will findopportunities to make technicalimprovements. In such cases, wedelegate to the Common Carrier Bureauthe authority to make changes or directthat changes be made as necessary andappropriate to ensure that the platformof the federal mechanism operates asdescribed in this Order.

II. Procedural History

A. Universal Service Order10. Prior to the 1996 Act, three

explicit universal service programs werein place to provide assistance to smallincumbent local exchange carriers(LECs) and LECs that served rural andhigh cost areas: high cost loop support,dial equipment minutes (DEM)weighting, and the Long-Term Supportprogram. Other mechanisms also havehistorically contributed to maintainingaffordable rates in rural areas, includingsubsidies implicit in intrastate rates andinterstate access charges. Section 254required the Commission to institute aFederal-State Joint Board on universalservice and implement therecommendations from the Joint Boardby May 8, 1997. After receiving therecommendations of the Joint Board, theCommission adopted the UniversalService Order.

11. In the Universal Service Order, theCommission adopted a forward-lookingeconomic cost methodology for non-rural carriers that will calculate supportin four steps. First, a forward-looking


economic cost mechanism selected bythe Commission, in consultation withthe Joint Board (federal mechanism),would be used to calculate non-ruralcarriers’ forward-looking economic costof providing the supported services inhigh cost areas. Second, theCommission would establish anationwide benchmark that representsthe revenue that carriers receive as aresult of providing service. Third, theCommission would calculate thedifference between the forward-lookingeconomic cost and the benchmark.Fourth, federal support would be 25percent of that difference,corresponding to the percentage of loopcosts that historically has been allocatedto the interstate jurisdiction. In theUniversal Service Order, theCommission stated that, once stateshave taken steps to identify thesubsidies implicit in intrastate rates, theCommission may reassess the amount offederal support that is necessary toachieve the Act’s goals. In response toissues raised by commenters and thestate Joint Board members, theCommission referred back to the JointBoard questions related to how federalsupport should be determined. Forexample, the Joint Board is reviewinghow best to determine the supportamount, given the forward-looking costof providing the supported services inan area, and the appropriate share to beprovided by the federal mechanism.Although many of the proposals underconsideration by the Joint Board andpending before the Commission onreconsideration might alter some ofthose four steps, the proposals wouldgenerally still require the Commissionto adopt a mechanism for determiningthe forward-looking cost of providingthe supported services.

12. In the Universal Service Order, theCommission concluded that twoindustry-proposed models, the HAIModel and the Benchmark Cost ProxyModel, that had been submitted forconsideration in the proceeding that ledup to the Order were not sufficientlyaccurate for adoption as the federal costmechanism, but that the two modelsshould continue to be considered anddeveloped further.

13. The Commission stated that itmight consider, for the federalmechanism, alternative algorithms andapproaches submitted by parties otherthan the model sponsors or that couldbe generated internally by Commissionstaff. The Commission noted that onepossible outcome of this approachwould be development of a hybrid orsynthesis model that combines selectedcomponents of different models withadditional components and algorithms

drawn from other sources. TheCommission presently has three modelsbefore it: (1) the Benchmark Cost ProxyModel, Version 3.0 (BCPM); (2) the HAIModel, Version 5.0a (HAI); and (3) theHybrid Cost Proxy Model, Version 2.5(HCPM).

B. Further Notice and the ModelDevelopment Process

14. In a July 18, 1997 Further Noticeof Proposed Rulemaking (FurtherNotice), 62 FR 42457 (August 7, 1997),the Commission established a multi-phase plan to develop a federalmechanism that would send the correctsignals for entry, investment, andinnovation. The Further Notice dividedquestions related to the cost models into‘‘platform design’’ issues and ‘‘inputvalue’’ issues. The Further Noticesubdivided the platform issues into fourtopic groups, and sought comment oneach group separately in order todevelop a focused dialogue amonginterested parties. The four groups were:(1) customer location platform issues;(2) outside plant design platform issues;(3) switching and interoffice platformissues; and (4) general support facilities,expenses, and all inputs issues.

15. In the Further Notice, we alsorequested that parties provideinformation about the platform designand input values that would allow themechanism developed in thisproceeding to estimate the forward-looking cost of non-rural carriers inAlaska and insular areas. In addition,the Commission indicated in theFurther Notice that, in selecting afederal mechanism, we might consideralternative approaches to BCPM andHAI, such as the development of ahybrid model that combinescomponents of BCPM or HAI with eachother or with algorithms drawn fromother sources. After reviewing thecomments received in response to theFurther Notice, the Common CarrierBureau released two public notices asguidance to parties wishing to submitcost models for consideration as thefederal mechanism. The Bureau’sguidance provided recommendations onthe platform design of the customerlocation, outside plant, switching, andtransport components of a cost model.

16. During the course of the modeldevelopment process, proponents ofBCPM and HAI submitted a series ofrevisions to model components andintermediate output data. In a PublicNotice released on November 13, 1997,the Bureau requested that modelproponents by December 11, 1997submit versions of their modelplatforms that incorporated the Bureau’sguidance. The Bureau stated its

expectation that the Commission wouldevaluate the models submitted at thattime to select the platform for thefederal mechanism. Updated versions ofBCPM, HAI, and HCPM were filed withthe Commission on December 11, 1997.On August 7, 1998, HCPM released aclustering algorithm to group customersinto serving areas. The Bureau hascontinued to receive minor refinementsto all three models.

C. Design of a Forward-Looking WirelineLocal Telephone Network

17. To understand the assumptionsmade in the models, it is necessary tounderstand the layout of the currentwireline local telephone network. Ingeneral, a telephone network must allowany customer to connect to any othercustomer. In order to accomplish this, atelephone network must connectcustomer premises to a switchingfacility, ensure that adequate capacityexists in that switching facility toprocess all customers’ calls that areexpected to be made at peak periods,and then interconnect that switchingfacility with other switching facilitieswhich routes the call to its destination.A ‘‘wire center’’ is the location of aswitching facility, and there aregeographic boundaries that define thearea in which all customers areconnected to a given wire center. Byrequiring the models to use existingincumbent LEC wire center locations,the Universal Service Order imposedsome uniformity in the models’ networkdesign.

18. Within the boundaries of eachwire center, the wires and otherequipment that connect the centraloffice to the customers’ premises areknown as outside plant. Outside plantcan consist of either copper cable oroptical fiber cable or a combination ofoptical fiber and copper cable, as wellas associated electronic equipment.Copper cable generally carries an analogsignal that is compatible with mostcustomers’ telephone equipment, butthicker, more expensive cables must beused to carry signals over greaterdistances. Optical fiber cable carries adigital signal that is incompatible withmost customers’ telephone equipment,but the quality of the signal degradessignificantly less with distancecompared to a signal carried on copperwire. Generally, when a neighborhood islocated too far from the wire center tobe served with copper cables alone, anoptical fiber cable will be deployed toa point within the neighborhood, wherea piece of equipment will be placed thatconverts the digital signal carried onoptical fiber cable to an analog,electrical signal that is compatible with


customers’ telephones. This equipmentis known as a digital loop carrier remoteterminal, or DLC. Because of the cost ofDLCs, the models are designed so thata single DLC is shared among a numberof customers. From the DLC, coppercables of varying gauge extend to all ofthe customer premises in theneighborhood. Where the neighborhoodis close enough to the wire center toserve entirely on copper cables, acopper trunk connects the wire center toa central point in the serving area,called the serving area interface (SAI),and copper cables will then connect theSAI to the customers in the serving area.The portion of the loop plant thatconnects the central office with the SAIor DLC is known as the ‘‘feeder’’ plant,and the portion that runs from the DLCor SAI throughout the neighborhood isknown as the ‘‘distribution’’ plant.

19. A model’s estimate of the cost ofserving the customers located within agiven wire center’s boundaries includesthe model’s calculation of switch size,the lengths, gauge, and number ofcopper and fiber cables, and the numberof DLCs required. These factors depend,in turn, on how many customers thewire center serves, where the customersare located within the wire centerboundaries, and how they aredistributed within neighborhoods.Particularly in rural areas, somecustomers may not be located inneighborhoods at all but, instead, maybe scattered throughout outlying areas.In general, the models divide the areaserved by the wire center into smallerareas that will be served from a singleDLC, known as ‘‘serving areas.’’ Allcable within a serving area, with theexception of that which connects a DLCto a central office, is considereddistribution plant.

20. The model proponents agree thatforward-looking design requires thatwire centers be interconnected with oneanother using optical fiber networksknown as Synchronous Optical Network(SONET) rings. The infrastructure tointerconnect the wire centers is knownas the ‘‘interoffice’’ network, and thecarriage of traffic among wire centers isknown as ‘‘transport.’’ In cases where anumber of wire centers with relativelyfew people within their boundaries arelocated in close proximity to oneanother, it may be more economical touse the switching capacity of a singleswitch to process the calls of thecustomers in the boundaries of all thewire centers. In that case, a full-capacityswitch (known as a ‘‘host’’) is placed inone of the wire centers and lessexpensive, more limited-capacityswitches (known as ‘‘remotes’’) areplaced in the other wire centers. The

remotes are then connected to the hostwith interoffice facilities. Switches thatare located in wire centers with enoughcustomers within their boundaries tomerit their own full-capacity switchesand that do not serve as hosts to anyother wire centers are called ‘‘stand-alone’’ switches.

21. The models under considerationin this proceeding differ in severalimportant ways in estimating theforward-looking cost of designing atelephone network. For example, thethree models in this proceeding rely ondifferent sets of data and assumptions toascertain the number of customers ineach wire center and the geographiclocation of those customers. The modelsalso use different methods to calculateswitch size, the size, type, and numberof fiber and copper cables, and therouting of those cables.

III. Customer Location and OutsidePlant Design

22. We first consider the customerlocation and outside plant algorithms ofBCPM, HAI, and HCPM in light of thecriteria identified in the UniversalService Order. As the Bureau pointedout in the Outside Plant Public Notice,the criteria suggest that the models‘‘should be considered both from anengineering perspective, to ensure thatthe network provides the type andquality of service specified in the[Universal Service] Order, and from aneconomic perspective, to ensure that thenetwork design minimizes costs andmaximizes efficiency.’’ We concludethat the customer location and outsideplant platform of the federal mechanismshould consist of a synthesis of the bestideas presented by the modelproponents, including HAI’s use ofgeocoded customer location data,BCPM’s use of the road network toestimate the locations of customers forwhom no geocode data are available,HCPM’s approach to identifyingcustomer serving areas based on naturalclusters of customers, and HCPM’sability to design plant to the precisecustomers locations within each servingarea.

A. Discussion23. In this section, we identify the

combination of data and algorithms thatlocate customers and design outsideplant to serve those customers in a waythat best meets the criteria identified inthe Universal Service Order. As aninitial matter, we observe that all threemodels design a network that is capableof providing the supported services. Wealso conclude, as explained below, thateach of the models meets a reasonablestandard for ensuring that the network

designed does not impede the provisionof advanced services.

24. We identify five distinct aspects ofthe customer location and loop designportions of a cost model that can havea significant bearing on the model’sability to estimate the least-cost, most-efficient technology for serving aparticular area. These include: (i) theextent to which the model uses actualcustomer location data to locatecustomers, (ii) the method ofdetermining customer locations in theabsence of actual data, (iii) thealgorithms employed to groupcustomers into serving areas, (iv) themodel’s ability to design plant directlyto the customer locations within theserving area, and (v) adherence to soundengineering and cost minimizationprinciples in both the design ofdistribution plant within each servingarea and the design of feeder plant toconnect each serving area to theassociated central office.

1. Determining Customer Location25. Each model has a method for

determining where customers arelocated. The issues raised are whether touse actual geocode data, to the extentthey are available, and what method touse for determining surrogate customerlocations where geocode data are notavailable. We conclude that HAI’sproposal to use actual geocode data, tothe extent that they are available, is thepreferred approach, and BCPM’sproposal that we use road networkinformation to determine customerlocation where actual data are notavailable, provides the most reasonablemethod for determining customerlocations.

26. The starting point that all threemodels use in determining customerlocation is publicly availableinformation from the Census Bureau,which provides the number ofcustomers within each Census Block(CB). Thus, at a minimum, each modelhas information about the number ofcustomers within a specified geographicarea. In urban areas, CBs tend to berelatively small, and often contain onlyone city block. In rural areas, however,CBs typically are much larger. It istherefore important to have a reasonablemethod for determining customerlocations more precisely within the CB.

27. Use of Geocode Data. Only HAIincludes a specific proposal for usingactual latitude and longitude data toidentify customer locations. Manycommenters from across the spectrum ofthe industry agree that geocode data thatidentify the actual geographic locationsof customers are preferable toalgorithms intended to estimate


customer locations based solely on suchinformation as Census data. We agreewith Ameritech that proxy techniquesfor estimating customer locations areunnecessary and inappropriate forcompanies that can identify the actualcustomer dispersion of their customerswith geocode data. We conclude that amodel is most likely to select the least-cost, most-efficient outside plant designif it uses the most accurate data forlocating customers within wire centers,and that the most accurate data forlocating customers within wire centersare precise latitude and longitudecoordinates for those customers’locations.

28. Recent public commentdemonstrates support for the use ofaccurate geocode data in the federalmechanism when available. At present,the only geocode data in the record ofthis proceeding are those prepared forthe HAI model by the HAI sponsors’consultants, PNR Associates (PNR).Many commenters recognize that, inaddition to the current sources ofgeocode data, more comprehensivegeocode data are likely to be availablein the future. Nevertheless, somecommenters still question whetherPNR’s geocode data set should be usedin the federal mechanism. We note thatour conclusion that the model shoulduse geocode data to the extent that theyare available is not a determination ofthe accuracy or reliability of anyparticular source of that data. Weanticipate, however, that a reasonablesource of verifiable geocode data can bedetermined at the inputs stage of thisproceeding. At a minimum, PNR’s datais now available for review, andinterested parties may comment uponand suggest improvements to theaccuracy of that database. Thus, whilewe conclude that the federal mechanismshould use geocode data to the extentavailable, we do not in this Order adopta particular source of geocode data. Thefinal choice of what source or sources ofgeocode data to use in determiningcustomer location will be decided at theinputs phase of this proceeding.

29. We also conclude that the federalmechanism should not discard geocodedata in favor of surrogating below some‘‘break point’’ percentage in each CB.The BCPM sponsors contend that actualgeocode data should be used inconjunction with surrogate data onlywhen the percentage of customerlocations in a given area for whomprecise geocode data are known is above80 percent. The BCPM sponsors suggestthat the combined use of actual andsurrogate customer locations below thisthreshold will lead to clusters with‘‘unnatural distributions.’’ The BCPM

sponsors have provided no concreteevidence or statistical support for theirposition that significant anomalies willresult from mixing actual and surrogategeocode points, nor provided adequatejustification for the proposed level ofthe break point. We find that actualgeocode data, to the extent available,provide the most reliable customerlocation information. BCPM has notpersuaded us that geocode data shouldbe discarded simply because theavailable geocode data for a given areamay be limited. We therefore decline toadopt BCPM’s suggestion that the modeluse surrogate geocode data in instanceswhere only low percentages of actualgeocode data are available.

30. Surrogate Location Methodology.Where actual customer locationinformation is unavailable, the modelsmust use other means to identifycustomer locations. Each model hasdeveloped a method for determining thelocation of customers in the absence ofgeocoded customer location data.

31. In the absence of geocodedcustomer data, HAI distributes all‘‘surrogate’’ customers uniformlyaround the boundaries of a CB. The HAIproponents contend that thisdistribution results in a conservativeplacement of customers because itassumes they are maximally separatedfrom one another.

32. BCPM uses CB data and a gridapproach that allocates customers tomicrogrids using road network data,based on the assumption that customersare located along roads. The BCPMproponents argue that many roads lie inthe interior of CBs, not just along CBboundaries, and that customer locationcorrelates with roads. Information aboutthe correlation between ‘‘road mileage’’and ‘‘housing units’’ presented by theBCPM proponents for the state ofKentucky suggests that customers tendto live near roads. BCPM also notes thatmost rights of way follow roads.

33. In the absence of geocode data,HCPM locates customers based on CB-level data by assuming that customersare distributed evenly across a squaregrid cell with the same area as theaverage size of a CB in the wire center.

34. Recent comments in this docketsupport the use of road network to placesurrogate customer locations. Weconclude that, in the absence of precisecustomer location data, BCPM’srationale of associating road networksand customer locations provides themost reasonable approach indetermining customer locations. Wefind that BCPM’s assumption thatcustomers generally live along roads isreasonable. Moreover, we find thatBCPM’s method of associating

customers with the distribution of roadsis more likely to correlate to actualcustomer locations than uniformlydistributing customers throughout theCB, as HCPM proposes, or uniformlydistributing customers along the CBboundary, as HAI proposes. HCPM’ssurrogating method, for example, wouldbe more likely than the other twomodels to locate customers inuninhabitable areas such as bodies ofwater or national parks. As BCPM notes,HAI’s surrogating method might wellassociate customer locations in ditches,bodies of water, or other uninhabitableareas that may constitute CBboundaries. Moreover, HAI’s method ofplacing surrogate locations along CBboundaries may result in theidentification of false customer clusters,as surrogates from adjoining CBs areplaced near one another along thecommon CB boundary. In addition, wenote that BCPM has taken steps toidentify and exclude certain types ofroads or road segments that are unlikelyto be associated with customerlocations. We also note that theproponents of HAI have recentlyproposed a road surrogate methodologypremised on the rationale thatcustomers locations correspond toroads. Therefore, we adopt BCPM’sproposal to use road networkinformation as the basis for locatingwithin a CB boundary customers whoseprecise locations are unknown.

35. We adopt BCPM’s set ofguidelines for excluding from thesurrogating process the types of roadsand road segments (such as interstatehighways, bridges, and on- and off-ramps) that are unlikely to be associatedwith customer locations. Beyond theseconclusions, we do not select aparticular algorithm in this Order forplacing surrogate points along roads. Weconclude that the selection of a precisealgorithm for placing road surrogatespursuant to these conclusions should beconducted in the inputs stage of thisproceeding as part of the process ofselecting a geocode data set for thefederal mechanism.

2. Algorithms Employed to GroupCustomers Into Serving Areas

36. Once customer locations havebeen identified, each model mustdetermine how to group and serve thosecustomers in an efficient andtechnologically reasonable manner. Amodel will most fully comply with thecriteria in the Universal Service Order ifit uses customer location information tothe full extent possible in determininghow to serve multiple customers usinga single set of electronics. Moreover, themodel should strive to group customers


in a manner that will allow efficientservice. As discussed below, weconclude that a clustering approach, asfirst proposed by HAI in thisproceeding, is superior to a grid-basedmethodology in modeling customerserving areas accurately and efficiently.In addition, we conclude that thefederal high cost mechanism should usethe HCPM clustering module.

37. The model proponents haveidentified two methods—clustering andgridding—for grouping customers intoserving areas. HAI identifies groups ofcustomers based on their proximity toone another to create ‘‘clusters’’ ofcustomers. HAI defines a ‘‘serving area’’as a main cluster and those outlierclusters in close proximity. BCPMdetermines serving areas by means of amulti-step process that begins byplacing grids over a map of CBs thatmake up a wire center. Once the gridsare populated with customer locationdata, serving areas are determined basedon technological limitations such as thenumber of lines that can be served froma single DLC. Although it originallyproposed a gridding approach, HCPMsubsequently developed a clusteringalgorithm.

38. To meet the Universal ServiceOrder’s criteria, a clustering algorithmshould group customer locations intoserving areas in an efficient manner tominimize costs while maintaining aspecified level of network performancequality. This is consistent with actual,efficient network design. In other words,an efficient service provider woulddesign its network using the mostefficient method of grouping customers,in order to minimize costs.

39. The advantage of the clusteringapproach to creating serving areas isthat it can identify natural groupings ofcustomers. That is, because clusteringdoes not impose arbitrary serving areaboundaries, customers that are locatednear each other, or that it makes sensefrom a technological perspective toserve together, may be served by thesame facilities. There are two mainengineering constraints that must beaccounted for in any clusteringapproach to grouping customers inservice areas. Clustering algorithmsattempt to group customers on the basisof both a distance constraint, so that nocustomer is farther from a DLC than ispermitted by the maximum distanceover which the supported services canbe provided on copper wire, and on thebasis of the maximum number ofcustomers in a serving area, whichdepends on the maximum number oflines that can be connected to a DLCremote terminal.

40. In contrast, the chief advantage ofthe gridding approach is its simplicity.Placing a uniform grid over a populatedarea, and concluding that any customersthat fall within a given grid cell will beserved together, is simpler to programthan an algorithm that identifies naturalgroupings of customers. The simplicityof the grid-based approach, however,can generate significant artificial costs.Because a simple grid cannot accountfor actual groupings of customers, gridboundaries may cut across naturalpopulation clusters. Serving areas basedon grids may therefore require separatefacilities to serve customers that are inclose proximity, but that happen to fallin different grids. The worst-casescenario would involve a natural clusterof customers that, given distance andengineering constraints, could be servedas a single serving area but thathappened to be centered over theintersection of a set of grid lines. Thiswould result in the division of thenatural population cluster into fourserving areas instead of one. As a result,a gridding approach cannot reflect themost cost-effective method ofdistributing customers into servingareas. In order best to meet theUniversal Service Order’s criteria, weconclude that the federal mechanismshould use a clustering methodology,rather than a grid-based methodology, todetermine serving areas.

41. Having determined that aclustering approach should be used, wemust determine which clusteringapproach to adopt for use in the federalmechanism. Two types of clusteringalgorithms have been proposed in thisproceeding, agglomerative and divisive.The HAI clustering algorithm is a‘‘nearest neighbor’’ algorithm, a type ofagglomerative approach, which formsclusters by joining customer locations tothe nearest adjacent location in asequential fashion. The HCPM sponsorshave developed a divisive algorithmthat they describe as tending ‘‘to createthe smallest number of clusters and isalso by far the most efficient algorithmin terms of computer run-time.’’

42. The agglomerative approaches toclustering, including the HAI nearestneighbor algorithm, work as follows.Initially, each location constitutes itsown individual cluster. This initial stateis modified by merging the two closestclusters together, reducing the totalnumber of clusters by one. Thismodification is repeated until mergingis no longer feasible from an engineeringstandpoint. In the HAI nearest-neighboralgorithm, distance is measured fromthe two customer locations that areclosest together. The HAI nearest-neighbor method contains an additional

constraint that no customer locationsare joined if the distance between themis more than two miles.

43. In the divisive approachadvocated by HCPM, all customerlocations initially are grouped in asingle cluster. If one or moreengineering constraints are violated, theoriginal cluster is divided into a new‘‘parent’’ cluster and a ‘‘child’’ cluster.Customer locations are added to thechild cluster until it is full, i.e., until nomore locations can be added withoutviolating the line count and maximumdistance constraints. This processcontinues until the original cluster hasbeen subdivided into a set of clustersthat conform to the line count andmaximum distance constraints.

44. The clustering module developedby the HCPM sponsors includes severaloptimization routines that seek to lowerthe cost of constructing distributionareas by reassigning certain customerlocations to different clusters. Oneroutine, called ‘‘simple reassignment,’’reassigns a customer location to adifferent cluster if the location is closerto that cluster’s center. The routineoperates sequentially, taking account ofboth the maximum distance and linecount constraints. After thereassignment, cluster centers are re-computed and the routine is repeated.The process continues until no morereassignments can be made. The secondroutine, called ‘‘full optimization,’’considers customer locations one byone. It measures the effect eachcustomer location has on the location ofcluster centers, and moves a locationfrom one cluster to another if the totaldistance from all customer locations totheir cluster centers is reduced. Theroutine moves the customer locationthat gives the most distance reduction ateach step. It continues until no moredistance reduction is possible.

45. While some commenters expressconcern that the HCPM clusteringalgorithm has not undergone extensivereview, most agree that the HCPMclustering algorithm introducesinnovations and improvements overprevious models. For example, BellAtlantic notes that HCPM’s ability tolimit redistribution of customers fromtheir geocoded locations by assigningthem to small microgrids is a substantialimprovement over the approaches ofHAI and BCPM. GTE contends that theHCPM clustering algorithm is asignificant improvement over the HAIclustering approach.

46. While we are cognizant of theconcern expressed by commenters thatthe HCPM clustering algorithm has beenavailable for review for a more limitedtime than the HAI clustering algorithm,


we note that the HCPM clusteringalgorithm and test data have been madeavailable for public comment.Commission staff have met with anddiscussed issues relating to HCPM withthe model sponsors and interestedparties. The BCPM sponsors haveperformed an initial analysis of theHCPM clustering algorithm and whilethey suggest certain improvements tothe HCPM clustering algorithm, nomajor flaw has been identified.Moreover, we observe that clusteringalgorithms, including in particular thedivisive algorithm that HCPM employs,are a generally accepted and thoroughlytested part of statistical theory.

47. We find that the HCPM clusteringalgorithm provides the least-cost, most-efficient method of grouping customersinto serving areas. The HCPM clusteringalgorithm tends to create the smallestnumber of clusters and is more efficientin terms of computer run-time. Thedivisive algorithm has greater ability tominimize costs while conforming totechnological constraints and networkquality standards. By considering at alltimes the most efficient assignment of acustomer to a particular cluster, HCPM’sdivisive clustering algorithm ensuresthat customers will be served at the leastcost possible. In establishing the least-cost, most-efficient method of groupingcustomers into serving areas, we notethat fixed costs (i.e., those that do notvary with the number of lines)associated with DLC terminal devices inserving areas militate in favor ofselecting an algorithm that generates asmall number of large clusters ratherthan a larger number of small clusters.On the other hand, with a small numberof clusters, the average distance of acustomer from a central point of acluster, and consequently the variablecosts associated with cable andstructures, tends to be greater than itwould be if there were more clusters. Inlow-density rural areas, it is likely thatfixed costs will be the most significantcost driver. Consequently, a clusteringalgorithm such as HCPM’s thatgenerates the smallest number ofclusters should provide the least-cost,most-efficient method of determiningcustomer serving areas in rural areas. Inaddition, a practical advantage of thedivisive algorithm is that it runs in asmall fraction of the time required forthe agglomerative approaches. Hence itis more compatible with the criterionthat the model platform be available forreview. Therefore, we conclude thatHCPM’s clustering algorithm is superiorto alternative algorithms designed togroup customers into serving areas and

adopt it for use in the federalmechanism.

3. Outside Plant DesignIn designing outside plant, a model

will most fully comply with theUniversal Service Order’s criteria if itdesigns a network that reflects asaccurately as possible the available dataon customer locations, adheres to soundengineering and forward-looking, cost-minimizing principles, and does notimpede the provision of advancedservices. We conclude that HCPM’soutside plant design algorithms bestmeet the criteria developed in theUniversal Service Order, including therequirement that the technologyassumed in the model is the ‘‘least-cost,most-efficient, and reasonabletechnology for providing the supportedservices.’’ We therefore conclude thatthe federal mechanism shouldincorporate HCPM’s outside plantdesign algorithm.

a. Designing Plant to CustomerLocations

49. We first consider the manner inwhich each of the models designsoutside plant once customer locationand serving areas have been identified.After selecting a model that determinescustomer locations as accurately aspossible and identifies efficient servingareas, it is important that the modeldesign a network that takes the greatestadvantage of that information. Thus, themodel’s method of designing outsideplant should provide the best estimationof the design of outside plant tocustomer locations.

50. The HCPM loop design modulesbuild loop plant directly to individualmicrogrids in which customers arelocated. The microgrids that HCPM isable to design closely reflect theunderlying customer locations. If anaccurate source of geocoded customerlocations is used, the model is capableof building plant directly to everycustomer location with an error of nomore than a few hundred feet for anyindividual customer.

51. By contrast, HAI and BCPMdesign outside plant by modifying thedistribution areas so that they havesquare or rectangular dimensions andrelocating customers so that they aredistributed uniformly within thedistribution area. In doing so, HAI andBCPM discard or distort customerlocation data. For example, althoughBCPM initially locates customers basedon road network information, thesecustomers are subsequently relocatedinto a square distribution area that issmaller than the quadrant in which theroad network containing these

customers is located. HAI’s approach ofdesigning plant to simplified customerlocations within rectangularized servingareas, instead of to actual customerlocations, could result in a systematicunderestimation of outside plant costs.Sprint has observed that HAI’ssimplification of actual clusters torectangles can result in anunderestimation of plant costs. Sprinthas shown that, under certaincircumstances, HAI’s conversion ofactual clusters into rectangulardistribution areas results in a shortermaximum cable length—and thus alower cost of service—within therectangularized cluster than in theactual, underlying cluster. Commissionstaff analysis has also revealed thatHAI’s approach to distributingcustomers evenly within itsrectangularized serving areas can alsoresult in a systematic underestimationin less dense areas when compared tothe cost of constructing plant to servethe underlying customer locationswithin the clusters. BCPM’s approach ofdesigning plant to square customerserving areas that are significantlysmaller than the areas over which thecustomers are actually distributed islikely to have similar infirmities.

52. The HAI model also sacrificesaccuracy by assuming that customersare dispersed uniformly within itsdistribution areas. As a result, theboundaries of HAI’s distribution areasare unlikely to correlate exactly with theboundaries of the clusters, so somecustomers located inside a cluster maybe shifted beyond the boundaries of thatcluster. Commenters have criticized this‘‘squaring up’’ of cluster areas to createdistribution areas, as well as theassumption that customers areuniformly distributed throughout thedistribution area. We agree thatinaccuracies may be introduced bymodifying the geographical boundariesof distribution areas and the location ofcustomers within those areas forpurposes of constructing outside plant.

53. The models also have otherelements that help ensure that anadequate amount of plant isconstructed. For example, all threemodels categorize the terrain whereplant is being built based on factors thataffect the difficulty of building plant,such as soil type, depth to bedrock, andslope. HAI uses multipliers to reflectincreased costs in areas with difficultterrain. BCPM uses separate structurecost tables for each of three terraincategories to reflect higher cost in moredifficult areas. HCPM incorporatesBCPM’s approach. We find that thefederal model should account for terrainfactors in determining structure costs.


For the reasons stated elsewhere in thisOrder, we conclude that the federalplatform should employ HCPM’soutside plant algorithms, which taketerrain factors into account indetermining the cost of outside plant.

54. Thus, both BCPM and HAI, byrelocating customers so as to distributethem uniformly in square or rectangulardistribution areas, create an apparentsystematic downward bias in therequired amount of distribution plantthat is constructed in less dense areas.In contrast, HCPM’s outside plantdesign algorithm is capable of designingplant directly to, or very nearly to,precise customer locations and thusshould generate estimates ofdistribution plant that are sufficient toreach actual customer locations. HCPMtherefore has a significant advantage inestimating sufficient outside plant overHAI and BCPM in its ability to avoid thedistortions associated with adjustingcustomer locations to establish square orrectangular distribution areas. This isparticularly important for ensuring thatthe federal mechanism estimates thecost of a sufficient amount of plant. Bydesigning plant to serve actual customerlocations instead of simplifiedrepresentations of customer locations,HCPM is substantially more likely toestimate the correct amount of plantnecessary for providing the supportedservices. As a result, HCPM’s outsideplant cost estimates are likely to reflectmore accurately the forward-lookingcost of providing the supported servicesand thus comport more fully with theUniversal Service Order’s criteria.

b. Cost Minimization Principles

55. We conclude that the outsideplant module should be able to performoptimization routines through the use ofsound network engineering design touse the most cost-effective forward-looking technology under a variety ofcircumstances, such as varying terrainand density. Each of the three modelproponents has made some effort toconsider alternative plant designs andselect the most economical approach, orto place limits on investment in certaincircumstances in order to control costs.The ability of a model to performoptimization routines is a significantfactor in its ability to estimate the least-cost, most-efficient technology under avariety of conditions, as the firstcriterion in the Universal Service Orderrequires. For example, assuming that theprice of fiber cable or DLC electronicscontinues to drop, an optimizing modelmight shift the mix of fiber and analogcopper towards fiber and away fromcopper.

56. HAI and BCPM have made effortsto incorporate cost minimizationprinciples into their respectiveapproaches. Both models permit mainfeeder routes to be angled towards areasof population concentration in order toreduce feeder costs. BCPM alsoeconomizes the cost of DLC equipmentin the central office by connectingmultiple DLC remote terminals with asingle central office terminal wherepossible, and limits distributioninvestment by limiting total distributionplant within a distribution area to thetotal road distance in the area. In HAI,for feeder plant that is less than 9,000feet in length, the model choosesbetween fiber or copper cabletechnologies based on life-cycle costminimization. In determining plant mix,HAI also can choose between aerial andburied plant based in part on thealternative with the lower life-cyclecost. We have concerns, however, thatthe effectiveness of these costminimization principles are temperedby their practicality in actual use. Forexample, the angling of feeder routestoward population centers withoutregard to considerations such as rightsof way may lead to significantly lowercost estimates than are practicable inreality. More importantly, however,neither HAI nor BCPM wouldrecompute the type of technologydeployed in response to a change inrelative input prices, a key feature ofensuring that costs are minimized,subject to technological and servicequality constraints.

57. In contrast, HCPM selects theoptimal type, number, and placement ofDLCs, which are sized based on thenumber of lines served. For example, ina distribution area with 400 lines,HCPM would determine, based on inputvalues for equipment prices, whether itis more economical to place one DLCwith a maximum capacity of 500 linesor two DLCs each with a maximumcapacity of 250 lines. HCPM alsoconsiders the relative costs of placingvarious feeder technologies (fiber orT–1 on copper) and selects the mosteconomical technology. HCPM furtherselects the lowest relative cost ofdifferent feeder routings.

58. HCPM uses an algorithmdeveloped for network planningpurposes in both its feeder anddistribution segments. This algorithmselects a feeder or distribution routingnetwork by weighing the relativebenefits of minimizing total routedistance (and therefore structure costs)and minimizing total cable distance(and therefore cable investment andmaintenance costs.) HCPM also selectstechnologies (e.g., fiber vs. copper,

aerial vs. buried) on the basis of annualcost factors that account for bothoperating expenses and capital expensesover the expected life of the technology.

59. In reviewing the current models,we conclude that HCPM’s explicitoptimization routines are superior tothose in BCPM and HAI. In addition,because the platform that we adopt forthe federal mechanism may be in placefor a significant time period duringwhich relative costs may change, theimpact of optimization may increase inimportance over time.

60. We do not agree, as some partieshave argued, that the models’ outsideplant design parameters should beverified by comparing the design of themodel networks in specific locations tothe design of incumbent LECs’ existingplant in those locations in all cases.While we recognize that certain factorssuch as terrain, road networks, andcustomer locations are fixed, the designof the existing networks under theseconditions may not represent the least-cost, most-efficient design in somecases. The Commission, in the UniversalService Order, adopted the Joint Board’srecommendation that universal servicesupport should be based on forward-looking economic costs. Existingincumbent LEC plant is not likely toreflect forward-looking technology ordesign choices. Instead, incumbentLECs’ existing plant will tend to reflectchoices made at a time when differenttechnology options existed or when therelative cost of equipment to labor mayhave been different than it is today.Incumbent LECs’ existing plant also wasdesigned and built in a monopolyenvironment, and therefore may notreflect the economic choices faced by anefficient provider in a competitivemarket. Although we do not believe thata forward-looking platform canmeaningfully be verified by comparingits network to an embedded network,we note that the platform is only one ofmany considerations used to set actuallevels of support.

c. Service Quality61. The Universal Service Order’s first

criterion specifies that a model shouldnot ‘‘impede the provision of advancedservices.’’ In the Universal ServiceOrder, the Commission disallowed amodel’s use of loading coils becausetheir use may impede high-speed datatransmission. During the modeldevelopment process, the Bureaurecommended that model proponents‘‘demonstrate how their models permitstandard customer premises equipment(CPE) available to consumers today,such as 28.8 Kbps or 56 Kbps modems,to perform at speeds at least as fast as


the same CPE can perform on the typicalexisting network of a non-rural carrier.’’The BCPM proponents propose thattesting a model network’s capability tosupport data transmission over a 28.8Kbps modem is a ‘‘conservativeapproach’’ to identifying whether amodel may impede advanced servicesbecause network access at 28.8 Kbps is‘‘widely available today in urban areas’’and ‘‘modem speeds of 33.6 Kbps andeven 56 Kbps are becoming more andmore common.’’ We agree that areasonable standard for ensuring that amodel’s network does not impede theprovision of advanced services wouldensure the reasonable performance of28.8 Kbps modems. We find thatproponents of the BCPM, HAI, andHCPM have demonstrated that theirmodels allow 28.8 modems to work atreasonable rates, which will permit allcustomers to have access to high-speeddata transmission.

4. Maximum Copper Loop Length

62. We now turn to the issue of themaximum loop length that the federalmechanism should permit. We notethat, in making this determination, wemust examine whether the models usethe least-cost, most efficient, andreasonable technology while notimpeding the provision of advancedservices. HAI and BCPM proponentsdisagree on the maximum loop lengthover which a copper loop will carry asignal of appropriate quality, withoutthe use of expensive electronics. TheHCPM sponsors state that an 18,000 footcopper loop is capable of meetingcurrent Bellcore standards, but theyotherwise take no position on theappropriate length of copper loops. Themaximum copper loop length will affectthe model’s cost estimates because alonger loop length will permit morecustomers to be served from a singleDLC. As noted above, reducing thenumber of DLCs tends to reduce theoverall cost. In the models, the ‘‘fiber-copper cross-over point’’ determineswhen carriers will use fiber cableinstead of copper cable. BCPM assertsthat Bell Labs standards call for loopsnot to exceed 12,000 feet. Theproponents of BCPM further assert thatcopper loops longer than 13,600 feetwill require the use of an expensiveextended-range line card in the DLC toprovide advanced services, theadditional cost of which will outweighthe cost savings from using longer loops.Taking into consideration loading andresistance, the BCPM default providesthat loop lengths that exceed 12,000 feetwill be fiber cables. HAI contends thatcopper lengths may extend to 18,000

feet using only a slightly moreexpensive line card in the DLC.

63. The Commission sought commenton this issue in the Further Notice anda Public Notice Requesting FurtherComment. A few commenters contendthat use of the HAI standard wouldimpede access to advanced services andviolate Carrier Serving Area (CSA)design standards. The HAI proponentsdisagree, and contend that there is nosupport for the claim that a 18,000 footcopper loop is too long to supportadvanced services such as ISDN andAsymmetric Digital Subscriber Line(ADSL). The HAI proponents note thatthere are two ADSL standards, ADSL1and ADSL2. The HAI proponentscontend that no commenter alleges thatthe facilities modeled by HAI are unableto support ADSL1. Although the HAIproponents admit that their plant designcannot support ADSL2 using a looplength of 18,000 feet, they argue that thehigher speed of ADSL2 is not acomponent of basic service supportedby universal service.

64. We conclude that the federalmechanism should assume a maximumcopper loop length of 18,000 feet. Therecord supports the finding that aplatform that uses 18,000 foot loop-lengths will support at appropriatequality levels the services eligible foruniversal service support. AlthoughBCPM has presented evidence that theprovision of some, high-bandwidthadvanced services may be impaired over18,000-foot loops, we conclude that theBCPM sponsors have not presentedcredible evidence that the 18,000-footlimit will not provide service at anappropriate level, absent the use ofexpensive DLC line cards. We alsodisagree with BCPM’s interpretation ofthe Bell Labs standards manual. Thepublication states, in pertinent part, that‘‘[d]emands for sophisticated servicesare requiring the outside plant networkto support services ranging from low-bitrate transmission to high-bit rates. Tomeet this demand, a digital subscribercarrier is being placed into the networkstarting at 12,000 feet from the serving[wire center].’’ The document isreferring to the design of digital loopcarrier systems and related outside plantthat will ‘‘accommodate a wide range oftransmission applications includingvoice, data, video, sensor control, andmany others.’’ This design standardseems to exceed the service qualitystandards for universal service. We findthat the public interest would not beserved by burdening the federaluniversal service support mechanismwith the additional cost necessary tosupport a network that is capable ofdelivering very advanced services, to

which only a small portion of customerscurrently subscribe. Accordingly, weconclude that the federal mechanismshould assume a maximum copper looplength of 18,000 feet.

IV. Switching and Interoffice Facilities

A. Discussion65. We conclude that the federal

universal service mechanism shouldincorporate, with certain modifications,the HAI 5.0 switching and interofficefacilities module. We find that HAI’smodule satisfies the relevant criteria setforth in the Universal Service Order andwould be simpler to implement thanBCPM’s module. In our evaluation ofthe switching modules in thisproceeding, we note that, for universalservice purposes, where cost differencescaused by differing loop lengths are themost significant cost factor, switchingcosts are less significant than theywould be in, for example, a cost modelto determine unbundled networkelement switching and transport costs.

66. We find that both models meet theUniversal Service Order’s requirementthat a model assume the least-cost,most-efficient and reasonabletechnology to provide the supportedservices. Both models assume the use ofmodern, high-capacity digital switches,and interconnect switching facilitieswith state-of-the-art SONET rings. TheFurther Notice recommended that thefederal mechanism should be capable ofseparately identifying host, remote, andstand-alone switches and of distributingthe savings associated with lower-costremote switches among all lines in agiven host-remote relationship. In theFurther Notice, we requested‘‘engineering and cost data todemonstrate the most cost-effectivedeployment of switches in general andhost-remote switching arrangements inparticular,’’ and sought comment on‘‘how to design an algorithm to predictthis deployment pattern.’’ No party hasdeveloped an algorithm that willdetermine whether a wire center shouldhouse a stand-alone, host, or remoteswitch. As noted above, however, bothmodels can incorporate either a singleblended cost curve that assumes a mixof host, remote, and stand-alongswitches, or use the Bellcore LocalExchange Routing Guide (LERG) toassume the existing deployment ofswitches and host-remote relationships.In the inputs stage of this proceeding wewill weigh the benefits and costs ofusing the LERG database to determineswitch type and will consideralternative approaches by which theselected model can incorporate theefficiencies gained through the


deployment of host-remoteconfigurations.

67. Both models also permit asignificant amount of flexibility toensure the allocation of a reasonableportion of the joint and common costsof the switching and interofficefunctions to the cost of providing thesupported services. As discussed below,however, BCPM’s allocationmethodology would introduce anadditional degree of complexity to theinputs stage of this proceeding that weconclude is not administrativelyjustified in light of the potentialmarginal gains in accuracy. We find thatHAI’s switching and interoffice modulessatisfy the Universal Service Order’srequirements to associate and allocatethe costs of the network elements andfunctionalities necessary to provide thesupported services, and do so in a lesscomplex manner than BCPM’s module,while still providing a degree of detailthat is sufficient for the accuratecomputation of costs for federaluniversal service purposes.

68. We also find that HAI’s switchingmodule more fully satisfies therequirement that data, computations,and assumptions be available for reviewand comment. HAI’s modules use aspreadsheet program that reveals allcomputations and formulas, allows theuser to vary input costs, and provides asimple, user-adjustable allocation factor.BCPM also uses a spreadsheet programthat reveals its computations andformulas, but its default costs andallocation factors are based on resultsfrom the proprietary Switching CostInformation System (SCIS) andSwitching Cost Model (SCM) models,and the defaults used to generate theresults that BCPM uses in its moduleshave not been placed on the record inthis proceeding. To minimize concernsregarding BCPM’s use of proprietarydata, the Commission could, in theinputs stage of the proceeding,substitute other inputs in place of theSCIS and SCM results for the costamounts and allocation factors. Becausethe SCIS and SCM generate suchdetailed results, however, the process oftrying to determine input values toreplace the SCIS and SCM results wouldinject a significant degree of complexityinto the inputs phase of this proceeding.We conclude that this additionalcomplexity in the inputs phase is notjustified by potential gains in accuracy.As noted above, we find that HAI’smodules compute and allocateswitching and interoffice costs with adegree of accuracy that is sufficient forthe computation of federal universalservice costs and in a manner that morereadily provides for public review.

69. We find that both modelsgenerally satisfy the requirement thateach network function and elementnecessary to provide switching andinteroffice transport is associated with aparticular cost, though HAI satisfies thecriterion more thoroughly than BCPM.AT&T contends that the BCPM 3.0signaling network calculations indicateno explicit modeling of signaling costs.In BCPM, signaling costs used todevelop per-line investments areprovided through a user input table thatits proponents assert reflects the cost ofbuilding a modern SS7 network. Thesignaling cost for a wire center is basedon a weighted average of residence andbusiness lines associated with that wirecenter. Users have the option of usingthe provided default values or enteringtheir own values. In contrast to HAI,which explicitly models the cost ofsignaling, BCPM 3.0 simply adds on asignaling cost to the cost of switchingbased upon an input table of costs.Although this technically satisfies thecriterion that any network function orelement necessary to produce supportedservices must have an associated cost,we find that it is not likely to produceresults that are as accurate as anestimate obtained through the explicitcost estimation used in HAI. The HAI5.0 Switching and Interoffice Modulecomputes signaling link investment toend office or tandem links betweensegments connecting different networks.HAI always equips at least two signalinglinks per switch and computes therequired SS7 message traffic accordingto call type and traffic assumptions. Wetherefore conclude that HAI employs amore reliable method of assigning anassociated cost to the network functionsor elements, such as switching andsignaling, that are necessary to producesupported services.

70. Thus, although we conclude thateither model’s switching and interofficemodules could be used to adequatelymodel universal service costs for thesefunctionalities, we conclude that thefederal mechanism should incorporatethe HAI modules. Moreover, partiesrecently have identified certain aspectsof HAI’s interoffice module with respectto which the progress of stateproceedings has shown a need for minorchanges in the model’s coding. Thesechanges were identified too late in theproceeding to be included in this Order.Because general agreement exists amongthe parties as to the need to make them,however, we delegate to the CommonCarrier Bureau the authority to makethese changes.

V. Expenses and General SupportFacilities

71. We now consider the algorithmsof HAI and BCPM for calculatingexpenses and general support facilities(GSF) costs in light of the criteriaidentified in the Universal ServiceOrder. The most relevant of the criteriato expense and GSF issues is the ninth,which requires that the models make areasonable allocation of joint andcommon costs. With this criterion, theCommission intended to ‘‘ensure thatthe forward-looking economic cost[calculated by the federal mechanism]does not include an unreasonable shareof the joint and common costs for non-supported services.’’ Therefore, theplatform of the federal mechanism mustpermit the reasonable allocation of jointand common costs for such non-network related costs as GSF, corporateoverhead, and customer operations. Inaddition, the criterion requires that‘‘[t]he cost study or model must includethe capability to examine and modifythe critical assumptions and engineeringprinciples.’’ Therefore, it is importantthat the platform’s method ofcalculating expenses and GSF costsmust be sufficiently flexible. It is alsoimportant that we select modelcomponents that are compatible withone another to compute cost estimatesin a reasonable time. In light of theseconsiderations, we conclude that theplatform for the federal mechanismshould consist of HAI’s algorithm forcalculating expenses and GSF costs, asmodified to provide some additionalflexibility in calculating expensesoffered by BCPM.

Discussion

72. Although we sought comment onalternative measures for estimatingforward-looking GSF investment andother expenses, most commenters onlyaddress which expenses should becalculated on a per-line basis and whichexpenses should be calculated as apercentage of investment. We agree thatthe majority of expenses can beestimated accurately on the basis ofeither lines or investment. Othercommenters argue, however, that GSFinvestment and other expenses shouldbe based on ARMIS data for individualcompanies to ensure accuracy. GTEargues that, without empirical evidence,neither calculating expenses on a per-line nor a per-investment basis isentirely satisfactory. GTE proposes atime-series forecasting model, which itattaches to its comments. While we findthat most expenses can be estimatedaccurately based on either number oflines or investment, we agree that


neither investment ratios nor per-linecalculations may be entirely satisfactoryfor estimating the forward-looking costsof certain expenses. Further, we observethat many of the input questionsregarding how best to calculateexpenses will be resolved in the inputselection stage of this proceeding, andfind that the platform of the federalmechanism must be sufficiently flexibleto allow for the correct resolution ofthese issues. In this way, we can bestensure that the model will correctlyallocate joint and common costs andincludes sufficient flexibility to allowthe modification and examination ofcritical assumptions.

73. The Florida Public ServiceCommission agrees with our tentativeconclusion that the cost of land, whichcomprises a large portion of GSF,should vary by state in order to reflectdiffering land values. In addition, theFlorida Commission argues that,because of varying labor costs, state-specific expense-to-investmentpercentages should be used to estimateplant-specific operating expenses andstate-specific per-line values should beused to estimate plant non-specificexpenses. We note that there may beother variables, in addition to landvalues and labor costs, that may vary bystate, and find that the model shouldallow GSF and expense calculations tovary by state. Both models allow theuser to make different assumptions bystate, thus both models provide thesame degree of flexibility in this regard.

74. Because BCPM permits users toestimate all operating expenses(including GSF expenses) either as aper-line amount or as a percentage ofinvestment and to adjust these amountseasily, it is somewhat more flexible thanHAI in this regard. Because the federalmechanism must be sufficiently flexibleto accommodate the decisions we willbe making in the input selection phaseof this proceeding, the HAI developershave made minor changes in theirmodel so that expenses can becalculated on a per-line or percentage-of-investment basis. As noted above,many of the issues regarding theappropriate method of calculatingforward-looking expenses will beresolved when we determine the inputvalues that should be used in the federalmechanism.

75. We adopt our tentativeconclusions in the Further Notice withrespect to GSF investment and otherexpenses and conclude that the federalmechanism should: (1) be capable ofcalculating GSF investment andexpenses by state; (2) provide the userwith the capability to calculate eachcategory of expense based either on line

count or investment ratios; and (3)permit users to use different ratios orper-line amounts to calculate expensesfor different size companies. We alsoconclude that the combination of modelcomponents that the Commissionselects in this Order should be capableof generating cost estimates for thesupported services within a reasonabletime. The model will not be used tomake final support calculations untilnext year, but it is important that theCommission and the Universal ServiceJoint Board can use the selectedplatform in the near term in connectionwith the issues that the Joint Board isconsidering in light of the ReferralOrder.

76. We find that the HAI and BCPMmodules for computing expenses andGSF are roughly comparable, andconclude that the federal mechanismshould incorporate the HAI module.Although, as noted above, the BCPMmodule may be somewhat more flexible,and therefore create the possibility forsomewhat more fine-tuning at theinputs stage, we have thoroughly testedHAI’s module and conclude that itgenerates accurate results. We alsoobserve that expenses and GSFrepresent a small percentage of the totalcost of providing the supported services.We therefore conclude that the practicalbenefits of using the HAI moduleoutweigh those of using the BCPMmodule and that, in the interest ofadministrative efficiency, the federalmechanism should incorporate HAI’sexpense and GSF module.

VI. Conclusion

77. In this Order, we select a platformfor the federal mechanism to estimatenon-rural carriers’ forward-looking costto provide the supported services. Togenerate the most accurate estimatespossible, we have selected the bestcomponents from the three models onthe record. The model componentsselected are all generally available to theparties, and a software interface tomerge the selected components is alsoavailable on the Commission’s WorldWide Web site. Thus, the federalplatform is available for use by states,other interested policymakers, and thepublic. Pursuant to the plan establishedin the Further Notice of ProposedRulemaking, we will continue toevaluate model input values with theintention of selecting inputs for thefederal platform at a later date. Onceinput values have been selected, thefederal platform will be used to generatecost estimates.

VII. Procedural Matters and OrderingClauses

A. Final Regulatory Flexibility ActCertification

78. The Regulatory Flexibility Act(RFA) requires a Final RegulatoryFlexibility Analysis (FRFA) inrulemaking proceedings, unless wecertify that ‘‘the rule will not, ifpromulgated, have a significanteconomic impact on a substantialnumber of small entities.’’ It furtherrequires that the FRFA describe theimpact of the rule on small entities. TheRFA generally defines ‘‘small entity’’ ashaving the same meaning as the term‘‘small business concern’’ under theSmall Business Act, 15 USC 632. TheSmall Business Administration (SBA)defines a ‘‘small business concern’’ asone that ‘‘(1) is independently ownedand operated; (2) is not dominant in itsfield of operation; and (3) meets anyadditional criteria established by theSBA. Section 121.201 of the SBAregulations defines a smalltelecommunications entity in SIC code4813 (Telephone Companies ExceptRadio Telephone) as any entity with1,500 or fewer employees at the holdingcompany level. In the Further Notice ofProposed Rulemaking (Further Notice)released July 18, 1997, the Commissionconsidered regulatory flexibility issuesrelating to the selection of a mechanismto determine the forward-lookingeconomic costs of non-rural LECs forproviding supported services, butcertified that there was no significanteconomic impact on a substantialnumber of small entities. TheCommission found that non-rural LECsdo not meet the criteria established bythe SBA to be designated as a ‘‘smallbusiness concern.’’ Non-rural LECs arenot small business concerns pursuant tothe SBA guidelines because they aregenerally large corporations, affiliates ofsuch corporations, or dominate in theirfield of operation. No comments werefiled in response to the certification.

79. We therefore certify, pursuant tosection 605(b) of the RFA, that thisReport and Order will not have asignificant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entities.The Office of Public Affairs, ReferenceOperations Division, will send a copy ofthis Certification, along with this Reportand Order, in a report to Congresspursuant to the Small BusinessRegulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of1996, 5 USC 801(a)(1)(A), and to theChief Counsel for Advocacy of the SmallBusiness Administration, 5 USC 605(b).A copy of this final certification willalso be published in the FederalRegister.


B. Ordering Clauses80. Accordingly, it is ordered,

pursuant to sections 1, 4(i) and (j), and254 of the Communications Act asamended, 47 USC 151, 154(i), 154(j),and 254, that the Fifth Report & Orderin CC Docket Nos. 96–45 and 97–160,FCC 98–279, is adopted, effective 30days after publication of a summary inthe Federal Register.

81. It is further ordered that theCommission’s Office of Public Affairs,Reference Operations Division, shallsend a copy of this Report and Order,including the Final RegulatoryFlexibility Certifications, to the ChiefCounsel for Advocacy of the SmallBusiness Administration.

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 36Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements and Telephone.

47 CFR Part 54

Universal service.

47 CFR Part 69

Communications common carriers.

Federal Communications Commission.Magalie Roman Salas,Secretary.[FR Doc. 98–30687 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration

50 CFR Part 300

[I.D. 110498A]

Fraser River Sockeye and Pink SalmonFisheries; Inseason Orders

AGENCY: National Marine FisheriesService (NMFS), National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA),Commerce.ACTION: Inseason orders.

SUMMARY: NMFS publishes the FraserRiver salmon inseason orders regulatingfisheries in U.S. waters. The orders wereissued by the Fraser River Panel (Panel)of the Pacific Salmon Commission(Commission) and subsequentlyapproved and issued by NMFS duringthe 1998 sockeye and pink salmonfisheries within the Fraser River PanelArea (U.S.). These orders establishedfishing times, areas, and types of gearfor U.S. treaty Indian and all-citizenfisheries during the period theCommission exercised jurisdiction overthese fisheries. Due to the frequency

with which inseason orders are issued,publication of individual orders isimpracticable. The 1998 orders aretherefore being published in thisdocument to avoid fragmentation.DATES: Each of the following inseasonorders was effective when issued andupon announcement on telephonehotline numbers as specified at 50 CFR300.97(b)(1) (See SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION).ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed toWilliam Stelle, Jr., RegionalAdministrator, Northwest Region,NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., BINC15700-Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA 98115-0070.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:William L. Robinson, 206-526-6140.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: TheTreaty between the Government of theUnited States of America and theGovernment of Canada ConcerningPacific Salmon was signed at Ottawa onJanuary 28, 1985, and subsequently wasgiven effect in the United States by thePacific Salmon Treaty Act (Act) at 16U.S.C. 3631–3644.

Under authority of the Act, Federalregulations at 50 CFR part 300, subpartF, provide a framework forimplementation of certain regulations ofthe Commission and inseason orders ofthe Commission’s Panel for sockeye andpink salmon fisheries in the Fraser RiverPanel Area (U.S.). Each year theseregulations apply to fisheries forsockeye and pink salmon in the FraserRiver Panel Area (U.S.) during theperiod when the Commission exercisesjurisdiction over these fisheries.

Under past agreements, theregulations close the Fraser River PanelArea (U.S.) to sockeye and pink salmonfishing unless opened by Panelregulations or by NMFS’ inseason ordersthat give effect to Panel orders. TheCommission’s agreement for 1998 Fraserfisheries provided for set open andclosed periods for U.S. Fraser fisheriesand the Panel restricted these openperiods as required to meet agreed toconservation and allocation objectives.During the fishing season, NMFS mayissue orders that establish fishing timesand areas consistent with the annualCommission regime and inseason ordersof the Panel. Such orders must beconsistent with domestic legalobligations. The RegionalAdministrator, Northwest Region,NMFS, issues the inseason orders.Official notice of these inseason actionsof NMFS is provided by two telephonehotline numbers described at 50 CFR300.97(b)(1). Inseason orders must bepublished in the Federal Register assoon as practicable after they are issued.

Due to the frequency with whichinseason orders are issued, publicationof individual orders is impractical. The1998 orders are, therefore, beingpublished in this document to avoidfragmentation.

The initial Commission regulationsfor U.S. Fraser fisheries were as follows:

1. U.S. gill net and purse seinefisheries in Areas 6, 7, and 7A will beopen Monday through Friday of eachweek during the period July 27 throughAugust 21, and will remain closed at allother times during the Panel controlperiod.

2. U.S. reef net fishery in Areas 7 and7A will be open Saturdays and Sundays,July 25 through August 23, and willremain closed at all other times duringthe Panel control period.

3. The treaty Indian fishery in Areas4B, 5, and 6C will be open noonSundays through noon Fridays, July 26through August 21, and will remainclosed at all other times during thePanel control period.

The above regulations were modifiedby the following inseason orders whichwere adopted by the Panel and issuedfor U.S. fisheries by NMFS during the1998 fishing season. The times listed arelocal times, and the areas designated arePuget Sound Management and CatchReporting Areas as defined in theWashington State Administrative Codeat Chapter 220–22.

Order No. 1998–1: Issued 3:00 p.m.,July 24, 1998.

Treaty Indian FisheryAreas 4B, 5 and 6C: Open for drift

gillnets from 12:00 noon, July 26 to12:00 noon, July 31.

All-citizen FisheryAreas 7, 7A: During the period from

12:01 a.m., July 25 through 11:59 p.m.,July 26, the reef net fishery will be openonly from 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on July25 and from 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. onJuly 26.

Order No. 1998–2: Issued 5:00 p.m.,July 24, 1998.

Treaty Indian FisheryAreas 6, 7, and 7A: Net fishing closed

from 12:01 a.m., July 27 to 4:00 a.m.,July 28. Open from 4:00 a.m. July 28 to7:00 a.m., July 29. Closed from 7:00a.m., July 29 to 11:59 p.m., July 31.

All-citizen FisheryArea 6: Closed to net fishing from

12:01 a.m., July 27 to 11:59 p.m., July31.

Area 7 and 7A drift gillnet fishery:Closed from 12:01 a.m., July 27 to 7:10a.m., July 29. Open from 7:10 a.m. to11:59 p.m., July 29. Closed from 12:01a.m., July 30, to 11:59 p.m., July 31.


Area 7 and 7A purse seine fishery:Closed from 12:01 a.m., July 27 to 5:00a.m., July 30. Open from 5:00 a.m. to9:00 p.m., July 30. Closed from 9:00p.m., July 30 to 11:59 p.m., July 31.

Order No. 1998–3: Issued 5:00 p.m.,Friday, July 31, 1998.

Treaty Indian FisheryAreas 4B, 5, and 6C: Open for drift

gillnets from 12:00 noon, August 2 to12:00 noon, August 7.

Areas 6, 7, and 7A: Open to netfishing from 12:01 a.m., August 3 to 5:00a.m., August 6. Closed from 5:00 a.m.,August 6 to 11:59 p.m., August 7.


12:01 a.m., August 3 to 11:59 p.m.,August 7.

Areas 7 and 7A: During the periodfrom 12:01 a.m., August 1 to 11:59 p.m.,August 2, the reef net fishery will onlybe open from 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. onAugust 1 and from 5:00 a.m. to 9:00p.m. on August 2.

Drift gillnet fishery: Closed from 12:01a.m., August 3 to 7:20 a.m., August 6.Open from 7:20 a.m. to 11:59 p.m.,August 6. Closed from 12:01 a.m. to 7:20a.m., August 7. Open from 7:20 a.m. to11:59 p.m., August 7.

Purse seine fishery: Closed from 12:01a.m., August 3 to 5:00 a.m., August 6.Open from 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.,August 6. Closed from 9:00 p.m., August6 to 5:00 a.m., August 7. Open from 5:00a.m. to 9:00 p.m., August 7. Closed from9:00 p.m. to 11:59 p.m., August 7.

Order No. 1998–4: Issued 5:00 p.m.,August 7, 1998.



Areas 6, 7, and 7A: Closed to netfishing from 12:01 a.m., to 11:59 p.m.,August 10.

All-Citizen FisheryArea 6: Closed to net fishing from


Area 7 and 7A: During the periodfrom 12:01 a.m., August 8 to 11:59 p.m.,August 9, the reef net fishery will beopen from 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. onAugust 8 and from 5:00 a.m. to 9:00p.m. on August 9.

Drift gillnet and purse seine fishing:Closed from 12:01 a.m. to 11:59 p.m.,August 10.

Order No. 1998–5: Issued 5:00 p.m.,August 10, 1998

Treaty Indian FisheryAreas 6, 7, and 7A: Net fishing open

12:01 a.m., August 11 to 5:00 a.m.,

August 12. Closed from 5:00 a.m.,August 12 to 11:59 p.m., August 13.

All-citizen FisheryAreas 7, 7A: Gillnets closed from

12:01 a.m., August 11 to 7:30 a.m.,August 12. Open from 7:30 a.m. to 11:59p.m., August 12. Closed from 12:01 a.m.to 7:30 a.m., August 13. Open from 7:30a.m. to 11:59 p.m., August 13.

Purse seines: Closed from 12:01 a.m.,August 11 to 5:00 a.m., August 12. Openfrom 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., August 12.Closed from 9:00 p.m., August 12 to5:00 a.m., August 13. Open from 5:00a.m. to 9:00 p.m., August 13. Closedfrom 9:00 p.m., August 13 to 11:59 p.m.,August 13.

Order No. 1998–6: Issued at 5:00 p.m.,August 13, 1998.

Treaty Indian FisheryAreas 6, 7, and 7A: Closed to net

fishing from 12:01 a.m., August 14 to11:59 p.m., August 14.

All-citizen FisheryAreas 7 and 7A: Drift gillnets closed

from 12:01 a.m., August 14 to 7:30 a.m.,August 14. Open from 7:30 a.m. to 11:59p.m., August 14.

Purse seines: Closed from 12:01 a.m.,August 14 to 5:00 a.m., August 14. Openfrom 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., August 14.Closed from 9:00 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.,August 14.




Areas 6, 7, and 7A: Closed to netfishing from 12:01 a.m., to 11:59 p.m.,August 17. Open from 12:01 a.m.,August 18 to 11:59 p.m., August 21.



Areas 7 and 7A: During the periodfrom 12:01 a.m., August 15 to 11:59p.m., August 16, the reefnet fishery willbe open only from 5:00 a.m. to 9:00p.m., on August 15 and from 5:00 a.m.to 9:00 p.m., on August 16.

Drift gillnets: Closed from 12:01 a.m.to 7:35 a.m., August 17. Open from 7:35a.m. to 11:59 p.m., August 17. Closedfrom 12:01 a.m., August 18 to 5:00 a.m.,August 20.

Purse seines: Closed from 12:01 a.m.to 5:00 a.m., August 17. Open from 5:00a.m. to 9:00 p.m., August 17. Closedfrom 9:00 p.m., August 17 to 5:00 a.m.,August 20.


Treaty Indian Fishery

Areas 6, 7, and 7A: Closed to netfishing from 5:00 a.m. to 11:59 p.m.,August 21.

All-citizen Fishery:

Areas 7 and 7A: Drift gillnets closedfrom 5:00 a.m., August 20 to 7:35 a.m.,August 21. Open from 7:35 a.m. to 11:59p.m., August 21.

Purse seines: Closed from 5:00 a.m.,August 20 to 5:00 a.m., August 21. Openfrom 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., August 21.Closed from 9:00 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.,August 21.


All-citizen Fishery

Areas 7 and 7A: Closed to reef netfishing from 12:01 a.m., August 22 to11:59 p.m., August 23.

Classification

This action is authorized by 50 CFR300.97, and is exempt from reviewunder E.O. 12866.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3636(b).

Dated: November 12, 1998.Gary C. Matlock,Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries,National Marine Fisheries Service.[FR Doc. 98–30834 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510–22–F



50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 971015246–7293–02; I.D.110998G]

Fisheries of the Northeastern UnitedStates; Summer Flounder Fishery;Commercial Quota Harvested forMaryland

AGENCY: National Marine FisheriesService (NMFS), National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA),Commerce.ACTION: Commercial quota harvest.

SUMMARY: NMFS announces that thesummer flounder commercial quotaavailable to the State of Maryland hasbeen harvested. Vessels issued acommercial Federal fisheries permit forthe summer flounder fishery may notland summer flounder in Maryland forthe remainder of calendar year 1998,unless additional quota becomesavailable through a transfer. Regulationsgoverning the summer flounder fisheryrequire publication of this notification


to advise the State of Maryland that thequota has been harvested and to advisevessel permit holders and dealer permitholders that no commercial quota isavailable for landing summer flounderin Maryland.DATES: Effective 0001 hours November13, 1998, through December 31, 1998.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: PaulH. Jones, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978)281–9273.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:Regulations governing the summerflounder fishery are found at 50 CFRpart 648. The regulations require annualspecification of a commercial quota thatis apportioned among the coastal statesfrom North Carolina through Maine. Theprocess to set the annual commercialquota and the percent allocated to eachstate are described in § 648.100.

The initial total commercial quota forsummer flounder for the 1998 calendaryear was set equal to 11,105,636 lb(5,037,432 kg) (62 FR 66304, December18, 1997). The percent allocated tovessels landing summer flounder inMaryland is 2.03910 percent, or 226,570lb (102,770 kg).

Section 648.100(e)(4) stipulates thatany overages of commercial quotalanded in any state be deducted from

that state’s annual quota for thefollowing year. In the calendar year1997, a total of 214,948 lb (97,499 kg)were landed in Maryland, creating a26,694 lb (12,108 kg) overage that wasdeducted from the amount allocated forlandings in the state during 1998 (63 FR23227, April 28, 1998). The resultingquota for Maryland was 199,876 lb(90,662 kg).

Section 648.101(b) requires theAdministrator, Northeast Region, NMFS(Regional Administrator), to monitorstate commercial quotas and todetermine when a state’s commercialquota is harvested. The RegionalAdministrator is further required topublish a notice in the Federal Registeradvising a state and notifying Federalvessel and dealer permit holders that,effective upon a specific date, the state’scommercial quota has been harvestedand no commercial quota is available forlanding summer flounder in that state.The Regional Administrator hasdetermined, based upon dealer reportsand other available information, that theState of Maryland has attained its quotafor 1998.

The regulations at § 648.4(b) providethat Federal permit holders agree as acondition of the permit not to landsummer flounder in any state that the

Regional Administrator has determinedno longer has commercial quotaavailable. Therefore, effective 0001hours November 13, 1998, furtherlandings of summer flounder inMaryland by vessels holdingcommercial Federal fisheries permitsare prohibited for the remainder of the1998 calendar year, unless additionalquota becomes available through atransfer and is announced in theFederal Register. Effective November13, 1998, federally permitted dealers arealso advised that they may not purchasesummer flounder from federallypermitted vessels that land in Marylandfor the remainder of the calendar year,or until additional quota becomesavailable through a transfer.

Classification

This action is required by 50 CFR part648 and is exempt from review underE.O. 12866.


Dated: November 12, 1998.Gary C. Matlock,Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries,National Marine Fisheries Service.[FR Doc. 98–30794 Filed 11–13–98; 11:42am]BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

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

64008

Vol. 63, No. 222


OFFICE OF PERSONNELMANAGEMENT

5 CFR Part 316

RIN 3206 AI45

Temporary and Term Employment

AGENCY: Office of PersonnelManagement.ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Office of PersonnelManagement (OPM) proposes to reviseits regulations to provide the possibilityfor promotion of employees appointedas worker-trainees under TAPERappointments through grade GS–4, WG–5, or equivalent grades in the FederalWage System.DATES: Written comments will beconsidered if received on or beforeDecember 18, 1998.ADDRESSES: Send or deliver writtencomments to Mary Lou Lindholm,Associate Director for Employment, U.S.Office of Personnel Management, 1900 EStreet, NW., Room 6500, Washington,DC 20415.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Diane Tyrrell, 202–606–0830, FAX 202–606–0390, or TDD 202–606–0023.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In strivingto meet the goals under the President’swelfare to work initiative, Federalagencies have used the TAPER(temporary appointment pending theestablishment of a register) authority astheir primary appointing authority toappoint employees into the workertrainee program. Using this authority,the current regulations do not allow forpromotion beyond the GS–3, WG–4 andequivalent level. Based on the success todate with the use of this authority,agencies would like more flexibility tobe able to advance employees beyondthe current limits. Currently, theseemployees must compete for otheropportunities or remain at this gradelevel until completion of the three yearperiod under the program. Agencieshave voiced concern regarding the

undue restriction of this grade levellimitation.

Program Background

The worker-trainee program wasinitiated in 1968 and was developedand used, at that time, extensively as avehicle to competitively hire unskilled,disadvantaged workers. By 1979,activity under this program became verylimited and as a result too costly for theOffice of Personnel Management (OPM)to maintain registers. Rather thancompletely eliminate the program, OPMretained the worker trainee as an optionunder the TAPER authority. Today, it isonce again being used widely inconnection with the welfare to workprogram.

Incentive For Change

Agencies have had positiveexperiences in the recruitment ofindividuals from the welfare rolls.Currently, employees who are eager andshow an ability to excel beyond thecurrent grade level limits of GS–3, WG–4 and equivalent, are forced to remainat this level. In an effort to providemaximum opportunity to those hiredinto the worker-trainee program, whileremaining consistent with the intent ofthe program, agencies have expressedinterest in providing promotionopportunity beyond the current programlimits. This enhancement would allowpromotion beyond the GS–3, WG–4levels when appropriate, and wouldfurther the overall goals of the welfareto work program.

Justification for New Limit

While there is a need to recognizeemployee performance and provideadvancement opportunity, OPM mustbalance this with the original intent ofthe program to provide opportunity for‘‘trainees’’ to acquire or improve basicskills. This program was designed andcontinues to function as a ‘‘trainee’’program for those individuals who arenewly hired into government service.Based on classification standards, thehighest grade level to which employeeswould be expected to advance underthis program would be to the GS–4,WG–5 or equivalent. We therefore findthis to be an appropriate level at whichto limit advancement in the worker-trainee program.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

I certify that this regulation will nothave a significant economic impact ona substantial number of small entitiesbecause it affects only certain Federalemployees.


Government employees.U.S. Office of Personnel Management.Janice R. Lachance,Director.

Accordingly, OPM is proposing toamend part 316 of title 5, Code ofFederal Regulations, as follows:

PART 316—TEMPORARY AND TERMEMPLOYMENT


Authority: 5 U.S.C. 3301, 3302: E.O. 10577,3 CFR 1954–1958 Comp., p. 218.

Subpart B—TAPER Employment

2. Section § 316.201 paragraph (b) isrevised to read as follows:

§ 316.201 Purpose and duration.

* * * * *(b) Specific authority for Worker-

Trainee positions. Agencies may makeTAPER appointments to positions atGS–1, WG–1 and WG–2 and mayreassign or promote the appointees toother positions through grade GS–4,WG–5, or equivalent grades in theFederal Wage System consistent with§ 330.501 of this chapter. Agencies areauthorized to reassign or promoteWorker-Trainees under this authority.[FR Doc. 98–30842 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6325–01–P


Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 930

[Docket No. FV98–930–1 PR]

Tart Cherries Grown in the States ofMichigan, et al.; Final Free andRestricted Percentages for the 1998–99Crop Year for Tart Cherries

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,USDA.ACTION: Proposed rule.

64009Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 222 / Wednesday, November 18, 1998 / Proposed Rules

SUMMARY: This proposal invitescomments on the establishment of finalfree and restricted percentages for the1998–99 crop year. The percentages are60 percent free and 40 percentrestricted. The percentages wouldestablish the proportion of cherries fromthe 1998 crop which may be handled innormal commercial outlets and areintended to stabilize supplies andprices, and strengthen marketconditions. The percentages wererecommended by the Cherry IndustryAdministrative Board (Board), the bodywhich locally administers the marketingorder. The marketing order regulates thehandling of tart cherries grown in theStates of Michigan, New York,Pennsylvania, Oregon, Utah,Washington, and Wisconsin.DATES: Comments must be received byDecember 3, 1998.ADDRESSES: Interested persons areinvited to submit written commentsconcerning this action. Comments mustbe sent to the Docket Clerk, Fruit andVegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, room2525–S, P.O. Box 96456, Washington,DC 20090–6456; Fax: (202) 720–5698 orE-mail: [email protected] comments should reference thedocket number and the date and pagenumber of this issue of the FederalRegister and will be made available forpublic inspection in the Office of theDocket Clerk during regular businesshours.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Patricia A. Petrella or Kenneth G.Johnson, Marketing OrderAdministration Branch, Fruit andVegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, room2525–S, P.O. Box 96456, Washington,DC 20090–6456; telephone: (202) 720–2491. Small businesses may requestinformation on complying with thisregulation, or obtain a guide oncomplying with fruit, vegetable, andspecialty crop marketing agreementsand orders by contacting Jay Guerber,Marketing Order AdministrationBranch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs,AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 96456, Room2525–S, Washington, DC 20090–6456;telephone: (202) 720–2491; Fax: (202)205–6632, or E-mail:[email protected]. You mayalso view the marketing agreements andorders small business compliance guideat the following website:http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/

moab.html.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Thisproposal is issued under marketingagreement and Order No. 930 (7 CFRpart 930), regulating the handling of tartcherries produced in the States ofMichigan, New York, Pennsylvania,

Oregon, Utah, Washington, andWisconsin, hereinafter referred to as the‘‘order.’’ The order is effective under theAgricultural Marketing Agreement Actof 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601–674),hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Act.’’

The Department of Agriculture(Department) is issuing this rule inconformance with Executive Order12866.

This proposal has been reviewedunder Executive Order 12988, CivilJustice Reform. Under the marketingorder provisions now in effect, final freeand restricted percentages may beestablished for tart cherries handled byhandlers during the crop year. This rulewould establish final free and restrictedpercentages for tart cherries for the1998–99 crop year, beginning July 1,1998, through June 30, 1999. This rulewould not preempt any State or locallaws, regulations, or policies, unlessthey present an irreconcilable conflictwith this rule.

The Act provides that administrativeproceedings must be exhausted beforeparties may file suit in court. Undersection 608c(15)(A) of the Act, anyhandler subject to an order may filewith the Secretary a petition stating thatthe order, any provision of the order, orany obligation imposed in connectionwith the order is not in accordance withlaw and requesting a modification of theorder or to be exempt therefrom. Suchhandler is afforded the opportunity fora hearing on the petition. After thehearing, the Secretary would rule on thepetition. The Act provides that thedistrict court of the United States in anydistrict in which the handler is aninhabitant, or has his or her principalplace of business, has jurisdiction inequity to review the Secretary’s rulingon the petition, provided an action isfiled not later than 20 days after the dateof the entry of the ruling.

The order prescribes procedures forcomputing an optimum supply andpreliminary and final percentages thatestablish the amount of tart cherries thatcan be marketed throughout the season.The regulations apply to all handlers oftart cherries that are in the regulateddistricts. Tart cherries in the freepercentage category may be shippedimmediately to any market, whilerestricted percentage tart cherries mustbe held by handlers in a primary orsecondary reserve, or be diverted inaccordance with § 930.59 of the orderand § 930.159 of the regulations, or usedfor exempt purposes (and obtainingdiversion credit) under § 930.62 of theorder and § 930.162 of the regulations.The regulated Districts for this seasonare: District one—Northern Michigan;District two—Central Michigan; District

three—Southwest Michigan; Districtfour—New York; and District seven—Utah. Districts five, six, eight and nine(Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington,and Wisconsin, respectively) would notbe regulated for the 1998–99 season.

The order prescribes under § 930.52that upon adoption of the order, thosedistricts to be regulated shall be thosedistricts in which the average annualproduction of cherries over the priorthree years has exceeded 15 millionpounds. A district not meeting the 15million pound requirement shall not beregulated in such crop year. Therefore,for this season, handlers in the districtsof Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington,and Wisconsin would not be subject tovolume regulation. They were also notsubject to volume regulation during thelast season.

Section 930.50(a) of the orderdescribes procedures for computing anoptimum supply for each crop year. TheBoard must meet on or about July 1 ofeach crop year, to review sales data,inventory data, current crop forecastsand market conditions. The optimumsupply volume shall be calculated as100 percent of the average sales of theprior three years to which is added adesirable carryout inventory not toexceed 20 million pounds or such otheramount as may be established with theapproval of the Secretary. The optimumsupply represents the desirable volumeof tart cherries that should be availablefor sale in the coming crop year.

The order also provides that on orabout July 1 of each crop year, the Boardis required to establish preliminary freeand restricted percentages. Thesepercentages are computed by deductingthe carryin inventory from the optimumsupply figure (adjusted to raw productequivalent—the actual weight ofcherries handled to process into cherryproducts) and dividing that figure by thecurrent year’s USDA crop forecast. Thecarryin inventory figure reflects theamount of cherries that handlersactually have in inventory. If theresulting quotient is 100 percent ormore, the Board should establish apreliminary free market tonnagepercentage of 100 percent. If thequotient is less than 100 percent, theBoard should establish a preliminaryfree market tonnage percentageequivalent to the quotient, rounded tothe nearest whole percent, with thecomplement being the preliminaryrestricted percentage.

The Board met on June 18–19, 1998,and computed, for the 1998–99 cropyear, an optimum supply of 287.4million pounds. The Boardrecommended that the carryout figurebe zero pounds. Carryout is the amount

64010 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 222 / Wednesday, November 18, 1998 / Proposed Rules

of fruit required to be carried into thesucceeding crop year and is set by theBoard after considering marketcircumstances and needs. This figurecan range from zero to a maximum of 20million pounds. The Board calculatedpreliminary free and restrictedpercentages as follows: The USDAestimate of the crop was 292.5 millionpounds; a 46 million pound carryinadded to that equaled a total availablesupply of 338.5 million pounds. Thecarryin figure reflects the amount ofcherries that handlers actually have ininventory. The optimum supply wassubtracted from the total estimatedavailable supply resulting in a surplusof 51.1 million pounds of tart cherries.An adjustment for changed economicconditions of 37.0 million pounds wasadded to the surplus, pursuant tosection 930.50 of the order. Thisadjustment is discussed later in thisdocument. After the adjustment, theresulting total surplus is 125.1 millionpounds of tart cherries. The surplus wasdivided by the production in theregulated districts (258 million pounds)and resulted in 66 percent free and 34percent restricted for the 1998–99 cropyear. The Board recommended thesepercentages by a 15 to 2 vote, with oneabstention. Those Board membersvoting against the recommendationdisagreed with the computation of thecarryin figure because they thought thatthe figure should also include theamount in the inventory reserve. Recordevidence received during thepromulgation of the order indicated thatthe carryin figure reflects the amount ofcherries that handlers actually have ininventory (not in the primary orsecondary reserve). The Boardrecommended the percentages andannounced them to the industry asrequired by the order.

The preliminary percentages werebased on the USDA production estimateand the following supply and demandinformation for the 1998–99 crop year:

In millions ofpounds

Optimum Supply Formula:(1) Average sales of the

prior three years .............. 287.4(2) Less carryout ................. 0(3) Optimum Supply cal-

culated by the Board atthe June meeting ............. 287.4

Preliminary Percentages:(4) Less carryin as of July

1, 1998 ............................. 46.0(5) Tonnage requirement for

current crop year ............. 241.4(6) USDA crop estimate ...... 292.5(7) Surplus (item 6 minus

item 5) .............................. 51.1


(8) Economic adjustment tosurplus ............................. 37.0

(9) Adjusted surplus (item 7plus item 8) ...................... 88.1

(10) USDA crop estimate forregulated districts ............ 258.0

Percentages Free Restricted

(11) Preliminary per-centages (item 9 di-vided by item 10) x100 ............................. 66 34

Between July 1 and September 15 ofeach crop year, the Board may modifythe preliminary free and restrictedpercentages by announcing interim freeand restricted percentages to adjust tothe actual pack occurring in theindustry.

Section 930.50(d) of the order requiresthe Board to meet no later thanSeptember 15 to recommend final freeand restricted percentages to theSecretary for approval. The Board meton September 10–11, 1998, andrecommended final free and restrictedpercentages of 60 and 40, respectively.The Board recommended that theinterim percentages and finalpercentages be the same percentages. Atthat time, the Board had available actualproduction amounts to review and madethe necessary adjustments to thepercentages.

The Secretary establishes final freeand restricted percentages through aninformal rulemaking process. Thesepercentages would make available thetart cherries necessary to achieve theoptimum supply figure calculatedearlier by the industry. The differencebetween any final free market tonnagepercentage designated by the Secretaryand 100 percent is the final restrictedpercentage.

The Board used a revised optimumsupply figure for its final free andrestricted percentage calculations. Thefigure is 288.6 million pounds instead ofthe 287.4 million pound figure used inJune. This is because the 3-year averagesales figure used at the June meeting bynecessity required an estimate of June1998 sales. The 3-year average salesfigure used in the final calculationsreflects actual sales through the 1997–98crop year.

The optimum supply, therefore is288.6 million pounds. The actualproduction recorded by the Board was339.9 million pounds, which is a 47.4million pound increase from the USDAcrop estimate of 292.5 million pounds.The increase in the crop is due to very

favorable growing conditions inportions of the State of Michigan thisseason. For the current crop year, 305.3million pounds of tart cherries wereproduced in the regulated districts.

A 38.8 million pound carryin (actualcarryin as opposed to the 46 millionpounds originally estimated) wassubtracted from the optimum supply of288.6 million pounds, which yields atonnage requirement for the currentcrop year of 249.8 million pounds.Subtracted from the actual productionin all districts of 339.9 million poundsreported by the Board is the tonnagerequired for the current crop year (249.8million pounds) which results in a 90.1million pound surplus. An adjustmentfor changed economic conditions of 31.4million pounds was added to thesurplus, pursuant to section 930.50 ofthe order. This adjustment is discussedlater in this document. After theadjustment, the resulting total surplus is121.5 million pounds of tart cherries.The total surplus of 121.5 millionpounds is divided by the 305.3 millionpound volume of tart cherries producedin the regulated districts. This results ina 40 percent restricted percentage and acorresponding 60 percent freepercentage for the regulated districts.

The final percentages are based on theBoard’s reported production figures andthe following supply and demandinformation for the 1998–99 crop year:


Optimum Supply Formula:(1) Average sales of the

prior three years .............. 288.6(2) Less carryout ................. 0(3) Optimum Supply cal-

culated by the Board atthe September meeting ... 288.6

Final Percentages:(4) Less carryin as of July

1, 1998 ............................. 38.8(5) Tonnage required cur-

rent crop year .................. 249.8(6) Board reported produc-

tion ................................... 339.9(7) Surplus (item 6 minus

item 5) .............................. 90.1(8) Economic adjustment to

surplus ............................. 31.4(9) Adjusted surplus (item 7

plus item 8) ...................... 121.5(10) Production in regulated

districts ............................. 305.3

Percentages Free Restricted

(11) Final Percentages(item 9 divided byitem 10) x 100 ........... 60 40

As previously mentioned, the Boardrecommended an economic adjustmentbe made in computing both the


preliminary and final percentages forthe 1998–99 crop year. This isauthorized under § 930.50. Thesesubsections provide that in itsdeliberations of volume regulationrecommendations, the Board consider,among other things, the expecteddemand conditions for cherries indifferent market segments and ananalysis of economic factors havingbearing on the marketing cherries. Basedon these considerations, the Board maymodify its marketing policy calculationsto reflect changes in economicconditions.

The order provides that the 3-yearaverage of all sales be used indetermining the optimum supply ofcherries. In recent seasons, however,sales to export markets have risendramatically. In 1997, export sales of61.1 million pounds were 379 percent of1994 sales (16.1 million pounds). Theincrease in export sales to thosedestinations exempt from volumeregulation (countries other than Canada,Japan, and Mexico) was even greater,rising from 12.2 million pounds to 48.7million pounds. Export sales tocountries other than Canada, Japan andMexico were exempt from volumeregulations as a way for the tart cherryindustry to find and expand newmarkets for their products. Includingthis volume of sales in the optimumsupply formula, however, results in anoverestimate of the volume of tartcherries that can be profitably marketedin unrestricted markets. Thus, the Boardrecommended adjusting its estimate ofsurplus cherries by adding exemptexport sales.

By recommending this marketingpolicy modification, the Board believesthat it will provide stability to themarketplace and the industry will be ina better situation for future years sincenew markets will have been developed.Board members were of the opinionthat, if this adjustment is not made,growers could be paid less than theirproduction costs, because handlerswould suffer financial losses that wouldprobably be passed on. Handlers wouldhave to meet their reserve obligations byother means. In addition, the value ofcherries already in inventory could bedepressed due to the overabundantsupply of available cherries, a resultinconsistent with the intent of the orderand the Act.

The Department’s ‘‘Guidelines forFruit, Vegetable, and Specialty CropMarketing Orders’’ specify that 110percent of recent years’ sales should bemade available to primary markets eachseason before recommendations forvolume regulation are approved. Thisgoal would be met by the establishment

of a preliminary percentage whichreleases 100 percent of the optimumsupply and the additional release of tartcherries provided under § 930.50(g).This release of tonnage, equal to 10percent of the average sales of the priorthree years sales, is made available tohandlers each season. The Boardrecommended that such release shall bemade available to handlers the firstweek of December and the first week ofMay. Handlers can decide how much ofthe 10 percent release they would liketo receive during the December and Mayrelease dates. Once released, suchcherries are released for free use by suchhandler. Approximately 29 millionpounds would be made available tohandlers this season in accordance withDepartment Guidelines. This releasewould be made available to everyhandler and released to such handler inproportion to its percentage of the totalregulated crop handled. If such handlerdoes not take such handler’sproportionate amount, such amountshall remain in the inventory reserve.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act andEffects on Small Businesses

The Agricultural Marketing Service(AMS) has considered the economicimpact of this action on small entitiesand has prepared this initial regulatoryflexibility analysis. The RegulatoryFlexibility Act (RFA) would allow AMSto certify that regulations do not have asignificant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entities.However, as a matter of general policy,AMS’ Fruit and Vegetable Programs(Programs) no longer opt for suchcertification, but rather performregulatory flexibility analyses for anyrulemaking that would generate theinterest of a significant number of smallentities. Performing such analyses shiftsthe Programs’ efforts from determiningwhether regulatory flexibility analysesare required to the consideration ofregulatory options and economic orregulatory impacts.

The purpose of the RFA is to fitregulatory actions to the scale ofbusiness subject to such actions in orderthat small businesses will not be undulyor disproportionately burdened.Marketing orders issued pursuant to theAct, and rules issued thereunder, areunique in that they are brought aboutthrough group action of essentiallysmall entities acting on their ownbehalf. Thus, both statutes have smallentity orientation and compatibility.

There are approximately 40 handlersof tart cherries who are subject toregulation under the tart cherrymarketing order and approximately1,400 producers of tart cherries in the

regulated area. Small agriculturalservice firms, which includes handlers,have been defined by the SmallBusiness Administration (13 CFR121.601) as those having annual receiptsof less than $5,000,000, and smallagricultural producers are defined asthose having annual receipts of less than$500,000.

Board and subcommittee meetings arewidely publicized in advance and areheld in a location central to theproduction area. The meetings are opento all industry members (includingsmall business entities) and otherinterested persons—who are encouragedto participate in the deliberations andvoice their opinions on topics underdiscussion. Thus, Boardrecommendations can be considered torepresent the interests of small businessentities in the industry.

The principal demand for tart cherriesis in the form of processed products.Tart cherries are dried, frozen, canned,juiced and pureed. During the period1993/94 through 1997/98,approximately 89 percent of the U.S.tart cherry crop, or 281.1 millionpounds, was processed annually. Of the281.1 million pounds of tart cherriesprocessed, 63 percent was frozen, 25percent canned and 4 percent utilizedfor juice. The remaining 8 percent wasdried or assembled into juice packs.

Based on National AgriculturalStatistics Service data, acreage in theUnited States devoted to tart cherryproduction has been trendingdownward. In the ten-year period, 1987/88 through 1997/98, tart cherry areadecreased from 50,050 acres, to lessthan 40,000 acres. In 1997/98,approximately 88 percent of domestictart cherry acreage is located in fourStates: Michigan, New York, Utah andWisconsin. Michigan leads the nation intart cherry acreage with 67 percent ofthe total. Michigan produces about 78percent of the U.S. tart cherry crop eachyear. In 1997/98, tart cherry acreage inMichigan decreased to 26,800 from27,300 in the previous year.

In crop years 1987/88 through 1997/98, tart cherry production ranged froma high of 359 million pounds in 1987/88 to a low of 189.9 million pounds in1991/92. The price per pound to tartcherry growers ranged from a low of 7.3cents in 1987 to a high of 46.4 cents in1991. These problems of wide supplyand price fluctuation in the tart cherryindustry are national in scope andimpact. Growers testified during theorder promulgation process that theprices which they received often did notcome close to covering the costs ofproduction. They also testified thatproduction costs for most growers range


between 20 and 22 cents per pound,which is well above average pricesreceived during 1993–1995.

The industry has demonstrated a needfor an order during the promulgationprocess of the marketing order becauselarge variations in annual tart cherrysupplies tend to lead to fluctuations inprices and disorderly marketing. As aresult of these fluctuations in supplyand price, growers realize less income.The industry chose a volume controlmarketing order to even out these widevariations in supply and improvereturns to growers. During thepromulgation process, proponentstestified that small growers andprocessors would have the most to gainfrom implementation of a marketingorder because many such growers andhandlers had been going out of businessdue to low tart cherry prices. They alsotestified that, since an order would helpincrease grower returns, this shouldincrease the buffer between businesssuccess and failure because smallgrowers and handlers tend to be lesscapitalized than larger growers andhandlers.

In discussing the possibility ofmarketing percentages for the 1998–99crop year, the Board considered thefollowing factors contained in themarketing policy: (1) The estimated totalproduction of tart cherries; (2) theestimated size of the crop to be handled;(3) the expected general quality of suchcherry production; (4) the expectedcarryover as of July 1 of canned andfrozen cherries and other cherryproducts; (5) the expected demandconditions for cherries in differentmarket segments; (6) supplies ofcompeting commodities; (7) an analysisof economic factors having a bearing onthe marketing of cherries; (8) theestimated tonnage held by handlers inprimary or secondary inventoryreserves; and (9) any estimated releaseof primary or secondary inventoryreserve cherries during the crop year.

The Board’s review of the factorsresulted in the computation andannouncement in June 1998 ofpreliminary free and restrictedpercentages and in the final and freeand restricted percentages proposed inthis rule (60 percent free and 40 percentrestricted).

The Board discussed the demand fortart cherries is inelastic at high and lowlevels of production. At the extremes,different factors become operational.The order’s promulgation record statedthat in very short crops there is limitedbut sufficient exclusive demand forcherries that can cause processor pricesto double and grower prices to triple. Inthe event of large crops, there seems to

be no price low enough to expand tartcherry sales in the marketplacesufficient to market the crops.

In considering alternatives, the Boarddiscussed not having volume regulationthis season. Board members stated thatno volume regulation would bedetrimental to the tart cherry industry.Returns to growers would not evencover their production costs for thisseason. Growers would continue to goout of business since many would notreceive any money for their crop.

The Board discussed the fact that thegeneral quality of the crop for thisseason is fair to good. Alternativeproducts used by food processing andpreparation establishments instead ofcherries are apples and blueberrieswhich can be substituted for cherries ifcherries cannot be sold at consistentprices.

As mentioned earlier, theDepartment’s ‘‘Guidelines for Fruit,Vegetable, and Specialty CropMarketing Orders’’ specify that 110percent of recent years’ sales should bemade available to primary markets eachseason before recommendations forvolume regulation are approved. Thequantity available under this rule is 110percent of the quantity shipped in theprior three years.

The free and restricted percentagesproposed to be established by this rulerelease the optimum supply and applyuniformly to all regulated handlers inthe industry, regardless of size. Thereare no known additional costs incurredby small handlers that are not incurredby large handlers. The stabilizing effectsof the percentages impact all handlerspositively by helping them maintainand expand markets, despite seasonalsupply fluctuations. Likewise, pricestability positively impacts allproducers by allowing them to betteranticipate the revenues their tartcherries will generate.

The Department has not identifiedany relevant Federal rules thatduplicate, overlap, or conflict with thisregulation.

While the level of benefits of thisrulemaking is difficult to quantify, thestabilizing effects of the volumeregulations impact both small and largehandlers positively by helping themmaintain markets even though tartcherry supplies fluctuate widely fromseason to season.

In compliance with Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB)regulations (5 CFR part 1320) whichimplement the Paperwork ReductionAct of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13), theinformation collection andrecordkeeping requirements have been

previously approved by OMB andassigned OMB Number 0581–0177.

There are some reporting,recordkeeping and other compliancerequirements under the marketing order.The reporting and recordkeepingburdens are necessary for compliancepurposes and for developing statisticaldata for maintenance of the program.The forms require information which isreadily available from handler recordsand which can be provided without dataprocessing equipment or trainedstatistical staff. As with other, similarmarketing order programs, reports andforms are periodically studied to reduceor eliminate duplicate informationcollection burdens by industry andpublic sector agencies. This rule doesnot change those requirements.

A 15-day comment period is providedto allow interested persons to respondto this proposal. Fifteen days is deemedappropriate because this rule needs tobe in place as soon as possible toachieve its intended purpose of makingthe optimum supply quantity computedby the Board available to handlersmarketing 1998–99 crop year cherries.All written comments timely receivedwill be considered before a finaldetermination is made on this matter.


Marketing agreements, Reporting andrecordkeeping requirements, Tartcherries.

For the reasons set forth in thepreamble, 7 CFR part 930 is proposed tobe amended as follows:

PART 930—TART CHERRIES GROWNIN THE STATES OF MICHIGAN, NEWYORK, PENNSYLVANIA, OREGON,UTAH, WASHINGTON, ANDWISCONSIN


Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

2. Subpart—SupplementaryRegulations is added, consisting of§ 930.251, to read as follows:

Subpart—Supplementary Regulations

Note: This section will not appear in theannual Code of Federal Regulations.

§ 930.251 Final free and restrictedpercentages for the 1998–99 crop year.

The final percentages for tart cherrieshandled by handlers during the cropyear beginning on July 1, 1998, whichshall be free and restricted, respectively,are designated as follows: Freepercentage, 60 percent and restrictedpercentage, 40 percent.


Dated: November 9, 1998.Robert C. Keeney,Deputy Administrator, Fruit and VegetablePrograms.[FR Doc. 98–30672 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION

12 CFR Ch. VI

RIN 3052–AB85

Statement on Regulatory Burden

AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration.ACTION: Notice of intent; commentperiod extension.

SUMMARY: The Farm CreditAdministration (FCA) Board extends thecomment period on the RegulatoryBurden Notice for 60 more days sointerested parties have additional timeto identify those regulations andpolicies that impose unnecessaryburdens on Farm Credit System (FCS)institutions.DATES: Please send your comments to uson or before January 19, 1999.ADDRESSES: You may mail or delivercomments to Patricia W. DiMuzio,Director, Regulation and PolicyDivision, Office of Policy and Analysis,Farm Credit Administration, 1501 FarmCredit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102–5090 or send them by facsimiletransmission to (703) 734–5784. Youmay also submit comments viaelectronic mail to ‘‘[email protected]’’or through the Pending Regulationssection of the FCA’s interactive websiteat ‘‘www.fca.gov.’’ Copies of allcommunications received will beavailable for review by interested partiesin the Office of Policy and Analysis,Farm Credit Administration.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:S. Robert Coleman, Senior Policy

Analyst, Regulation and PolicyDivision, Office of Policy andAnalysis, Farm Credit Administration,McLean, VA 22102–5090, (703) 883–4498,

orRichard A. Katz, Senior Attorney,

Regulatory Enforcement Division,Office of General Counsel, FarmCredit Administration, McLean, VA22102–5090, (703) 883–4020, TDD(703) 883–4444.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August18, 1998, we published a notice in theFederal Register seeking informationand guidance about how to reduceregulatory burdens on FCS institutions.The comment period will expire onNovember 20, 1998. See 63 FR 44176,

August 18, 1998. In response to arequest, we now extend the commentperiod until January 19, 1999, so youwill have more time to respond.

Dated: November 12, 1998.Floyd Fithian,Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.[FR Doc. 98–30810 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6705–01–P



14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–NM–251–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; BoeingModel 737–100, –200, –300, –400, and–500 Series Airplanes

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

SUMMARY: This document proposes theadoption of a new airworthinessdirective (AD) that is applicable to allBoeing Model 737–100, –200, –300,–400, and –500 series airplanes. Thisproposal would require a one-timeinspection of the main landing gear(MLG) wheel assemblies to determinewhether certain parts are installed, andfollow-on corrective actions, ifnecessary. For certain airplanes, thisproposal also would require eventualmodification of MLG wheel assemblies,which would terminate therequirements of this AD. This proposalis prompted by incidents of multiple tiebolt failures on certain BFGoodrichwheel assemblies. The actions specifiedby the proposed AD are intended toprevent failure of multiple tie bolts ofMLG wheel assemblies, which couldresult in failure of the wheel rim, rapidrelease of tire pressure, and possibleconsequent damage to the airplane andinjury to passengers and flightcrew.DATES: Comments must be received byJanuary 4, 1999.ADDRESSES: Submit comments intriplicate to the Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), TransportAirplane Directorate, ANM–114,Attention: Rules Docket No. 98–NM–251–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 from

BFGoodrich Aerospace, Aircraft Wheelsand Brakes, P.O. Box 340, Troy, Ohio45373. This information may beexamined at the FAA, TransportAirplane Directorate, 1601 LindAvenue, SW., Renton, Washington.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: DonKurle, Senior Aerospace Engineer,Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–130S, FAA, Transport AirplaneDirectorate, Seattle Aircraft CertificationOffice, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,Washington 98055–4056; telephone(425) 227–2798; fax (425) 227–1181.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 98–NM–251–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–114, Attention: Rules Docket No.98–NM–251–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

DiscussionThe FAA has received reports

indicating that tie bolts have failed oncertain BFGoodrich wheel assembliesthat are installed on the main landinggear (MLG) of Boeing Model 737–100,–200, –300, –400, and –500 seriesairplanes. Most of the incidents of


failure of multiple tie bolts (that is,failure of more than one bolt on a singlewheel) resulted only in flat tires.However, since 1989, there have beenseveral incidents that resulted in high-energy release of the wheel rim andconsequent damage to the airplane. Inone incident, failure of both tires on theleft MLG resulted in a rejected takeoff(RTO). Failure of the wheel tie bolts hasbeen attributed to fatigue, which may becaused by improper torquing of the tiebolts. Although the specific cause offailure has not been identified on a fewwheel tie bolts, other causes of failurehave been identified as impropermaintenance, wear, corrosion, or acombination of several factors. Failureof multiple wheel tie bolts, if notcorrected, could result in failure of thewheel rim, rapid release of tire pressure,and possible consequent damage to theairplane and injury to passengers andflightcrew.

Explanation of Relevant ServiceInformation

The FAA has reviewed and approvedBFGoodrich Aerospace ServiceBulletins 3–1439–32–13 and 3–1398–32–16, both dated August 20, 1993. Theservice bulletins describe procedures forcorrective actions if certain wheelassemblies are installed on the MLG.The corrective actions includemodification of the wheel assembly byreplacement of existing tie bolts, nuts,and washers with new, improvedInconel tie bolts and nuts, and new,thicker washers. The service bulletinsalso describe new torque values,procedures for inspecting the new tiebolts to ensure that they did not crackduring torquing, and a procedure forstamping a new part number on thewheel assembly once it has beenmodified. Accomplishment of theactions specified in the service bulletinsis intended to adequately address theidentified unsafe condition.

Explanation of Requirements ofProposed Rule

Since an unsafe condition has beenidentified that is likely to exist ordevelop on other products of this sametype design, the proposed AD wouldrequire a one-time visual inspection ofthe MLG wheel assemblies to determinewhether certain part numbers areinstalled on the airplane, and follow-oncorrective actions, if necessary.

If certain part numbers are installed,the proposed AD would requirerepetitive replacement of all tie bolts,nuts, and washers of the MLG wheelassembly with new parts; or repetitivevisual inspections to detect fractures ofthe tie bolts of the MLG wheel assembly,

and replacement of discrepant partswith new parts. Alternatively, theproposed AD would require revisions tothe FAA-approved maintenanceprogram to require one of those actions.If those certain part numbers areinstalled, the proposed AD also wouldrequire eventual accomplishment ofcorrective actions specified in theservice bulletins described previously,except as discussed below.Accomplishment of these correctiveactions would terminate therequirements of this AD.

Differences Between Proposed Rule andService Bulletins

Operators should note that the servicebulletins specify replacement of wheeltie bolts with new parts only whenbroken wheel tie bolts have been found.This proposed AD would require, atevery fifth tire change, replacement ofthe existing wheel tie bolts, washers,and nuts with parts having the samepart number, or repetitive visualinspections at intervals not to exceed100 flight cycles; or alternatively,revisions to the FAA-approvedmaintenance program to require one ofthese actions.

The service bulletins also specify thatexisting parts can continue to be used ifthere are no discrepancies in thoseparts. This proposed AD would requireeventual modification of affected wheelassemblies by replacement of existingwheel tie bolts, washers, and nuts withnew, improved parts, which wouldconstitute terminating action for therequirements of this AD. The FAA hasdetermined that long-term continuedoperational safety would be betterassured by design changes to remove thesource of the problem, rather than byrepetitive inspections. Long-terminspections may not provide the degreeof safety assurance necessary for thetransport airplane fleet. This, coupledwith a better understanding of thehuman factors associated withnumerous continual inspections, has ledthe FAA to consider placing lessemphasis on inspections and moreemphasis on design improvements. Theproposed modification is in consonancewith these conditions.

Explanation of the Applicability of theRule

The FAA notes that its general policyis that, when an unsafe condition resultsfrom the installation of an appliance orother item that is installed in only oneparticular make and model of airplane,an AD is issued so that it is applicableto the airplane, rather than the item. Thereason for this is simple: making the ADapplicable to the airplane model on

which the item is installed ensures thatoperators of those airplanes will benotified directly of the unsafe conditionand the action required to correct it.While it is assumed that an operatorwill know the models of airplanes thatit operates, there is a potential that theoperator will not know or be aware ofspecific items that are installed on itsairplanes. Therefore, calling out theairplane model as the subject of the ADprevents ‘‘unknowing non-compliance’’on the part of the operator.

Cost ImpactThere are approximately 460

airplanes of the affected design in theworldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that118 airplanes of U.S. registry would beaffected by this proposed AD.

It would take approximately 1 workhour per airplane to accomplish theproposed one-time inspection, at anaverage labor rate of $60 per work hour.Based on these figures, the cost impactof the one-time inspection proposed bythis AD on U.S. operators is estimatedto be $7,080, or $60 per airplane.

The cost impact figure discussedabove is based on assumptions that nooperator has yet accomplished any ofthe proposed requirements of this ADaction, and that no operator wouldaccomplish those actions in the future ifthis AD were not adopted.

Should an operator elect toaccomplish the repetitive visualinspection, it would take approximately1 work hour per airplane to accomplish,at an average labor rate of $60 per workhour. Based on these figures, the costimpact of the repetitive inspections, ifaccomplished, is estimated to be $60 perairplane, per inspection cycle.

Should an operator elect toaccomplish the replacement, suchreplacement would require noadditional work hours if accomplishedduring a regularly scheduled tirechange. Required parts would cost$2,840 per airplane ($710 per wheel).Based on these figures, the cost impactof the replacement, if accomplished, isestimated to be $2,840 per airplane, perreplacement cycle.

Should an operator elect toaccomplish the revisions to the FAA-approved maintenance program, itwould take approximately 1 work hourper airplane to accomplish, at anaverage labor rate of $60 per work hour.Based on these figures, the cost impactof the maintenance program revision, ifaccomplished, is estimated to be $60 perairplane.

Should an operator be required toaccomplish the necessary modificationof the wheel assembly, it would requireno additional work hours per airplane,


if the modification is accomplishedduring a regularly scheduled tirechange. Required parts would cost$4,848 per airplane ($1,212 per wheel).Based on these figures, the cost impactof any necessary modification isestimated to be $4,848 per airplane.

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:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESSDIRECTIVES


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

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended byadding the following new airworthinessdirective:Boeing: Docket 98–NM–251–AD.

Applicability: All Model 737–100, –200,–300, –400, and –500 series airplanes;certificated in any category.

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

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

Compliance: Required as indicated, unlessaccomplished previously.

To prevent failure of multiple tie bolts ofmain landing gear (MLG) wheel assemblies,which could result in failure of the wheelrim, rapid release of tire pressure, andpossible consequent damage to the airplaneand injury to passengers and flightcrew,accomplish the following:

(a) Within 60 days after the effective dateof this AD, perform a one-time visualinspection of the MLG wheel assemblies todetermine the part number (P/N) of eachassembly. If no wheel assemblymanufactured by BFGoodrich Aerospace andhaving P/N 3–1398–1, 3–1439–2, or 3–1439–3 is installed on the airplane, no furtheraction is required by this AD.

(b) Except as provided by paragraph (d) ofthis AD, if any MLG wheel assemblymanufactured by BFGoodrich Aerospace andhaving P/N 3–1398–1, 3–1439–2, or 3–1439–3 is installed on the airplane, within 60 daysafter the effective date of this AD, accomplishthe actions specified by paragraph (b)(1) or(b)(2) of this AD.

(1) Accomplish the actions specified by(b)(1)(i) or (b)(1)(ii) of this AD.

(i) Replace all tie bolts, nuts, and washersof the MLG wheel assembly with partshaving the same P/N’s, in accordance withthe BFGoodrich component maintenancemanual. Thereafter, repeat the replacement oftie bolts, nuts, and washers, at intervals notto exceed 5 tire changes, until the actionsspecified by paragraph (b)(2) or paragraph (c)of this AD have been accomplished. Or

(ii) Perform a visual inspection to detectfractures of any of the 16 tie bolts on eachMLG wheel assembly, in accordance with theBoeing 737 airplane maintenance manual.Thereafter, repeat the inspection at intervalsnot to exceed 100 flight cycles until theactions specified by paragraph (b)(2) orparagraph (c) of this AD have beenaccomplished. If any fracture of any tie boltis found during any inspection performed inaccordance with this requirement, prior tofurther flight, replace the tie bolt, nut, andwasher, in accordance with the BFGoodrichcomponent maintenance manual, with newparts having the same P/N’s.

(2) Revise the FAA-approved maintenanceprogram as specified in paragraph (b)(2)(i) or(b)(2)(ii) of this AD.

(i) Revise the FAA-approved maintenanceprogram to require replacement of all tiebolts, nuts, and washers of the MLG wheelassembly with parts having the same P/N’s,in accordance with the BFGoodrichcomponent maintenance manual, at intervalsnot to exceed 5 tire changes. Or

(ii) Revise the FAA-approved maintenanceprogram to require a visual inspection todetect fractures of any of the 16 tie bolts oneach MLG wheel assembly, in accordancewith the Boeing 737 airplane maintenancemanual, at intervals not to exceed 100 flightcycles. If any fracture of any tie bolt is foundduring any inspection performed inaccordance with this requirement, prior tofurther flight, replace the tie bolt, nut, andwasher, in accordance with the BFGoodrichcomponent maintenance manual, with newparts having the same P/N’s.

Note 2: After the maintenance program hasbeen revised to include the proceduresspecified in paragraph (b)(2)(i) or (b)(2)(ii) ofthis AD, operators are not required tosubsequently record AD compliance eachtime the replacement or inspection isperformed.

(c) If any MLG wheel assemblymanufactured by BFGoodrich Aerospace andhaving P/N 3–1398–1, 3–1439–2, or 3–1439–3 is installed on the airplane: Except asprovided by paragraph (d) of this AD, within2 years after the effective date of this AD,modify any BFGoodrich Aerospace wheelassembly, having P/N 3–1398–1, 3–1439–2,or 3–1439–3; by replacing all existing tiebolts, nuts, and washers, with new, improvedparts; and by converting the P/N of the MLGwheel assembly to 3–1398–2 (for BFGoodrichwheel assemblies having the old P/N 3–1398–1), 3–1439–5 (for BFGoodrich wheelassemblies having the old P/N 3–1439–2), or3–1439–6 (for BFGoodrich wheel assemblieshaving the old P/N 3–1439–3), as applicable;in accordance with BFGoodrich AerospaceService Bulletin 3–1439–32–13, orBFGoodrich Aerospace Service Bulletin 3–1398–32–16, both dated August 20, 1993, asapplicable. Such modification constitutesterminating action for the requirements ofthis AD, and the FAA-approved maintenanceprogram procedures specified by paragraph(b)(2) of this AD may be removed followingaccomplishment of the requirements of thisparagraph.

(d) Airplanes on which the modificationrequired by paragraph (c) of this AD isaccomplished within the compliance timespecified in paragraph (b) of this AD are notrequired to accomplish the actions requiredby paragraph (b).

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

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


Issued in Renton, Washington, onNovember 10, 1998.Darrell M. Pederson,Acting Manager, Transport AirplaneDirectorate, Aircraft Certification Service.[FR Doc. 98–30767 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–13–P



14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 97–AWA–2]

RIN 2120–AA66

Proposed Modification of the TampaClass B Airspace Area; FL

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes tomodify the Tampa, FL, Class B airspacearea. Specifically, this action proposesto rename two existing subareas,reconfigure the boundaries of threesubareas, and create an additionalsubarea within the Tampa Class Bairspace area. The FAA is proposing thisaction to efficiently align the TampaClass B airspace area as a result of areduction in flying operations atMacDill Air Force Base (AFB), toenhance safety, and to manage aircraftoperations in the Tampa, FL, terminalarea.DATES: Comments must be received onor before January 19, 1999.ADDRESSES: Send comments on theproposal in triplicate to the FederalAviation Administration, Office of ChiefCounsel, Attention: Rules Docket, AGC–200, Airspace Docket No. 97–AWA–2,800 Independence Avenue, SW;Washington, DC 20591. Comments mayalso be sent electronically to thefollowing Internet address: [email protected]. The official docketmay be examined in the Rules Docket,Office of the Chief Counsel, Room 916,800 Independence Avenue, SW.,Washington, DC, 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.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Paul Gallant, Airspace and RulesDivision, ATA–400, Office of Air TrafficAirspace Management, Federal AviationAdministration, 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. 97–AWA–2.’’ 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 avaiable forexamination in the Rules Docket bothbefore and after the closing date forcomments. A report summarizing eachsubstantive public contact with FAApersonnel concerned with thisrulemaking will also be filed in thedocket.

Availability of NPRM’sAn electronic copy of this document

may be downloaded using a modem andsuitable communications software fromthe FAA regulations section of theFedworld electronic bulletin boardservice (telephone: 703–321–3339) orthe Federal Register’s electronicbulletin board service (telephone: 202–512–1661).

Internet users may reach the FAA’sweb page at http://www.faa.gov or theFederal Register’s webpage at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/index.htmlfor access to recently publishedrulemaking documents.

Any person may obtain a copy of thisNPRM by submitting a request to theFederal Aviation Administration, Officeof Air Traffic Airspace Management,800 Independence Avenue, SW.,Washington, DC 20591, or by calling(202) 267–8783. Communications mustidentify the notice number of thisNPRM. Persons interested in being

placed on a mailing list for futureNPRM’s should call the FAA’s Office ofRulemaking, (202) 267–9677, for a copyof Advisory Circular No. 11–2A, Noticeof Proposed Rulemaking DistributionSystem, that describes the applicationprocedure.

Related Rulemaking ActionsOn May 21, 1970, the FAA published

the Designation of Federal Airways,Controlled Airspace, and ReportingPoints Final Rule (35 FR 7782). Thisrule provided for the establishment ofTerminal Control Airspace (TCA) areas(now known as Class B airspace areas).

The TCA area program was developedto reduce the potential for midaircollision in the congested airspacesurrounding airports with high densityair traffic by providing an area whereinall aircraft are subject to certainoperating rules and equipmentrequirements.

The density of traffic and the type ofoperations being conducted in theairspace surrounding major terminalsincreases the probability of midaircollisions. In 1970, an extensive studyfound that the majority of midaircollisions occurred between a generalaviation (GA) aircraft and an air carrieror military aircraft, or another GAaircraft. The basic causal factor commonto these conflicts was the mix of aircraftoperating under visual flight rules (VFR)and aircraft operating under instrumentflight rules (IFR). Class B airspace areasprovide a method to accommodate theincreasing number of IFR and VFRoperations. The regulatory requirementsof these airspace areas afford thegreatest protection for the greatestnumber of people by giving air trafficcontrol increased capability to provideaircraft separation service, therebyminimizing the mix of controlled anduncontrolled aircraft.

The standard configuration of theseairspace areas contains three concentriccircles centered on the primary airportextending to 10, 20, and 30 nauticalmiles (NM), respectively. The standardvertical limit of these airspace areasnormally should not exceed 10,000 feetmean seal level (MSL), with the floorestablished at the surface in the innerarea and at levels appropriate to thecontainment of operations in the outerareas. Variations of these criteria may beutilized contingent on the terrain,adjacent regulatory airspace, and factorsunique to the terminal area.

On June 21, 1988, the FAA publishedthe Transponder With AutomaticAltitude Reporting CapabilityRequirement Final Rule (53 FR 23356).This rule requires all aircraft to have analtitude encoding transponder when


operating within 30 NM of anydesignated TCA (now known as Class Bairspace areas) primary airport from thesurface up to 10,000 feet MSL. This ruleexcluded those aircraft that were notoriginally certificated with an engine-driven electrical system (or those thathave not subsequently been certifiedwith such a system), balloons, orgliders.

On October 14, 1988, the FAApublished the Terminal Control AreaClassification and Terminal ControlArea Pilot and Navigation EquipmentRequirements Final Rule (53 FR 40318).This rule, in part, requires the pilot-in-command of a civil aircraft operatingwithin a Class B airspace area to holdat least a private pilot certificate, exceptfor a student pilot who has receivedcertain documented training.

On December 17, 1991, the FAApublished the Airspace ReclassificationFinal Rule (56 FR 65638). This rulediscontinued the use of the term‘‘Terminal Control Area’’ and replaced itwith the designation ‘‘Class B airspacearea.’’ This change in terminology isreflected in the remainder of the NPRM.

BackgroundIn April 1991, the Defense Base

Realignment and Closure Commissionrecommended the termination of allflight operations at MacDill AFB(situated within the Tampa Class Bairspace area) by September 1993.However, in 1995, the Commissionamended its findings and recommendedthat the base continue to have an activeflying mission. As a result of the 1995change, an Air Force unit consisting of12 KC–135 aircraft was transferred toMacDill AFB. Notwithstanding thereturn of an active Air Force flyingmission and the basing of NationalOceanic and AtmosphericAdministration aircraft, the level ofaircraft operations at MacDill AFBremains significantly lower than thelevel existing previously. Based on thereduction in the number of operations atMacDill AFB and the FAA’s periodicreview of Class B airspace areas, in1992, an ad hoc committee, consistingof representatives from local usergroups, was formed to developrecommendations for modifying theTampa Class B airspace area.

Pre-NPRM Public InputAs announced in the Federal Register

on January 4, 1993 (58 FR 120), two pre-NPRM informal airspace meetings wereheld on February 16 and 17, 1993, inTampa and St. Petersburg, FL, to allowlocal interested airspace users anopportunity to present input on thedesign of the proposed alteration of the

Tampa Class B airspace area. Theresponse to the proposed Class Bairspace area modification from allparticipants was favorable. One writtencomment was received during the 60-day comment period, which supportedthe proposal. Except for the addition ofa new subarea C in the vicinity ofMacDill AFB, there have been nochanges to the proposal since theinformal airspace meetings were held in1993.

Other Public MeetingsDue to the fact that this informal

airspace meeting was held in 1993, theFAA will be conducting furthermeetings on this proposal. The datesand times of these proposed meetingswill be announced in the FederalRegister.

The coordinates for this airspacedocket area based on North AmericanDatum 83. Class B airspace areas arepublished in paragraph 3000 of FAAOrder 7400.9F, dated September 10,1998, and effective September 16, 1998,which is incorporated by reference in 14CFR section 71.1. The Class B airspacearea listed in this document would bepublished subsequently in the Order.

The ProposalThe FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR

part 71 by modifying the Tampa, FL,Class B airspace area. Specifically, thisaction (depicted on the attached chart)proposes to amend one point in thelegal description of Area A; reduce thesize of Area B; establish a new Area Cin the vicinity of MacDill AFB; realignthe boundaries and rename the currentArea C as Area D; and realign theboundaries and rename the current AreaD as Area E. These modifications wouldprovide additional airspace fornonparticipating aircraft operatingbelow the floor of the Tampa Class Bairspace area, and enhance the flow ofair traffic in the Tampa terminal area.

Area A would be unchanged exceptfor amending the coordinates of theTampa airport surveillance radar (ASR)to reflect the position of the new ASR–9 radar installed at Tampa.

Area B, which encompasses that ClassB airspace extending upward from 1,200feet MSL to and including 10,000 feetMSL, would be reduced in size. Themodified Area B would be bounded byInterstate 75 (I–75) on the east, a newsubarea C (with a floor of 1,700 feetMSL) in the vicinity of MacDill AFB tothe south, and by the Tampa 10 NM arc.The remaining section of the currentArea B (i.e., that portion located to thesouth of MacDill AFB, east of AlbertWhitted Airport, and southward to the10 NM arc of the Sarasota-Bradenton

Class C airspace area), would beremoved from Area B and incorporatedinto the modified Area D and themodified Area E. This proposed changewould raise the floor of Class B airspacein the realigned segment from thecurrent 1,200 feet MSL. The floor ofClass B airspace was originally set at1,200 feet MSL in that area toaccommodate the extensive highperformance, low altitude jet traffictransiting between MacDill AFB and theoffshore training areas. With thetermination of the fighter trainingmission at MacDill AFB, there is nolonger a requirement to retain Class Bairspace below 3,000 feet MSL over thatportion of Tampa Bay extending fromMacDill AFB southward to the 10 NMarc of the Sarasota-Bradenton Class Cairspace area, as exists in the currentconfiguration. The proposed higherfloor of the Class B airspace area wouldresult in more efficient use of theairspace and provide additionalaltitudes for use by GA aircrafttransitioning over Tampa Bay betweenthe Orlando/Lakeland area, and AlbertWhitted and St. Petersburg-ClearwaterAirports. Further, this change wouldreduce the amount of air traffictransitioning over Tampa InternationalAirport and lessen air traffic congestionaround the St. Petersburg Very HighFrequency Omnidirectional Range/Tactical Air Navigation station.

The FAA proposes to create a newArea C, extending upward from 1,700feet MSL to and including 10,000 feetMSL, in the vicinity of MacDill AFB.The new Area C would allow fornonparticipating aircraft operations inthe MacDill AFB traffic pattern, belowthe floor of the Tampa Class B airspacearea.

The current Area C, consisting of thatairspace extending upward from 3,000feet MSL to and including 10,000 feetMSL, would be renamed Area D. Asdescribed above, the modified Area Dwould absorb most of the airspace overTampa Bay to the south of MacDill AFBthat is currently part of Area B. Thisaction would raise the floor of the ClassB airspace in that area from 1,200 feetMSL to 3,000 feet MSL.

The current Area D, consisting of thatairspace extending upward from 6,000feet MSL to and including 10,000 feetMSL, would be renamed Area E. Themodified Area E would generally retainthe same lateral dimensions of thecurrent Area D, except that the segmentof the existing boundary line, whichruns northward from Anna Maria Islandto lat. 27°40′42′′N., long. 82°44′21′′W.,would be moved to the east andrealigned along the Skyway Bridge/I–275. As described above, this


modification would merge a portion ofthe current Area B airspace into therenamed Area E. The effect of thismodification would be to raise the floorof the Class B airspace between SkywayBridge and Anna Maria Island from thecurrent 1,200 feet MSL, to 6,000 feetMSL. This change would benefit aircraftnavigating along the coastline andtransiting that airspace located betweenEgmont Key and the Skyway Bridge.Class B airspace clearance would nolonger be required for aircraft operatingbelow 6,000 feet MSL in that area. Thisproposal to modify the Tampa Class Bairspace area would enhance safety andimprove the flow of air traffic in theTampa Class B airspace area. Further,the proposal would benefitnonparticipating VFR operations byproviding higher altitudes for use byaircraft transitioning over Tampa Bay.

Regulatory Evaluation SummaryChanges to Federal regulations must

undergo several economic analyses.First, Executive Order 12866 directs thateach Federal agency shall propose oradopt a regulation 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 businesses and other smallentities. Third, the Office ofManagement and Budget directsagencies to assess the effect ofregulatory changes on internationaltrade. In conducting these analyses, theFAA has determined that this proposedrule: (1) Would generate benefits thatjustify its minimal costs and is not a‘‘significant regulatory action’’ asdefined in the Executive Order; (2) isnot significant as defined in theDepartment of Transportation’sRegulatory Policies and Procedures; (3)would not have a significant impact ona substantial number of small entities;(4) would not constitute a barrier tointernational trade; and (5) would notcontain any Federal intergovernmentalor private sector mandate. Theseanalyses are summarized here in thepreamble and the full RegulatoryEvaluation is in the docket.

The FAA has determined thatmodification of the Tampa Class Bairspace area would increase theoperational efficiency of the Class Bairspace while maintaining aviationsafety in the terminal area. Also, clearerboundary definition and changes tolateral limits of the subareas wouldleave more available airspace fortransitioning VFR aircraft. The proposedrule would impose only negligible costson some airspace users and would

potentially reduce circumnavigationcosts to some operators. The proposedrule would not impose additionaladministrative costs on the FAA, sinceany potential increased operationsworkload could be absorbed by currentpersonnel and equipment. Changes toaeronautical charts would occur duringthe chart cycle and would cause noadditional costs beyond normal updatesof charts.

Paperwork Reduction ActIn accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–511),there are no requirements forinformation collection associated withthis proposed rule.

Initial Regulatory FlexibilityDetermination

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980establishes ‘‘as a principle of regulatoryissuance that agencies shall endeavor,consistent with the objective of the ruleand of applicable statutes, to fitregulatory and informationalrequirements to the scale of thebusiness, organizations, andgovernmental jurisdictions subject toregulation.’’ To achieve that principal,the Act requires agencies to solicit andconsider flexible regualtory proposalsand to explain the rationale for theiractions. The Act covers a wide-range ofsmall entities, including smallbusinesses, not-for-profit organizationsand small governmental jurisdictions.

Agencies must perform a review todetermine whether a proposed or finalrule would have a significant economicimpact on a substantial nuber of smallentities. If the determination is that itwould, the agency must prepare aregulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) asdescribed in the Act.

However, if an agency determines thata proposed or final rule is not expectedto have a significant economic impacton a substantial number of smallentities, section 605(b) of the 1980 actprovides that the head of the agencymay so certify and an RFA is notrequired. The certification must includea statement providing the factual basisfor this determination, and thereasoning should be clear.

This proposed rule may impose somenegligible circumnavigation costs onlyupon individuals operating in theTampa Class B airspace. Therefore, theFAA does not anticipate any adverseimpacts to occur as a result of themodified Class B airspace area.

The FAA conducted the requiredreview of this proposal and determinedthat it would not have a significanteconomic impact on a substantialnumber of small entities. Accordingly,

pursuant to the Regulatory FlexibilityAct, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the FederalAviation Administration certifies thatthis proposed rule would not have asignificant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entities.The FAA solicits comments fromaffected entities with respect to thisfinding and determination.

International Trade Impact AssessmentThe proposed rule would not

constitute a barrier to internationaltrade, including the export of U.S. goodsand services to foreign countries or theimport of foreign goods and servicesinto the United States.

Unfunded Mandates AssessmentTitle II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform 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 more(when adjusted annually for inflation)in any one year by State, local, andtribal governments in the aggregate, orby the private sector. Section 204(a) ofthe Act, 2 U.S.C. 1534(a), requires theFederal agency to develop an effectiveprocess to permit timely input byelected officers (or their designees) ofState, local, and tribal governments ona proposed ‘‘significantintergovernmental mandates.’’ A‘‘significant intergovernmentalmandate’’ under the Act is anyprovision in a Federal agency regulationthat would impose an enforceable dutyupon State, local, and tribalgovernments in the aggregate of $100million adjusted annually for inflationin any one year. Section 203 of the Act,2 U.S.C. 1533, which supplementssection 204(a), provides that, beforeestablishing any regulatoryrequirements that might significantly oruniquely affect small governments, theagency shall have developed a plan.That plan, among other things, mustprovide for notice to potentially affectedsmall governments, if any, and for ameaningful and timely opportunity toprovide input in the development ofregulatory proposals.

This proposed rule does not containany Federal intergovernmental orprivate sector mandates. Therefore, therequirements of Title II of the UnfundedMandates Reform Act of 1995 do notapply.

ConclusionIn view of the minimal or zero cost of

compliance of the proposed rule and the


enhancements to operational efficiencythat do not reduce aviation safety, theFAA has determined that the proposedrule would be cost-beneficial.


Airspace, Incorporation by reference,Navigation (air).


In consideration of the foregoing, theFederal Aviation Administrationproposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 asfollows:

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


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

§ 71.1 [Amended]

2. The incorporation for reference in14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal AviationAdministration Order 7400.9F, AirspaceDesignations and reporting Points, datedSeptember 10, 1998, and effectiveSeptember 16, 1998, is amended asfollows:

Paragraph 3000—Subpart B—Class BAirspace

* * * * *

ASO FL B Tampa, FL [Revised]

Tampa International Airport (PrimaryAirport)

(Lat. 27°58′32′′N., long. 82°32′00′′W.)Tampa ASR (lat. 27°59′16′′N., long.

82°32′42′′W.)MacDill AFB (MCF) (lat. 27°51′00′′N., long.

82°31′18′′W.)St. Petersburg VORTAC (PIE)

(Lat. 27°54′28′′N., long. 82°41′04′′W.)Saratoga-Bradenton International Airport

(Lat. 27°23′43′′N., long. 82°33′14′′.)

Boundaries

Area A. That airspace extending upwardfrom the surface to and including 10,000 feetMSL bounded by an area beginning at lat.27°54′30′′N., long. 82°30′56′′W., thenclockwise along the 5-mile arc of the TampaASR to lat. 27°57′44′′N., long. 82°27′17′′W.,to the point of beginning.

Area B. That airspace extending upwardfrom 1,200 feet MSL to and including 10,000feet MSL beginning at the intersection of theTampa ASR 10-mile arc and the PIEVORTAC 132° radial, then clockwise alongthe Tampa ASR 10-mile arc to US Highway301, then south along US Highway 301 toInterstate 75, then south along Interstate 75to the Tampa ASR 12.5-mile arc, thenclockwise along the Tampa ASR 12.5-milearc to the PIE VORTAC 132° radial, thennorthwest via the PIE VORTAC 132° radial tothe point of beginning.

Area C. That airspace extending upwardfrom 1,700 feet MSL to and including 10,000feet MSL bounded by a line beginning at theintersection of the Tampa ASR 10-mile arcand the PIE VORTAC 132° radial, thennortheast along the line 1.5 miles from theparallel to Runway 04/22 at MCF AFB untilintercepting the 4.5-mile arc from the MCFAFB airport reference point, then direct tothe intersection of Interstate 75 and theTampa ASR 12.5-mile arc, then clockwisealong the Tampa ASR 12.5-mile arc untilintercepting the PIE VORTAC 132° radial,then northwest via the PIE VORTAC 132°radial to the point of beginning.

Area. D. That airspace extending upwardfrom 3,000 feet MSL up to and including10,000 feet MSL bounded by a line beginningat the shoreline due west of and to theintersection of Highway 19 and Highway 52,at Hudson, FL, then east along Highway 52to Interstate 75, then south along the easternedge of Interstate 75 to Highway 54, then eastalong Highway 54 to Highway 39–301 atZephyrhills, FL, then south on Highway 39to Highway 60, then west on Highway 60 to

lat. 27°56′16′′N., long. 82°10′59′′W., thensouth along the railroad to Highway 301 atParrish, FL, then southwest along Highway301 to the 10-mile arc of the Sarasota-Bradenton, FL, Class C airspace area, thencounterclockwise along the 10-mile arc of theSarasota-Bradenton Class C airspace area toU.S. Route 19, then northwest along U.S.Route 19 to Interstate 275, then north alongInterstate 275 to lat. 27°42′26′′N., long.82°40′45′′W. (the north end of the SkywayBridge), then north along the mainlandshoreline to the point of beginning.

Area E. That airspace extending upwardfrom 6,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000feet MSL bounded by a line beginning at theintersection of U.S. Route 19 and the 10-milearc of the Sarasota-Bradenton Class Cairspace area, then counterclockwise alongthe 10-mile arc of the Sarasota-BradentonClass C airspace area to intercept the 30-milearc of the Tampa ASR, then clockwise alongthe Tampa ASR 30-mile arc to long.82°59′59′′W., then north along long.82°59′59′′W., to the 30-mile arc to the TampaASR, then clockwise along the Tampa ASR30-mile arc to intercept Highway 39–301,then south on Highway 39–301 to Highway54 at Zephyrhills, Fl.; and that airspacebounded by a line beginning at Highway 60and Highway 39, then south along Highway39 to the Tampa ASR 30-mile arc, thenclockwise along the Tampa ASR 30-mile arcto the 10-mile arc of the Sarasota-BradentonClass C airspace area, then counterclockwisealong the 10-mile arc of the Sarasota-Bradenton Class C airspace area to interceptHighway 301.

* * * * *Issued in Washington, DC, on October 30,

1998.

Reginald C. Matthews,

Acting Program Director for Air TrafficAirspace Management.

Note: This Appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

Appendix—Tampa, FL, Class B Airspace Area

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M


[FR Doc. 98–30092 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–13–C




14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 98–ANM–16]

Proposed Removal of Class Eairspace; Anaconda, MT

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

SUMMARY: This proposal would removethe Class E airspace at Anaconda, MT,which is no longer necessary because ofrecent airspace amendments to adjacentairspace areas.DATES: Comments must be received onor before January 4, 1999.ADDRESSES: Send comments on theproposal in triplicate to: Manager,Airspace Branch, ANM–520, FederalAviation Administration, Docket No.98–ANM–16, 1601 Lind Avenue SW,Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

The official docket may be examinedin the office of the Assistant ChiefCounsel for the Northwest MountainRegion at the same address.

An informal docket may also beexamined during normal business hoursin the office of the Manager, Air TrafficDivision, Airspace Branch, at theaddress listed above.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Dennis Ripley, ANM–520.6, FederalAviation Administration, Docket No.98–ANM–16, 1601 Lind Avenue SW,Renton, Washington 98055–4056;telephone number: (425) 227–2527.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested parties are invited toparticipate in this proposed rulemakingby submitting such written data, views,or arguments, as they may desire.Comments that provide the factual basissupporting the views and suggestionspresented are particularly helpful indeveloping reasoned regulatorydecisions on the proposal. Commentsare specifically invited on the overallregulatory, aeronautical, economic,environmental, and energy relatedaspects of the proposal.Communications should identify theairspace docket number and besubmitted in triplicate to the addresslisted above. Commenters wishing theFAA to acknowledge receipt of theircomments on this notice must submitwith those comments a self-addressed,

stamped postcard on which thefollowing statement is made:‘‘Comments to Airspace Docket No. 98–ANM–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 thelight of comments received. Allcomments submitted will be availablefor examination at the address listedabove both before and after the closingdate for comments. A reportsummarizing each substantive publiccontact with FAA personnel concernedwith this rulemaking will be filed in thedocket.

Availability of NPRM’s

Any person may obtain a copy of thisNPRM by submitting a request to theFederal Aviation Administration,Airspace Branch, ANM–520, 1601 LindAvenue SW, Renton, Washington98055–4056. Communications mustidentify the 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.

The Proposal

The FAA is considering anamendment to Title 14 Code of FederalRegulations, part 71 (14 CFR part 71) toremove Class E airspace at Anaconda,MT. This amendment would removeairspace no longer necessary because ofan airspace amendment at Bert MooneyAirport, Butte, MT (final rule document98–14169, 63 FR 29103, Thursday, May26, 1998). The Butte, MT, Class Eairspace fully encompasses all of theoperations necessary for Bowman Field,Anaconda, MT. The intended effect ofthis proposal is designed to provideefficient use of the navigable airspace.

The coordinates for this airspacedocket are based on North AmericanDatum 83. Class E airspace areasextending upward from 700 feet or moreabove the surface of the earth, arepublished in Paragraph 6005 of FAAOrder 7400.9F dated September 10,1998, and effective September 16, 1998,which is incorporated by reference in 14CFR 71.1. The Class E airspacedesignation listed in this documentwould be published subsequently in theOrder.

The FAA has determined that thisproposed regulation only involve anestablished body of technical

regulations for which frequent androutine amendments are necessary tokeep them operationally current. It,therefore, (1) is not a ‘‘significantregulatory action’’ under ExecutiveOrder 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significantrule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policiesand Procedures (44 FR 11034; February26, 1979); and (3) does not warrantpreparation of a Regulatory Evaluationas the anticipated impact is so minimal.Since this is a routine matter that willonly affect air traffic procedures and airnavigation, it is certified that this rule,when promulgated, will not have asignificant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entitiesunder the criteria of the RegulatoryFlexibility Act.


Airspace, Incorporation by reference,Navigation (air).


In consideration of the foregoing, theFederal Aviation Administrationproposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 asfollows:

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


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

§ 71.1 [Amended]

2. The incorporation by reference in14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal AviationAdministration Order 7400.9F, AirspaceDesignations and Reporting Points,dated September 10, 1998, and effectiveSeptember 16, 1998, is amended asfollows:

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

* * * * *

ANM MT E5 Anaconda, MT [Removed]

* * * * *Issued in Seattle, Washington, on October

26, 1998.

Helen Fabian Parke,

Manager, Air Traffic Division, NorthwestMountain Region.[FR Doc. 98–30789 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]




Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD08–98–053]

RIN 2115–AE47

Drawbridge Operation Regulation;Chef Menteur Pass, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes achange to the regulation governing theoperation of the U.S. Highway 90 swingspan bridge across Chef Menteur Pass,mile 2.8 at Lake Catherine, OrleansParish, Louisiana. The proposal wouldpermit the draw to remain closed tonavigation from 5:30 a.m. to 7:30 a.m.,Monday through Friday, except Federalholidays.

Vehicular traffic has becomecongested during peak traffic hours bycommuters who work in the AlmonasterDevelopment District in Orleans Parish.This change in drawbridge operatingregulations will provide for theuninterrupted flow of vehicular trafficfor commuters en route to work duringthis period, while still providing for thereasonable needs of navigation.DATES: Comments must be received onor before January 19, 1999.ADDRESSES: You may mail comments toCommander (ob), Eighth Coast GuardDistrict, 501 Magazine Street, NewOrleans, Louisiana 70130–3396, ordeliver them to room 1313 at the sameaddress between 7 a.m. to 4 p.m.,Monday through Friday, except Federalholidays.

The Commander, Eighth Coast GuardDistrict Bridge Administration Branchmaintains the public docket for thisrulemaking. Comments and documentsas indicated in this preamble willbecome part of this docket and will beavailable for inspection or copying atthe address given above, between 7 a.m.and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,except Federal holidays.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Mr. Phil Johnson, Bridge AdministrationBranch, at the address given above,telephone (504) 589–2965.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Requests for Comments

The Coast Guard encouragesinterested parties to participate in thisrulemaking by submitting written data,views, or arguments. Persons submittingcomments should include their namesand addresses, identify this rulemaking(CGD 08–98–053) and the specific

section of this document to which eachcomment applies, and give the reasonfor each comment. Please submit twocopies of all comments and attachmentsin an unbound format, no larger that 81⁄2by 11 inches, suitable for copying andelectronic filing. Persons wantingacknowledgment of receipt of commentsshould enclose stamped, self-addressedpostcards or envelopes.

The Coast Guard will consider allcomments received during the commentperiod. This proposed rule may bechanged in view of the comments.

The Coast Guard plans no publichearing. Persons may request a publichearing by writing to the Eight CoastGuard District at the address underADDRESSES. The request should includethe reasons why a hearing would bebeneficial. If it is determined that theopportunity for oral presentations willaid this rulemaking, the Coast Guardwill hold a public hearing at a time andplace announced by a later notice in theFederal Register.

Discussion of Proposed RuleThe U.S. Highway 90 bridge is a

swing structure which provides avertical clearance of 11 feet above meanhigh water in the closed-to-navigationposition and unlimited in the open-to-navigation position and a horizontalclearance of 97 feet between fenders.Navigation on the waterway consists oftugs with tows, commercial fishingvessels and recreational craft. Vehiculartraffic crossing the bridge during peakrush hour traffic periods has increasedsignificantly during recent years. This isthe only route available for motorists,who live in the Lake Catherine area whocommute to work at the AlmonasterDevelopment District, without a longdetour for more than 25 miles bybacktracking north to State Route 433,thence south via Interstate 10 to U.S. 11,thence south and return to U.S. 90.

The Coast Guard is consideringchanging the regulation governing theoperation of the drawbridge to permitthe draw to remain closed to navigationfrom 5:30 a.m. to 7:30 a.m., Mondaythrough Friday, except Federal holidays.The proposed regulation would allowfor the fee flow of vehicular traffic,while still serving the reasonable needsof navigational interests.

Data provided by the LouisianaDepartment of Transportation andDevelopment shows that from July 6,1998 through July 20, 1998, from 5:30a.m. to 7:30 a.m. weekdays, excludingFederal holidays the average number ofvehicles which crossed the bridge was150. Of those vehicles, an average of 127were west bound and 23 wereeastbound. This indicates that the

majority of the vehicular traffic iswestbound from the Lake Catherine areatoward the Almonaster DevelopmentDistrict during this time frame.Information taken from bridge tenderlogs shows that from July 1997 throughJune 1998, the number of vessels thatpassed the bridge and required openingsof the draw averaged one vessel daily,during the proposed 5:30 a.m. to 7:30a.m. closure period on weekdays,excluding Federal holidays.

This proposed rule will necessitatethe redesignation of § 117.435 as§ 117.434; § 117.436 as § 117.435; and anew § 117.436 to be added as ChefMenteur Pass. All redesignations areadministrative in nature and will notsubstantively affect existing operatingregulations.

Regulatory EvaluationThis proposal is not a significant

regulatory action under section 3(f) ofExecutive Order 12866 and does notrequire an assessment of potential costand benefits under section 6(a)(3) of thatorder. It has not been reviewed by theOffice of Management and Budget underthat order. It is not significant under theregulatory policies and procedures ofthe Department of Transportation (DOT)(44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979).

The Coast Guard expects theeconomic impact of this proposal to beso minimal that a full RegulatoryEvaluation under paragraph 10(e) of theregulatory policies and procedures ofDOT is unnecessary. This is because thenumber of vessels impaired during theproposed closed-to-navigation period isminimal. Commercial fishing vesselsstill have ample opportunity to transitthis waterway before and after the peakvehicular traffic periods.

Small EntitiesUnder the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Coast Guardmust consider whether this proposal, ifadopted, will have a significanteconomic impact on a substantialnumber of small entities. ‘‘Smallentities’’ may include small businesses,not-for-profit organizations that areindependently owned and operated andare not dominant in their fields andgovernmental jurisdictions withpopulations of less than 50,000.

The proposed rule considers theneeds of local commercial fishingvessels, as the study of vessels passingthe bridge included such commercialvessels. These local commercial fishingvessels will continue to be able to passthe bridge in the early morning, prior to5:30 a.m. and at any time during the dayafter 7:30 p.m., as well as 24 hours perday on weekends and Federal holidays.


Additionally, an alternate route isavailable by transiting Rigolets Pass,approximately 20 miles east of ChefMenteur Pass, via the IntracoastalWaterway. Thus, the economic impactis expected to be minimal. There is noindication that other waterway userswould suffer any type of economichardship if they are precluded fromtransiting the waterway during the twohours per day that the draw isscheduled to remain in the closed-to-navigation position. Therefore, the CoastGuard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b)that this proposal, if adopted, will nothave a significant economic impact ona substantial number of small entities

Collection of InformationThis proposal contains no collection-

of-information requirements under thePaperwork Reduction Act (44 U.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 proposed rulemaking does not havesufficient federalism implications towarrant the preparation of a FederalismAssessment. The authority to regulatethe permits of bridges over the navigablewaters of the U.S. belongs to the CoastGuard by Federal statutes.

EnvironmentThe Coast Guard considered the

environmental impact of this proposaland concluded that under Figure 2–1,paragraph 32(e) of CommandantInstruction M16475.1C, this proposal iscategorically excluded from furtherenvironmental documentation. A‘‘Categorical Exclusion Determination’’is available in the docket for inspectionor copying where indicated underADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117Bridges.For the reasons set out in the

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes toamend Part 117 of Title 33, Code ofFederal Regulations, as follows:

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGEOPERATION REGULATIONS


Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 49 CFR 1.46; 33CFR 1.05–1(g); section 117.255 also issuedunder the authority of Pub. L. 102–587, 106Stat. 5039.

§§ 117.435 and 117.436 [Redesignated]2. § 117.435 is redesignated as

§ 117.434; § 117.436 is redesignated as

§ 117.435; and a new § 117.436 is addedto read as follows:

§ 117.436 Chef Menteur Pass.

The draw of the U.S. Highway 90bridge, mile 2.8, at Lake Catherine, shallopen on signal; except that, from 5:30a.m. to 7:30 a.m. Monday throughFriday except Federal holidays, thedraw need not be opened for passage ofvessels. The draw shall open at any timefor a vessel in distress.

Dated: October 2, 1998.Paul J. Pluta,Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,Eighth Coast Guard District.[FR Doc. 98–30595 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–15–M

PRESIDIO TRUST

36 CFR Parts 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004,1005, and 1006

RIN 3212–AA01

Management of the Presidio

AGENCY: The Presidio Trust.ACTION: Proposed rule; partial extensionof public comment period.

SUMMARY: This action extends untilJanuary 8, 1999 the period for publiccomment on a portion of the proposedrule published in the Federal Register(63 FR 50024–50055) on September 18,1998 concerning management of thearea under the administrativejurisdiction of the Presidio Trust(proposed 36 CFR Parts 1001, 1002,1003, 1004, 1005 and 1006). The periodfor public comment on the remainingportion of this proposed rule (proposed36 CFR Parts 1007, 1008, and 1009)closed on November 17, 1998.DATES: Comments on Parts 1001, 1002,1003, 1004, 1005 and 1006 of theproposed rule must be received byJanuary 8, 1999.ADDRESSES: Written comments on Parts1001, 1002, 1003, 1004, 1005 and 1006of the proposed rule must be sent toKaren A. Cook, General Counsel, ThePresidio Trust, 34 Graham Street, P.O.Box 29052, San Francisco, CA 94129–0052.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Karen A. Cook, General Counsel, ThePresidio Trust, 34 Graham Street, P.O.Box 29052, San Francisco, CA 94129–0052. Telephone: 415–561–5300.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Bypublication in the Federal Register onSeptember 18, 1998 (63 FR 50024–50055), the Presidio Trust proposedregulations for management of the

Presidio and for exercising itsauthorities in the following nine parts:Part 1001—General provisionsPart 1002—Resource protection, public use

and recreationPart 1003—Vehicles and traffic safetyPart 1004—Commercial and private

operationsPart 1005—Rights-of-wayPart 1006—Presidio Trust symbolsPart 1007—Requests under the Freedom of

Information ActPart 1008—Requests under the Privacy ActPart 1009—Administrative claims under the

Federal Tort Claims Act

The area under the administrativejurisdiction of the Presidio Trust wasformerly under the administrativejurisdiction of the National Park Service(NPS) and is adjacent to an area thatcontinues to be under the administrativejurisdiction of the NPS. At the requestof the NPS, the Presidio Trust isextending the public comment periodon Parts 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004, 1005and 1006 of the proposed regulationsfrom the original deadline of November17, 1998 to January 8, 1999. In themeantime, the Presidio Trust’s finalinterim regulations at 36 CFR Parts1001, 1002, 1004, and 1005, which wereadopted by the Presidio Trust andpublished in the Federal Register onJune 30, 1998 (63 FR 35694), willremain in effect.

The comment period on Parts 1007,1008, and 1009 of the proposedregulations closed on November 17,1998, and the Trust expects to issuefinal regulations on these topicsfollowing consideration of commentsreceived.

Authority: Pub. L. 104–333, 110 Stat. 4097(16 U.S.C. 460bb note).

Dated: November 12, 1998.Karen A. Cook,General Counsel.[FR Doc. 98–30786 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310–4R–U


40 CFR Part 62

[AL–048–1–9901b; FRL–6188–8]

Approval and Promulgation of StatePlans For Designated Facilities andPollutants: Alabama

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

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve thesection 111(d)/129 State Plan submittedby the Alabama Department ofEnvironmental Management (ADEM) for


the State of Alabama on September 11,1998, for implementing and enforcingthe Emissions Guidelines applicable toexisting Municipal Waste Combustorswith capacity to combust more than 250tons per day of municipal solid waste.The Plan was submitted by the ADEMto satisfy certain Federal Clean Air Actrequirements. In the final rules sectionof this Federal Register, the EPA isapproving the Alabama StateImplementation Plan revision as a directfinal rule without prior proposalbecause the Agency views this as anoncontroversial revision amendmentand anticipates no adverse comments. Adetailed rationale for the approval is setforth in the direct final rule. If noadverse comments are received inresponse to the direct final rule, nofurther activity is contemplated inrelation to this proposed rule. If EPAreceives adverse comments, the directfinal rule will be withdrawn and allpublic comments received will beaddressed in a subsequent final rulebased on this proposed rule. The EPAwill not institute a second commentperiod on this rule. Any partiesinterested in commenting on this ruleshould do so at this time.DATES: Comments must be received inwriting by December 18, 1998.ADDRESSES: Written comments shouldbe addressed to Kimberly Bingham atthe EPA Regional Office listed below.Copies of the documents relevant to thisproposed rule are available for publicinspection during normal businesshours at the following locations. Theinterested persons wanting to examinethese documents should make anappointment with the appropriate officeat least 24 hours before the day of thevisit.

Environmental Protection Agency,Region 4, Air, Pesticides and ToxicsManagement Division, Air PlanningBranch, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta,Georgia 30303–3104.

Alabama Department ofEnvironmental Management, AirDivision, 1751 Congressman W.L.Dickinson Drive, Montgomery, Alabama36109.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Kimberly Bingham at (404) 562-9038 orScott Davis at (404) 562–9127.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Foradditional information see the directfinal rule which is published in therules section of this Federal Register.

Dated: November 4, 1998.A. Stanley Meiburg,Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.[FR Doc. 98–30603 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560–50–P


40 CFR Part 63

[FRL–6175–3]

Delegation of National EmissionStandards for Hazardous Air Pollutantsfor Source Categories; State ofArizona; Pinal County Air QualityControl District

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 112(l) ofthe 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA), the PinalCounty Air Quality Control District(PCAQCD) requested delegation ofspecific national emission standards forhazardous air pollutants (NESHAPs). Inthe Rules section of this FederalRegister, EPA is granting PCAQCD theauthority to implement and enforcespecified NESHAPs. The direct finalrule also explains the procedure forfuture delegation of NESHAPs toPCAQCD. EPA is taking direct finalaction without prior proposal becausethe Agency views this as anoncontroversial action and anticipatesno adverse comments. A detailedrationale for this approval is set forth inthe direct final rule. If no adversecomments are received, no furtheractivity is contemplated. If EPA receivesadverse comments, the direct final rulewill be withdrawn and all publiccomments received will be addressed ina subsequent final rule based on thisproposed rule. The EPA will notinstitute a second comment period. Anyparties interested in commenting shoulddo so at this time.DATES: Written comments must bereceived by December 18, 1998.ADDRESSES: Written comments shouldbe addressed to: Andrew Steckel,Rulemaking Office (AIR–4), AirDivision, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Region IX, 75 HawthorneStreet, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901.

Copies of the submitted requests areavailable for public inspection at EPA’sRegion IX office during normal businesshours (docket number A–96–25).FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MaeWang, Rulemaking Office (AIR–4), AirDivision, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Region IX, 75 HawthorneStreet, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901,Telephone: (415) 744–1200.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Thisdocument concerns delegation ofunchanged NESHAPs to the PinalCounty Air Quality Control District. Forfurther information, please see the

information provided in the direct finalaction which is located in the Rulessection of this Federal Register.

Authority: This action is issued under theauthority of Section 112 of the Clean Air Act,as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 7412.

Dated: September 28, 1998.David P. Howekamp,Director, Air Division, Region IX.[FR Doc. 98–30723 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

48 CFR Part 970

RIN 1991–AB02

Acquisition Regulation: FinancialManagement Clauses for Managementand Operating (M&O) Contracts

AGENCY: Department of Energy.ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy(DOE) proposes to amend itsAcquisition Regulation to designatecertain Department of EnergyAcquisition Regulation (DEAR) M&Ocontract clauses and FederalAcquisition Regulation (FAR) clauses asStandard Financial ManagementClauses to be included in M&Ocontracts unless the Chief FinancialOfficer (CFO) concurs in a deviation.Additionally, this proposed rule willrevise selected existing financialmanagement clauses and add financialmanagement related clauses.DATES: Written comments must besubmitted no later than January 19,1999.ADDRESSES: Comments should beaddressed to: Michael L. Righi, Office ofPolicy (HR–51), Department of Energy,1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,Washington, D.C. 20585.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Michael L. Righi (202–586–8175) at theaddress above.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:I. BackgroundII. Detailed List of ChangesIII. Public CommentsIV. Procedural Requirements

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866B. Review Under Executive Order 12988C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility

ActD. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction

ActE. Review Under Executive Order 12612F. Review Under the National

Environmental Policy ActG. Review Under Small Business

Regulation Enforcement Fairness Act of1996


I. Background

On November 15, 1990, Congressenacted the Chief Financial Officers Actof 1990 (the Act), Pub. L. 101–576. TheAct requires that each Federal agencyimplement improvements in its systemsof accounting, financial management,and internal controls. DOE has sincedeveloped and tested various policies,practices, and procedures in its effortsto implement the mandates contained inthe Act. These efforts have included areview of the Department’s financialrelationship with, and data receivedfrom, its M&O contractors. Today’sproposed rule would include newpolicies and changes to existing policyin the Department’s acquisitionregulations.

II. Detailed List of Changes

1. The authority citation for Part 970would be restated.

2. Section 970.3201 would be revisedby replacing the word ‘‘bank’’ in thefirst sentence with the words ‘‘financialinstitution.’’ This would permit DOE toutilize a financial institution, other thana bank, to provide services with regardto a special account. The secondsentence would be deleted and itsrequirements incorporated into Section970.3202.

3. Section 970.3202 would beamended by revising paragraphs (b) and(c). Paragraph (b) would be revised byreplacing the word ‘‘bank’’ with thewords ‘‘financial institution’’ andadding the words ‘‘or, at the option ofthe Government, by direct payment orother payment mechanism to thecontractor’’ at the end of the sentence.Also, the term ‘‘letter-of-credit’’ wouldbe changed to ‘‘payments clearedfinancing arrangement’’ in order toimplement the Automatic StandardApplication for Payment (ASAP) thathas replaced letter-of-credit. Thesechanges would be consistent withsimilar changes to Section 970.5204–16with regard to a special financialinstitution account, payments clearedfinancing arrangement, and the use ofother payment mechanisms.

Paragraph (c) would be revised byreplacing the word ‘‘bank’’ with thewords ‘‘financial institution’’throughout the paragraph to beconsistent with similar revisions aspreviously stated. In the secondsentence the word ‘‘revenues’’ would bereplaced with the word ‘‘collections’’ toinclude any type of collection. Also, aprovision would be added to requirethat the agreement among DOE, thecontractor, and the financial institutionincorporate all applicable requirements,as determined by the Office of CFO.

4. Section 970.3270 would be revisedby establishing a section entitledStandard Financial ManagementClauses, which requires that certainclauses be included in all M&Ocontracts, and requires that deviationshave the approval of the Head of theContracting Activity and the writtenconcurrence of the Department’s CFO.

5. Section 970.3271 would beremoved and these requirements wouldbe incorporated into Section 970.3202.

6. Section 970.5204–9 would berevised. Specifically, paragraph (a)would be revised by replacing the word‘‘revenues’’ in the first sentence with thewords ‘‘collections accruing to thecontractor in connection with the workunder this contract’’ to requireaccounting for any type of collectionaccruing to the contractor under thecontract, and by deleting the word‘‘fixed.’’

Paragraph (b) would be revised byadding language to allow for inspectionand audit of accounts and records byDOE’s designees, in accordance withprovisions of the clause, Access to andownership of records.

Paragraph (d) would be revised byidentifying other types of information asproperty of the Government. Inaddition, the word ‘‘revenues’’ would bereplaced with the words ‘‘collectionsaccruing to the contractor in connectionwith the work under this contract’’ andthe words ‘‘and fee accruals’’ would beadded. Also, a reference to the Accessto and ownership of records clausewould be added for clarity.

Paragraph (f) would be revised bymaking a minor editorial change, addingthe word ‘‘and’’ between the words‘‘time’’ and ‘‘in.’’

7. Section 970.5204–13 would beamended by revising paragraph (d)(15)by replacing the word ‘‘bank’’ in thefirst sentence with the words ‘‘financialinstitution’’ to be consistent withsimilar changes to other sectionsregarding a financial institution accountand by adding in the second sentencethe words ‘‘to employees’’ to clarify thatpayments as described in this sentenceare to employees.

8. Section 970.5204–15 would berevised. Specifically, paragraph (a)would be revised by replacing the words‘‘revenues and receipts’’ with the word‘‘collections’’ to include any type ofcollection. The fourth sentence wouldbe revised to require that collections areprocessed and accounted for inaccordance with applicablerequirements imposed by thecontracting officer pursuant to the Laws,regulations, and DOE directives clauseof the contract.

Paragraph (b) would be revised bydeleting the word ‘‘fixed’’ in the firstsentence to include any type of fee. Inthe second sentence the words‘‘revenues and receipts’’ would bereplaced with the words ‘‘collectionsaccruing to the contractor in connectionwith the work under thiscontract * * *’’ to include any type ofcollection. The second sentence wouldalso be revised to require the processingof and accounting for such collectionsin accordance with applicablerequirements imposed by thecontracting officer pursuant to the Laws,regulations, and DOE directives clauseof the contract.

Paragraph (c) would be revised byreplacing the words ‘‘revenues andreceipts’’ with the word ‘‘collections’’ toinclude any type of collection and bydeleting the word ‘‘fixed’’ to includeany type of fee. The word‘‘commitments’’ would be replaced withthe word ‘‘encumbrances’’ throughoutthe paragraph because appropriationsare encumbered rather than committedat the contractor level. Also, the word‘‘available’’ would be added throughoutthe paragraph where reference is madeto ‘‘funds’’ and ‘‘collections’’ for clarityand consistency with the first sentenceof the paragraph. In the second sentencethe words ‘‘either’’ and ‘‘or is equal tozero’’ would be deleted to clarify whennotice should be given to DOE in regardto the requirements of this paragraph.Additionally, for consistency with otherreferences to the clause entitled‘‘Termination,’’ the word ‘‘article’’ inthe last sentence would be replacedwith the word ‘‘clause.’’

Paragraph (d) would be revised byreplacing the word ‘‘commitment(s)’’with the word ‘‘encumbrance(s)’’throughout the paragraph. The words‘‘such as Approved Funding Programs’’would be added in the first sentencebetween the words ‘‘plans’’ and ‘‘or’’ toreflect the current terminology used forfinancial plans. In the second sentencethe word ‘‘instruction’’ would bereplaced with the word ‘‘directives’’ forconsistency with the first sentence. Inthe third sentence the words ‘‘to use itsbest efforts’’ would be deleted to requirecontractor compliance with otherrequirements of such plans anddirectives. Also, the words ‘‘theauthorized financial levels of’’ would bereplaced with the words ‘‘that anylimitation on’’ to state more clearly thatsuch financial plans contain cost andencumbrance limitations. Atypographical error would be correctedand a minor editorial change would bemade in the third sentence. The word‘‘directives’’ would replace the word‘‘directive’’ and the word ‘‘promptly’’


would be deleted between the words‘‘to’’ and ‘‘notify’’ and inserted betweenthe words ‘‘DOE’’ and ‘‘in.’’ Atypographical error would also becorrected in the note to paragraph (d) byreplacing the word ‘‘provided’’ with theword ‘‘provide.’’ Also, in the note theword ‘‘article’’ would be replaced withthe word ‘‘clause’’ for consistency withother revised paragraphs of this section.

Paragraph (e) would be revised byreplacing the word ‘‘article’’ with theword ‘‘clause’’ for consistency withother references to the clause entitled‘‘Termination.’’

9. Section 970.5204–16 would berevised. Specifically, paragraph (a)would be revised by changing thelanguage to require payment of thefixed-fee in accordance with a scheduledetermined by the contracting officer.The term ‘‘letter-of-credit’’ would bechanged to ‘‘payments cleared financingarrangement’’ in order to implement theASAP that has replaced letter-of-credit.In paragraph (a) of Note 2 the term‘‘letter-of-credit’’ also would be changedto ‘‘payments cleared financingarrangement.’’

Paragraph (c) would be revised byreplacing the words ‘‘special bankaccount’’ with the words ‘‘specialfinancial institution account’’throughout the paragraph. This changewould permit DOE to utilize a financialinstitution, other than a bank, to provideservices with regard to a specialaccount. In the first sentence, the term‘‘letter-of-credit’’ would be replacedwith ‘‘payments cleared financingarrangement prescribed by DOE’’ asdescribed in paragraph (a) above and thelanguage would be revised to allowpayment of funds, at the option of theGovernment, by direct payment or otherpayment mechanism to the contractor.Since collections are processed andaccounted for in accordance withapplicable requirements imposed by thecontracting officer pursuant to the Laws,regulations, and DOE directives clauseof the contract, the second sentence ofthis paragraph would be deleted. In thethird sentence the words ‘‘and, ifapplicable, fees earned’’ would beinserted between the words ‘‘allowable’’and ‘‘under’’ since payment of feesearned may or may not be made fromthe special financial institution account.Also, an editorial correction would bemade in the third sentence by replacingthe word ‘‘mingled’’ with the word‘‘commingled.’’ Additionally, atypographical error would be correctedin the fourth sentence by replacing theword ‘‘on’’ with the word ‘‘of.’’

Paragraph (d) would be revised byreplacing the words ‘‘special bankaccount’’ with the words ‘‘special

financial institution account’’throughout the paragraph to beconsistent with similar revisions aspreviously stated.

Paragraph (e) would be revised toinclude penalty provisions forunallowable costs as stated in sections306 (b) and (i) of the Federal Propertyand Administrative Services Act of 1949(41 U.S.C. 256), as amended. Also, theword ‘‘voucher’’ would be replaced with‘‘Statement of Costs Incurred andClaimed.’’ Note 4 would be revised torequire the inclusion of an alternativeparagraph (e) in contracts withnonintegrated contractors which alsoincludes such penalty provisions.

Paragraph (f) would be revised bydeleting the word ‘‘fixed’’ in the firstsentence. The requirement for anassignment of the contractor’s rights toany ‘‘collections accruing to thecontractor in connection with the workunder this contract’’ would be addedwith regard to the payment by theGovernment to the contractor of theunpaid balance of allowable costs andfee. Under exception (B), minor changeswould be made to the last sentence—‘‘should’’ would change to ‘‘shall,’’ theclause title referenced would beupdated, and the last word, ‘‘and,’’would be deleted. Exception (D),‘‘Claims recognizable under the clauseentitled, Nuclear Hazards IndemnityAgreement,’’ would be added to theexceptions to the requirement thatcontractors provide a releasedischarging the Government, its officers,agents, and employees from allliabilities, obligations, and claimsarising out of or under the contract. Inaddition, in the last sentence ofparagraph (f) the words ‘‘financialinstitution’’ would replace the word‘‘bank’’ to be consistent with similarrevisions as previously stated.

Paragraph (i) would be revised byreplacing the word ‘‘revenues’’ with theword ‘‘collections’’ in the title as well asthe text of the paragraph. Also, thelanguage would be changed to requirecollections, exclusive of the contractor’sfee and other specified collections, notthe property of the Government, to beprocessed and accounted for inaccordance with applicablerequirements imposed by thecontracting officer pursuant to the Laws,regulations, and DOE directives clauseof the contract and, to the extentconsistent with those requirements, tobe deposited in the special financialinstitution account or otherwise madeavailable for payment of allowable costsunder the contract, unless otherwisedirected by the contracting officer. Inaddition, the words ‘‘financialinstitution’’ would replace the word

‘‘bank’’ to be consistent with similarrevisions as previously stated.

10. Section 970.5204–20 would beamended by revising the introductorystatement and paragraph (a). In thesecond sentence the words ‘‘theft’’ and‘‘fraud’’ would be deleted and the words‘‘loss,’’ ‘‘mismanagement,’’ and‘‘misappropriation’’ would be added.Also, in the fourth and fifth sentencesof paragraph (a) the word ‘‘internal’’would be deleted before the word‘‘controls.’’ These changes would beincorporated for consistency. Also, inthe second sentence the word‘‘obligations’’ would be replaced withthe word ‘‘encumbrances’’ and thewords ‘‘and fees that are earned’’ wouldbe added. The contractor cannotobligate Federal funds. It can onlyencumber such funds. Therefore,contractor management controls shouldbe adopted that reasonably ensure thatall encumbrances and costs incurredand fees earned under the contract arein compliance with applicable clauses,and other current terms, conditions, andintended purposes. In the secondsentence the word ‘‘revenues’’ would bereplaced with the words ‘‘collectionsaccruing to the contractor in connectionwith the work under this contract’’ toensure all collections are properlyrecorded, managed, and reported.Additionally, an editorial correctionwould be made by replacing the word‘‘system’’ with the word ‘‘systems’’ inthe last sentence of the paragraph.

11. Section 970.5204–XX, ‘‘FinancialManagement System,’’ would be added:to require compliance with DOEpolicies for maintaining andadministering a financial managementsystem; to require the contractor tosubmit to DOE for written approval anannual plan for new financialmanagement systems and/or subsystemsand major enhancements and/orupgrades to the currently existingfinancial systems and/or subsystems; torequire the contractor to notify DOEthirty (30) days in advance of anyplanned implementation of anysubstantial deviation from the approvedplan; and, as requested by thecontracting officer, to require thecontractor to submit any such deviationto DOE for written approval.

12. Section 970.5204–XX, ‘‘IntegratedAccounting,’’ would be added to requirecompliance with DOE procedures if anintegrated accounting system is used.

13. Section 970.5402–XX, ‘‘Liabilitywith respect to Cost AccountingStandards,’’ would be added to addressM&O contractor liability for increasedcosts resulting from noncompliancewith provisions set forth in FAR52.230–2, ‘‘Cost Accounting Standards,’’


and FAR 52.230–6, ‘‘Administration ofCost Accounting Standards.’’

14. Section 970.5204–XX, ‘‘Work forothers funding authorization,’’ would beadded to ensure that the Government isnot liable for costs incurred by acontractor performing work for othersutilizing its own funding.

III. Public Comments

Interested persons are invited toparticipate by submitting data, views, orarguments with respect to the DEARamendments set forth in this proposedrule. Three copies of written commentsshould be submitted to the addressindicated in the ADDRESSES section ofthis notice. All comments received willbe available for public inspection in theDOE Reading Room, 1E–190, ForrestalBuilding, 1000 Independence Avenue,SW., Washington, DC 20585, betweenthe hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Mondaythrough Friday, except Federal holidays.All written comments received on orbefore the date specified in thebeginning of this notice and all otherrelevant information will be consideredby DOE before taking final action.Comments received after that date willbe considered to the extent that timeallows. Any person submittinginformation which that person believesto be confidential and which may beexempt from public disclosure shouldsubmit one complete copy, as well as anadditional copy from which theinformation claimed to be confidentialhas been deleted. DOE reserves the rightto determine the confidential status ofthe information or data and to treat itaccording to its determination. TheDepartment’s generally applicableprocedures for handling informationwhich has been submitted in adocument and may be exempt frompublic disclosure are set forth in 10 CFR1004.11.

IV. Procedural Requirements

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

Today’s regulatory action has beendetermined not to be a ‘‘significantregulatory action’’ under ExecutiveOrder 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning andReview,’’ (58 FR 51735, October 4,1993). Accordingly, today’s action wasnot subject to review under theExecutive Order by the Office ofInformation and Regulatory Affairs.

B. Review Under Executive Order 12988

With respect to the review of existingregulations and the promulgation ofnew regulations, section 3(a) ofExecutive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil JusticeReform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996),imposes on Executive agencies the

general duty to adhere to the followingrequirements: (1) Eliminate draftingerrors and ambiguity: (2) writeregulations to minimize litigation: and(3) provide a clear legal standard foraffected conduct rather than a generalstandard and promote simplificationand burden reduction. With regard tothe review required by section 3(a),section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988specifically requires that Executiveagencies make every reasonable effort toensure that the regulation: (1) Clearlyspecifies the preemptive effect, if any;(2) clearly specifies any effect onexisting Federal law or regulation; (3)provides a clear legal standard foraffected conduct while promotingsimplification and burden reduction: (4)specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5)adequately defines key terms; and (6)addresses other important issuesaffecting clarity and generaldraftmenship under any guidelinesissued by the Attorney General. Section3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requiresExecutive agencies to review regulationsin light of applicable standards insection 3(a) and section 3(b) todetermine whether they are met or it isunreasonable to meet one or more ofthem. DOE has completed the requiredreview and determined that, to theextent permitted by law, the proposedregulations meet the relevant standardsof Executive Order 12988.

C. Review Under the RegulatoryFlexibility Act

This rule was reviewed under theRegulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, Pub.L. 96–354, which requires preparationof a regulatory flexibility analysis forany rule which is likely to have asignificant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entities.This proposed rule would only apply toM&O contractors, which are all largeentities. DOE certifies that this proposedrule will not have a significanteconomic impact on a substantialnumber of small entities and, therefore,no regulatory flexibility analysis hasbeen prepared.

D. Review Under the PaperworkReduction Act

No new information collectionrequirements subject to the PaperworkReduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,are imposed by today’s regulatoryaction.

E. Review Under Executive Order 12612Executive Order 12612, entitled

‘‘Federalism,’’ 52 FR 41685 (October 30,1987), requires that regulations, rules,legislation, and any other policy actionsbe reviewed for any substantial direct

effects on States, on the relationshipbetween the Federal Government andthe States, or in the distribution ofpower and responsibilities amongvarious levels of Government. If thereare sufficient substantial direct effects,then the Executive Order requirespreparation of a federalism assessmentto be used in all decisions involved inpromulgating and implementing apolicy action. This proposed rule willnot affect States.

F. Review Under the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act

Pursuant to the Council onEnvironmental Quality Regulations (40CFR Parts 1500–1508), the Departmentof Energy has established guidelines forits compliance with the provisions ofthe National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).Pursuant to appendix A of subpart D of10 CFR part 1021, NationalEnvironmental Policy Act ImplementingProcedures (57 FR 15122, 15152, April24, 1992) (Categorical Exclusion A6),the Department of Energy hasdetermined that this rule is categoricallyexcluded from the need to prepare anenvironmental impact statement orenvironmental assessment.

G. Review Under Small BusinessRegulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of1996

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, theDepartment of Energy will report toCongress promulgation of the rule priorto its effective date. The report will statethat it has been determined that the ruleis not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5U.S.C. 804(3).


Government procurement.Issued in Washington, DC on November 9,

1998.Richard H. Hopf,Director of Procurement and AssistanceManagement.

For the reasons set out in thepreamble, Chapter 9 of Title 48 of theCode of Federal Regulations is proposedto be amended as set forth below.

PART 970—DOE MANAGEMENT ANDOPERATING CONTRACTS


Authority: Sec. 161 of the Atomic EnergyAct of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2201), sec. 644 of theDepartment of Energy Organization Act, Pub.L. 95–91 (42 U.S.C. 7254).

2. Section 970.3201 is revised to readas follows:


970.3201 General.It is the policy of the DOE to finance

management and operating contractsthrough advance payments and the useof special financial institution accounts.

3. Section 970.3202 is amended byrevising paragraphs (b) and (c) to readas follows:

970.3202 Advance payments.

* * * * *(b) Advance payments shall be made

under a payments cleared financingarrangement for deposit in a specialfinancial institution account or, at theoption of the Government, by directpayment or other payment mechanismto the contractor.

(c) Prior to providing any advancepayments, the contracting officer shallenter into an agreement with thecontractor and a financial institutionregarding a special financial institutionaccount where the advanced funds willbe deposited by the Government. Suchagreement shall:

(1) Provide that DOE shall retain titleto the unexpended balance of funds inthe special financial institution accountincluding collections, if any, depositedby the contractor;

(2) Provide that the title in paragraph(c)(1) of this section shall be superior toany claim or lien of the financialinstitution of deposit or others; and

(3) Incorporate all applicablerequirements, as determined by theOffice of Chief Financial Officer.* * * * *

4. Section 970.3270 is revised to readas follows:

970.3270 Standard financial managementclauses.

(a) The following DEAR and FARclauses are standard financialmanagement clauses that shall beincluded in both integrated andnonintegrated management andoperating contracts: DEAR 970.5204–9,Accounts, records, and inspection;DEAR 970.5204–15, Obligation of funds;DEAR 970.5204–16, Payments andadvances; DEAR 970.5204–20,Management controls; DEAR 970.5204–XX, Liability with respect to CostAccounting Standards; DEAR 970.5204–XX, Work for others fundingauthorization; FAR 52.230–2, CostAccounting Standards; and FAR52.230–6, Administration of CostAccounting Standards.

(b) The following clauses are standardfinancial management clauses that shallbe included in integrated managementand operating contracts: DEAR970.5204–XX, Financial managementsystem; and DEAR 970.5204–XX,Integrated accounting.

(c) Any deviations from the standardfinancial management clauses specifiedin paragraphs (a) and (b) of this sectionrequire the approval of the Head of theContracting Activity and the writtenconcurrence of the Department’s ChiefFinancial Officer.

5. Section 970.3271 is removed.6. In section 970.5204–9 revise the

introductory paragraph; clause title; andparagraphs (a) (including the note), (b),(d), and (f) to read as follows:

970.5204–9 Accounts, records, andinspection.

As prescribed in 970.0407 and970.3270, insert the following clause.Accounts, Records, and Inspection (Monthand Year TBE)

(a) Accounts. The contractor shall maintaina separate and distinct set of accounts,records, documents, and other evidenceshowing and supporting: all allowable costsincurred; collections accruing to thecontractor in connection with the work underthis contract, other applicable credits, and feeaccruals under this contract; and the receipt,use, and disposition of all Governmentproperty coming into the possession of thecontractor under this contract. The system ofaccounts employed by the contractor shall besatisfactory to DOE and in accordance withgenerally accepted accounting principlesconsistently applied.

Note: If the contract includes the clause for‘‘Price Reduction for Defective Cost or PricingData’’ set forth at FAR 52.215–22, paragraph(a) above should be modified by adding thewords ‘‘or anticipated to be incurred’’ afterthe words ‘‘allowable costs incurred.’’

(b) Inspection and audit of accounts andrecords. All books of account and recordsrelating to this contract shall be subject toinspection and audit by DOE or its designeesin accordance with the provisions of Clausell, Access to and ownership of records, atall reasonable times, before and during theperiod of retention provided for in paragraph(d) of this clause, and the contractor shallafford DOE proper facilities for suchinspection and audit.

* * * * *(d) Disposition of records. Except as agreed

upon by the Government and the contractor,all financial and cost reports, books ofaccount and supporting documents, systemfiles, data bases, and other data evidencingcosts allowable, collections accruing to thecontractor in connection with the work underthis contract, other applicable credits, and feeaccruals under this contract, shall be theproperty of the Government, and shall bedelivered to the Government or otherwisedisposed of by the contractor either as thecontracting officer may from time to timedirect during the progress of the work or, inany event, as the contracting officer shalldirect upon completion or termination of thiscontract and final audit of accountshereunder. Except as otherwise provided inthis contract, including provisions of Clausell, Access to and ownership of records, allother records in the possession of the

contractor relating to this contract shall bepreserved by the contractor for a period ofthree years after final payment under thiscontract or otherwise disposed of in suchmanner as may be agreed upon by theGovernment and the contractor.

* * * * *(f) Inspections. The DOE shall have the

right to inspect the work and activities of thecontractor under this contract at such timeand in such manner as it shall deemappropriate.

* * * * *7. Section 970.5204–13 is amended by

revising paragraph (d)(15) to read asfollows (note following paragraph(d)(15) remains unchanged):

970.5204–13 Allowable costs and fixed-fee(management and operating contracts).

* * * * *Allowable Costs and Fixed-Fee (Managementand Operating Contracts) (June 1997)

* * * * *(d) * * *(15) Establishment and maintenance of

financial institution accounts in connectionwith the work hereunder, including, but notlimited to, service charges, the cost ofdisbursing cash, necessary guards, cashiers,and paymasters. If payments to employeesare made by check, facilities andarrangements for cashing checks may beprovided without expense to the employees,subject to the approval of the contractingofficer.

* * * * *8. Section 970.5204–15 is revised to

read as follows:

970.5204–15 Obligation of funds.As prescribed in 970.1508(c), insert

the following clause.Obligation of Funds (Month and Year TBE)

(a) Obligation of funds. The amountpresently obligated by the Government withrespect to this contract is lll dollars($lll). Such amount may be increasedunilaterally by DOE by written notice to thecontractor and may be increased or decreasedby written agreement of the parties (whetheror not by formal modification of thiscontract). Estimated collections from othersfor work and services to be performed underthis contract are not included in the amountpresently obligated. Such collections, to theextent actually received by the contractor,shall be processed and accounted for inaccordance with applicable requirementsimposed by the contracting officer pursuantto the Laws, regulations, and DOE directivesclause of this contract. Nothing in thisparagraph (a) is to be construed asauthorizing the contractor to exceedlimitations stated in financial plansestablished by DOE and furnished to thecontractor from time to time under thiscontract.

(b) Limitation on payment by theGovernment. Except as otherwise provided inthis contract and except for costs which maybe incurred by the contractor pursuant to theclause entitled ‘‘Termination,’’ or costs of


claims allowable under the contractoccurring after completion or terminationand not released by the contractor at the timeof financial settlement of the contract inaccordance with the clause entitled‘‘Payments and Advances,’’ payment by theGovernment under this contract on accountof allowable costs shall not, in the aggregate,exceed the amount obligated with respect tothis contract, less the contractor’s fee. Unlessexpressly negated in this contract, paymenton account of those costs excepted in thepreceding sentence which are in excess of theamount obligated with respect to thiscontract shall be subject to the availability of

(1) Collections accruing to the contractor inconnection with the work under this contractand processed and accounted for inaccordance with applicable requirementsimposed by the contracting officer pursuantto the Laws, regulations, and DOE directivesclause of this contract, and

(2) Other funds which DOE may legally usefor such purpose, provided DOE will use itsbest efforts to obtain the appropriation offunds for this purpose if not otherwiseavailable.

(c) Notices—Contractor excused fromfurther performance. The contractor shallnotify DOE in writing whenever theunexpended balance of available funds(including collections available underparagraph (a) of this clause, plus thecontractor’s best estimate of collections to bereceived and available during the ll dayperiod hereinafter specified, is in thecontractor’s best judgment sufficient tocontinue contract operations at theprogrammed rate for only lll days and tocover the contractor’s unpaid fee, andoutstanding encumbrances and liabilities onaccount of costs allowable under the contractat the end of such period. Whenever theunexpended balance of available funds(including collections available underparagraph (a) of this clause, less the amountof the contractor’s fee then earned but notpaid, is in the contractor’s best judgmentsufficient only to liquidate outstandingencumbrances and liabilities on account ofcosts allowable under this contract, thecontractor shall immediately notify DOE andshall make no further encumbrances orexpenditures (except to liquidate existingencumbrances and liabilities), and, unlessthe parties otherwise agree, the contractorshall be excused from further performance(except such performance as may becomenecessary in connection with termination bythe Government) and the performance of allwork hereunder will be deemed to have beenterminated for the convenience of theGovernment in accordance with theprovisions of the clause entitled‘‘Termination.’’

(d) Financial plans; cost and encumbrancelimitations. In addition to the limitationsprovided for elsewhere in this contract, DOEmay, through financial plans, such asApproved Funding Programs, or otherdirectives issued to the contractor, establishcontrols on the costs to be incurred andencumbrances to be made in the performanceof the contract work. Such plans anddirectives may be amended or supplementedfrom time to time by DOE. The contractorhereby agrees

(1) To comply with the specific limitations(ceilings) on costs and encumbrances setforth in such plans and directives,

(2) To comply with other requirements ofsuch plans and directives, and

(3) To notify DOE promptly, in writing,whenever it has reason to believe that anylimitation on costs and encumbrances will beexceeded or substantially underrun.

Note: This paragraph (d) may be omittedin contracts which expressly or otherwiseprovide a contractual basis for equivalentcontrols in a separate clause.

(e) Government’s right to terminate notaffected. The giving of any notice under thisclause shall not be construed to waive orimpair any right of the Government toterminate the contract under the provisionsof the clause entitled ‘‘Termination.’’

9. Section 970.5204–16 is amendedby: revising the introductory paragraph;clause title; clause paragraphs (a) (notesremain unchanged); last sentence ofalternate paragraph (a); (c); (d)(including note 3); (e) (including note4); adding alternate paragraph (e);revising paragraphs (f), and (i) to read asfollows:

970.5204–16 Payments and advances.As prescribed in 970.3270, insert the

following clause.Payments and Advances (Month and YearTBE)

(a) Installments of fixed-fee. The fixed-feepayable under this contract shall become dueand payable in periodic installments inaccordance with a schedule determined bythe contracting officer. Fixed-fee paymentsshall be made by direct payment orwithdrawn from funds advanced or availableunder this contract, as determined by thecontracting officer. The contracting officermay offset against any such fee payment theamounts owed to the Government by thecontractor, including any amounts owed fordisallowed costs under this contract. Nofixed-fee payment may be withdrawn againstthe payments cleared financing arrangementwithout prior written approval of thecontracting officer.

* * * * *(a) * * * No base fee or award fee pool

amount earned payment may be withdrawnagainst the payments cleared financingarrangement without prior written approvalof the contracting officer.

* * * * *(c) Special financial institution account—

use. All advances of Government funds shallbe withdrawn pursuant to a paymentscleared financing arrangement prescribed byDOE in favor of the financial institution or,at the option of the Government, shall bemade by direct payment or other paymentmechanism to the contractor, and shall bedeposited only in the special financialinstitution account referred to in the SpecialFinancial Institution Account Agreement,which is incorporated into this contract asAppendix ll. No part of the funds in thespecial financial institution account shall becommingled with any funds of the contractor

or used for a purpose other than that ofmaking payments for costs allowable and, ifapplicable, fees earned under this contract orpayments for other items specificallyapproved in writing by the contractingofficer. If the contracting officer determinesthat the balance of such special financialinstitution account exceeds the contractor’scurrent needs, the contractor shall promptlymake such disposition of the excess as thecontracting officer may direct.

(d) Title to funds advanced. Title to theunexpended balance of any funds advancedand of any special financial institutionaccount established pursuant to this clauseshall remain in the Government and besuperior to any claim or lien of the financialinstitution of deposit or others. It isunderstood that an advance to the contractorhereunder is not a loan to the contractor, andwill not require the payment of interest bythe contractor, and that the contractoracquires no right, title or interest in or tosuch advance other than the right to makeexpenditures therefrom, as provided in thisclause.

Note 3: The following paragraph (e) shallbe included in management and operatingcontracts with integrated contractors.

(e) Review and approval of costs incurred.The contractor shall prepare and submitannually as of September 30, a ‘‘Statement ofCosts Incurred and Claimed’’ (CostStatement) for the total of net expendituresaccrued (i.e., net costs incurred) for theperiod covered by the Cost Statement. Thecontractor shall certify the Cost Statementsubject to the penalty provisions forunallowable costs as stated in sections 306(b)and (i) of the Federal Property andAdministrative Services Act of 1949 (41U.S.C. 256), as amended. DOE, after auditand appropriate adjustment, will approvesuch Cost Statement. This approval by DOEwill constitute an acknowledgment by DOEthat the net costs incurred are allowableunder the contract and that they have beenrecorded in the accounts maintained by thecontractor in accordance with DOEaccounting policies, but will not relieve thecontractor of responsibility for DOE’s assetsin its care, for appropriate subsequentadjustments, or for errors later becomingknown to DOE.

Note 4: The following paragraph (e) shallbe included in management and operatingcontracts with nonintegrated contractors.

(e) Certification and penalties. Thecontractor shall prepare and submit a‘‘Statement of Costs Incurred and Claimed’’(Cost Statement) for the total of netexpenditures incurred for the period coveredby the Cost Statement. It is anticipated thatthis will be an annual submission unlessotherwise agreed to by the contracting officer.The contractor shall certify the CostStatement subject to the penalty provisionsfor unallowable costs as stated in sections306(b) and (i) of the Federal Property andAdministrative Services Act of 1949 (41U.S.C. 256), as amended.

(f) Financial settlement. The Governmentshall promptly pay to the contractor theunpaid balance of allowable costs and feeupon termination of the work, expiration of


the term of the contract, or completion of thework and its acceptance by the Governmentafter:

(1) Compliance by the contractor withDOE’s patent clearance requirements, and

(2) The furnishing by the contractor of:(i) An assignment of the contractor’s rights

to any refunds, rebates, allowances, accountsreceivable, collections accruing to thecontractor in connection with the work underthis contract, or other credits applicable toallowable costs under the contract;

(ii) A closing financial statement;(iii) The accounting for Government-owned

property required by the clause entitled‘‘Property’’; and

(iv) A release discharging the Government,its officers, agents, and employees from allliabilities, obligations, and claims arising outof or under this contract subject only to thefollowing exceptions:

(A) Specified claims in stated amounts orin estimated amounts where the amounts arenot susceptible to exact statement by thecontractor;

(B) Claims, together with reasonableexpenses incidental thereto, based uponliabilities of the contractor to third partiesarising out of the performance of thiscontract; provided that such claims are notknown to the contractor on the date of theexecution of the release; and provided furtherthat the contractor gives notice of suchclaims in writing to the contracting officerpromptly, but not more than one (1) yearafter the contractor’s right of action firstaccrues. In addition, the contractor shallprovide prompt notice to the contractingofficer of all potential claims under thisclause, whether in litigation or not (see alsoContract Clause ll, DEAR 970.5204–31,‘‘Insurance—Litigation and Claims’’);

(C) Claims for reimbursement of costs(other than expenses of the contractor byreason of any indemnification of theGovernment against patent liability),including reasonable expenses incidentalthereto, incurred by the contractor under theprovisions of this contract relating to patents;and

(D) Claims recognizable under the clauseentitled, Nuclear Hazards IndemnityAgreement.

(3) In arriving at the amount due thecontractor under this clause, there shall bededucted, (i) any claim which theGovernment may have against the contractorin connection with this contract, and (ii)deductions due under the terms of thiscontract, and not otherwise recovered by orcredited to the Government. Theunliquidated balance of the special financialinstitution account may be applied to theamount due and any balance shall bereturned to the Government forthwith.

* * * * *(i) Collections. All collections accruing to

the contractor in connection with the workunder this contract, except for thecontractor’s fee and royalties or other incomeaccruing to the contractor from technologytransfer activities in accordance with thiscontract, shall be Government property andshall be processed and accounted for inaccordance with applicable requirementsimposed by the contracting officer pursuant

to the Laws, regulations, and DOE directivesclause of this contract and, to the extentconsistent with those requirements, shall bedeposited in the special financial institutionaccount or otherwise made available forpayment of allowable costs under thiscontract, unless otherwise directed by thecontracting officer.

* * * * *10. Section 970.5204–20 is amended

by revising the introductory statementand paragraph (a) to read as follows:

970.5204–20 Management controls.

In accordance with 970.0901 and asprescribed in 970.3270, the followingclause shall be used in management andoperating contracts:Management Controls (Month and Year TBE)

(a) The contractor shall be responsible formaintaining, as an integral part of itsorganization, effective systems ofmanagement controls for both administrativeand programmatic functions. Managementcontrols comprise the plan of organization,methods, and procedures adopted bymanagement to reasonably ensure that: themission and functions assigned to thecontractor are properly executed; efficientand effective operations are promoted;resources are safeguarded against waste, loss,mismanagement, unauthorized use, ormisappropriation; all encumbrances andcosts that are incurred under the contract andfees that are earned are in compliance withapplicable clauses and other current terms,conditions, and intended purposes; allcollections accruing to the contractor inconnection with the work under thiscontract, expenditures, and all othertransactions and assets are properly recorded,managed, and reported; and financial,statistical, and other reports necessary tomaintain accountability and managerialcontrol are accurate, reliable, and timely. Thesystems of controls employed by thecontractor shall be documented andsatisfactory to DOE. Such systems shall be anintegral part of the contractor’s managementfunctions, including defining specific rolesand responsibilities for each level ofmanagement, and holding employeesaccountable for the adequacy of themanagement systems and controls in theirareas of assigned responsibility. Thecontractor shall, as part of the internal auditprogram required elsewhere in this contract,periodically review the management systemsand controls employed in programs andadministrative areas to ensure that they areadequate to provide reasonable assurancethat the objectives of the systems are beingaccomplished and that these systems andcontrols are working effectively.

* * * * *11. Section 970.5204–XX is added to

read as follows:

970.5204–XX Financial managementsystem.

As prescribed in 970.3270, insert thefollowing clause.

Financial Management System (Month andYear TBE)

The contractor shall maintain andadminister a financial management systemthat includes the currently existing integratedaccounting system and is suitable to provideproper accounting in accordance with DOErequirements for assets, liabilities, collectionsaccruing to the contractor in connection withthe work under this contract, expenditures,costs, and encumbrances; permits thepreparation of accounts and accurate, reliablefinancial and statistical reports; and assuresthat accountability for the assets can bemaintained. The contractor shall submit toDOE for written approval an annual plan fornew financial management systems and/orsubsystems and major enhancements and/orupgrades to the currently existing financialsystems and/or subsystems. The contractorshall notify DOE thirty (30) days in advanceof any planned implementation of anysubstantial deviation from this plan and, asrequested by the contracting officer, shallsubmit any such deviation to DOE for writtenapproval before implementation.

12. Section 970.5204–XX is added toread as follows:

970.5204–XX Integrated accounting.As prescribed in 970.3270, insert the

following clause.Integrated Accounting (Month and Year TBE)

Integrated accounting procedures arerequired for use under this contract. Thecontractor’s financial management systemshall include an integrated accountingsystem that is linked to DOE’s accountsthrough the use of reciprocal accounts andthat has electronic capability to transmitmonthly and year-end self-balancing trialbalances to the Department’s PrimaryAccounting System for reporting financialactivity under this contract in accordancewith requirements imposed by thecontracting officer pursuant to the Laws,regulations, and DOE directives clause of thiscontract.


970.5204–XX Liability with respect to CostAccounting Standards.

As prescribed in 970.3270, insert thefollowing clause.Liability With Respect to Cost AccountingStandards (Month and Year TBE)

(a) The contractor is not liable to theGovernment for increased costs or interestresulting from its failure to comply with theclauses of this contract entitled, ‘‘CostAccounting Standards,’’ and ‘‘Administrationof Cost Accounting Standards,’’ if its failureto comply with the clauses is caused by thecontractor’s compliance with published DOEfinancial management policies andprocedures or other requirements establishedby the Department’s Chief Financial Officeror Procurement Executive.

(b) The contractor is not liable to theGovernment for increased costs or interestresulting from its subcontractors’ failure tocomply with the clauses at FAR 52.230–2,


‘‘Cost Accounting Standards,’’ and FAR52.230–6, ‘‘Administration of CostAccounting Standards,’’ if the contractorincludes in each covered subcontract a clausemaking the subcontractor liable to theGovernment for increased costs or interestresulting from the subcontractor’s failure tocomply with the clauses; and the contractorseeks the subcontract price adjustment andcooperates with the Government in theGovernment’s attempts to recover from thesubcontractor.


970.5204–XX Work for others fundingauthorization.

As prescribed in 970.3270, insert thefollowing clause.Work for Others Funding Authorization(Month and Year TBE)

Any uncollectible receivables resultingfrom the contractor utilizing contractorcorporate funding for reimbursable workshall be the responsibility of the contractor,and the United States Government shall haveno liability to the contractor therefor. Thecontractor is permitted to provide advancepayment utilizing contractor corporate fundsfor reimbursable work to be performed by thecontractor for a non-Federal entity ininstances where advance payment from thatentity is required under the Laws,regulations, and DOE directives clause of thiscontract and such advance cannot beobtained. The contractor is also permitted toprovide advance payment utilizing contractorcorporate funds to continue reimbursablework to be performed by the contractor fora Federal entity when the term or the fundson a Federal interagency agreement requiredunder the Laws, regulations, and DOEdirectives clause of this contract haveelapsed. The contractor’s utilization ofcontractor corporate funds does not relievethe contractor of its responsibility to complywith all requirements for Work for Othersapplicable to this contract.




50 CFR Part 300

[I.D. 110998B]

Pacific Tuna Fisheries; Public Hearing

AGENCY: National Marine FisheriesService (NMFS), National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA),Commerce.ACTION: Notice of public hearing.

SUMMARY: NMFS will convene a publichearing on proposed regulationsnecessary to implementrecommendations of the Inter-American

Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC)according to the provisions of the TunaConventions Act of 1950.

DATES: The public hearing will be heldon December 1, 1998.

ADDRESSES: The hearing will be held atthe Embassy Suites Hotel located at 601Pacific Highway, San Diego, California92101. Copies of proposed regulationsand associated material will be availablefrom Dr. William Hogarth, RegionalAdministrator, Southwest Region,NMFS, 501 Ocean Boulevard, Suite4200, Long Beach, California 90802–4213.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.Svein Fougner, Assistant Administratorfor Sustainable Fisheries, SouthwestRegion, NMFS, 562–980–4030.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: At its 61stmeeting in June 1998, the IATTC actedto set a 1998 quota on yellowfin tuna inits regulatory area, set a quota on bigeyetuna to be implemented by prohibitingsets on floating objects once the quotais reached, prohibit the use of vesselsthat tend fishery aggregating devices,and prohibit at-sea transhipments of fishcaught by purse seines. NMFS isrequesting public comments onregulations implementing therecommendations of the IATTC, whichwill soon be published in the FederalRegister with a 30-day period for publiccomment.

Special Accommodations

These meetings are physicallyaccessible to people with disabilities.Requests for sign languageinterpretation or other auxiliary aidsshould be directed to Mr. Svein Fougnerat the number above at least 5 days priorto the meeting date.


Gary C. Matlock,Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries,National Marine Fisheries Service.[FR Doc. 98–30838 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]




50 CFR Part 622

[Docket No. 981109280–8280–01; I.D.101498F]

RIN 0648–AM03

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf ofMexico, and South Atlantic; Reef FishFishery of the Gulf of Mexico; CoastalMigratory Pelagic Resources of theGulf of Mexico and South AtlanticStates; Recreational-for-hire Fisheries;Control Date

AGENCY: National Marine FisheriesService (NMFS), National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA),Commerce.ACTION: Advance notice of proposedrulemaking; consideration of a controldate.

SUMMARY: This notice announces thatthe Gulf of Mexico Fishery ManagementCouncil (Council) is consideringwhether there is a need to imposeadditional management measureslimiting entry into the recreational-for-hire (i.e., charter vessel and headboat)fisheries for reef fish and coastalmigratory pelagic fish in the exclusiveeconomic zone (EEZ) of the Gulf ofMexico and, if there is a need, whatmanagement measures should beimposed. If the Council determines thatthere is a need to impose additionalmanagement measures, it may initiate arulemaking to do so. Possible measuresinclude the establishment of a limitedentry program to control participation oreffort in the recreational-for-hirefisheries for reef fish and coastalmigratory pelagics. If a limited entryprogram is established, the Council isconsidering November 18, 1998, as apossible control date. Consideration of acontrol date is intended to discouragenew entry into the fisheries based oneconomic speculation during theCouncil’s deliberation on the issues.DATES: Comments must be submitted byDecember 18, 1998.ADDRESSES: Comments should bedirected to the Gulf of Mexico FisheryManagement Council, 3018 U.S.Highway 301 North, Suite 1000, Tampa,FL 33619–2266; Fax: 813–225–7015.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Mark Godcharles or Robert Sadler, 727–570–5305.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Therecreational-for-hire fisheries for reeffish and coastal migratory pelagic fish inthe EEZ of the Gulf of Mexico are


managed respectively under the FisheryManagement Plans for the Reef FishResources of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf)and the Coastal Migratory PelagicResources of the Gulf and SouthAtlantic (FMPs). The FMP for the Gulfof Mexico reef fish resources wasprepared by the Council; the FMP forcoastal migratory pelagic resources wasprepared jointly by the Council and theSouth Atlantic Fishery ManagementCouncil. Both FMPs were implementedunder the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation andManagement Act by regulations at 50CFR part 622. The FMPs regulate thesetwo recreational-for-hire fisheries andrequire permits for charter and headboatvessels participating in them. Landingsof the vessels are regulated through bag,possession, and size limits. There also isa recreational quota for red snapper.

In both the red snapper and kingmackerel fisheries, the recreationalsector, including recreational-for-hirevessels, has frequently exceeded theallocations set for that sector when totalallowable catch (TAC) is set annually.To prevent the recreational sector fromexceeding its allocation, the Councilmust either reduce the bag limits or takesome other action to reduce the effortand/or landings (e.g., seasonal closures,increased size limits). Reduction of thebag limits is the most effective way tocontrol landings, but such reductionshave adverse economic impacts on therecreational-for-hire vessels. When thebag limit is reduced to a lower level,some of the clientele of these vesselscease to fish and to pay for fishing trips.The Council is, therefore, consideringlimited entry or other effort limitationprograms for recreational-for-hirevessels.

Implementation of an effort limitationprogram for these recreational-for-hirefisheries in the EEZ would requirepreparation of amendments to the FMPsby the Council and publication ofproposed implementing rules with apublic comment period. NMFS’approval of the amendments andissuance of final implementing rulesalso would be required.

As the Council considers managementoptions, including limited entry oraccess-controlled regimes, somefishermen who do not currentlyparticipate in the recreational-for-hirefisheries, and have never done so, maydecide to enter the fisheries for the solepurpose of establishing a record oflandings. When management authoritiesbegin to consider use of a limited accessmanagement regime, this kind ofspeculative entry often is responsible fora rapid increase in fishing effort infisheries that are already fully

developed or overdeveloped. Theoriginal fishery problems, such asovercapitalization or overfishing, maybe exacerbated by the entry of newparticipants.

In order to avoid this problem, ifmanagement measures to limitparticipation or effort in the fisheries aredetermined to be necessary, the Councilis considering November 18, 1998, asthe control date. After that date, anyoneentering these recreational-for-hirefisheries may not be assured of futureparticipation in the fisheries if amanagement regime is developed andimplemented limiting the number offishery participants.

The Council previously established acontrol date of October 16, 1995, (60 FR53576, October 16, 1995) for therecreational-for-hire fishery for Gulfking mackerel. It is the Council’s intentthat the November 18, 1998 control dateestablished by this advance notice ofproposed rulemaking supersede theOctober 15, 1995, control date for thatsector of the fishery.

Consideration of a control date doesnot commit the Council or NMFS to anyparticular management regime orcriteria for entry into the recreational-for-hire fisheries. Fishermen are notguaranteed future participation in thesefisheries, regardless of their entry dateor intensity of participation in thefisheries before or after the control dateunder consideration. The Councilsubsequently may choose a differentcontrol date or it may choose amanagement regime that does not makeuse of such a date. The Council maychoose to give variably weightedconsideration to fishermen active in thefisheries before and after the controldate. Other qualifying criteria, such asdocumentation of landings and sales,may be applied for entry. The Councilalso may choose to take no furtheraction to control entry or access to thefisheries, in which case the control datemay be rescinded.



Andrew A. Rosenberg,Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,National Marine Fisheries Service.[FR Doc. 98–30835 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]




50 CFR Part 648

[I.D. 110998F]

RIN 0648–AJ33

Fisheries of the Northeastern UnitedStates; Amendment 7 to the AtlanticSea Scallop Fishery Management Plan;Amendments to Address theSustainable Fisheries ActRequirements and Other Measures

AGENCY: National Marine FisheriesService (NMFS), National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA),Commerce.ACTION: Notice of availability of anamendment to a fishery managementplan; request for comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS announces that theNew England Fishery ManagementCouncil (Council) has submittedAmendment 7 to the Atlantic SeaScallop Fishery Management Plan(Amendment 7) for Secretarial reviewand is requesting comments from thepublic. Included in Amendment 7 arethe new Sustainable Fisheries Actrequirements for Atlantic sea scallops.DATES: Comments must be received onor before January 19, 1999.ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposedamendment should be sent to Jon C.Rittgers, Acting Regional Administrator,1 Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA01930. Mark the outside of theenvelope, ‘‘Comments on Amendment 7to the Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP.’’

Copies of Amendment 7, itsregulatory impact review, initialregulatory flexibility analysis, the finalsupplemental environmental impactstatement, and the supportingdocuments for Amendment 7 areavailable from Paul J. Howard,Executive Director, New EnglandFishery Management Council, 5Broadway, Saugus, MA 01906–1036.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: PaulH. Jones, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978–281–9273.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:Amendment 7 proposes to: (1) Establisha 10-year stock rebuilding schedule; (2)initiate a new overfishing definition andrebuilding target for Atlantic seascallops; (3) revise the specification ofoptimum yield; (4) continue the Mid-Atlantic closed areas, with a sunset dateof March 1, 2001; (5) implement asystem for closing and opening areas toimprove yield per recruit; (6) establishan annual monitoring and adjustment


system to ensure stock rebuilding; and(7) add measures to those that theCouncil may implement through theframework adjustment process.

A proposed rule that wouldimplement Amendment 7 may bepublished in the Federal Register forpublic comment, following NMFS’evaluation of the proposed rule underthe procedures of the Magnuson-StevensFishery Conservation and ManagementAct. Public comments on the proposedrule must be received by the end of thecomment period on Amendment 7 to beconsidered in the approval/disapprovaldecision on the FMP amendment. Allcomments received by January 19, 1999,whether specifically directed to theFMP amendment or the proposed rule,will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision. Commentsreceived after that date will not beconsidered in the approval/disapprovaldecision on the FMP amendment.





50 CFR Part 660

[I.D. 110698B]

RIN 0648–AK21

Fisheries off West Coast States and inthe Western Pacific; Bottomfish andSeamount Groundfish Fisheries;Amendment 5

AGENCY: National Marine FisheriesService (NMFS), National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA),Commerce.ACTION: Notice of availability of a fisherymanagement plan amendment; requestfor comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS announces that theWestern Pacific Fishery ManagementCouncil (Council) has submittedAmendment 5 to the FisheryManagement Plan for Bottomfish andSeamount Groundfish of the WesternPacific Region (FMP) for Secretarialreview. Amendment 5 would establish a

limited access program for the MauZone bottomfish fishery in the easternportion of the Northwestern HawaiianIslands (NWHI). The Mau Zone, whichis one of two bottomfish managementsubareas in the NWHI, encompasses anarea between 161°20′ and 165° 00′ W.longitude in the U.S. exclusiveeconomic zone around the HawaiianIslands. This action is intended toconserve and support the long-termproductivity of the bottomfish stocks bypreventing the potential for excessiveharvest capacity and to improve the loweconomic returns in the fishery.DATES: Written comments on theamendment must be received on orbefore January 19, 1999.ADDRESSES: Written comments shouldbe sent to Charles Karnella,Administrator, Pacific Islands AreaOffice, NMFS, 2570 Dole Street, Room106, Honolulu, HI 96822–2396. Copiesof Amendment 5, including itsRegulatory Impact Review andEnvironmental Assessment, areavailable from Kitty Simonds, ExecutiveDirector, Western Pacific FisheryManagement Council, 1164 Bishop St.,Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Alvin Katekaru, Fishery ManagementSpecialist, Pacific Islands Area Office,NMFS at (808) 973–2985 or KittySimonds at (808) 522–8220.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: TheMagnuson-Stevens FisheryConservation and Management Act(Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires thateach Regional Fishery ManagementCouncil submit any amendment to afishery management plan it hasprepared to NMFS for review,disapproval, or partial approval. TheMagnuson-Stevens Act also requiresthat NMFS, upon receiving anamendment, immediately publish anotice that the amendment is availablefor public review and comment. NMFSwill consider all public commentsreceived during the comment period indetermining whether to approve theamendment for implementation.

Amendment 5 would (1) restrictparticipation in the Mau Zonebottomfish fishery to vessel owners whohold limited access permits; (2) adopt,based on biological and economicfactors, a long-term target number of 10vessels that would be allowed to fish forbottomfish in the Mau Zone; (3)establish qualifying criteria forallocating initial limited access permitsbased on historic participation in the

fishery (December 17, 1991, controldate) and landings of bottomfish fromthe Mau Zone up to December 31, 1996;(4) prohibit the transfer, lease, charter,or sale of permits to reduce the numberof vessels in the fishery in order toachieve the target number; (5) revokelimited access permits issued topartnerships or corporations upon achange in more than 50 percentownership in the permitted vessel or itsreplacement; (6) limit the amount oftime a permit holder may register alimited access permit for use with aleased or chartered vessel; (7) limit thelength of replacement vessels to 60 ft(18.3 m); (8) require permit holders tomake a minimum of five landings of atleast 500 lb (227 kg) each of bottomfishmanagement unit species each year fromthe Mau Zone to qualify for permitrenewal; (9) require the Council toundertake a 5-year comprehensivereview of the limited access program todetermine its effectiveness in meetingthe objectives of the FMP; (10) have theCouncil develop criteria to allow newentry into the Mau Zone when thenumber of permitted vessels falls below10; and (11) reserve 20 percent of thelong-term target number of limitedaccess permits, i.e., two permits, for aWestern Pacific CommunityDevelopment Program that may bedeveloped by the Council and approvedby the Secretary of Commerce.Amendment 5 describes the abovemeasures in detail, including such otherrequirements as establishing a fee forprocessing Mau Zone permits,specifying an appeals process for permitactions, and prohibiting the retention ofincidentally caught bottomfish in theMau Zone without a limited accesspermit.

Public comments on Amendment 5must be received by January 19, 1999 tobe considered by NMFS in the decisionto approve/disapprove Amendment 5. Aproposed rule to implementAmendment 5 has been submitted forSecretarial review and approval. NMFSexpects to publish the proposed ruleand request public comment on theproposed regulations in the near future.



Bruce C. Morehead,

Acting Director, Office of SustainableFisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.[FR Doc. 98–30839 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]





50 CFR Part 679

[I.D. 101498C]

RIN 0648–AJ50

Fisheries of the Exclusive EconomicZone off Alaska; Amendment 56 to theFishery Management Plan forGroundfish of the Gulf of Alaska andAmendment 56 to the FisheryManagement Plan for the GroundfishFishery of the Bering Sea and AleutianIslands Area; Correction

AGENCY: National Marine FisheriesService (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),Commerce.ACTION: Correction to notice ofavailability.

SUMMARY: This document contains acorrection to the notice of availabilitypertaining to Fisheries of the ExclusiveEconomic Zone published in theFederal Register on October 26, 1998(63 FR 57094). That documenterroneously used the symbol ‘‘not equalto’’ instead of the percent symbol whenreferring to fishing mortality rates.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:James Hale, 907–586–7228.

Correction

In the notice of availability FederalRegister document 98–28600, on page

57095, correct the not equal to symbolto read ‘‘%’’ in the following places:

a. In the first column, in the lastparagraph, lines 3, 4, and 10.

b. In the second column, in the firstincomplete paragraph, lines 1, 2, 5(twice), 11, and 12.


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

64035

Vol. 63, No. 222



Office of the Secretary

Research, Education, and Economics;Notice of Strategic Planning TaskForce Meeting

AGENCY: Research, Education, andEconomics, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of Meeting.

SUMMARY: The United States Departmentof Agriculture announces a meeting ofthe Strategic Planning Task Force onResearch Facilities.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: TheStrategic Planning Task Force onResearch Facilities, currently consistingof 14 members, is scheduled to meet forthe sixth of eight planned meetings. Themeeting is scheduled to be held at theNational Agriculture Library, Beltsville,Maryland, beginning at 1 p.m. onDecember 1 and concluding at 3 p.m. onDecember 4. The meeting will be areview of the data collected by the TaskForce and will begin discussion andplans for the development of the finalreport.

Times and dates: December 1, 1998,1 p.m.–5 p.m.; December 2, 1998, 8a.m.–5 p.m.; December 3, 1998, 8 a.m.–5 p.m.; and December 4, 1998, 8 a.m.–3 p.m.

Place: National Agricultural LibraryConference Room, Beltsville, Maryland.

Type of meeting: Open to the public.Comments: The public may file

written comments before or after themeeting with the contact person listedbelow.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Mitch Geasler, Project Director, StrategicPlanning Task Force on ResearchFacilities, Room 344–A Jamie L.Whitten Building, USDA, 1400Independence Avenue SW.,Washington, DC 20250–0113.Telephone 202–720–3803.

Done at Washington, DC, this 12th day ofNovember, 1998.I. Miley Gonzalez,Under Secretary, Research, Education, andEconomics.[FR Doc. 98–30852 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3410–22–P


Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Region; SupplementalEnvironmental Impact Statement forSheep Flats Diversity Unit TimberSales, Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre andGunnison National Forest, MesaCounty, Colorado

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.ACTION: Notice of intent to supplementan environmental impact statement.

Responsible Official: The ResponsibleOfficial for this SupplementalEnvironmental Impact Statement is Mr.Robert Storch, Forest Supervisor of theGrand Mesa, Uncompahgre andGunnison National Forests, 2250Highway 50, Delta, Colorado 81416.SUMMARY: The Forest Service preparedand issued a final environmental impactstatement in June 1998 about four (4)proposed timber sales: Valley View,Sheep Flats, Grove Creek, and Leon.These sales are located on the GrandMesa National Forest, Collbran RangerDistrict. The Forest Service willsupplement this environmental impactstatement by developing and presentingadditional information concerning soilsand watershed resources. Errors andinconsistencies in the June 1998 EISwill also be corrected.DATES: Publication of DraftSupplemental EIS: December 1998.Publication of Final Supplemental EIS:March 1999. Publication of Record ofDecision: April 1999.ADDRESSES: Send written comments toMr. Robert Storch, Forest Supervisor ofthe Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre andGunnison National Forests, 2250Highway 50, Delta, Colorado 81416.Send electronic mail comments to PamBode, Project Leader at pam.bode/[email protected] INFORMATION: The ForestSupervisor will use this SupplementalEnvironmental Impact Statement toreconsider his decision concerning howto manage the timber resource within

Sheep Flats Diversity Unit. The ForestService is proposing to harvest fourtimber sales on this National ForestSystem land. Even-aged and uneven-aged silvicultural systems areconsidered in Engelmann spruce,subalpine fir, and aspen stands. Thesesales are scheduled to be offered withina five to ten year period after thisanalysis.

Initial scoping of interested partiesidentified three preliminary issues.These are: (1) Constructing roads andharvesting timber within areas that wereidentified as Salt Creek Roadless Areaand Priest Mountain Roadless Areaduring the 1979 RARE II inventory, (2)harvesting old growth timber, and (3)cumulative impacts on ecosystems fromlogging operations in and around thesale areas.

Five alternatives were studied in theJune 1998 EIS. Alternative 1 is NoAction. Alternatives 2 and 4 harvestsuited timber but do not enter the SaltCreek or Priest Mountain Roadless Area.Alternatives 3 and 5 enter both the SaltCreek and Priest Mountain RoadlessAreas. Alternatives 2 and 3 emphasizemaintenance of current old growthattributes and wildlife habitat networkswhile moderately improving timberstructural diversity. Alternatives 4 and 5emphasize improvement of timberstructural diversity and production ofwood fiber for timber industry. Theselected action in the June 1998 Recordof Decision was a combination ofAlternatives 3 and 5. This action will bereconsidered when the FinalSupplemental EIS is complete and anew decision will be published.

News releases were issued, field tourshave been conducted, and publicmeetings have occurred over the past sixyears. No additional scoping is plannedfor this project. News releases will beissued to inform the public that aSupplemental EIS will be prepared.These releases will outline the analysisschedule, and identify the period ofopportunity for comment. The commentperiod on the Draft SupplementalEnvironmental Impact Statement will be45 days from the date theEnvironmental Protection Agencypublishes the Notice of Availability inthe Federal Register. The parties thatexpressed interest previously have beeninformed individually by mail that thisanalysis is continuing.

64036 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 222 / Wednesday, November 18, 1998 / Notices

The Forest Service believes, at thisearly stage, it is important to givereviewers notice of several court rulingsrelated to public participation in theenvironmental review process. First,reviewers of supplementalenvironmental impact statements muststructure their participation in theenvironmental review of the proposal sothat it is meaningful and alerts anagency to the reviewer’s position andcontentions. Vermont Yankee NuclearPower Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553(1978). Also, environmental objectionsthat could be raised at the draftsupplemental environmental impactstage but that are not raised until aftercompletion of the final supplementalenvironmental impact statement may bewaived or dismissed by the courts. Cityof Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016,1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and WisconsinHeritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F.Supp.1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because ofthese court rulings, it is very importantthat those interested in this proposedaction participate by the close of the 45-day comment period so that substantivecomments and objections are madeavailable to the Forest Service at a timewhen it can meaningfully consider themand respond to them in the finalsupplemental environmental impactstatement.

To assist the Forest Service inidentifying and considering issues andconcerns on the proposed action,comments on the supplemental EISshould be as specific as possible. It isalso helpful if comments refer tospecific pages or chapters of thesupplement. Comments may alsoaddress the adequacy of the supplementor its merits. Reviewers may wish torefer to the Council on EnvironmentalQuality Regulations for implementingthe procedural provisions of theNational Environmental Policy Act at 40CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

Dated: November 9, 1998.Robert L. Storch,Forest Supervisor.[FR Doc. 98–30859 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Agenda and Notice of Public Meetingof the District of Columbia AdvisoryCommittee

Notice is hereby given, pursuant tothe provisions of the rules andregulations of the U.S. Commission onCivil Rights, that a meeting of theDistrict of Columbia AdvisoryCommittee to the Commission will

convene at 9:30 a.m. and adjourn at12:45 p.m. on December 4, 1998, at JCPenney, Government Relations Office(Suite 1015), 1156 15th St., N.W.,Washington, D.C. 20036. The purpose ofthe meeting is to hear from lendingindustry representatives on the use ofcredit scoring methods in relationshipto minority loan applicants, to receiveupdates from subcommittees, to reviewan outline for a memorandum to theCommission on recent developments inlending and discrimination issues, andcontinue planning future activities.

Persons desiring additionalinformation, or planning a presentationto the Committee, should contactCommittee Chairperson Steven Sims,202–862–4815, or Ki-Taek Chun,Director of the Eastern Regional Office,202–376–7533 (TDD 202–376–8116).Hearing-impaired persons who willattend the meeting and require theservices of a sign language interpretershould contact the Regional Office atleast five (5) working days before thescheduled date of the meeting.

The meeting will be conductedpursuant to the provisions of the rulesand regulations of the Commission.

Dated at Washington, DC, November 10,1998.Carol-Lee Hurley,Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.[FR Doc. 98–30757 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6335–01–F

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Agenda and Notice of Public Meetingof the Missouri Advisory Committee

Notice is hereby given, pursuant tothe provisions of the rules andregulations of the U.S. Commission onCivil Rights, that a meeting of theMissouri Advisory Committee to theCommission will convene at 3 p.m. andadjourn at 5 p.m. on December 3, 1998,at the Holiday Inn, 102 South 3rd, St.Joseph MO 64501. The purpose of themeeting is to plan future activities andreceive civil rights monitoring issuesfrom members.

Persons desiring additionalinformation, or planning a presentationto the Committee, should contactMelvin L. Jenkins, Director of theCentral Regional Office, 913–551–1400(TTD 913–551–1414). Hearing-impairedpersons who will attend the meetingand require the services of a signlanguage interpreter should contact theRegional Office at least five (5) workingdays before the scheduled date of themeeting.

The meeting will be conductedpursuant to the provisions of the rulesand regulations of the Commission.

Dated at Washington, DC, November 10,1998.Carol-Lee Hurley,Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.[FR Doc. 98–30758 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6335–01–F


Submission for OMB Review;Comment Request

DOC has submitted to the Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) forclearance the following proposal forcollection of information under theprovisions of the Paperwork ReductionAct of 1995, Pub. L. 104–13.

Bureau: International TradeAdministration.

Title: Internet Export FinanceMatchmaker.

OMB Number: None.Type of Request: Regular Submission.Burden: 333 hours.Number of Respondents: 1700.Avg. Hours Per Response: Exporters,

10 minutes; Export Service Firms, 30minutes.

Needs and Uses: The Office ofFinance assists U.S. firms in identifyingtrade finance opportunities andpromotes the competitiveness of U.S.financial services in international trade.The Office of Finance interacts withprivate financial institutions ininsurance, banking, leasing, factoring,barter, and counter trade; U.S. financingagencies, such as the Export-ImportBank and the Overseas PrivateInvestment Corporation; andmultilateral development banks, such asthe World Bank, Asian DevelopmentBank, and others. To facilitate contactbetween exporters and financialinstitutions, the Office of Finance isdeveloping an interactive Internet tradefinance matchmaking program to linkexporters seeking trade finance withbanks and other financial institutions.The information collected fromfinancial institutions regarding the tradefinance products and services they offerwill be compiled into a database. Anexporter will be able to electronicallysubmit a form identifying the potentialexport transaction and type of financingrequested. This information will beelectronically matched with thefinancial institution(s) that meet therequirements of the exporter. After amatch has been made, a message will beelectronically sent to both the exporterand the financial institution containing

64037Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 222 / Wednesday, November 18, 1998 / Notices

the information about the match, andcontact information for either party toinitiate communication. This program isdesigned to implement the Departmentof Commerce’s goal of improving accessto trade financing for small businessexporters.

Affected Public: Businesses or otherfor-profit.

Frequency: On Occasion.Respondent’s Obligation: Required to

obtain or retain a benefit; voluntary.OMB Desk Officer: David Rostker,

(202) 395–7340.Copies of the above information

collection proposal can be obtained bycalling or writing Linda Engelmeier,Departmental Forms Clearance Officer,(202) 482–3272, Department ofCommerce, Room 5327, 14th andConstitution, NW, Washington, DC20230.

Written comments andrecommendations for the proposedinformation collection should be sent toDavid Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Room10202, New Executive Office Building,Washington, DC 20503 within 30 daysof the publication of this notice in theFederal Register.

Dated: November 12, 1998.Linda Engelmeier,Departmental Forms Clearance Officer, Officeof Chief Information Officer.[FR Doc. 98–30777 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P


Submission for OMB Review:Comment Request



Title: Mission/Exhibition Evaluation.Agency Form Number: ITA–4075P.OMB Number: 0625–0034.Type of Request: Regular Submission.Burden: 167 hours.Number of Respondents: 2,000.Avg. Hours Per Response: 5 minutes.Needs and Uses: U.S. Department of

Commerce (DOC) and DOC-certifiedtrade missions and exhibitions areoverseas events planned, organized andled by government and non-governmentexport promotion agencies such asindustry trade associations; agencies offederal, state and local governments;chambers of commerce; regionalconsortia; and other export orientedgroups. This form is used to: (1)

Evaluate the effectiveness of DOC orDOC-certified overseas trade eventsthrough the collection of informationrelating to required performancemeasures; (2) document the results ofparticipation in DOC trade events; (3)evaluate results reported by small tomid-sized, new-to-exports/new-to-market U.S. companies; (4) documentthe successful completion of tradepromotion activities conducted byoverseas DOC offices; and (5) identifystrengths and weaknesses of DOC tradepromotion programs, in the interest ofimproving service to the U.S. businesscommunity. This request is beingsubmitted to revise this informationcollection form to enable participants toquickly and clearly address whether ornot their overall objective(s) were metby participating in a particular trademission or exhibition.

Affected Public: Businesses or otherfor profit, not-for-profit institutions.

Frequency: On occasion.Respondent’s Obligation: Required to

obtain or retain a benefit, voluntary.OMB Desk Officer: David Rostker,


collection can be obtained by calling orwriting Linda Engelmeier, DepartmentForms Clearance Officer, (202) 482–3272, Department of Commerce, Room5327, 14th and Constitution Avenue,NW, Washington, DC 20230.

Written comments andrecommendations for the proposedinformation collection should be sent toDavid Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Room10202, New Executive Office Building,Washington, DC 20503 within 30 daysof the publication of this notice in theFederal Register.

Dated: November 12, 1998.Linda Engelmeier,Department Forms Clearance Officer, Officeof the Chief Information Officer.[FR Doc. 98–30779 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510–FP–P





Title: Application for an Export TradeCertificate of Review.

Agency Form Number: ITA–4093P.OMB Number: 0625–0125.

Type of Request: Regular Submission.Burden: 960 hours.Number of Respondents: 30.Avg. Hours Per Response: 32 hours.Needs and Uses: Title III of the Export

Trading Company Act of 1982 (Pub. L.97–290, 96 Stat. 1233–1247), requiresthe Department of Commerce toestablish a program to evaluateapplications for an Export TradeCertificates of Review (antitrustpreclearance for joint export relatedactivities), and with the concurrence ofthe Department of Justice, issue suchcertificates where the requirements ofthe Act are satisfied. The Act requiresthat Commerce and Justice conducteconomic and legal antitrust analysesprior to the issuance of a certificate. Thecollection of information is necessary toconduct the required economic andlegal antitrust analyses. Without theinformation, there could be no basisupon which a certificate could beissued.

In the Department of Commerce, theeconomic and legal analyses areperformed by the Office of ExportTrading Company Affairs and the Officeof the General Counsel, respectively.The Department of Justice analyses willbe conducted by its Antitrust Division.The purpose of such analyses is to makea determination as to whether or not toissue an Export Trade Certificate ofReview.

A certificate provides its holder andthe members named in the certificate (a)immunity from government actionsunder state and Federal antitrust lawsfor the export conduct specified in thecertificate; (b) some protection fromfrivolous private suits by limiting theirliability in private actions from treble toactual damages when the challengedactivities are covered by an ExportCertificate of Review. Title III wasenacted to reduce uncertainty regardingapplication of U.S. antitrust laws toexport activities—especially thoseinvolving actions by domesticcompetitors. Application for an exporttrade certificate of review is voluntary.

Affected Public: Businesses or otherfor-profit, not-for-profit institutions,state, local or tribal Government.

Frequency: On Occasion.Respondent’s Obligation: Required to



collection proposal can be obtained bycalling or writing Linda Engelmeier,Departmental Forms Clearance Officer,(202) 482–3272, Department ofCommerce, Room 5327, 14th andConstitution, NW, Washington, DC20230.


Written comments andrecommendations for the proposedinformation collection should be sent toDavid Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Room10202, New Executive Office Building,Washington, DC 20503 within 30 daysof the publication of this notice.

Dated: November 12, 1998.Linda Engelmeier,Departmental Forms Clearance Officer, Officeof the Chief Information Officer.[FR Doc. 98–30780 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P



DOC has submitted to the Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) forclearance the following proposal forcollection of information under theprovisions of the Paperwork ReductionAct of 1995, Public Law 104–13.


Title: Trade Fair CertificationProgram: Application.

Agency Form Number: ITA–4100P.OMB Number: 0625–0130.Type of Request: Regular Submission.Burden: 700 hours.Number of Respondents: 70.Avg. Hours Per Response: 10 hours.Needs and Uses: Private trade show

organizers, trade associations, U.S.agents of foreign fair authorities, andother entities use this form to apply forcertification of their ability to organizeand manage a U.S. pavilion at a foreigntrade show. The Department ofCommerce uses information from theform to evaluate if both the show andthe organizer meet the Department’shigh standards in areas such asrecruiting, delivering show services,attracting small and medium size firms,booth pricing, and being an appropriatemarketing venue for U.S. firms. Theform asks organizers to respond to 23questions ranging from simple nameand address to pricing options tooutlining their experience andmarketing plans. Potential exhibitorslook to trade fair certification to ensurethey are participating in a viable showwith a reliable organizer. The form alsoincludes information on where to apply,procedures, and a commitment by theapplicant to abide by the terms set forthfor program participation.




(202) 395–7340.

Copies of the above informationcollection can be obtained by calling orwriting Linda Engelmeier, DepartmentForms Clearance Officer, (202) 482–3272, Department of Commerce, Room5327, 14th and Constitution Avenue,N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230.

Written comments andrecommendations for the proposedinformation collection should be sent toDavid Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Room10202, New Executive Office Building,Washington, D.C. 20503 within 30 daysof the publication of this notice.






Title: Certified Trade Mission:Application for Status.

Agency Form Number: ITA–4127P.OMB Number: 0625–0215.Type of Request: Regular Submission.Burden: 60 hours.Number of Respondents: 60.Avg. Hours Per Response: 1 hour.Needs and Uses: Certified Trade

Missions are overseas events that areplanned, organized and led by bothFederal and non-Federal governmentexport promotion agencies such asindustry trade associations, agencies ofstate and local governments, chambersof commerce, regional groups and otherexport-oriented groups. The CertifiedTrade Missions-Application for statusform is the vehicle by which individualfirms apply, and if accepted, agree toparticipate in the Department ofCommerce’s (DOC) trade promotionevents program, identify the products orservices they intend to sell or promote,and record their required participationfees. This submission only renews useof the form; no changes are being made.The form is used to (1) collectinformation about product/services thata company wishes to export; (2) modifyseveral questions based on commentsreceived from DOC trade eventmanagers and participants.





collection can be obtained by calling orwriting Linda Engelmeier, DepartmentForms Clearance Officer, (202) 482–3272, Department of Commerce, Room5327, 14th and Constitution Avenue,N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230. Writtencomments and recommendations for theproposed information collection shouldbe sent to David Rostker, OMB DeskOfficer, Room 10202, New ExecutiveOffice Building, Washington, D.C. 20503within 30 days after the publication ofthis notice.






Title: Marketing Data Form.Agency Form Number: ITA–466P.OMB Number: 0625–0047.Type of Request: Regular Submission.Burden: 3,000 hours.Number of Respondents: 4,000.Avg. Hours Per Response: 45 minutes.Needs and Uses: There is a necessity

to have proper information aboutcompanies participating in U.S.exhibitions, Trade Missions, andMatchmakers and their products topublicize and promote participation inthese export promotion events. TheMarketing Data Form (MDF) providesinformation necessary to produce exportpromotion brochures and directories toarrange appointments and prospect callson behalf of the participants with keyprospective buyers, agents, distributors,or government officials. Specificinformation is also requested in terms ofthe participants objectives regardingagents, distributors, joint venture orlicensing partners and any specialrequirements for prospective agents, forexample, physical facilities, technical


capabilities, financial strength, staff,representation of complementary lines,etc.





collection can be obtained by calling orwriting Linda Engelmeier, DepartmentForms Clearance Officer, (202) 482–3272, Department of Commerce, Room5327, 14th and Constitution Avenue,N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230.

Written comments andrecommendations for the proposedinformation collection should be sent toDavid Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Room10202, New Executive Office Building,Washington, D.C. 20503 within 30 daysof the publication of this notice.






Title: Product Characteristics-DesignCheck-Off List.

Agency Form Number: ITA–426P.OMB Number: 0625–0035.Type of Request: Regular Submission.Burden: 1,000 hours.Number of Respondents: 2,000.Avg. Hours Per Response: 30 minutes.Needs and Uses: The International

Trade Administration (ITA) sponsors upto 120 overseas trade fair events eachfiscal year. In addition, there is aMatchmaker Program of approximately20 events annually, which is acombination of multi-stop trademissions and small equipmentpresentations. Trade fairs involve U.S.firms exhibiting their goods and servicesat American pavilions at internationallyrecognized events worldwide. In thecase of Matchmakers, ITA organizesU.S. Company missions, traveling to 2or 3 foreign locations. Matchmakerscombine exhibit booth/product

presentation orientation and by-appointment only meetings in facilitiescapable of accommodating 20–40 U.S.firms.

The Product Characteristics-DesignCheck off list seeks from participatingU.S. firms information on the physicalnature, power (utility) and graphicrequirements of the products andservices to be displayed, and to ensurethe availability of utilities activeproduct demonstrations. This form alsoallows U.S. firms to identify specialinstallation instructions that can becritical to the proper placement andhookup of their equipment and/orgraphics. Without the timely andaccurate submission of form ITA–426P,Product Characteristics-Design CheckOff List, ITA would be unable toprovide a pavilion facility that wouldeffectively support the sales/marketingand presentation objectives of U.S.participants. The anticipated resultwould be diminished programproductivity, then decliningparticipation by U.S. firms. A secondpossible result would be reducedprivate sector funds and possibly thediscontinuation of this type of U.S.international trade event program.





collection can be obtained by calling orwriting Linda Engelmeier, DepartmentForms Clearance Officer, (202) 482–3272, Department of Commerce, Room5327, 14th and Constitution Avenue,N.W., Washington D.C. 20230.

Written comments andrecommendations for the proposedinformation collection should be sent toDavid Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Room10202, New Executive Office Building,Washington D.C. 20503 within 30 daysof the publication of this notice in theFederal Register.




The Department of Commerce (DOC)has submitted to the Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) for

clearance the following proposal forcollection of information under theprovisions of the Paperwork ReductionAct (44 USC Chapter 35).

Agency: NationalTelecommunications and InformationAdministration.

Title: Telecommunications andInformation Infrastructure AssistanceProgram Structured Reporting System.

Agency Form Number(s): None.OMB Approval Number: None.Type of Request: New collection.Burden: 7,498 hours.Number of Respondents: 46 (multiple

responses).Avg. Hours Per Response: Ranges

between 8 and 40 hours depending onthe requirement.

Needs and Uses: The purpose of theTelecommunications and InformationInfrastructure Assistance Program is topromote the widespread and efficientuse of advanced telecommunications inthe public and nonprofit sectors to servecommunities nationwide. It does this byproviding matching funds to public andnonprofit sector organizations to use‘‘information infrastructure’’ to providecommunity-wide information, health,life-long learning, public safety andother public services. In order tomonitor and assess the impacts of thefunded projects, certain reports arerequired. These reports are used toensure that grant recipients areeffectively promoting the efficient andwidespread use of advancedtelecommunications services to serveAmerican communities and to complywith the Government Performance andResults Act.

Affected Public: Not-for-profitinstitutions, federal government, state,local or tribal government.

Frequency: Quarterly, annually.Respondent’s Obligation: Required to

obtain or retain benefits.OMB Desk Officer: Tim Fain, (202)

395–3561.Copies of the above information

collection proposal can be obtained bycalling or writing Linda Engelmeier,DOC Forms Clearance Officer, (202)482–3272, Department of Commerce,Room 5327, 14th and ConstitutionAvenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.

Written comments andrecommendations for the proposedinformation collection should be sentwithin 30 days of publication of thisnotice to Tim Fain, OMB Desk Officer,Room 10236, New Executive OfficeBuilding, 725 17th Street, NW,Washington, DC 20503.


Dated: November 10, 1998.Linda Engelmeier,Departmental Forms Clearance Officer, Officeof the Chief Information Officer.[FR Doc. 98–30805 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510–60–P


International Trade Administration

[A–583–832]

Initiation of Antidumping DutyInvestigation: Dynamic RandomAccess Memory Semiconductors FromTaiwan

AGENCY: Import Administration,International Trade Administration,Department of Commerce.ACTION: Initiation of antidumpinginvestigation.EFFECTIVE DATE: November 18, 1998.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Alexander Amdur at (202) 482–5346,John Conniff at (202) 482–1009 or RonTrentham at (202) 482–6320, ImportAdministration—Room B099,International Trade Administration,U.S. Department of Commerce, 14thStreet and Constitution Avenue, NW,Washington, DC 20230.

Initiation of Investigation

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, allcitations to the statute are references tothe provisions effective January 1, 1995,the effective date of the amendmentsmade to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘theAct’’) by the Uruguay RoundAgreements Act (‘‘URAA’’). In addition,unless otherwise indicated, all citationsto the Department’s regulations arereferences to the provisions codified at19 CFR Part 351 (1998).

The Petition

On October 22, 1998, the Departmentof Commerce (‘‘the Department’’)received a petition filed in proper formby Micron Technology, Inc.(‘‘petitioner’’). The Department receivedsupplemental information to thepetition on November 5, 1998. Inaccordance with section 732(b) of theAct, petitioner alleges that imports ofdynamic random access memorysemiconductors of one megabit andabove (‘‘DRAMs’’) from Taiwan arebeing, or are likely to be, sold in theUnited States at less than fair valuewithin the meaning of section 731 of theAct, and that such imports arematerially injuring, or threateningmaterial injury to, an industry in theUnited States. The Department finds

that petitioner filed the petition onbehalf of the domestic industry becauseit is an interested party as defined insection 771(9)(C) of the Act, and hasdemonstrated sufficient industrysupport with respect to the antidumpinginvestigation it is requesting theDepartment to initiate. SeeDetermination of Industry Support forthe Petition below.

Scope of InvestigationThe products covered by this

investigation are DRAMs from Taiwan,whether assembled or unassembled.Assembled DRAMs include all packagetypes. Unassembled DRAMs includeprocessed wafers, uncut die, and cutdie. Processed wafers fabricated inTaiwan, but packaged or assembled intofinished semiconductors in a thirdcountry are included in the scope.Wafers fabricated in a third country andassembled or packaged in Taiwan arenot included in the scope.

The scope of this investigationincludes memory modules. A memorymodule is a collection of DRAMs, thesole function of which is memory.Modules include single in-lineprocessing modules (‘‘SIPS’’), single in-line memory modules (‘‘SIMMs’’), dualin-line memory modules (‘‘DIMMs’’),memory cards or other collections ofDRAMs whether mounted orunmounted on a circuit board. Modulesthat contain other parts that are neededto support the function of memory arecovered. Only those modules thatcontain additional items that alter thefunction of the module to somethingother than memory, such as videographics adapter (‘‘VGA’’) boards andcards, are not included in the scope.Modules containing DRAMs made fromwafers fabricated in Taiwan, but eitherassembled or packaged into finishedsemiconductors in a third country, arealso included in the scope.

The scope includes, but is not limitedto, video RAM (‘‘VRAM’’), WindowsRAM (‘‘WRAM’’), synchronous graphicsRAM (‘‘SGRAM’’), as well as varioustypes of DRAM, including fast page-mode (‘‘FPM’’), extended data-out(‘‘EDO’’), burst extended data-out(‘‘BEDO’’), synchronous dynamic RAM(‘‘SDRAM’’), and ‘‘Rambus’’ DRAM(‘‘RDRAM’’). The scope of thisinvestigation also includes any futuredensity, packaging or assembling ofDRAMs. The scope of this investigationdoes not include DRAMs or memorymodules that are reimported for repairor replacement.

The DRAMS subject to thisinvestigation are currently classifiableunder subheadings 8542.13.80.05,8542.13.80.24 through 8542.13.80.34 of

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of theUnited States (‘‘HTSUS’’). Alsoincluded in the scope are TaiwaneseDRAM modules, described above,entered into the United States undersubheading and 8473.30.10.90 of theHTSUS or possibly other HTSUSnumbers. Although the HTSUSsubheadings are provided forconvenience and customs purposes, thewritten description of the scope of thisinvestigation is dispositive.

As we discussed in the preamble tothe Department’s regulations (62 FR27323), we are setting aside a period forparties to raise issues regarding productcoverage. The Department encouragesall parties to submit such comments byDecember 2, 1998. Comments should beaddressed to Import Administration’sCentral Records Unit at Room 1874, U.S.Department of Commerce, PennsylvaniaAvenue and 14th Street, NW,Washington, DC, 20230. This period ofscope consultation is intended toprovide the Department with ampleopportunity to consider all commentsand to consult with parties prior to theissuance of the preliminarydetermination.

Determination of Industry Support forthe Petition

Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requiresthat petitions be filed on behalf of adomestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A)of the Act provides that a petition meetsthis requirement if the domesticproducers or workers who support thepetition account for: (i) at least 25percent of the total production of thedomestic like product; and (ii) morethan 50 percent of the production of thedomestic like product produced by thatportion of the industry expressingsupport for, or opposition to, thepetition.

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act definesthe ‘‘industry’’ as the producers of adomestic like product. Thus, todetermine whether the petition has therequisite industry support, the Actdirects the Department to look toproducers and workers who account forproduction of the domestic like product.The International Trade Commission(‘‘ITC’’), which is responsible fordetermining whether ‘‘the domesticindustry’’ has been injured, must alsodetermine what constitutes a domesticlike product to define the industry.However, while both the Departmentand the ITC must apply the samestatutory definition of domestic likeproduct, they do so for differentpurposes and pursuant to separate anddistinct authority. In addition, theDepartment’s determination is subject tolimitations of time and information.


1 See Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States,688 F. Supp. 639, 642–44 (CIT 1988); HighInformation Content Flat Panel Displays andDisplay Glass Therefor from Japan: FinalDetermination; Rescission of Investigation andPartial Dismissal of Petition, 56 FR 32376, 32380–81 (July 16, 1991).

Although this may result in differentdefinitions of the domestic like product,such differences do not render thedecision of either agency contrary to thelaw.1

Section 771(10) of the Act defines thedomestic like product as ‘‘a productwhich is like, or in the absence of like,most similar in characteristics and useswith, the article subject to aninvestigation under this title.’’ Thus, thereference point from which thedomestic like product analysis begins is‘‘the article subject to an investigation,’’i.e., the class or kind of merchandise tobe investigated, which normally will bethe scope as defined in the petition. Asnoted earlier, the scope of the petitionis limited to DRAMs of one megabit andabove. This is petitioner’s sole proposeddomestic like product. The Departmenthas no basis on the record to find thisdomestic like product definition clearlyinadequate. The Department has,therefore, adopted the domestic likeproduct definition set forth in thepetition.

In this case, the Departmentdetermined that the petition andsupplemental information containedadequate evidence of sufficient industrysupport; therefore, polling was notnecessary. See Initiation Checklist,dated November 12, 1998, (publicdocument on file in the Central RecordsUnit of the Department of Commerce,Room B–099). Additionally, no personwho would qualify as an interestedparty pursuant to section 771(9)(A),(C),or (D) of the Act has expressedopposition to this petition. Accordingly,the Department determines that thispetition is filed on behalf of thedomestic industry within the meaningof section 732(b)(1) of the Act.

Less Than Fair Value AllegationPetitioner identified the following

Taiwanese producers/exporters in thepetition: Mosel-Vitelic, Inc., WinbondElectronics, Acer SemiconductorManufacturing Inc., PowerchipSemiconductor Corp., UnitedMicroelectronics Corporation, TaiwanSemiconductor ManufacturingCorporation, Macronix InternationalCo., Ltd., Alliance SemiconductorCorporation, Etron Technology, Inc.,Taiwan Memory Technology, Inc. andG-Link Technology Corp. Petitionerfurther identified VanguardInternational Semiconductor

Corporation (‘‘Vanguard’’) and Nan YaTechnology Corporation (‘‘Nan Ya’’) astwo major producers/exporters ofDRAMs from Taiwan. Petitioner basedexport price (‘‘EP’’) on price quotesobtained by petitioner’s sales personnelin the ordinary course of business.These price quotes were for delivery of4x4 16 Megabit EDO DRAMs. Petitionerexplained that it is Micron’s practice toreceive verbal quotes without writtendocumentation and supplied anaffidavit signed by a Micron salesrepresentative attesting to the validity ofthe price quotes. All U.S. market pricequotes were denominated in dollars andpetitioner made no adjustments to theseprice quotes.

With respect to normal value (‘‘NV’’)petitioner used prices, based on writtenprice quotes for 4x4 16 megabit EDODRAMs produced by Vanguard and NanYa. The price quotes were obtained bya private market research firm.Petitioner made no adjustment to thesehome market price quotes.

Petitioner alleged that sales of theforeign like product were made at pricesbelow the cost of production within themeaning of section 773(b) of the Act andrequested the Department to initiate acountry-wide sales below costinvestigation. To support this claim,petitioner compared the home marketprices to each company’s cost ofproduction (‘‘COP’’). Petitionercalculated the COP for Vanguard andNan Ya based on Micron’s actualproduction experience with adjustmentsfor known differences in costs incurredin Taiwan and the United States.

Petitioner determined the die sizes,mask levels, metal levels, and processtechnologies from examination of actualDRAM die from Vanguard and Nan Ya.For the purposes of the petition, theprocessing yields were assumed to bethe same as those experienced byMicron. Petitioner derived labor ratesfrom the Bureau of Labor Statistics.Because the most recent data availablefor Taiwan was from 1996, petitioneradjusted the labor rates for the 1997inflation rate.

Petitioner adjusted utility expensesusing the ratio of U.S. energy costs toTaiwanese energy costs, based on OECDenergy price data. For Vanguard,petitioner derived general andadministrative (‘‘G&A’’) expenses,interest expenses, and research anddevelopment (‘‘R&D’’) expenses fromthe company’s financial statements forthe six months ending June 30, 1998.See Exhibit 6 of the petition. Financialstatements for the 1997 fiscal year werenot available so these represent the mostrecent publicly available financialstatements for Vanguard.

Petitioner was unable to obtainfinancial statements for Nan Ya andtherefore based its G&A expenses andR&D expenses on Vanguard’s financialstatements. Interest expenses werecalculated using the 1997 consolidatedfinancial statements of Nan Ya’s parentcompany, Nan Ya Plastics. See Exhibit5 of the supplement to the petition.

Petitioner utilized Micron’sintellectual property expenses, whichreflect royalties paid to other companiesfor use of their technology in DRAMproduction. Again, petitioner believesthat this estimate is conservative sinceMicron maintains a larger patentportfolio than either Vanguard or NanYa. By having a smaller patent portfolio,Vanguard and Nan Ya need morelicensing agreements for DRAMsproduction.

Petitioner conservatively estimated aprofit rate of zero for constructed value.Because the home market prices ofVanguard and Nan Ya were lower thanthe COP, normal value was based on CVfor comparison to the U.S. prices.Petitioner used exchange rates aspublished by the Federal Reserve Bankof New York for currency conversions.

Based on comparisons of EP to NV,the petitioner estimated dumpingmargins from 48 to 69 percent.

Initiation of Cost InvestigationsPursuant to section 773(b) of the Act,

petitioners provided informationdemonstrating reasonable grounds tobelieve or suspect that sales in the homemarket of Taiwan were made at pricesbelow the COP and, accordingly,requested the Department to conduct acountry-wide sales-below-COPinvestigation in connection with therequested antidumping investigation inTaiwan. The Statement ofAdministrative Action (‘‘SAA’’),accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No.103–316, vol. 1 at 833 (1994), states thatan allegation of sales below COP neednot be specific to individual exportersor producers. The SAA also states that‘‘Commerce will consider allegations ofbelow-cost sales in the aggregate for aforeign country, just as Commercecurrently considers allegations of salesat less than fair value on a country-widebasis for purposes of initiating anantidumping investigation.’’ Id.

Further, the SAA provides that ‘‘newsection 773(b)(2)(A) retains the currentrequirement that Commerce have‘reasonable grounds to believe orsuspect’ that below-cost sales haveoccurred before initiating such aninvestigation.’’ Reasonable grounds will‘‘exist when an interested partyprovides specific factual information oncosts and prices, observed or


constructed, indicating that sales in theforeign market in question are at below-cost prices.’’ Id. Based upon thecomparison of the prices from thepetition for the representative foreignlike products to its adjusted costs ofproduction, in accordance with section773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, we find theexistence of ‘‘reasonable grounds tobelieve or suspect’’ that sales of theseforeign like products in Taiwan weremade below their respective COP’s.Accordingly, the Department isinitiating the requested country-widecost investigation.

Initiation of Antidumping Investigation

We have examined the petition onDRAMs from Taiwan and have foundthat it meets the requirements of section732 of the Act, including therequirements concerning allegations ofthe material injury or threat of materialinjury to the domestic producers of adomestic like product by reason of thecomplained-of imports, allegedly sold atless than fair value. Therefore, we areinitiating an antidumping dutyinvestigation to determine whetherimports of DRAMs from Taiwan arebeing, or are likely to be, sold in theUnited States at less than fair value.Unless extended, we will make ourpreliminary determination by April 1,1999.

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

In accordance with section732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of thepublic version of the petition has beenprovided to the representatives of theauthorities of Taiwan. We will attemptto provide a copy of the public versionof the petition to each exporter namedin the petition (as appropriate).

ITC Notification

We have notified the ITC of ourinitiation, as required by section 732(d)of the Act.

Preliminary Determination by the ITC

The ITC will determine by December7, 1998, whether there is a reasonableindication that imports of DRAMs fromTaiwan are causing material injury, orthreatening to cause material injury, toa U.S. industry. A negative ITCdetermination in the investigation willresult in this investigation beingterminated; otherwise, the investigationwill proceed according to statutory andregulatory time limits.

This notice is published pursuant tosection 771 (i) of the Act.

Dated: November 12, 1998.Robert S. LaRussa,Assistant Secretary for ImportAdministration.[FR Doc. 98–30855 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P



[A–122–814]

Pure Magnesium From Canada; Noticeof Extension of Time Limit forAdministrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,International Trade Administration,Department of Commerce.ACTION: Notice of extension of timelimit.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerceis extending the time limit for the finalresults of the fifth review of theantidumping duty order on puremagnesium from Canada. The period ofreview is August 1, 1996 through July31, 1997. This extension is madepursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of theTariff Act of 1930, as amended by theUruguay Round Agreements Act.EFFECTIVE DATE: November 18, 1998.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: ZakSmith, Office 1, Import Administration,International Trade Administration,U.S. Department of Commerce, 14thStreet and Constitution Avenue, NW,Washington DC 20230; telephone (202)482–0189.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Because itis not practicable to complete thisreview within the time limit mandatedby section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Actof 1930, as amended (i.e., November 9,1998), the Department of Commerce(‘‘the Department’’) is extending thetime limit for completion of the finalresults to not later than March 8, 1999.See November 2, 1998 Memorandumfrom Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Enforcement Richard W. Morelandto Assistant Secretary for ImportAdministration Robert LaRussa on filein the public file of the Central RecordsUnit, B–099 of the Department.

This administrative review and noticeare in accordance with section 751(a)(1)of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675 (a)(1)) and 19CFR 351.213(h)(2).

Dated: November 4, 1998.Susan Kuhbach,Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Enforcement.[FR Doc. 98–30854 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P



[A–122–829, A–533–814, A–588–844, A–580–830, A–469–808, A–583–829]

Notice of Preliminary Determinationsof Sales at Less Than Fair Value andPostponement of FinalDeterminations—Stainless SteelRound Wire From Canada, India,Japan, Spain, and Taiwan; PreliminaryDetermination of Sales at Not LessThan Fair Value and Postponement ofFinal Determination—Stainless SteelRound Wire From Korea

AGENCY: Import Administration,International Trade Administration,Department of Commerce.EFFECTIVE DATE: November 18, 1998.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Thomas Schauer (Canada, Spain) at(202) 482–4852; Diane Krawczun (India)at (202) 482–0198; Jarrod Goldfeder(Japan), at (202) 482–1784; or GabrielAdler (the Republic of Korea, Taiwan) at(202) 482–1442, Import Administration,Room 1870, International TradeAdministration, U.S. Department ofCommerce, 14th Street and ConstitutionAvenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230.

The 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 Department ofCommerce (Department) regulationsrefer to the regulations codified at 19CFR part 351 (April 1998).

Preliminary DeterminationsWe preliminarily determine that

stainless steel round wire from Canada,India, Japan, Spain, and Taiwan is beingsold, or is likely to be sold, in theUnited States at less than fair value(LTFV), as provided in section 733 ofthe Act. We also preliminarilydetermine that stainless steel roundwire from the Republic of Korea (Korea)is not being sold, or is not likely to besold, in the United States at less thanfair value. The estimated margins areshown in the Suspension of Liquidationsection of this notice.

Case HistoryThese investigations were initiated on

May 6, 1998. See Initiation ofAntidumping Duty Investigations:Stainless Steel Round Wire fromCanada, India, Japan, the Republic ofKorea, Spain, and Taiwan, 63 FR 26150


1 Unless otherwise specified, any referencesbelow to Tien Tai or Korea Sangsa should beunderstood to refer to the collapsed entities of TienTai/Kuang Tai and Korea Sangsa/Koweld,respectively.

(May 12, 1998) (Initiation Notice). Sincethe initiation of the investigations, thefollowing events have occurred:

On May 19, 1998, the Departmentinvited interested parties to submitcomments regarding model matching.

On June 5, 1998, the United StatesInternational Trade Commission (theITC) preliminarily determined that thereis a reasonable indication that importsof the products under theseinvestigations are materially injuring theUnited States industry.

On June 12, 1998, the Departmentselected the following companies asrespondents in these investigations:Central Wire Industries Ltd. (CentralWire) and Greening Donald Co. Ltd.(Greening Donald) in the Canadaproceeding; Raajratna Metal IndustriesLimited (Raajratna) in the Indiaproceeding; Suzuki Metal IndustriesCo., Ltd. (Suzuki) and Nippon SeisenCo., Ltd. (Nippon Seisen), in the Japanproceeding; Korea Sangsa in the Koreaproceeding; Inoxfil S.A. in the Spainproceeding; and Tien Tai and Rodex inthe Taiwan proceeding (collectively‘‘respondents’’). See Selection ofRespondents, below. On June 15, 1998,the Department issued an antidumpingquestionnaire to each of the selectedrespondents.

The respondents submitted theirinitial responses to that questionnaire inJuly and August 1998. After analyzingthese responses, we issuedsupplemental questionnaires to therespondents to clarify or correct theinitial questionnaire responses. We alsodetermined to treat Tien Tai and itsaffiliated producer Kuang Tai MetalIndustrial Co., Ltd. (Kuang Tai), as asingle entity (i.e., to collapse the twoproducers) for purposes of theinvestigation of wire from Taiwan. SeeMemorandum to Richard W. Moreland,dated August 11, 1998. In addition, wedetermined to collapse Korea Sangsawith its affiliated producer KoreaWelding Electrode Co., Ltd. (Koweld).See Memorandum to Richard W.Moreland, dated September 24, 1998.The Department required that both TienTai and Korea Sangsa resubmit theirquestionnaire responses, consolidatingtheir sales and cost data with that oftheir respective affiliated parties.1

On August 24, 1998, the petitionersfiled a timely request for a 50-daypostponement of the preliminarydeterminations. We granted the request.See Notice of Postponement ofPreliminary Antidumping

Determinations: Stainless Steel RoundWire from Canada, India, Japan, theRepublic of Korea, Spain, and Taiwan,63 FR 46999 (September 3, 1998).

Postponement of Final Determinationsand Extension of Provisional Measures

Section 735(a)(2) of the Act providesthat a final determination may bepostponed until not later than 135 daysafter the date of the publication of thepreliminary determination if, in theevent of an affirmative preliminarydetermination, a request for suchpostponement is made by exporters whoaccount for a significant proportion ofexports of the subject merchandise or, ifin the event of a negative preliminarydetermination, a request for suchpostponement is made by thepetitioners. The Department’sregulations, at 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2),require that requests by respondents forpostponement of a final determinationbe accompanied by a request forextension of provisional measures froma four-month period to not more thansix months.

We received requests fromrespondents for postponement of thefinal determinations in the Canada,India, Japan, Korea, Spain and Taiwaninvestigations. In their requests for anextension of the deadline for the finaldeterminations, the respondentsconsented to the extension ofprovisional measures to no longer thansix months. Because the preliminarydeterminations with respect to theCanada, India, Japan, Spain, and Taiwaninvestigations are affirmative, therespondents filing the requests accountfor a significant proportion of exports ofthe subject merchandise in theirrespective cases, and there is nocompelling reason to deny therespondents’ requests, we haveextended the deadline for issuance ofthe final determinations for these casesuntil the 135th day after the date ofpublication of these preliminarydeterminations in the Federal Register.

We also received a request from thepetitioners for a postponement of thefinal determination in the Koreainvestigation. Because the preliminarydetermination with respect to thatinvestigation is negative and there is nocompelling reason to deny thepetitioners’ request, we have extendedthe deadline for issuance of the finaldetermination for this case until the135th day after the date of publicationof this preliminary determination in theFederal Register.

Period of InvestigationsThe period of the investigations (POI)

is January 1, 1997 through December 31,

1997. This period corresponds to eachrespondent’s four most recent fiscalquarters prior to the month of the filingof the petition (i.e., March 1998).

Scope of InvestigationThe scope of these investigations

covers stainless steel round wire(SSRW). SSRW is any cold-formed (i.e.,cold-drawn, cold-rolled) stainless steelproduct of a cylindrical contour, sold incoils or spools, and not over 0.703 inch(18 mm) in maximum solid cross-sectional dimension. SSRW is made ofiron-based alloys containing, by weight,1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5percent or more of chromium, with orwithout other elements. Metalliccoatings, such as nickel and coppercoatings, may be applied.

The merchandise subject to theseinvestigations is classifiable undersubheadings 7223.00.1015,7223.00.1030, 7223.00.1045,7223.00.1060, and 7223.00.1075 of theHarmonized Tariff Schedule of theUnited States (HTSUS). Although theHTSUS subheadings are provided forconvenience and customs purposes, thewritten description of the merchandiseunder investigation is dispositive.

On June 1, 1998, two Canadianproducers of SSRW, Greening Donaldand Central Wire, submitted commentson the scope of the investigation ofstainless steel round wire from Canadain response to our solicitation of suchcomments in the Initiation Notice.These respondents argued in theirsubmission that, because the stainlesssteel wire rod input used in producingthe SSRW is not produced in Canadaand because cold-drawing does notconstitute ‘‘substantial transformation’’of the wire rod, the SSRW is not ‘‘fromCanada’’ and should not be the subjectof an antidumping investigation. OnJune 5, 1998, the petitioners submittedrebuttal comments to the Canadianproducers’ argument. We have analyzedthe two Canadian producers’ commentsand concluded that the product inquestion is within the scope of thisinvestigation. See Memorandum toRichard W. Moreland, dated November12, 1998, for a full discussion andanalysis of this issue.

Selection of RespondentsSection 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs

the Department to calculate individualdumping margins for each knownexporter and producer of the subjectmerchandise. However, section777A(c)(2) of the Act gives theDepartment discretion, when faced witha large number of exporters/producers,to limit its examination to a reasonablenumber of such companies if it is not


2 We note that, at the time of initiation, we didnot accept the U.S. and home market packing dataset forth in the petition with respect to the Japancase, and we revised the dumping margins in thatpetition so as to not reflect any adjustment forpacking. In reviewing the petition margincalculations for the preliminary determination inthe Japan case, we noted that the denominator forthe margins was erroneously based on home marketprice, rather than U.S. price. We have revised themargins accordingly. See memorandum from JarrodGoldfeder to the file, dated November 12, 1998.

With respect to the Spain investigation, we notethat, at the time of initiation, we revised petitionmargins based on price-to-price comparisonsbecause the petitioners had not provided sufficientsupport for the home market freight figures used intheir calculations. We made no additional revisionsto the petition margins in reviewing thosecalculations for the preliminary determination inthe Spanish case.

3 As stated above, because the respondents in theJapan and Spain proceedings did not respond to ourrequests for information, we based the margins forthese respondents on total adverse facts available.See Facts Available above. Thus, the discussion ofprice adjustments in this section does not apply tothe respondents in those proceedings.

practicable to examine all companies.Where it is not practicable to examineall known producers/exporters ofsubject merchandise, this provisionpermits the Department to investigateeither: (1) a sample of exporters,producers, or types of products that isstatistically valid based on theinformation available at the time ofselection, or (2) exporters and producersaccounting for the largest volume of thesubject merchandise that can reasonablybe examined.

After consideration of thecomplexities expected to arise in theseproceedings (including issues of modelmatching) and the resources available tothe Department, we determined that itwas not practicable in theseinvestigations to examine all knownproducers/exporters of subjectmerchandise. Instead, we found that,given our resources, we would be ableto investigate the nine producers/exporters with the greatest exportvolume, as identified above. Thesecompanies accounted more than 50percent of all known exports of thesubject merchandise during the POIfrom their respective countries. For amore detailed discussion of respondentselection in these investigations, seeRespondent Selection Memorandumdated June 12, 1998.

Facts AvailableSuzuki (Japan), Nippon Seisen

(Japan), and Inoxfil (Spain) failed torespond to our questionnaire. Section776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if aninterested party (A) withholdsinformation that has been requested bythe Department; (B) fails to provide suchinformation in a timely manner or in theform or manner requested subject tosection 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act; (C)significantly impedes a proceedingunder the antidumping statute; or (D)provides such information but theinformation cannot be verified, theDepartment shall, subject to subsection782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwiseavailable in reaching the applicabledetermination. Because these firmsfailed to respond to our questionnaireand because the relevant subsections ofsection 782 of the Act do not apply, wemust use facts otherwise available tocalculate the dumping margins for thesecompanies.

Section 776(b) of the Act providesthat adverse inferences may be usedagainst a party that has failed tocooperate by not acting to the best of itsability to comply with the Department’srequests for information. See alsoStatement of Administrative Actionaccompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No.316, Vol.1, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 870

(1994) (SAA). The lack of response bySuzuki, Nippon Seisen, and Inoxfil tothe Department’s antidumpingquestionnaire constitutes a failure bythese respondents to act to the best oftheir ability to comply with a request forinformation, within the meaning ofsection 776 of the Act. Thus, theDepartment has determined that, inselecting among the facts otherwiseavailable, an adverse inference iswarranted.

Because we were unable to calculatemargins for the respondents in the Japanor Spain investigations, we assignedthese respondents the highest marginsin the respective petitions (recalculatedby the Department, as appropriate). Thisapproach is consistent with Departmentpractice. See Notice of PreliminaryDetermination of Sales at Less ThanFair Value: Stainless Steel Wire Rodfrom Germany, 63 FR 10847 (March 5,1998). The highest petition margins are29.56 percent in the Japan investigation,and 35.80 percent in the Spaininvestigation.2

Section 776(b) states that an adverseinference may include reliance oninformation derived from the petition orany other information placed on therecord. See also SAA at 829–831.Section 776(c) of the Act provides that,when the Department relies onsecondary information (such as thepetition) in using the facts otherwiseavailable, it must, to the extentpracticable, corroborate that informationfrom independent sources that arereasonably at its disposal.

During our pre-initiation analysis ofthe petition, we reviewed the adequacyand accuracy of the secondaryinformation in the petition from whichthe margins were calculated, to theextent that appropriate information wasavailable for this purpose. See InitiationNotice at 26151. However, with respectto certain data included in the margincalculations included in the petition(e.g., gross U.S. and home market unit

prices), the Department was providedno information by the respondents orother interested parties, and is aware ofno other independent sources ofinformation, that would enable it tofurther corroborate the remainingcomponents of the margin calculation inthe petition. The implementingregulation to section 776 of the Act, at19 CFR 351.308(c), states ‘‘[t]he fact thatcorroboration may not be practicable ina given circumstance will not preventthe Secretary from applying an adverseinference as appropriate and using thesecondary information in question.’’Additionally, we note that the SAA at870 specifically states that, where‘‘corroboration may not be practicable ina given circumstance’’, the Departmentmay nevertheless apply an adverseinference. We note further that theDepartment has used as the factsavailable margins developed in thepetition that are based in part on foreignmarket research in other cases. See, e.g.,Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Germany,and Notice of PreliminaryDetermination of Sales at Less ThanFair Value and Postponement of FinalDetermination: Melamine InstitutionalDinnerware Products From Indonesia,61 FR 43333 (August 22, 1996). Finally,we note that the margins calculated forrespondents in the other round wireinvestigations are in many instances ofthe same order of magnitude as themargins in the corresponding petitions,suggesting that the informationcontained in the round wire petitions isgenerally reliable.

Product ComparisonsWe have relied on five criteria to

match U.S. sales of subject merchandiseto comparison-market sales of theforeign like product: grade, thickness,tensile strength, coating, and surfacefinish. A detailed description of thematching criteria, as well as ourmatching methodology, is contained inthe Preliminary DeterminationMemorandum, dated November 12,1998 (Preliminary DeterminationMemorandum).

Fair Value ComparisonsTo determine whether sales of

stainless steel round wire from Canada,India, the Republic of Korea, andTaiwan 3 were made in the United Statesat less than fair value, we compared theexport price (EP) or constructed export


4 Section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act provides for anupward adjustment to U.S. price for duty drawbackon import duties which have been rebated (orwhich have not been collected) by reason of theexportation of the subject merchandise to theUnited States. The Department applies a two-pronged test to determine whether a respondent hasfulfilled the statutory requirements for a dutydrawback adjustment. See Steel Wire Rope from theRepublic of Korea; Final Results of AntidumpingDuty Administrative Review, 61 FR 55965, 55968(October 30, 1996). In accordance with this test, theDepartment grants a duty drawback adjustment if itfinds that:

(1) import duties and rebates are directly linkedto and are dependent upon one another, and

(2) the company claiming the adjustment candemonstrate that there are sufficient imports of rawmaterials to account for the duty drawback receivedon exports of the manufactured product.

price (CEP) to the normal value, asdescribed in the Export Price andConstructed Export Price and NormalValue sections of this notice. Inaccordance with section777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, wecalculated weighted-average EPs andCEPs for comparison to weighted-average normal values.

Export Price and Constructed ExportPrice

In accordance with section 772 of theAct, we calculated either an EP or aCEP, depending on the nature of eachsale. Section 772(a) of the Act definesEP as the price at which the subjectmerchandise is first sold before the dateof importation by the exporter orproducer outside the United States to anunaffiliated purchaser in the UnitedStates or to an unaffiliated purchaser forexportation to the United States. Section772(b) of the Act defines CEP as theprice at which the subject merchandiseis first sold in the United States beforeor after the date of importation, by or forthe account of the producer or exporterof the merchandise or by a selleraffiliated with the producer or exporter,to an unaffiliated purchaser, as adjustedunder sections 772(c) and (d) of the Act.

Consistent with these definitions, wehave found that Central Wire, GreeningDonald, Raajratna, Korea Sangsa, Rodex,and Tien Tai made EP sales during thePOI. These sales are properly classifiedas EP sales because they were made bythe exporter or producer outside theUnited States to unaffiliated customersin the United States prior to the date ofimportation.

We also found that Central Wire andKorea Sangsa made CEP sales during thePOI because they made sales through anaffiliated reseller in the United Statesafter the date of importation.

For all respondents, we calculated EPand CEP, as appropriate, based onpacked prices charged to the firstunaffiliated customer in the UnitedStates. (Where sales were made throughconsignment sellers, we did notconsider the consignment seller to bethe customer; rather, the relevantcustomer was the consignment seller’scustomer.) For all respondents exceptRodex, we based the date of sale on thedate of the invoice issued to the U.S.customer. For Rodex, we based the dateof sale on the date of Rodex’s salesconfirmation to its U.S. customer,because the terms of U.S. sales werefirmly set on this date.

In accordance with section 772(c)(2)of the Act, we reduced the EP and CEPby movement expenses and export taxesand duties, where appropriate. Section772(d)(1) of the Act provides for

additional adjustments to the CEP.Generally, where sales were madethrough an unaffiliated consignmentseller for the account of the exporter, wededucted commissions from the CEP.Where sales were made through anaffiliated reseller, we deducted directand indirect selling expenses thatrelated to commercial activity in theUnited States, in lieu of the commissionpaid to the affiliated reseller.

Section 772(d)(3) of the Act requiresthat the CEP be adjusted for the profitallocated to the selling expenses of aproducer/exporter’s affiliated reseller.For Central Wire and Korea Sangsa,which made sales through affiliatedresellers, we calculated a CEP-profitratio following the methodology setforth in section 772(f) of the Act.

We made company-specificadjustments as follows:

Central Wire (Canada)We based EP and CEP on delivered

and FOB prices to unaffiliatedcustomers in the United States. For bothEP and CEP sales, we made deductionsfrom the starting price, whereappropriate, for movement expenses,including foreign inland freight from thefactory to the customer or to the U.S.affiliate, U.S. brokerage and handlingfees, and Customs duties. We also madedeductions for post-sale priceadjustments corresponding to claimsand billing errors.

In addition, for CEP sales, we madedeductions for U.S. inland freight to thecustomer, imputed credit, commissions,indirect selling expenses and inventorycarrying costs associated withcommercial activity in the UnitedStates, U.S. repacking costs, and the costof further processing the merchandise inthe United States.

Greening Donald (Canada)We based EP sales on delivered prices

to unaffiliated customers in the UnitedStates. We made deductions from thestarting price, where appropriate, formovement expenses including foreigninland freight from factory to thecustomer, Customs duties, and U.S.brokerage and handling fees. We alsoincreased the starting price by theamount of reported freight revenue.

Raajratna (India)We based EP on delivered prices to

unaffiliated customers in the UnitedStates. We made deductions from thestarting price, where appropriate, formovement expenses including foreigninland freight from the factory to thecustomer, domestic brokerage andhandling fees, international freight, andmarine insurance. Although Raajratna

reported duty drawback for its U.S.sales, we did not make an addition to EPfor duty drawback because Raajratnafailed to meet our two-pronged test formaking such an adjustment.4 SeeRaajratna Analysis Memorandum, datedNovember 12, 1998, for a full discussionof this issue.

Korea Sangsa (Korea)We based EP and CEP on delivered

and FOB prices to unaffiliatedcustomers in the United States. For bothEP and CEP sales, we made deductionsfrom the starting price, whereappropriate, for movement expensesincluding foreign brokerage and inlandfreight from the factory to the foreignport, and international freight. We alsomade adjustments for billing errors andearly payment discounts, and weincreased the starting price by theamount of duty drawback because it metour two-pronged test described above.

In addition, for CEP sales, we madedeductions for U.S. movementexpenses, including U.S. inland freightto the customer, U.S. warehousing, U.S.brokerage and handling fees, andCustoms duties. We also madedeductions for direct and indirectselling expenses associated withcommercial activity in the UnitedStates, including imputed credit,warranty expenses, miscellaneous otherdirect selling expenses (such as bankcharges), indirect selling expenses, andinventory carrying costs.

Rodex (Taiwan)We based EP on delivered prices to

unaffiliated customers in the UnitedStates. We made deductions from thestarting price, where appropriate, formovement expenses including foreigninland freight from the factory to thecustomer, domestic brokerage andhandling fees, international freight, andmarine insurance. We also increased thestarting price by the amount of dutydrawback because it met our two-pronged test described above.


5 In accordance with section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of theAct, we determined that sales made below the COPwere made in substantial quantities if the volumeof such sales represented 20 percent or more of thevolume of sales under consideration for thedetermination of normal value.

Tien Tai (Taiwan)We based EP on delivered prices to

unaffiliated customers in the UnitedStates. We made deductions from thestarting price, where appropriate, formovement expenses including foreigninland freight from the factory to thecustomer, domestic brokerage andhandling fees, international freight, andmarine insurance.

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison MarketsSection 773(a)(1) of the Act directs

that normal value be based on the priceat which the foreign like product is soldin the home market, provided that themerchandise is sold in sufficientquantities (or value, if quantity isinappropriate) and that there is noparticular market situation that preventsa proper comparison with the EP orCEP. The statute contemplates thatquantities (or value) will normally beconsidered insufficient if they are lessthan five percent of the aggregatequantity (or value) of sales of the subjectmerchandise to the United States.

All respondents had viable homemarkets of stainless steel round wire,and they reported home market salesdata for purposes of the calculation ofnormal value. Although Raajratnareported its home market sales, itclaimed that normal value should bebased on third-country sales because,according to Raajratna, the merchandisesold to the United States is more similarto merchandise sold to third countriesrather than merchandise sold in thehome market. We disagreed withRaajratna because the merchandise soldin the home market provided anadequate basis for comparison, and, asdiscussed above, the Act directs us tobase normal value on home market saleswhen possible. Therefore, we basednormal value for Raajratna on homemarket sales. See PreliminaryDetermination Memorandum at 5.

Adjustments we made in deriving thenormal values for each company aredescribed in detail in Calculation ofNormal Value Based on Home-MarketPrices and Calculation of Normal ValueBased on Constructed Value, below.

B. Cost of Production AnalysisBased on allegations contained in the

petitions, and in accordance withsection 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, wefound reasonable grounds to believe orsuspect that sales of stainless steelround wire made in Canada, India, theRepublic of Korea, and Taiwan weremade at prices below the cost ofproduction (COP). See Initiation Notice,63 FR at 26150, and Memorandum to

Richard Moreland, dated May 6, 1998(Initiation Checklist) at 7–14. As aresult, the Department has conductedinvestigations to determine whether therespondents made sales in theirrespective home markets at prices belowtheir respective COPs during the POIwithin the meaning of section 773(b) ofthe Act. We conducted the COP analysisdescribed below.

1. Calculation of COPIn accordance with section 773(b)(3)

of the Act, we calculated a weighted-average COP for stainless steel roundwire, based on the sum of the cost ofmaterials and fabrication for the foreignlike product, plus amounts for thehome-market general and administrative(G&A) expenses and packing costs. Werelied on the COP data submitted byeach respondent in its costquestionnaire response, except, asdiscussed below, in specific instanceswhere the submitted costs were notappropriately quantified or valued.

Greening DonaldWe disallowed certain offsets

Greening Donald had made to itsreported variable overhead expenses.We revised Greening Donald’s fixedoverhead expense to be on the samebasis as its reported direct materials andvariable overhead expenses. SeeGreening Donald PreliminaryDetermination Analysis Memorandum,dated November 12, 1998, for a morecomplete description of these changes.

Korea SangsaWe revised the reported G&A by

excluding dividend income, rentalincome, other miscellaneous income,and certain foreign exchange gains andlosses. We also revised the reported netfinancing expense ratio to include netforeign exchange losses related to cashand borrowing.

RodexWe increased Rodex’s reported direct

material costs (which are comprisedexclusively of purchases of wire rod) toaccount for net foreign exchange lossesduring the POI. We made twoadjustments to overhead costs: weincreased Rodex’s reported direct laborand fixed and variable overhead costs toaccount for a year-end auditor’sadjustment, and we reclassified certaincosts reported as variable overhead tofixed overhead, consistent with ourexamination of these costs atverification. We also increased theaverage per-kg. packing cost to accountfor an overstatement in the denominator(total weight of packed merchandise)used in the calculation of those costs.

Tien TaiDuring the POI, respondent Kuang Tai

(the collapsed affiliate of Tien Tai)became affiliated by virtue of stockownership with a supplier of a majorinput in the production of round wire(i.e., wire rod). In calculating cost ofproduction, the respondent relied on thetransfer price of the major input for allPOI purchases. For purchases of wirerod from this supplier after the date onwhich Kuang Tai became an affiliate, weapplied the major-input rule set forth insection 773(f)(3) of the Act and 19 CFR351.407(b), and we relied on the greaterof cost of production, transfer price, ormarket value.

In addition, we increased Tien Tai’sreported G&A ratio to account for stockbonuses to employees.

2. Test of Home-Market Sales PricesWe compared the adjusted weighted-

average COP for each respondent to thehome market sales of the foreign likeproduct, as required under section773(b) of the Act, in order to determinewhether these sales had been made atprices below the COP within anextended period of time (i.e., a period ofone year) in substantial quantities 5 andwhether such prices were sufficient topermit the recovery of all costs withina reasonable period of time.

On a model-specific basis, wecompared the revised COP to the homemarket prices, less any applicablemovement charges, taxes, rebates,commissions and other direct andindirect selling expenses.

3. Results of the COP TestPursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the

Act, where less than 20 percent of arespondent’s sales of a given productwere at prices less than the COP, we didnot disregard any below-cost sales ofthat product because we determinedthat the below-cost sales were not madein ‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where 20percent or more of a respondent’s salesof a given product during the POI wereat prices less than the COP, wedetermined such sales to have beenmade in ‘‘substantial quantities’’ withinan extended period of time inaccordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) orthe Act. In such cases, we alsodetermined that such sales were notmade at prices which would permitrecovery of all costs within a reasonableperiod of time, in accordance withsection 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.


Therefore, we disregarded the below-cost sales. Where all sales of a specificproduct were at prices below the COP,we disregarded all sales of that product.

We found that, for certain models ofSSRW, more than 20 percent of thehome-market sales of Central Wire,Greening Donald, Raajratna, KoreaSangsa, Tien Tai, and Rodex were madewithin an extended period of time atprices less than the COP. Further, theprices did not provide for the recoveryof costs within a reasonable period oftime. We therefore disregarded thebelow-cost sales and used the remainingabove-cost sales as the basis fordetermining NV, in accordance withsection 773(b)(1) of the Act. For thoseU.S. sales of SSRW for which there wereno comparable home-market sales in theordinary course of trade, we comparedEPs or CEPs to CV in accordance withsection 773(a)(4) of the Act. SeeCalculation of Normal Value Based onConstructed Value, below.

C. Calculation of Normal Value Basedon Home-Market Prices

We performed price-to-pricecomparisons where there were sales ofcomparable merchandise in the homemarket that did not fail the cost test.

Central WireWe calculated normal value based on

delivered or FOB prices and madedeductions from the starting price,where appropriate, for movementexpenses including inland freight andinsurance. We also adjusted the startingprice for claims and billing errors. Inaddition, we made circumstance-of-sale(COS) adjustments for direct expenses,where appropriate, in accordance withsection 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. Theseincluded imputed credit expenses. Inaccordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A)and (B) of the Act, we deducted homemarket packing costs and added U.S.packing costs.

Central Wire claimed that a number ofits sales were outside the ordinarycourse of trade and therefore not anappropriate basis for normal value. Weexamined Central Wire’s claims andagreed that some of the home marketsales were outside the ordinary courseof trade. We therefore excluded thesesales from our analysis. A fulldiscussion of this issue requiresreference to business-proprietaryinformation; see Central WirePreliminary Analysis Memorandum,dated November 12, 1998.

As discussed in the Level of Trade/CEP Offset section of this notice below,we preliminarily determined that it wasappropriate to make a CEP offset tonormal value.

In a letter dated October 27, 1998,Central Wire argued that the Departmentshould treat ‘‘quantity bands’’ as amatching criterion and, whencomparing sales involving non-identicalquantity bands, make a quantityadjustment. This proposal for anentirely new model-match criterion andquantity adjustment came too late in ourpreparations for these preliminarydeterminations. We may considerCentral Wire’s proposal in preparing ourfinal determinations in theseinvestigations.

Greening DonaldWe calculated normal value based on

delivered or FOB prices and madedeductions from the starting price,where appropriate, for movementexpenses including freight and freightrevenue. We also adjusted the startingprice for claims and billing errors. Inaddition, we made COS adjustments fordirect expenses, where appropriate, inaccordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii)of the Act. These included imputedcredit expenses. In accordance withsections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act,we deducted home market packing costsand added U.S. packing costs.

Greening Donald claimed that anumber of its sales were outside theordinary course of trade and thereforenot an appropriate basis for normalvalue. We examined Greening Donald’sclaims and agreed that certain homemarket sales were outside the ordinarycourse of trade. We therefore excludedthese sales from our analysis. A fulldiscussion of this issue requiresreference to business-proprietaryinformation; see Greening DonaldPreliminary Analysis Memorandum,dated November 12, 1998.

RaajratnaWe calculated normal value based on

delivered, FOB or ex-factory prices andmade deductions from the starting price,where appropriate, for inland freight. Inaddition, we made COS adjustments fordirect expenses, where appropriate, inaccordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii)of the Act. These expenses includedcredit-insurance expenses and imputedcredit expenses. In accordance withsections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act,we deducted home market packing costsand added U.S. packing costs.

Korea SangsaWe calculated normal value based on

delivered or FOB prices, and we madedeductions from the starting price,where appropriate, for movementexpenses including inland freight andinsurance. In addition, we made COSadjustments for direct expenses, where

appropriate, in accordance with section773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. Theseincluded bank charges, processing fees,and imputed credit expenses. Inaccordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A)and (B) of the Act, we deducted homemarket packing costs and added U.S.packing costs.

As discussed in the Level of Trade/CEP Offset section of this notice below,we preliminarily determined that it wasappropriate to make a CEP offset tonormal value.

RodexWe calculated normal value based on

delivered prices. We made deductionsfrom the starting price, whereappropriate, for movement expensesincluding inland freight. We alsoadjusted the starting price for claimsand billing errors. In addition, we madeCOS adjustments for direct expenses,where appropriate, in accordance withsection 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. Theseincluded imputed credit, bank charge,and warranty expenses. In accordancewith sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of theAct, we deducted home market packingcosts and added U.S. packing costs.

Tien TaiWe calculated normal value based on

delivered and FOB prices. We madedeductions from the starting price,where appropriate, for movementexpenses including inland freight andwarehousing. We also adjusted thestarting price for early paymentdiscounts. In addition, we made COSadjustments for direct expenses, whereappropriate, in accordance with section773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. Theseincluded imputed credit expenses. Inaccordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A)and (B) of the Act, we deducted homemarket packing costs and added U.S.packing costs.

D. Calculation of Normal Value Basedon Constructed Value

Section 773(a)(4) of the Act providesthat, where normal value cannot bebased on comparison-market sales,normal value may be based onconstructed value. Accordingly, forthose models of SSRW for which wecould not determine the normal valuebased on comparison-market sales,either because there were no sales of acomparable product or all sales of thecomparison products failed the COPtest, we based normal value onconstructed value.

Section 773(e)(1) of the Act providesthat constructed value shall be based onthe sum of the cost of materials andfabrication for the importedmerchandise plus amounts for selling,


general, and administrative expenses(SG&A), profit, and U.S. packing costs.With the exception of Raajratna, wecalculated the cost of materials andfabrication based on the methodologydescribed in the Calculation of COPsection of this notice, above. We basedSG&A and profit for every respondenton the actual amounts incurred andrealized by the respondent inconnection with the production and saleof the foreign like product in theordinary course of trade forconsumption in the comparison market,in accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A)of the Act.

Raajratna’s direct materials costsreported on its constructed-valuedatabase did not correspond with itssupporting documents included inRaajratna’s response. Therefore, werevised Raajratna’s reported directmaterials costs for constructed value toagree with its supportingdocumentation. As a result, we alsorevised the cost of manufacture, generaland administrative expenses, andinterest expenses accordingly. Theserevisions are described in further detailin Raajratna’s Preliminary AnalysisMemorandum, dated November 12,1998.

In addition, for each respondent weused U.S. packing costs as described inthe Export Price and Constructed ExportPrice section of this notice, above.

We made adjustments to constructedvalue for differences in COS inaccordance with section 773(a)(8) of theAct and 19 CFR 351.410. Forcomparisons to EP, we made COSadjustments by deducting direct sellingexpenses incurred on home market salesfrom and adding U.S. direct sellingexpenses to constructed value. Forcomparisons to CEP, we made COSadjustments by deducting direct sellingexpenses incurred on home market salesfrom constructed value.

Level of Trade/CEP OffsetIn accordance with section

773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extentpracticable, we determine normal valuebased on sales in the comparison marketat the same level of trade as the EP orCEP transaction. The normal-value levelof trade is that of the starting-price salesin the comparison market or, whennormal value is based on constructedvalue, that of the sales from which wederive SG&A expenses and profit. ForEP, the U.S. level of trade is also thelevel of the starting-price sale, which isusually from exporter to importer. ForCEP, it is the level of the constructedsale from the exporter to the importer.

To determine whether normal-valuesales are at a different level of trade than

EP or CEP, we examine stages in themarketing process and selling functionsalong the chain of distribution betweenthe producer and the unaffiliatedcustomer. If the comparison-marketsales are at a different level of trade andthe difference affects pricecomparability, as manifested in apattern of consistent price differencesbetween the sales on which normalvalue is based and comparison-marketsales at the level of trade of the exporttransaction, we make a level-of-tradeadjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) ofthe Act. For CEP sales, if the normal-value level is more remote from thefactory than the CEP level and there isno basis for determining whether thedifference in the levels between normalvalue and CEP affects pricecomparability, we adjust normal valueunder section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act(the CEP-offset provision). See Notice ofFinal Determination of Sales at LessThan Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-LengthCarbon Steel Plate from South Africa,62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).

In implementing these principles inthese investigations, we obtainedinformation from each respondent aboutthe marketing stages involved in thereported U.S. and home market sales,including a description of the sellingactivities performed by the respondentsfor each channel of distribution. Inidentifying levels of trade for EP andhome market sales we considered theselling functions reflected in the startingprice before any adjustments. For CEPsales, we considered only the sellingactivities reflected in the price after thededuction of expenses and profit undersection 772(d) of the Act.

With respect to each respondent’s EPsales, in these investigations we founda single level of trade in the UnitedStates, and a single, identical level oftrade in the home market. It was thusunnecessary to make any level-of-tradeadjustment for comparison of EP andhome market prices. Two respondents,Central Wire and Korea Sangsa, alsomade CEP sales. For Central Wire, wefound that (1) the adjusted CEP level oftrade was significantly less advancedthan the single home market level oftrade, (2) a level-of-trade adjustmentcould not be quantified, and (3) a CEPoffset was appropriate. For KoreaSangsa, we found that the adjusted CEPlevel of trade was essentially the sameas that of the single home market levelof trade, such that no level-of-tradeadjustment or CEP offset was necessary.For a detailed level-of-trade analysiswith respect to each respondent, seePreliminary DeterminationMemorandum, dated November 12,1998.

Currency Conversions

We made currency conversions inaccordance with section 773A of theAct. The Department’s preferred sourcefor daily exchange rates is the FederalReserve Bank.

Section 773A(a) of the Act directs theDepartment to use a daily exchange ratein order to convert foreign currenciesinto U.S. dollars unless the daily rateinvolves a fluctuation. It is theDepartment’s practice to find that afluctuation exists when the dailyexchange rate differs from thebenchmark rate by 2.25 percent. Thebenchmark is defined as the movingaverage of rates for the past 40 businessdays. When we determine a fluctuationto have existed, we generally substitutethe benchmark rate for the daily rate, inaccordance with established practice.(An exception to this rule is describedbelow.) Further, section 773A(b) of theAct directs the Department to allow a60-day adjustment period when acurrency has undergone a sustainedmovement. A sustained movement isdeemed to occur when the weeklyaverage of actual daily rates exceeds theweekly average of benchmark rates bymore than five percent for eightconsecutive weeks. (For an explanationof this method, see Policy Bulletin 96–1: Currency Conversions (61 FR 9434,March 8, 1996).) Such an adjustmentperiod is required only when a foreigncurrency is appreciating against the U.S.dollar. Since the Korean won did notappreciate against the U.S. dollar in asustained manner during the POI, nosuch adjustment period was required.

Our preliminary analysis of FederalReserve U.S. dollar-Korean wonexchange rate data shows that the wondeclined rapidly at the end of 1997,losing over 40% of its value between thebeginning of November and the end ofDecember. The decline was, in bothspeed and magnitude, many times moresevere than any change in the dollar-won exchange rate during the previouseight years. Had the won reboundedquickly enough to recover all or almostall of the initial loss, the Departmentmight have considered the won’sdecline at the end of 1997 as nothingmore than a sudden but onlymomentary drop, despite the magnitudeof that drop. As it was, however, therewas no significant rebound. Therefore,we have preliminarily determined thatthe decline in the won at the end of1997 was so precipitous and large thatthe dollar-won exchange rate cannotreasonably be viewed as having simplyfluctuated during this time, i.e., ashaving experienced only a momentarydrop in value. Therefore, in making this


6 We were able to conduct sales and costverifications of Rodex prior to the issuance of thispreliminary determination. Our findings ofverification with respect to Rodex are reflected inthis determination.

preliminary determination, theDepartment used daily rates exclusivelyfor currency-conversion purposes forhome market sales matched to U.S. salesoccurring between November 1, 1997,and December 31, 1997.

The Department welcomes commentsfrom interested parties on all aspects ofthe above methodology. For thepurposes of the final determination, wewill also analyze the implications, ifany, of the decline in the won during1997 for price averaging and whethermultiple averages are warranted. TheDepartment is also considering thisissue in the LTFV investigation onMushrooms from Indonesia. See Noticeof Preliminary Determination of Sales atLess Than Fair Value and Postponementof Final Determination: CertainPreserved Mushrooms from Indonesia,63 FR 41783 (August 5, 1998).

Verification

In accordance with section 782(i) ofthe Act, we intend to verify allinformation relied upon in making ourfinal determinations.6

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 733(d) ofthe Act, we are directing the CustomsService to suspend liquidation of allentries of stainless steel round wirefrom Canada, India, Japan, Spain, andTaiwan, except for subject merchandiseproduced and exported by Tien Tai(which has a de minimis weighted-average margin), that are entered, orwithdrawn from warehouse, forconsumption on or after the date ofpublication of this notice in the FederalRegister. We are also instructing theCustoms Service to require a cashdeposit or the posting of a bond equalto the weighted-average amount bywhich the normal value exceeds the EPor CEP, as indicated in the chart below.These instructions suspendingliquidation will remain in effect untilfurther notice.

The weighted-average dumpingmargins are provided below. We notethat, while the margin for Korea Sangsais included in this list, that margin is deminimis, and we are not suspendingliquidation of entries of stainless steelround wire from Korea:

Exporter/Manufacturer

Weighted-average

margin per-centage

Canada:Central Wire .......................... 11.89Greening Donald ................... 5.30All Others .............................. 10.23

India:Raajratna ............................... 18.97All Others .............................. 18.97

Japan:Nippon Seisen ....................... 29.56Suzuki .................................... 29.56All Others .............................. 15.20

Korea:Korea Sangsa ....................... 1 1.33All Others .............................. 0.00

Spain:Inoxfil ..................................... 35.80All Others .............................. 24.40

Taiwan:Rodex .................................... 3.95Tien Tai ................................. 1 1.83All Others .............................. 3.95

1 De Minimis.

Section 733(b)(3) of the Act directsthe Department to exclude all zero andde minimis weighted-average dumpingmargins, as well as dumping marginsdetermined entirely under factsavailable under section 776 of the Act,from the calculation of the ‘‘all others’’rate. Accordingly, we have excluded thede minimis dumping margin for TienTai from the calculation of the ‘‘allothers’’ rate for the Taiwaninvestigation.

Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Actprovides that, where the estimatedweighted-average dumping marginsestablished for all exporters andproducers individually investigated arezero or de minimis margins or aredetermined entirely under section 776of the Act, the Department may use anyreasonable method to establish theestimated all-others rate for exportersand producers not individuallyinvestigated. This provisioncontemplates that we weight-average thefacts-available margins to establish theall-others rate. Where the data do notpermit weight-averaging of the facts-available rates, the SAA, at 873,provides that we may use otherreasonable methods. Inasmuch as we donot have the data necessary to weight-average the respondents’ facts-availablerates, we have based the all-others ratesfor Japan and Spain on a simple averageof the margins in the respectivepetitions, as we revised at the time ofinitiation of these investigations.

ITC NotificationIn accordance with section 733(f) of

the Act, we have notified the ITC of ourdeterminations. If our final antidumpingdeterminations are affirmative, the ITC

will determine whether these importsare materially injuring, or threatenmaterial injury to, the U.S. industry.The deadline for that ITC determinationwould be the later of 120 days after thedate of these preliminarydeterminations or 45 days after the dateof our final determinations.

Public Comment

For all round wire investigations, casebriefs must be submitted no later than110 days after the publication of thisnotice in the Federal Register. Rebuttalbriefs must be filed within five daysafter the deadline for submission of casebriefs. A list of authorities used, a tableof contents, and an executive summaryof issues should accompany any briefssubmitted to the Department. Executivesummaries should be limited to fivepages total, including footnotes.

Section 774 of the Act provides thatthe Department will hold a hearing toafford interested parties an opportunityto comment on arguments raised in caseor rebuttal briefs, provided that such ahearing is requested by any interestedparty. If a request for a hearing is madein an investigation, the hearing willtentatively be held two days after thedeadline for submission of the rebuttalbriefs, at the U.S. Department ofCommerce, 14th Street and ConstitutionAvenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230.In the event that the Departmentreceives requests for hearings fromparties to several round wire cases, theDepartment may schedule a singlehearing to encompass all those cases.Parties should confirm by telephone thetime, date, and place of the hearing 48hours before the scheduled time.

Interested parties who wish to requesta hearing, or to participate if one isrequested, must submit a writtenrequest within 30 days of thepublication of this notice. Requestsshould specify the number ofparticipants and provide a list of theissues to be discussed. Oralpresentations will be limited to issuesraised in the briefs.

If these investigations proceednormally, we will make our finaldeterminations of these investigationsno later than 135 days after the date ofpublication of this notice in the FederalRegister.

These determinations are publishedpursuant to sections 733(f) and 777(i)(I)of the Act.





[C–533–063]

Certain Iron-Metal Castings FromIndia; Final Results and PartialRescission of Countervailing DutyAdministrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,International Trade Administration,Department of Commerce.ACTION: Notice of final results ofcountervailing duty administrativereview.

SUMMARY: On July 13, 1998, theDepartment of Commerce published inthe Federal Register its preliminaryresults of administrative review of thecountervailing duty order on certainiron-metal castings from India for theperiod January 1, 1996 throughDecember 31, 1996 (63 FR 37534). TheDepartment has now completed thisadministrative review in accordancewith section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of1930, as amended. For information onthe net subsidy for each reviewedcompany, and for all non-reviewedcompanies, see the Final Results ofReview section of this notice. We willinstruct the U.S. Customs Service toassess countervailing duties as detailedin the Final Results of Review section ofthis notice.EFFECTIVE DATE: November 18, 1998.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Kristen Johnson or Christopher Cassel,Office of CVD/AD Enforcement VI,Import Administration, InternationalTrade Administration, U.S. Departmentof Commerce, 14th Street andConstitution Avenue, NW, Room 4012,Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:(202) 482–2786.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(b), thisreview covers only those producers/exporters of the subject merchandise forwhich a review was specificallyrequested. The producers/exporters ofthe subject merchandise for which thisreview was requested are:Calcutta Ferrous Ltd.,Carnation Industries Ltd.,Commex Corporation,Crescent Foundry Co. Pvt. Ltd.,Delta Enterprises,Dinesh Brothers (P) Ltd.,Kajaria Iron Castings Pvt. Ltd.,Kejriwal Iron & Steel Works Pvt. Ltd.,Metflow Corporation,Nandikeshwari Iron Foundry Pvt. Ltd.,Orissa Metal Industries,

Overseas Iron Foundry,R.B. Agarwalla & Company,R.B. Agarwalla & Co. Pvt. Ltd.,RSI Limited,Seramapore Industries Pvt. Ltd.,Shree Rama Enterprise,Shree Uma Foundries,Siko Exports,SSL Exports,Super Iron Foundry,Uma Iron & Steel, andVictory Castings Ltd.

Delta Enterprises, MetflowCorporation, Orissa Metal Industries,R.B. Agarwalla & Co. Pvt. Ltd., ShreeUma Foundries, Siko Exports, and SSLExports reported, through companycertifications submitted on the record,that they did not export the subjectmerchandise to the United States duringthe period of review. Therefore, inaccordance with section 351.213(d)(3) ofthe Department’s regulations, we arerescinding the review with respect tothese companies. This review alsocovers 19 programs.

In the notice of preliminary results,we invited interested parties tocomment on the preliminary results (63FR 37534, July 13, 1998). On August 12,1998, case briefs were submitted by theEngineering Export Promotion Councilof India and the exporters of certainiron-metal castings from India(respondents), and the MunicipalCastings Fair Trade Council and itsmembers (petitioners). On August 19,1998, rebuttal briefs were submitted bythe respondents and petitioners.

Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, allcitations to the statute are references tothe provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930,as amended by the Uruguay RoundAgreements Act (URAA) effectiveJanuary 1, 1995 (the Act). TheDepartment of Commerce (Department)is conducting this administrative reviewin accordance with section 751(a) of theAct. All citations to the Department’sregulations reference 19 CFR part 351(1998).

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by thisadministrative review are shipments ofIndian manhole covers and frames,clean-out covers and frames, and catchbasin grates and frames. These articlesare commonly called municipal orpublic works castings and are used foraccess or drainage for public utility,water, and sanitary systems. During thereview period, such merchandise wasclassifiable under the Harmonized TariffSchedule (HTS) item numbers7325.10.0010 and 7325.10.0050. TheHTS item numbers are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes.The written description remainsdispositive.

VerificationAs provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we verified information submittedby the Government of India (GOI) andcertain producers/exporters of thesubject merchandise. We followedstandard verification procedures,including meeting with government andcompany officials and examiningrelevant accounting and financialrecords and other original sourcedocuments. Our verification results areoutlined in the public versions of theverification reports, which are on file inthe Central Records Unit, Room B–099of the Main Commerce Building.

Analysis of ProgramsBased upon the responses to our

questionnaires, the results ofverification, and written comments fromthe interested parties, we determine thefollowing:

I. Programs Conferring Subsidies

A. Pre-Shipment Export FinancingIn the preliminary results, we found

that this program conferredcountervailable subsidies on the subjectmerchandise. Our review of the recordand our analysis of the commentssubmitted by the interested parties,summarized below, has led us to modifyour findings from the preliminaryresults for Dinesh Brothers (Dinesh). SeeComment 1 below. Our findings for theother companies have not changed as aresult of our review of the record andour analysis of the comments submittedby the interested parties. Accordingly,the net subsidies for this program are asfollows:

Net subsidies—producer/exporter

Net sub-sidy

rate—percent

Calcutta Ferrous Ltd ..................... 0.20Commex Corporation .................... 0.13Crescent Foundry Co. Pvt. Ltd ..... 0.08Dinesh Brothers Pvt. Ltd .............. 1.04Kajaria Iron Castings Pvt. Ltd ....... 0.33Nandikeshwari Iron Foundry Pvt.

Ltd ............................................. 0.22R.B. Agarwalla & Company .......... 0.34RSI Limited ................................... 0.37Seramapore Industries Pvt. Ltd .... 0.53Super Iron Foundry ....................... 1.11Uma Iron & Steel .......................... 0.34Victory Castings Ltd ...................... 0.30

B. Post-Shipment Export FinancingIn the preliminary results, we found

that this program conferredcountervailable subsidies on the subject


merchandise. Our review of the recordand our analysis of the commentssubmitted by the interested parties,summarized below, has led us to modifyour findings from the preliminaryresults for Calcutta Ferrous (Calcutta)and Dinesh. See Comment 1 below forDinesh and the Memo to the Fileregarding the Calculations for the FinalResults of the Review dated November10, 1998 (public version) on file in theCentral Records Unit of the Departmentof Commerce (Room B–099)(Calculation Memo) for Calcutta. Ourfindings for the other companies havenot changed as a result of our review ofthe record and our analysis of thecomments submitted by the interestedparties. Accordingly, the net subsidiesfor this program are as follows:


Net sub-sidy

rate—percent

Calcutta Ferrous Ltd ..................... 0.29Carnation Industries Ltd .............. 0.03Commex Corporation .................... 0.35Crescent Foundry Co. Pvt. Ltd ..... 0.31Dinesh Brothers Pvt. Ltd .............. 0.23Kajaria Iron Castings Pvt. Ltd ....... 0.42Nandikeshwari Iron Foundry Pvt.

Ltd ............................................. 0.27R.B. Agarwalla & Company .......... 0.35RSI Limited ................................... 0.20Seramapore Industries Pvt. Ltd .... 0.05Super Iron Foundry ....................... 0.12Uma Iron & Steel .......................... 0.53Victory Castings Ltd ...................... 0.40

C. Post-Shipment Export Credit inForeign Currency (PSCFC)

In the preliminary results, we foundthat this program conferredcountervailable subsidies on the subjectmerchandise. Our review of the recordand our analysis of the commentssubmitted by the interested parties,summarized below, has led us to modifyour findings from the preliminaryresults for Calcutta and Dinesh. SeeComment 1 below for Dinesh and theCalculation Memo for Calcutta. Ourfindings for the other companies havenot changed as a result of our review ofthe record and our analysis of thecomments submitted by the interestedparties. Accordingly, the net subsidiesfor this program are as follows:


Net sub-sidy

rate—percent

Calcutta Ferrous Ltd ..................... 0.02Dinesh Brothers Pvt. Ltd .............. 0.05Nandikeshwari Iron Foundry Pvt.

Ltd ............................................. 0.08R.B. Agarwalla & Company .......... 0.11


Net sub-sidy

rate—percent

RSI Limited ................................... 0.08

D. Income Tax Deduction Under § 80HHC

In the preliminary results, we foundthat this program conferredcountervailable subsidies on the subjectmerchandise. Our review of the recordand our analysis of the commentssubmitted by the interested parties,summarized below, has led us to modifyour findings from the preliminaryresults for Dinesh. See Comment 1below. Our findings for the othercompanies have not changed as as resultof our review of the record and ouranalysis of the comments submitted bythe interested parties. Accordingly, thenet subsidies for this program are asfollows:


Net sub-sidy

rate—percent

Calcutta Ferrous Ltd. .................... 2.91Carnation Industries Ltd. .............. 2.92Commex Corporation .................... 4.79Crescent Foundry Co. Pvt. Ltd. .... 4.53Dinesh Brothers Pvt. Ltd. ............. 1.82Kejriwal Iron & Steel Works Pvt.

Ltd. ............................................ 11.76Nandikeshwari Iron Foundry Pvt.

Ltd. ............................................ 3.71Overseas Iron Foundry ................. 3.74R.B. Agarwalla & Company .......... 2.73RSI Limited ................................... 2.73Seramapore Industries Pvt. Ltd. ... 4.16Shree Rama Enterprise ................ 10.85Super Iron Foundry ....................... 1.93Uma Iron & Steel .......................... 0.40Victory Castings Ltd. ..................... 2.17

E. Import Mechanisms (Sale of Licenses)

In the preliminary results, we foundthat this program conferredcountervailable subsidies on the subjectmerchandise. Our review of the recordand our analysis of the commentssubmitted by the interested parties,summarized below, have not led us tochange our preliminary findings.Accordingly, the net subsidies for thisprogram are as follows:


Net sub-sidy

rate—percent

Carnation Industries Ltd. .............. 0.24Kajaria Iron Castings Pvt. Ltd. ...... 0.68Kejriwal Iron & Steel Works .......... 1.00RSI Limited ................................... 0.03Seramapore Industries Pvt. Ltd. ... 0.73

F. Exemption of Export Credit FromInterest Taxes

In the preliminary results, we foundthat this program conferredcountervailable subsidies on the subjectmerchandise. Our review of the recordand our analysis of the commentssubmitted by the interested parties,summarized below, has led us to modifyour findings from the preliminaryresults for Calcutta and Dinesh. SeeComment 1 below for Dinesh and theCalculation Memo for Calcutta. Ourfindings for the other companies havenot changed as a result of our review ofthe record and our analysis of thecomments submitted by the interestedparties. Accordingly, the net subsidiesfor this program are as follows:


Net sub-sidy

rate—percent

Calcutta Ferrous Ltd. .................... 0.06Carnation Industries Ltd. .............. 0.13Commex Corporation .................... 0.06Crescent Foundry Co. Pvt. Ltd. .... 0.06Dinesh Brothers Pvt. Ltd. ............. 0.13Kajaria Iron Castings Pvt. Ltd. ...... 0.26Nandikeshwari Iron Foundry Pvt.

Ltd. ............................................ 0.13R.B. Agarwalla & Company .......... 0.11RSI Limited ................................... 0.22Seramapore Industries Pvt. Ltd. ... 0.07Super Iron Foundry ....................... 0.16Uma Iron & Steel .......................... 0.11Victory Castings Ltd. ..................... 0.18

II. Programs Found To Be Not UsedIn the preliminary results, we found

that the producers/exporters of thesubject merchandise did not apply for orreceive benefits under the followingprograms:1. Market Development Assistance (MDA)2. Rediscounting of Export Bills Abroad

(EBR)3. International Price Reimbursement

Scheme (IPRS)4. Cash Compensatory Support Program

(CCS)5. Programs Operated by the Small Industries

Development Bank of India (SIDBI)6. Export Promotion Replenishment Scheme

(EPRS) (IPRS Replacement)7. Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme8. Benefits for Export Oriented Units and

Export Processing Zones9. Special Imprest Licenses10. Special Benefits11. Duty Drawback on Excise Taxes12. Payment of Premium Against Advance

Licenses13. Pre-Shipment Export Financing in

Foreign Currency (PCFC)

We did not receive any comments onthese programs from the interestedparties, and our review of the record hasnot led us to change our findings fromthe preliminary results.


Analysis of Comments

Comment 1: Use of Denominator forDinesh

Respondents state that theDepartment misread Dinesh Brothers’(Dinesh) sales information andconsequently used the wrong 1996 f.o.b.values to calculate the company’s advalorem subsidy rates. As a result of thiserror, the Department’s calculationsoverstate the countervailing dutyapplicable to the company for theperiod of review.

Petitioners counter stating that thesales values used in the Department’scalculations are consistent with theinformation provided in the company’sresponse. They argue that the burden ison respondents to provide clear,complete responses to the Department’sinquires.

Petitioners state that even if theDepartment has erred and used thewrong values, this issue highlights acontinuing problem with respect to thisorder. That is, respondents often supplyvague information in their questionnaireresponses and then clarify theinformation only if the Departmentrequests a further explanation or therespondents explain the information atverification. In this case, petitionersargue the Department did not feel it wasnecessary for Dinesh to explain thereporting of its sales values and thecompany was not verified. For thesereasons, petitioners urge the Departmentto affirm its use of the sales values usedin determining Dinesh’s programbenefits in the preliminary calculations.

Department’s PositionThough we agree with petitioners that

Dinesh’s sales values were not clearlypresented in the company’squestionnaire response, after a furtherexamination of the record, we agreewith respondents that we did not usethe correct f.o.b. values to calculateDinesh’s program benefits. Inconducting our preliminarycalculations, we incorrectly readDinesh’s sales chart and thus used thewrong 1996 f.o.b. values to calculate thecompany’s ad valorem subsidy rates.Therefore, we have recalculated the advalorem subsidies under each programusing the correct f.o.b. values as ourdenominators. The program ratesreported above and the final subsidyrate and cash deposit rate for Dineshlisted below reflect the use of the correctsales values.

Comment 2: Sale of Import License byCarnation

When calculating the benefit whichCarnation Industries Ltd. (Carnation)

received from the sale of an importlicense, respondents state that theDepartment mistakenly used anoverstated revenue figure as thenumerator in its calculation. They arguethat the Department incorrectly used theamount of revenue Carnation earned onthe sale as reported in the company’sfinancial statements. Respondents statethat this amount is inclusive of the salesprice plus the tax which Carnation paidto the State of West Bengal. They statethat Carnation did not receive the tax,and therefore, the correct amount of thebenefit to Carnation is the sales priceminus the tax.

Petitioners state that the respondents’argument must be rejected because theDepartment’s regulations clearly statethat: ‘‘{i}n calculating the amount of abenefit, the Secretary will not considerthe secondary tax consequences of thebenefit.’’ See Countervailing Duties:Proposed Rule, 62 FR 8818, 8856(February 26, 1997). Petitioners furtherstate that the Department’s policy isclear from previous cases and has beenupheld by the courts. See, e.g., CertainSteel Products from Belgium; FinalAffirmative Countervailing DutyDeterminations, 58 FR 37273, 37275(July 9, 1993); Geneva Steel v. UnitedStates, 914 F. Supp. 563, 609–610 (CIT1996); Ipsco, Inc. v. United States, 687F. Supp. 614, 621–22 (CIT 1988); andMichelin Tire Corp. v. United States, 6CIT 320, 328 (1983), vacated on othergrounds, 9 CIT 38 (1985) (MichelinTire).

In this review, petitioners state thatthe record clearly establishes that thebenefit received from the sale of thelicense was the amount reported in thecompany’s financial statements.Carnation’s claim that it initiallyreceived something less than thatamount is not supported by recordevidence. Moreover, whether Carnationwas obligated to pay taxes on therevenue earned is inconsequential to theDepartment’s analysis. Therefore, theDepartment should affirm itspreliminary results in this matter.

Department’s Position

We agree with petitioners. Not only isthe Department’s long-standing policyto disregard secondary tax consequencesof countervailable benefits, but also thestatute is clear in regard to permissibleoffsets to subsidies. Section 771(6) ofthe Act provides an exclusive list ofoffsets which may be deducted from theamount of a gross subsidy, and an offsetfor income tax payments is not includedin that list. For purposes of determiningthe net subsidy, the Department,pursuant to section 771(6), may subtract

from the gross countervailable subsidythe amount of:

(A) Any application fee, deposit, or similarpayment paid in order to qualify for, or toreceive, the benefit of the countervailablesubsidy,

(B) Any loss in the value of thecountervailable subsidy resulting from itsdeferred receipt, if the deferral is mandatedby Government order, and

(C) Export taxes, duties, or other chargeslevied on the export of merchandise to theUnited States specifically intended to offsetthe countervailable subsidy received.

In Michelin Tire, the court upheld theDepartment’s policy of disregardingsecondary tax consequences, rejecting aclaim that after-tax considerationsshould be included in the calculation ofa subsidy. In its decision the courtstated that: ‘‘[T]hese effects [secondarytax effects] are too uncertain to beconsidered a necessary part of a subsidycalculation in these circumstances.’’ See6 CIT 320, 328 (1983), vacated on othergrounds, 9 CIT 38 (1985). Therefore,based on the statute, case precedent,and the Department’s policy todisregard secondary tax effects onsubsidies, we have not altered ourcalculation of the subsidy whichCarnation received from the sale of animport license during the review period.

Comment 3: Use of a Rupee-LoanInterest Rate Benchmark

Respondents contest the Department’suse of a rupee-loan interest rate, ratherthan a dollar-denominated interest rate,to calculate the benefit on PSCFC loans.Respondents note that the Departmenthas determined that PSCFC loans aredenominated in dollars and that thediscount rate is based on a dollarinterest rate. Therefore, the Departmentshould have used as its benchmark todetermine the benefit conferred byPSCFC loans, a dollar-related interestrate. Respondents assert that since theIndian banks offering PSCFC financingcould themselves borrow dollars at arate linked to the London InterbankOffering Interest Rate ( LIBOR), theappropriate benchmark to determine thesubsidy element of the loans, if any,would be a LIBOR-linked rate.

Respondents contend that theDepartment’s use of a benchmark, otherthan a LIBOR-linked rate, is inconsistentwith item (k) of the ‘‘Illustrative List ofExport Subsidies,’’ Annex I to theAgreement on Subsidies andCountervailing Measures (IllustrativeList). Item (k) provides that an ‘‘exportcredit’’ is a subsidy only if governmentsor government-controlled banks provide‘‘export credits at rates below thosewhich they actually have to pay for thefunds so employed.’’ Respondents assert


that PSCFC loans should not be viewedas subsidies so long as they are notprovided at rates that are below the ratesat which the banks themselves couldborrow U.S. dollars. Accordingly,PSCFC loans should not be consideredbeneficial to the extent that they areprovided at rates above the appropriatebenchmark—a LIBOR-linked rate.

Petitioners argue that respondents areerroneously confusing the terms ‘‘exportcredit’’ and ‘‘packing credit,’’ the type offinancing provided to castingsexporters, when discussing item (k).Petitioners note that the Department hasconsistently interpreted the term‘‘export credit’’ to refer to medium- andlong-term loans and therefore, item (k)does not apply to the short-term exportloans which are under review.

Additionally, petitioners assert thatthe Department has consistently rejectedthe cost-to-government’’ methodology ofitem (k). In support of their argument,petitioners cite to the Department’sdeterminations in Extruded RubberThread from Malaysia; Final Results ofCountervailing Duty AdministrativeReview, 60 FR 17515, 17517 (April 6,1995) and Certain Textile Mill Productsfrom Mexico; Final Results ofCountervailing Duty AdministrativeReview, 56 FR 12175, 12177 (March 22,1991). Petitioners also cite to the 1989final results of Certain Textile MillProducts from Mexico, in which theDepartment stated:

When we have cited the Illustrative List asa source for benchmarks to identify andmeasure export subsidies, those benchmarkshave been consistent with our long-standingpractice of using commercial benchmarks tomeasure the benefit to a recipient of asubsidy program. The cost-to-governmentstandard in item (k) of the Illustrative Listdoes not fully capture the benefits providedto recipients of FOMEX financing. Therefore,we must [sic] use a commercial benchmarkto calculate the benefit from a subsidy,consistent with the full definition of‘‘subsidy’’ in the statute.

54 FR 36841, 36843 (September 5,1989). Petitioners further point out thatthe Department upheld its repudiationof the ‘‘cost-to-government’’ standardcontemplated in item (k) in theStatement of Administrative Action:Agreement on Subsidies andCountervailing Measures (SAA). TheSAA states that ‘‘* * * the IllustrativeList has no direct application to theCVD portion of the SubsidiesAgreement, and items (k) and (l) of theIllustrative List use a cost-to-the-government standard which isinappropriate for CVD purposes.’’ SeeH.R. Doc. No. 103–316, Vol. 1, 927–928(1994). The petitioners assert that thislanguage restates the Department’s long-

standing practice that the ‘‘cost-to-government’’ approach contemplated initem (k) does not adequately capture thebenefits provided under short-termexport financing programs. Therefore,the Department should rejectrespondents’ argument and continueusing a non-preferential interest ratebased on comparable, rupee-basedfinancing as a benchmark.

Department’s PositionWe disagree with respondents that the

Department should use a LIBOR-linkedinterest rate as the benchmark inmeasuring the benefits conferred by thePSCFC program. In examining whethera short-term export loan conferscountervailable benefits, the Departmentmust determine whether ‘‘there is adifference between the amount therecipient of the loan pays on the loanand the amount the recipient would payon a comparable commercial loan thatthe recipient could actually obtain onthe market.’’ See Section 771(5)(E)(ii) ofthe Act.

In determining whether there is adifference between the amount thecompanies paid on the PSCFC loans andthe amount they would have paid on acomparable commercial loan, we used,as our benchmark, where available, acompany-specific interest rate for rupee-denominated short-term working capitalloans obtained on the market during thereview period. In the absence of acompany-specific rate, we used the‘‘cash credit’’ interest rate which is fordomestic working capital finance and iscomparable to pre- and post-shipmentexport finance. See Certain Iron-MetalCastings From India; PreliminaryResults of Countervailing DutyAdministrative Review, 61 FR 64669,64671 (December 6, 1996) (1994Castings Prelim). In accordance withsection 771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act, becausethe interest rate on PSCFC loans is lessthan what a company would have to payon a comparable short-term commercialloan, we determined that PSCFC loansconfer countervailable benefits.

We have also determined that PSCFCloans are limited to exporters, and onlyexporters have access to LIBOR-linkedinterest rates. Because we found thatPSCFC loans are limited to exportersand that non-exporters do not haveaccess to these low-cost financing rates,loans with interest rates linked toLIBOR clearly do not represent the‘‘comparable commercial loan that therecipient could actually obtain on themarket.’’ The fact that commercial banksmay borrow at LIBOR-linked rates is,therefore, irrelevant to our finding.

Petitioners correctly note that theDepartment has consistently rejected the

‘‘cost-to-government’’ standard of item(k) of the Illustrative List. The SAAspecifically states that ‘‘* * * theIllustrative List has no directapplication to the CVD portion of theSubsidies Agreement, and items (k) and(l) of the Illustrative List use a cost-to-the-government standard which isinappropriate for CVD purposes.’’ See0H.R. Doc. No. 103–316, Vol. 1, 927–928(1994). For these reasons, we maintainthat the correct benchmark to use indetermining whether PSCFC loansconfer countervailable benefits uponexports of the subject merchandise tothe United States, is the ‘‘comparable’’commercial loan rate that the Indianexporters would actually obtain on themarket.

Comment 4: Double-Counting ofSubsidies

Respondents state that, for purposesof the section 80 HHC tax program (80HHC), earnings from the sale of importlicenses may be deducted from taxableincome to determine the tax payable bythe exporter. Therefore, because revenuefrom the sale of licenses is also part ofthe deductions under 80 HHC, tocountervail this revenue once as a directsubsidy, and then to countervail the taxdeduction, which is made up of thesame revenue, is to double count thesubsidy from the import license sales.

Respondents also contend that theDepartment is double-counting thesubsidy from the export financingprograms. The financing programsreduce a company’s expenses infinancing exports, which in turnincreases the company’s profits onexport sales. Because the 80 HHCdeduction increases as export profitsincrease, the financing programsincrease the 80 HHC deduction.Therefore, according to respondents, tocountervail the export financing as aseparate program from the 80 HHC, is todouble-count the subsidies conferred bythe export financing programs.

Respondents note that they appealedthis issue of double-counting to theCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit(CAFC) and in Kajaria Iron Castings Pvt.Ltd. v. United States, No. 97–1490 (Fed.Cir. September 8, 1988) (Kajaria), theCAFC ruled in favor of the respondents.Accordingly, respondents assert that theDepartment should revise its positionon the issue double-counting for thefinal results of this review.

Petitioners respond that theDepartment has analyzed this issue ofdouble-counting extensively in priorproceedings. See, e.g., Certain Iron-Metal Castings from India; Final Resultsof Countervailing Duty AdministrativeReview, 62 FR 32299–301 (June 13,


1997) (1994 Castings Final). Petitionerscontend that the Department’s priorfindings on this issue should be upheldin this administrative review on thebasis of (1) The facts on the record; (2)because the subsidies beingcountervailed are separate and distinct;(3) because the Department has aconsistent policy of not examining thetax consequences of tax exemptionsrelated to loans and grants; and (4) thereis no reasonable way for the Departmentto isolate the alleged effects onrespondents’ export tax liability. Inaddition, petitioners argue that theDepartment has explained in earlierreviews that the 80 HHC income taxexemption for export earnings is acountervailable subsidy that is separateand distinct from the subsidies receivedfrom export financing programs and thesale of import licenses, and therefore,each subsidy program should beseparately countervailed.

Also, petitioners contend that it is notthe Department’s policy to examine thesecondary tax effects of subsidies.Petitioners indicate that theDepartment’s determination toseparately countervail these differentsubsidies is supported by the courts’affirmance of the agency’s policy todisregard any secondary effect of adirect subsidy on a company’s financialperformance. In support of this,petitioners cite Saarstahl AG v. UnitedStates, 78 F.3d 1539, 1543 (Fed. Cir.1996). Petitioners assert that thisapproach is proper and reasonable giventhe difficulties inherent in an effort tocalculate secondary effects. Petitionerscite to Michelin Tire Corp. v. UnitedStates, in which the court stated, ‘‘These{secondary} effects are too uncertain tobe considered a necessary part of asubsidy calculation.’’ See 6 CIT 320, 328(1983), vacated on other grounds, 9 CIT38 (1985).

Petitioners further note that thelegislative history of the URAA alsomakes clear that in determining whethera countervailable subsidy exists, theDepartment is not required to considerthe effect of the subsidy. SAA at 246,926 (codified at 19 U.S.C. 1677(5)(C)).The SAA explains that:

[T]he Administration wants to make clearits view that the new definition of subsidydoes not require that Commerce consider oranalyze the effect (including whether there isany effect at all) of a government action onthe price or output of the class or kind ofmerchandise under investigation or review.

Id. at 926. Petitioners state that whenapplied to the alleged double-countingissue, this means that the Departmentdoes not have to consider whethersubsidies in the form of grants or loanshave any effect on the 80 HHC tax

program when determining whethersubsidies under 80 HHC arecountervailable.

Petitioners further indicate thatthough respondents argue that theDepartment should correct for thealleged double-counting issue bymaking adjustments to the 80 HHCsubsidy percentage, they do not provideany comment on how the Departmentshould do this. According to petitioners,the Department has acknowledged inearlier reviews that the adjustmentsrequested by the respondents cannot beaccomplished due to the multiplevariables, which affect a company’scosts, that would have to be isolated.

Department’s PositionRespondents’ argument that the

subsidies provided under the exportfinancing and import licensingprograms have been countervailedtwice, by also countervailing the fullamount of the 80 HHC tax deduction, isincorrect. In Kajaria, the CAFCreviewed the Department’s decision tocountervail that portion of the CashCompensatory Support (CCS) rebatesfound to be excessive, and to alsocountervail those over-rebates under the80 HHC program. Under the CCSprogram, the GOI rebated indirect taxeson inputs consumed in the productionan exported product. The CCS rebateswere considered by the GOI to be exportincome. Under the GOI’s 80 HHCprogram only profit from export incomeis exempt from tax liability. Withrespect to these particular facts, theCAFC in its decision concluded that byfirst countervailing the CCS over-rebates, as a distinct program, and thencountervailing the same over-rebatesagain as tax exempt export incomeunder the 80 HHC program, theDepartment had improperly double-counted the over-rebates.

In its decision, the court stated:* * * Commerce must avoid double-

counting subsidies, i.e., countervailing boththe full amount of a subsidy and the non-taxation of that subsidy, when the partyunder investigation provides documentationthat allows Commerce to separate the taxdeduction based on the fully countervailedsubsidy from the otherwise countervailableportion of the tax deduction.

Kajaria, No. 97–1490 at 24–25. In thepresent review, neither the interestsaved under the export financingprograms nor the proceeds earned onthe sales of import licenses are deemedto be export income. There is noevidence on the record whichdemonstrates a direct link betweenthese separate and distinct programsubsidies and a specific tax exemptionsubsidy program, i.e., the 80 HHC tax

deduction. The respondents in thisreview did not provide either incomeand tax statements, or governmentdescriptions of the subsidy programswhich demonstrate that the exportfinancing and import license subsidiesare considered by the GOI to be exportincome and that the profit derived fromsuch income is specifically exempt fromtax liability under 80 HHC.

With respect to the export financingprograms, the respondents stated thatunder these schemes, the GOI providesexporters with short-term exportlending to finance their working capitalrequirements. The respondents’contention that as a result of suchfinancing, an exporter realizes areduction of interest expenses which inturn increases profits on export sales, isspeculative. It is incorrect forrespondents to assume that every rupeesaved on interest costs increases theprofits of the company by one rupee andtherefore, the concessional financingprograms increase the 80 HHCdeduction since the deduction increasesas profits from exports increase. Thus,we find no basis for the respondents’argument that, by countervailing theexport financing programs and the 80HHC deduction in full, the benefit to theexporter from the financing programs isbeing countervailed twice.

In regard to the sale of importlicenses, the record is void of anyindication that the profit a companyrealizes from the sale of an importlicense is exempt from tax liability.What evidence respondents did put onthe record shows, for example, thatCarnation Industries reported anddocumented on the record that therevenue it earned from the sale of animport licence during the review periodwas taxed by the State of West Bengal.Therefore, we find no basis for therespondents’ argument that revenueearned from the sale of an importlicense constitutes export income, theprofits from which may be deductedfrom taxable income under 80 HHC.Accordingly, we determine that thesubsidy from the import license sale isnot being double-counted by alsocountervailing in full the 80 HHC taxdeduction.

Comment 5: Exclusion of IncomeEarned on Non-Subject Merchandise

According to respondents, where acompany was able to break downrevenues relating to subject castingsversus revenues relating to non-subjectmerchandise, the Department shouldhave calculated the 80 HHC subsidybased on revenues and profits relating tosubject castings only. Respondentsassert that by not factoring out


incentives received on sales ofmerchandise other than subject castings,the subsidies found to be conferred bythe 80 HHC program are greater thanthey ought to be. The respondentssubmit that it is ultra vires tocountervail income earned onmerchandise other than subject castingsbecause only subject castings arecovered by the order.

Respondents claim that twocompanies, Kejriwal Iron & Steel(Kejriwal) and R.B. Agarwalla & Co.(R.B. Agarwalla) were able to breakdown revenues relating to subjectcastings versus revenues relating to non-subject merchandise. Kejriwalsubmitted a calculation showing exportincentives received on sales of non-subject merchandise. The companyfactored out these incentives whencalculating the benefit the 80 HHCprogram provided to subject castings.R.B. Agarwalla submitted an 80 HHCcalculation demonstrating that a portionof its income was directly related tonon-subject merchandise, andsubtracted out this income indetermining the benefit to subjectcastings provided by the tax program.Respondents assert, for thesecompanies, the Department shouldrevise its 80 HHC calculationscountervailing only the income earnedon subject castings.

Respondents note that the CAFC inKajaria, stated that the Departmentimproperly included revenue receivedon non-subject castings in determiningthe countervailing duty to be imposedon subject castings. See Kajaria, No. 97–1490 at 25–27. Respondents state thatthough the court’s decision related toIPRS rebates received on non-subjectcastings, the court’s ruling on the non-countervailability of tax deductionsrelating to non-subject castings appliesto this review since the exportersreceived revenue on non-subjectcastings during the period of review.Therefore, in keeping with the decisionin Kajaria, the Department shouldrecalculate the 80 HHC benefit bydeducting all revenues received on non-subject castings for those companieswhich were able to break downrevenues relating to subject castingsversus non-subject merchandise.

Petitioners note the respondents’argument has been rejected in priorreviews. Since the facts of this revieware no different from the prior reviews,the Department should continue itspolicy of allocating the benefit from the80 HHC program over total exports. The80 HHC program is an export subsidyand the benefits provided under thisprogram are not tied to the productionor sale of a particular product or

products. Petitioners assert that it doesnot matter whether an exporter is ableto separate its revenues between subjectand non-subject castings, because the 80HHC program is an ‘‘untied’’ subsidyprogram.

Department’s PositionWe disagree with respondents that for

the final results the Department shouldrevise its benefit calculations for the 80HHC tax exemption program in light ofKajaria. The circumstances and therecord developed in this review aredifferent from those in the case ofKajaria. In Kajaria, the Court ruled thatthe record showed that the IPRS rebatesfor non-subject merchandise weredeemed by the GOI to be export income.Further, the Court found that profitsderived from that export income werespecifically exempt from income taxliability under the 80 HHC program. Inshort, rebates specifically identified asexport income under one program weredirectly linked to the exemption fromtax liability of profits derived from suchexport income under another subsidyprogram. It is clear from the CAFC’sopinion that its holding was limited tothe particular circumstances in Kajaria.The facts and record in this review arenot the same as those in Kajaria. Thus,no revision to the 80 HHC benefitcalculation is warranted.

During this administrative review, noexporter submitted information for therecord which demonstrated that IPRSrebates were received for the sale ofnon-subject merchandise to the UnitedStates. In fact, no exporter submittedinformation that demonstrated that anyalleged benefits received for non-subjectmerchandise were expresslydenominated as export income, and thatthe profits derived from such exportincome were expressly exempt from taxliability under the 80 HHC program.

As mentioned above, respondentsclaim that the export incentives whichKejriwal received on the sale of non-subject merchandise should be factoredout of the Department’s calculation ofthe benefit to subject castings from the80 HHC tax deduction. We disagreewith the respondents. Kejriwal providedno documentation on the record tosupport its claim that the exportincentives received were in fact exportincome earned on the sale of non-subject merchandise. Further, nowhereon the record does Kejriwal or the GOIindicate that export incentives areexport income and that the section 80HHC specifically exempts profitsderived from that export income.Because the record is void of suchinformation, we have not modified the80 HHC benefit calculation for Kejriwal

to exclude, from the computation, theseexport incentives.

In like manner, R.B. Agarwalla didnot provide any documentation tosupport its claim that a portion of itsincome listed as duty drawbackreceived on non-subject merchandise isspecifically denominated as exportincome by the GOI. There is noinformation on the record whichindicates that duty drawback isconsidered to be export income and thatthe section 80 HHC specifically exemptsthe profits derived from that income.Therefore, we have not made anyadjustments to the 80 HHC benefitcalculation for R.B. Agarwalla to takeinto account the duty drawback thecompany received on non-subjectmerchandise.

The burden of creating an adequaterecord lies with respondents and notwith the Department. NTN BearingCorp. of America v. United States, 997F.2d 1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1993),quoting Tianjin Mach. Import & ExportCorp. v. United States, 806 F. Supp.1008, 1015 (CIT 1992). In this review,neither Kejriwal nor R.B. Agarwalladeveloped such a record with respect tothe Kajaria-type adjustment they arerequesting. Moreover, the Departmentneed not engage in any kind of subsidytracing exercise. On this point, theCAFC was very clear:

[W]e are mindful of the government’sargument that Commerce does not engage insubsidy tracing because of the burdeninvolved in sorting the tax treatment ofsubsidies. Again, our decision does not meanthat in every review or investigationCommerce must trace the tax treatment ofsubsidies on non-subject merchandise whena tax deduction results in a countervailablesubsidy to determine if the deduction ispartially based on the subsidy on non-subjectmerchandise.

Kajaria, No. 97–1490 at 27.Accordingly, the Department has notmade any adjustment to the 80 HHCcalculations in the final results of thisreview to determine the subsidybestowed on exports of the subjectmerchandise. Because respondents didnot provide to the Departmentdocumentation with respect to exportprofits derived from export incomeearned on non-subject merchandisewhich is specifically exempt under the80 HHC, we have continued to employour ‘‘untied’’ benefit methodology tocalculate the net subsidy attributable toexports of the subject merchandise forthose exporters which claimed the 80HHC tax deduction during the period ofreview. It is the Department’s consistentand long-standing practice to attribute abenefit from an export subsidy that isnot tied to a particular product or


market to all products exported by afirm. See, e.g., Final AffirmativeCountervailing Duty Determination:Certain Pasta from Turkey, 61 FR 30366,30370, (June 14, 1996) (Pasta fromTurkey), and the 1994 Castings Final, 62FR 32303.

When an exporter cannot demonstrateto the Department that a subsidy is tiedto specific merchandise, then the benefitis not tied to any specific productmanufactured or exported by a firm, andtherefore, the benefit is ‘‘firm-wide.’’ Ifa subsidy is firm-wide and not ‘‘tied’’ tospecific merchandise, then the benefitfrom that subsidy is allocated over thefirm’s total exports, in the case of anexport subsidy. By allocating the‘‘untied’’ benefit provided under the 80HHC over a company’s total exports, weare making an ‘‘apples-to-apples’’comparison. This ‘‘untied’’ benefitmethodology accurately produces thenet subsidy attributable to exports of thesubject merchandise and provides forfair results. For these reasons, ourcalculation of the subsidy under section80 HHC remains unchanged from thepreliminary results.

Even if Kejriwal and R.B. Agarwallademonstrated to the Department thattheir respective export incentives andduty drawback were in fact exportincome earned on non-subjectmerchandise (with respect to dutydrawback, documentation would alsohave to indicate that imported pig ironwas not incorporated into the subjectmerchandise) and that the 80 HHCspecifically exempts profits derivedfrom that export income, eachcompany’s net program subsidy ratewould remain essentially unchanged.By factoring out export incomeattributable to non-subject merchandisefrom the 80 HHC deduction, we wouldadjust the benefit (the numerator) toreflect the 80 HHC tax deductionattributable to subject merchandiseonly. Because adjusting the benefit inthis manner is contrary to theDepartment’s long-standing practicewith regard to the attribution ofsubsidies and our tying principles, wewould then have to adjust thedenominator. Since the numeratorwould reflect only subject merchandise,we would follow our long-standingprinciples for attribution, and divide therecalculated benefit only by exports ofsubject merchandise to determine thenet subsidy rate for each company. Onceall income attributable to non-subjectmerchandise is factored out of thecalculation of the benefit, the amountthat remains would be attributablesolely to subject merchandise. As noted,the adjustments made would affect boththe numerator and denominator and

would result, in this proceeding, in netsubsidy rates identical to the ratesobtained by the Department’s currentmethodology of considering the benefitof the 80 HHC program as ‘‘untied.’’

Comment 6: Penalty Interest PaidAccording to respondents, in

calculating the benefits received bycastings exporters from post-shipmentexport loans, the Department failed totake into account penalty interest paidat interest rates higher than thebenchmark. Respondents argue thatwhere a company paid interest on loansat rates both less than and greater thanthe benchmark rate, all interest—including the overdue penalty interestpaid at rates greater than the benchmarkrate—needs to be taken into accountwhen determining the actual benefit tothe company from the loans. Therespondents assert that the methodologyemployed by the Department virtuallyeliminates the overdue penalty interestpaid from the calculation of the benefitfrom the post-shipment export loans.

The preliminary calculationsdemonstrate that where an export loanwas initially taken at a preferential rate,the Department calculated the interestpaid at the preferential interest rate andcompared it to interest that would havebeen paid at the benchmark rate.Respondents argue that thismethodology does not take into accountall the interest paid by the exporter onthe loan since it ignores overdue interestthat the exporter may also have paid onthe loan.

Respondents assert that theDepartment should have adjusted thebenefit on the post-shipment exportloans by the excess overdue interestpaid by the company at the penaltyinterest rate, because that rate is greaterthan the benchmark rate. Rather thanaccount for the excess interest paid onthe loans, the Department calculated azero benefit where the interest rate onthe portion of the loan overdue washigher than the benchmark rate. Therespondents argue that the Departmentshould correct its methodology so as totake into account the overdue penaltyinterest paid on the loans, because thebenefit received by an exporter on anyparticular loan is a function of both theinterest paid at a rate lower than thebenchmark and the additional interestpaid at a rate higher than thebenchmark.

Petitioners state that the Departmentshould reject the respondents’methodology for calculating thecountervailable benefit under the exportfinancing programs, because it wouldpermit a non-allowable offset to thecountervailable benefit under the

programs. In addition, petitioners arguethat respondents fail to explain why anoffset for penalty interest should beallowed when payment of that interestdoes not fall within the statute’s list ofallowable offsets under section 771(6) ofthe Act.

The penalty interest, petitionersassert, merely assures that the terms ofthe program are met. The costsassociated with such penalty interestcharges are, therefore, due to therecipient’s failure to comply with theterms of the loan. The penalty which isbased on the company’s non-compliance with the terms of theprogram, represents nothing more thana secondary economic effect. Petitionersnote that the Department has previouslydetermined that a secondary economiceffect should not be used as an offset toa program’s benefit. See, e.g., OilCountry Tubular Goods from Canada;Final Affirmative Countervailing DutyDetermination, 51 FR 15037 (April 22,1986), Fabricas El Carmen, S.A. v.United States, 672 F. Supp. 1465 (CIT1987), vacated in part (on othergrounds), Fabricas El Carmen, S.A. v.United States, 680 F. Supp. 1577 (CIT1988).

Petitioners further note that theDepartment has, in a comparablesituation, refused to offset preferentialwith non-preferential loans. See OilCountry Tubular Goods from Argentina;Final Results of Countervailing DutyAdministrative Reviews, 56 FR 38116,38117 (August 12, 1991) (OCTG fromArgentina). In that case, respondentsclaimed that a loan-by-loan analysisoverstated the benefit received and that,taken together, the loans received by thecompany provided no preferentialbenefit. In rejecting this argument, theDepartment asserted:

[I]t only examines loans received underprograms that may potentially becounteravailable [sic] if the interest rate ispreferential when compared with thebenchmark interest rate. We do notconsolidate these preferential loans withnon-countervailable commercial loans toexamine whether the aggregate interest ratepaid on a series of loans is preferential. It isnot the Department’s practice to offset theless favorable terms of one loan as an offsetto another, preferential loan.

Id. Petitioners argue that, byextension, the Department cannot,under the terms of the statute, offset theless favorable interest period of a loan(the period during which the loan wasoverdue) with the period in which theloan was provided on preferential terms.This is particularly the case, petitionersstate, when the higher penalty interestwas a result of the company’s failure tocomply with the terms of the program.


Therefore, the Department is correct incalculating a zero benefit during theperiod in which the penalty rateexceeded the benchmark rate.

Department’s PositionAn adjustment to the benefit under

the export financing programs in theform advocated by respondents wouldbe an impermissible offset to the benefit.In accordance with section 771(6) of theAct, the Department may subtract fromthe gross countervailable subsidy theamount of:

(A) Any application fee, deposit, or similarpayment paid in order to qualify for, or toreceive, the benefit of the countervailablesubsidy,

(B) Any loss in the value of thecountervailable subsidy resulting from itsdeferred receipt, if the deferral is mandatedby Government order, and

(C) Export taxes, duties, or other chargeslevied on the export of merchandise to theUnited States specifically intended to offsetthe countervailable subsidy received.

As petitioners correctly note, penaltyinterest under the export financingprograms does not fall within this list ofallowable offsets.

Additionally, in light of how the post-shipment export financing programsoperate, respondents’ approach isinaccurate. As we explained in thepreliminary results, exporters discounttheir export bills with Indiancommercial banks to finance theiroperations. See Certain Iron MetalCastings from India; Preliminary Resultsof Administrative Review, 63 FR 37536(July 13, 1998) (1996 Castings Prelim).By discounting an export bill, thecompany receives payment from thebank in the amount of the export bill,net of interest charges. The loan isconsidered ‘‘paid’’ once the foreigncurrency proceeds from an export saleare received by the bank. If thoseproceeds are not paid within thenegotiated period, then the loan isconsidered ‘‘overdue.’’ In essence,however, this overdue period is a newloan, because the original ‘‘discountedloan period’’ is fully accounted for, thatis, the company has received paymentfrom the bank and the interest on thatpayment has already been deducted. Forthe overdue loan, the bank will chargethe company interest on the originalamount of the loan at a higher interestrate. The overdue interest rate variesdepending on the period for which theloan is overdue. To determine whetherinterest charged on the ‘‘overdue’’ loanconfers a countervailable benefit, wecompared the overdue interest rate withthe benchmark rate. If the overdueinterest rate was higher than thebenchmark rate, we found no benefit.

Therefore, the adjustment suggested byrespondents is inappropriate given theway in which the export financingprograms operate.

Comment 7: Company-SpecificBenchmarks

Respondents disagree with theDepartment’s use of a company-specificbenchmark interest rate for determiningthe benefits which Calcutta Ferrous andCrescent Foundry respectively receivedunder the pre- and post-shipment exportfinancing programs. Respondents notethat, for companies which did not havecommercial short-term loans during thereview period, the Department used asits benchmark the ‘‘cash credit’’ short-term interest rate which was providedby the GOI.

Respondents argue that sincecommercial loans were available toborrowers at the cash credit rate duringthe review period, it was inappropriateto use a higher rate as a benchmark forCalcutta Ferrous and Crescent Foundrymerely because these companiesborrowed at rates higher than the cashcredit rate on certain commercial loans.It is the respondents’ contention that,where a company borrows at a ratewhich is lower than the commonbenchmark, it is appropriate to use thelower, company-specific rate. However,where a company borrows at a ratehigher than the common commercialrate, then the higher rate should not bethe benchmark used for that company.Respondents argue that there is noreason to assume that a company, whichhappened to borrow at a higher rate,could not have taken loans at the lowerrate during the period of review, andtherefore, the Department should usethe lower commercial rate. Thus, theDepartment should cap CalcuttaFerrous’ and Crescent Foundry’sbenchmark rate at the level of the cashcredit short-term interest rate which wasfound available to borrowers in Indiaduring the period of review.

Petitioners state that the respondents’argument should be rejected as it isinconsistent with the Department’spreferred benchmark methodology. Asdirected by the Act, the Department isto measure the benefit obtained througha loan program by finding the‘‘difference between the amount therecipient of the loan pays on the loanand the amount the recipient would payon a comparable commercial loan thatthe recipient could actually obtain onthe market.’’ See section 771(5)(E)(ii) ofthe Act. In measuring the benefit, it isthe Department’s preference to usecompany-specific rates where availableand to use national averages (such as thecash credit rate) only in the event that

the investigated firm did not take outany comparable commercial loansduring the period. See Preamble to theProposed Regulations, 62 FR 8829, 8830(February 26, 1997). By using acompany-specific benchmark rate forthose companies which received, andpaid interest on, short-term workingcapital loans obtained on the marketduring the period of review, theDepartment appropriately followedstatutory and regulatory policy. For theremaining companies which did notreceive, and pay interest on, comparablecommercial loans, the Department used,as a benchmark, the next best rate, thenational-average cash credit rate.

Petitioners further state that therespondents’ argument is not inaccordance with the Department’sstatutory guidelines, since, in certaincases, respondents’ methodology wouldsubstitute the second best (i.e., anational average rate) when the first bestalternative (i.e., a company-specific rate)is available. The respondents’ proposedapproach is simply a results-orientedargument designed to lower thecountervailing duty rate applied toshort-term, preferential loan programs.Moreover, it is mere speculation on thepart of respondents to claim thatcompanies which borrow at rates abovethe national-average rate could alsoborrow at the lower rate. Petitionerscontend that it is this type of ambiguitythat the statute and regulations addressand therefore, the Department mustreject respondents’ proposed approach.

Department’s PositionWe disagree with the respondents’

argument that the Department usedinappropriately high benchmarks tocalculate the benefits from the pre- andpost-shipment export financingprograms for Calcutta Ferrous andCrescent Foundry. As stated in section771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act, in the case of aloan, a benefit is conferred ‘‘if there isa difference between the amount therecipient of the loan pays on the loanand the amount the recipient would payon a comparable commercial loan thatthe recipient could actually obtain onthe market’’ (emphasis added).

During the review period, four of thetwelve respondent companies received,and paid interest on, domestic workingcapital loans which were obtained in acommercial banking market.Accordingly, for these four companies,we used as our benchmark indetermining the benefits each companyreceived under the export financingprograms, a company-specific rate; thisbenchmark was a weight-averaged ratebased on the interest rates eachcompany paid on its respective


commercial working capital loans. It isthe Department’s policy to use acompany-specific benchmark rate indetermining the benefit conferred by agovernment program. See, e.g.,Industrial Phosphoric Acid from Israel;Final Results of Countervailing DutyAdministrative Review, 63 FR 13626,13634 (comment 9) (March 9, 1998).

For all other respondent companieswhich did not receive, and pay intereston, comparable commercial loansduring the period of review, we used asour benchmark the next bestalternative—the national-average ‘‘cashcredit’’ rate. In the 1994 administrativereview of this order, the Departmentdetermined that, in the absence of acompany-specific benchmark, the most‘‘comparable’’ short-term benchmark tomeasure the benefit under the exportfinancing programs, is the cash creditinterest rate. The cash credit interestrate is for domestic working capitalfinance and thus, comparable to pre-and post-shipment export financing.

Respondents argue that sincecommercial loans were available at thecash credit rate during the reviewperiod, it was inappropriate for theDepartment to use higher benchmarkrates for Calcutta Ferrous and CrescentFoundry simply because thesecompanies borrowed at higher rates oncertain loans. As noted above, it is theDepartment’s policy to use, whendetermining the benefit conferred by aloan provided under a governmentprogram, the interest rate a companywould have paid on a comparable loanobtained on the market. During thereview period, both Calcutta Ferrousand Crescent Foundry obtainedcommercial loans on the market. Themarket determined the interest rates atwhich these companies could borrow,and those rates were higher than thenational-average cash credit rate.Respondents state that the Departmentshould not assume that a companywhich happened to borrow at a ratehigher than the national-average couldnot have taken loans at the lower rateduring the period, and therefore, theDepartment should use the lowercommercial rate. We find no basis forthis argument. If Calcutta Ferrous andCrescent Foundry actually could haveborrowed at the national-average rate,then the interest rates charged by thebanks on the commercial loans wouldhave reflected that. The fact that theydid not is an indication that they couldnot. It would be unreasonable to expecta company to incur higher thannecessary costs. Therefore, we disagreewith respondents’ argument that theDepartment should cap CalcuttaFerrous’ and Crescent Foundry’s

company-specific benchmark rates atthe level of the cash credit rate.

Comment 8: Countervailability ofAdvance Licenses

Petitioners argue that the Departmentimproperly failed to countervailAdvance Licenses which, they contend,are export subsidies. According topetitioners, Advance Licenses constitutea countervailable subsidy within themeaning of Item (a) of the IllustrativeList, which defines one type of exportsubsidy as ‘‘[t]he provision bygovernments of direct subsidies to anyfirm or any industry contingent uponexport performance.’’ Because AdvanceLicenses are issued to companies basedon their status as exporters, and becauseproducts imported under such licensesare duty-free, petitioners state theselicenses provide a subsidy based on therequirement that an export obligation bemet.

Petitioners claim that the Departmenthas in this, as in prior reviews,mistakenly confused the nature of theAdvance License program with a dutydrawback program. For a duty drawbackprogram not to be countervailed, it mustmeet certain conditions as outlined inItem (i) of the Illustrative List. Item (i)provides that ‘‘[t]he remission ordrawback of import charges [must notbe] in excess of those levied onimported goods that are consumed inthe production of the exported products(making normal allowance for waste).’’This condition, according to petitioners,has not been met with respect to theAdvance License program because theGOI makes no attempt to determine theamount of the imported duty-freematerial that is consumed in theproduction of the exported product.

According to petitioners, there is noevidence on which to base a conclusionthat the amount of raw materialsimported was not excessive vis-a-vis theproducts exported. The GOI’s concernthat a sufficient amount of value hasbeen added to the exported productsdoes not regulate the amount of rawmaterials incorporated to the exports.Petitioners argue that the yardstick usedby the GOI for measuring compliancewith the Advance License program fallsshort of any determination of whetherthe amount of raw materials importedwas excessive in relation to the amountof raw materials found in the exportedcastings.

Petitioners further argue that noevidence on the record demonstratesthat the GOI attempts to determine thegrade of pig iron being imported orexported, and without knowing thisinformation, the amount of pig ironconsumed in the production of exported

subject castings cannot be ascertained.Additionally, the GOI’s system of fixing‘‘input/output norms’’ is hamperedbecause exporters, who experiencedelays in the delivery of raw materialinputs imported under an AdvanceLicense, may purchase the inputs on thedomestic market. Thus, there is no wayto ensure that the amount of rawmaterials imported was not excessive inrelation to the amount of raw materialsfound in the exported castings.

Moreover, petitioners argue that anexporter’s ability to transfer AdvanceLicenses to other companies is furtherevidence that this program is notequivalent to a drawback programbecause the licenses are not solelylimited to the importation of duty-freematerials. The GOI permits AdvanceLicenses to be transferred betweencompanies under certain conditions andwhen transferring a license, an exporterwould receive in return a monetarypayment. For this and the above-indicated reasons, petitioners state thatthe Department should countervail infull the value of Advance Licensesreceived by the respondents during theperiod of review.

Respondents explain that the purposeof the Advance License scheme is toallow for the importation of rawmaterials duty free for the production ofexported products. They state that ifIndian exporters did not have AdvanceLicenses, the exporters would simplyimport the raw materials, pay duty, andthen receive drawback upon export.Respondents argue that just becauseAdvance Licenses are slightly differentfrom a duty drawback system, in thatthey allow duty free imports rather thanprovide for remittance of duty uponexportation, does not make themcountervailable.

In response to the petitioners’ claimthat the GOI makes no attempt todetermine the amount of importedmaterial that is consumed in theproduction of exported products,respondents counter that the GOI doesmaintain such checks which have beenverified by the Department in priorreviews. Respondents note that in priorreviews the Department has never foundexcessive imports, and this is one of thereasons why Advance Licenses have notbeen found to be countervailable. See1994 Castings Final.

Respondents refute petitioners’ claimthat the GOI is concerned only withensuring that a sufficient amount ofvalue is added to exported products.According to respondents, the questionof value of exports arises only indetermining whether an exporter iseligible to receive an Advance License.Respondents also rebut petitioners’


claim that the GOI does not attempt todetermine the grade of pig ironimported or exported. They state if moreexpensive grades of pig iron wereimported than exported, and the pigiron was sold for a premium in thedomestic market instead of producingexported castings, then the premiummight be a subsidy. However, therespondent companies did not selldomestically any imported pig iron,rather they used it to produce castingsfor export. Additionally, respondentsstate that if a license was transferred fora fee during the review period, thismight be a subsidy. However, in thisreview, all the licenses were used toimport pig iron duty free for exportedfinished castings. Therefore, for thesereasons, the Department should rejectthe petitioners’ arguments regarding theAdvance License scheme, and onceagain find the program to be a non-countervailable equivalent to dutydrawback.

Department’s PositionAs we have discussed in prior

reviews, petitioners have only pointedout the administrative differencesbetween a duty drawback system andthe Advance License scheme used byIndian exporters. See 1994 CastingsFinal. Such administrative differencescan also be found between a dutydrawback system and a bondedwarehouse. Each of these systems hasthe same function: each exists so thatexporters may import raw materials tobe consumed in the production of anexported product without theassessment of import duties.

The purpose of the Advance Licenseprogram is to allow a company toimport raw materials used in theproduction of an exported productwithout first having to pay duty.Companies importing under AdvanceLicenses are obligated to export theproducts made using the duty-freeimports. Item (i) of the Illustrative Listspecifies that the remission or drawbackof import duties levied on importedgoods that are consumed in theproduction of an exported product isnot a countervailable subsidy, if theremission or drawback is not excessive.

In prior reviews, we have determinedthat Advance Licenses are equivalent toduty drawback. The licenses allowcompanies to import, net of duty, rawmaterials which are physicallyincorporated into the exported products.Further, we have found no evidence inthis review, or in a prior review, thatimports under Advance Licenses havebeen excessive, or that castingsexporters have transferred such licenses.Accordingly, our determination that the

provision of Advance Licenses is notcountervailable remains unchanged forthis review. However, if in a futurereview of this order, new informationbecomes available to the Department inregard to the manner in which theAdvance License program operates, wewill reevaluate at that time ourdetermination of the program’s non-countervailability.

Comment 9: Countervailability of theDuty Entitlement Passbook Scheme

Petitioners state the GOI hasestablished during this review periodthe Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme(Passbook Scheme) which is related tothe Advance Licence scheme.Petitioners contend that this newscheme extends the export subsidiesprovided under the Advance Licenseprogram and therefore is similarlycountervailable. The purpose of thePassbook Scheme, which commenced inApril 1996, is to widen the AdvanceLicense program, giving exportersgreater flexibility in paying importduties. See Memo to Barbara Tillman:Verification of the Government ofIndia’s Questionnaire Response in the1996 Administrative Review at 9, datedJune 29, 1998, (public version) on file inthe Central Records Unit of theDepartment of Commerce (Room B–099)(GOI VR). Upon the exportation of goodsby a Passbook holder, the GOI‘‘calculates, on the basis of standardinput/output norms, the deemed importcontent of the exports and determinesthe basic customs duty payable on thoseimports.’’ Id. at 8. The Passbook holder,upon receiving credit for the equivalentamount of the customs duty from theGOI, can ‘‘pay the customs duties onany imported goods,’’ not just the dutieson the imported goods from which thecredits were originally determined. Id.at 8.

Consequently, petitioners argue, justas with the Advance License program,the Passbook Scheme lacks an adequatemonitoring system to ensure that thecredits provided to Passbook holders arenot excessive. No evidence on therecord demonstrates that the GOIattempts to determine the grade of pigiron either imported or exported in thefinished goods to ensure that theamount of input material exportedequals the amount imported. Moreover,the flexibility exporters have in usingthe Passbook credits to pay duties onany imports highlights that the PassbookScheme is very much unlike atraditional duty drawback program.Therefore, petitioners assert that theDepartment should find the PassbookScheme countervailable.

Respondents state the PassbookScheme, like the Advance Licenseprogram, operates in a mannerequivalent to a duty drawback programallowing for imports of pig iron whichis consumed in the production ofexported castings. Therefore, thePassbook Scheme, for the same reasonsas the Advance License program, is nota countervailable subsidy. Respondentsargue that simply because the PassbookScheme has been referred to as an‘‘export incentive’’ does not make it acountervailable subsidy. Duty Drawbackof Excise Duty, the Advance Licenseprogram, and the Passbook Scheme areall ‘‘export incentives’’ because they arefor exports; however, they are not, as theDepartment has previously determined,countervailable subsidies unless theyprovide excessive rebates.

Respondents further state that if thecastings exporters did, in fact, use theirPassbook credits to import productsother than pig iron, a subsidy mightexist; however, there is no evidence onthe record that this was done by any ofthe castings exporters. Therefore, basedon the reasons presented, theDepartment should find the PassbookScheme, like the Advance Licenseprogram, to be a non-countervailableequivalent to the duty drawbackprogram.

Department’s PositionPetitioners first alleged that the

Passbook Scheme might be an exportsubsidy in their May 27, 1998 letter tothe Department. See Letter in regard toPre-verification Comments at 12, datedMay 27, 1998, public version of theletter is on file in the Central RecordsUnit of the Department of Commerce(Room B–099). In accordance withsection 351.301(d)(4)(B) of theDepartment’s regulations, we found thepetitioners’ allegation of a new exportsubsidy to be untimely. See Memo to theFile: Untimely Allegations of NewSubsidies, dated June 5, 1998 on file inthe Central Records Unit of theDepartment of Commerce (Room B–099). Because the allegation wasuntimely, we rejected petitioners’subsidy allegation with respect to thePassbook Scheme in this review. Duringthe June 1, 1998 verification meetingwith the GOI, the Passbook Scheme wasdiscussed as an extension of theDepartment’s inquiry of the AdvanceLicense program. However, because thePassbook Scheme was not a programunder examination in this review, theDepartment did not obtain enoughinformation to analyze whether thescheme is, or is not, a countervailablesubsidy. If a future review of this orderis requested by petitioners, we will


examine whether to initiate on thePassbook Scheme provided thatpetitioners file their allegation on atimely basis.

Comment 10: Kajaria’s Long-TermLoans From the IDBI

Petitioners assert that the Departmenterred in the preliminary results of thisreview by not addressing the long-termloan assistance which Kajaria IronCastings (Kajaria) received from theIndustrial Development Bank of India(IDBI). Petitioners argue that the loanassistance is countervailable because (1)it is provided by the government; (2) itis export-oriented; (3) it allows aprincipal repayment holiday; and (4) itis likely provided on preferential terms.

To begin with, petitioners state,according to the agency’s substantiveregulations, the Department willinvestigate a loan provided by agovernment-owned bank only when the‘‘government-owned bank provided theloan at the direction of the governmentor with funds provided by thegovernment.’’ See proposed 19 CFR355.44(b)(9)(ii), 54 FR 23366, 23381(May 31, 1989). Since the GOI owes 74percent of the IDBI’s shares and 10 outof the 16 IDBI board members aregovernment employees, petitionerscontend this criterion is satisfied. SeeGOI VR at 10.

Petitioners further assert thatevidence on the record demonstratesthat the long-term loan was export-oriented. Petitioners note that duringverification Kajaria officials stated thatthe company exports all of itsmerchandise. See Memo to BarbaraTillman: Verification of Kajaria IronCastings Ltd.’s Questionnaire Responsein the 1996 Administrative Review at 2,dated June 29, 1998, (public version) onfile in the Central Records Unit of theDepartment of Commerce (Room B–099)(Kajaria VR).

Petitioners also argue that there is noevidence on the record to demonstratethat Kajaria’s principal repaymentschedule is normal with respect tocommercial, long-term lending. Inaddition, petitioners state that bothKajaria and the GOI failed todemonstrate at verification that the loanwas provided on commercial terms. TheGOI simply stated at verification that‘‘[t]here is no consistency in regard tothe interest rates or terms andconditions offered by banks on long-term financing.’’ See GOI VR at 12.According to petitioners, it is likely thatalternative long-term rates weresignificantly higher than the rate Kajariareceived, as most of the short-termfinancing reported by the respondingcompanies ranged as high as 22 percent.

For these reasons, petitioners urge theDepartment to countervail the long-termloan assistance which Kajaria receivedfrom the IDBI.

Respondents contend that the loansreceived by Kajaria were not providedon terms ‘‘inconsistent with commercialconsiderations,’’ which is the criterionfor finding such loans countervailable.See proposed regulations 19 CFR355.44(b)(9)(ii), 54 FR at 23381.Respondents assert that a grace periodbefore paying principal is consistentwith commercial, long-term loans. Manycommercial loans permit a grace periodfor repayment of principal until thefacility, for which the loan was taken, isoperational. This was, in fact, the reasonfor the delayed payment of principal onKajaria’s loan.

With respect to petitioners’ argumentthat there was an ‘‘additional benefit’’owing to the interest rate Kajaria paidon the loan, respondents state thatshort-term loans are more often than notprovided at rates higher than those onlong-term loans. Long-term constructionloans are often secured by the facilitybeing built, and this generally results inlower, not higher rates. Respondentsalso note that the Reserve Bank of Indiastated at verification that commerciallong-term rates are ‘‘usually lower thanboth the prime lending rate and the cashcredit rate.’’ See GOI VR at 12.

Further, respondents argue thatpetitioners’ statement that Kajaria’sexport-orientation had any bearing onthe approval of the loan is purespeculation. Respondents argue thatthere is nothing in the loan documentsprovided by Kajaria or in the company’sverification report to suggest that theloan was contingent upon exports orthat Kajaria’s ‘‘export-orientation’’ wastaken into account by the lenders. Infact, the IDBI specifically stated atverification that ‘‘the project financinggiven to Kajaria was not tied to anyexpectation of exports.’’ Id. at 11.Therefore, the Department should rejectpetitioners’ arguments relating toKajaria’s long-term loans provided bythe IDBI.

Department’s PositionAt our verification meeting with

Kajaria officials, we inquired about thelong-term loans which the companyreceived from the IDBI. The officialsexplained that these long-term loanswere received for the construction of apig iron plant, which commencedproduction in February 1998. Howeverthere was insufficient time remainingbefore the scheduled date of the finalresults of this review to fully examineKajaria’s long-term financing. Therefore,in accordance with section 351.311(c)(2)

of the Department’s regulations, we aredeferring an examination of Kajaria’slong-term loans from the IDBI until afuture administrative review of thecompany is requested.

Final Results of Review

In accordance with 19 CFR351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated anindividual subsidy rate for eachproducer/exporter subject to thisadministrative review. For the periodJanuary 1, 1996 through December 31,1996, we determine the net subsidy forthe reviewed companies to be asfollows:


Net sub-sidy

rate—percent

Calcutta Ferrous Ltd ..................... 3.48Carnation Industries Ltd ............... 3.32Commex Corporation .................... 5.33Crescent Foundry Co. Pvt. Ltd ..... 4.98Dinesh Brothers Pvt. Ltd .............. 3.27Kajaria Iron Castings Pvt. Ltd ....... 1.69Kejriwal Iron & Steel Works Pvt.

Ltd ............................................. 12.76Nandikeshwari Iron Foundry Pvt.

Ltd ............................................. 4.41Overseas Iron Foundry ................. 3.74R.B. Agarwalla & Company Pvt.

Ltd ............................................. 3.64RSI Limited ................................... 3.63Seramapore Industries Pvt. Ltd .... 5.54Shree Rama Enterprise ................ 10.85Super Iron Foundry ....................... 3.32Uma Iron & Steel .......................... 1.38Victory Castings Ltd ...................... 3.05

We will instruct the U.S. CustomsService (Customs) to assesscountervailing duties as indicatedabove. The Department will alsoinstruct Customs to collect cashdeposits of estimated countervailingduties in the percentages detailed belowof the f.o.b. invoice price on allshipments of the subject merchandisefrom reviewed companies, entered orwithdrawn from warehouse, forconsumption on or after the date ofpublication of the final results of thisreview. As discussed in the 1996Castings Prelim, the GOI terminated thePSCFC scheme effective February 8,1996. All PSCFC loans received byrespondents were repaid in theirentirety (principal and interest) duringthe period of review. We verified that noresidual benefits have been provided orreceived, and there is no evidence thata substitute program has beenestablished. Therefore, in determiningthe cash deposit rates for the fivecastings producers/exporters whichused the PSCFC program, we have notincluded the subsidy conferred by thisprogram during the review period. We


determine that the cash deposit rates forthe reviewed companies are as follows:


Net sub-sidy

rate—percent

Calcutta Ferrous Ltd ..................... 3.46Carnation Industries Ltd ............... 3.32Commex Corporation .................... 5.33Crescent Foundry Co. Pvt. Ltd ..... 4.98Dinesh Brothers Pvt. Ltd .............. 3.22Kajaria Iron Castings Pvt. Ltd ....... 1.69Kejriwal Iron & Steel Works Pvt.

Ltd ............................................. 12.76Nandikeshwari Iron Foundry Pvt.

Ltd ............................................. 4.33Overseas Iron Foundry ................. 3.74R.B. Agarwalla & Company Pvt.

Ltd ............................................. 3.53RSI Limited ................................... 3.55Seramapore Industries Pvt. Ltd .... 5.54Shree Rama Enterprise ................ 10.85Super Iron Foundry ....................... 3.32Uma Iron & Steel .......................... 1.38Victory Castings Ltd ...................... 3.05

Because the URAA replaced thegeneral rule in favor of a country-widerate with a general rule in favor ofindividual rates for investigated andreviewed companies, the procedures forestablishing countervailing duty rates,including those for non-reviewedcompanies, are now essentially the sameas those in antidumping cases, except asprovided for in section 777A(e)(2)(B) ofthe Act. The requested review willnormally cover only those companiesspecifically named. See 19 CFR351.213(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR351.212(c), for all companies for whicha review was not requested, duties mustbe assessed at the cash deposit rate, andcash deposits must continue to becollected, at the rate previously ordered.As such, the countervailing duty cashdeposit rate applicable to a companycan no longer change, except pursuantto a request for a review of thatcompany. See Federal-MogulCorporation and the TorringtonCompany v. United States, 822 F. Supp.782 (CIT 1993) and Floral Trade Councilv. United States, 822 F. Supp. 766 (CIT1993) (interpreting 19 CFR 353.22(e)(now 19 CFR 351.212(c)), theantidumping regulation on automaticassessment, which is identical to 19CFR 355.22(g)). Therefore, the cashdeposit rates for all companies, exceptthose covered by this review, will beunchanged by the results of this review.

We will instruct Customs to continueto collect cash deposits for non-reviewed companies at the most recentcompany-specific or country-wide rateapplicable to the company. Accordingly,the cash deposit rates that will beapplied to non-reviewed companies

covered by this order will be the rate forthat company established in the mostrecently completed administrativeproceeding conducted under the URAA.See 1994 Castings Final. If such areview has not been conducted, the rateestablished in the most recentlycompleted administrative proceedingpursuant to the statutory provisions thatwere in effect prior to the URAAamendments is applicable. See FinalResults of Countervailing DutyAdministrative Review: Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India, 61 FR 64676(December 6, 1996) (1993 CastingsFinal). These rates shall apply to allnon-reviewed companies, includingthose companies for which the review isbeing rescinded, until a review of acompany assigned these rates isrequested and completed. In addition,for the period January 1, 1996 throughDecember 31, 1996, the assessment ratesapplicable to all non-reviewedcompanies covered by this order are thecash deposit rates in effect at the timeof entry.

This notice serves as a reminder toparties subject to administrativeprotective order (APO) of theirresponsibility concerning thedisposition of proprietary informationdisclosed under APO in accordancewith 19 CFR 355.34(d). Timely writtennotification of return/destruction ofAPO materials or conversion to judicialprotective order is hereby requested.Failure to comply with the regulationsand the terms of an APO is asanctionable violation.

This administrative review and noticeare in accordance with section 751(a)(1)of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)).




Export Trade Certificate of Review

ACTION: Notice of Issuance of anAmended Export Trade Certificate ofReview, Application No. 92–5A001.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commercehas issued an amendment to the ExportTrade Certificate of Review granted toAerospace Industries Association ofAmerica (‘‘AIA’’) on April 10, 1992.Notice of issuance of the Certificate waspublished in the Federal Register onApril 17, 1992 (57 FR 13707).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Morton Schnabel, Director, Office ofExport Trading Company Affairs,International Trade Administration,(202) 482–5131. This is not a toll-freenumber.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title III ofthe Export Trading Company Act of1982 (15 U.S.C. Sections 4001–21)authorizes the Secretary of Commerce toissue Export Trade Certificates ofReview. The regulations implementingTitle III are found at 15 CFR Part 325(1998).

The Office of Export TradingCompany Affairs (‘‘OETCA’’) is issuingthis notice pursuant to 15 CFR 325.6(b),which requires the Department ofCommerce to publish a summary of aCertificate in the Federal Register.Under Section 305(a) of the Act and 15CFR 325.11(a), any person aggrieved bythe Secretary’s determination may,within 30 days of the date of this notice,bring an action in any appropriatedistrict court of the United States to setaside the determination on the groundthat the determination is erroneous.

Description of Amended CertificateExport Trade Certificate of Review

No. 92–00001, was issued to AerospaceIndustries Association of America onApril 10, 1992 (57 FR 13707, April 17,1992) and previously amended onSeptember 8, 1992 (57 FR 41920,September 14, 1992); October 8, 1993(58 FR 53711, October 18, 1993);November 17, 1994 (59 FR 60349,November 23, 1994); and June 26, 1995(60 FR 36262, July 14, 1995).

AIA’s Export Trade Certificate ofReview has been amended to:

1. Add the following companies asnew ‘‘Members’’ of the Certificatewithin the meaning of section 325.2(1)of the Regulations (15 CFR 325.2(1)):The Aerostructures Corporation,Nashville, TN (Controlling Entity: TheCarlyle Group, Washington, DC); AlliantTechsystems Incorporated, Hopkins,MN; Barnes Aerospace, Windsor, CT(Controlling Entity: Barnes Group, Inc.,Bristol, CT); CMS, Inc., Tampa, FL(Controlling Entity: Daimler-Benz NorthAmerican Corporation, New York, NY);Ducommun Incorporated, Long Beach,CA; Dynamic Engineering Incorporated,Newport News, VA; EsterlineTechnologies, Bellevue, WA; IntertubineCorporation, Peabody, MA (ControllingEntity: NV Interturbine, TheNetherlands); Kistler AerospaceCorporation, Kirkland, WA; LittonIndustries, Inc., Woodland Hills, CA;MOOG Inc., East Aurora, NY; PacificScientific Company, Duarte, CA;Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.,Torrance, CA; Rockwell Collins, Inc.,


Cedar Rapids, IA (Controlling Entity:Rockwell International Corporation,Costa Mesa, CA); Rolls-Royce NorthAmerica, Inc., Reston, VA (ControllingEntity: Rolls Royce plc, London,England); Triumph Controls, Inc., NorthWales, PA (Controlling Entity: TriumphGroup, Inc., Wayne, PA); UnitedDefense, L.P., Arlington, VA(Controlling Entity: The Carlyle Group,Washington, DC); Veridian Corporation,Alexandria, VA; and WoodwardGovernor Company, Rockford, IL.;

2. Delete as ‘‘Members’’ of theCertificate: Ceridian Corporation,Minneapolis, MN; ChryslerTechnologies Corporation, Arlington,VA; E-Systems, Inc., Dallas, TX; FMCCorporation, Chicago, IL; Heath TecnaAerospace Co., Kent, WA; HerculesIncorporated, Wilmington, DE; LoralVought Systems Corporation, Dallas,TX; Lord Corporation, Erie, PA; MartinMarietta Corporation, Bethesda, MD;McDonnell Douglas Corporation,Berkeley, MO; Rockwell InternationalCorporation, Seal Beach, CA; Rohr, Inc.,Chula Vista, CA; Teledyne, Inc., LosAngeles, CA; Texas InstrumentsIncorporated, Dallas, TX; WestinghouseElectric Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA;and Williams International Corporation,Walled Lake, MI; and

3. Change the listing of the companyname for the current ‘‘Members’’ citedin this paragraph to the new listing citedin parenthesis as follows: GEC-MarconiElectronic Systems Corporation(Marconi North America Inc.); GeneralMotors Hughes Electronics (HughesElectronics Corporation); LockheedCorporation (Lockheed MartinCorporation); and Thiokol Corporation(Cordant Technologies Inc.).

A copy of the amended certificate willbe kept in the International TradeAdministration’s Freedom ofInformation Records Inspection Facility,Room 4102, U.S. Department ofCommerce, 14th Street and ConstitutionAvenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.


Morton Schnabel,Director, Office of Export Trading CompanyAffairs.[FR Doc. 98–30745 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P


National Institute of Standards andTechnology

[Docket No. 980107004–8216–02]

Approval of Withdrawal of SixteenFederal Information ProcessingStandards (FIPS) Publications

AGENCY: National Institute of Standardsand Technology (NIST), Commerce.ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice isto announce that the Secretary ofCommerce has approved the withdrawalof sixteen Federal InformationProcessing Standards (FIPS)Publications.

Sixteen FIPS are being withdrawnbecause they are obsolete, or have notbeen updated to adopt current voluntaryindustry standards. Federal agenciesand departments are directed by theNational Technology Transfer andAdvancement Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104–113, to use technical standards that aredeveloped in voluntary consensusstandards bodies. Consequently, thereno longer is a need for FIPS thatduplicate voluntary industry standards.EFFECTIVE DATE: This withdrawal iseffective November 18, 1998.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Ms. Shirley M. Radack, telephone (301)975–2833, National Institute ofStandards and Technology,Gaithersburg, MD 20899.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OnFebruary 24, 1998, notice was publishedin the Federal Register (63 FR 9199)proposing withdrawal of nineteenFederal Information ProcessingStandards (FIPS) Publications, becausethe technical specifications that theyadopt are obsolete and are no longersupported by industry.

Withdrawal means that the FIPS willno longer be part of a subscription seriesthat is provided by the NationalTechnical Information Service, and thatNIST will no longer be able to supportthe standards by answeringimplementation questions or updatingthe FIPS when the voluntary industrystandards are revised. Current voluntaryindustry standards should be used byagencies in their procurement actionswhen appropriate, in accordance withOMB Circular A–119, FederalParticipation and Use of VoluntaryStandards.

This notice provides only the FIPSpublication number, title, and thetechnical specifications number for eachof the sixteen FIPS Publications beingwithdrawn:

• FIPS 41, Computer SecurityGuidelines for Implementing thePrivacy Act of 1974

• FIPS 69–1, FORTRAN (ANSI X3.9–1978/R1989)

• FIPS 100–1, Interface Between DataTerminal Equipment (DTE) and DataCircuit-Terminating (DCE) forOperation with Packet-Switched DataNetworks (PSDN), or Between TwoDTEs, by Dedicated Circuit (ANSIX3.100–1989)

• FIPS 120–1, Graphical Kernel System(GKS) (ANSI X3.124–1985/R1991;X3.124.1–1985/R1991; X3.124.2–1988/R1994; X3.124.3–1989; and ISO/IEC 8651–4:1991)

• FIPS 125–1, MUMPS (ANSI/MDCX11.1–1990)

• FIPS 128–2, Computer GraphicsMetafile (CGM) (ANSI/ISO 8632.1–4:1992 [1994]; 8632:1992/Amd.1:1994& Amd. 2:1995; MIL–D–28003A+Amd.1; and ATA Spec. 2100,Version 2.1)

• FIPS 138, Electrical Characteristics ofBalanced Voltage Digital InterfaceCircuits

• FIPS 142, Electrical Characteristics ofUnbalanced Voltage Digital InterfaceCircuits

• FIPS 143, General Purpose 37-Position and 9-Position InterfaceBetween Data Terminal Equipmentand Data Circuit-TerminatingEquipment (EIA–RS–449)

• FIPS 146–2, Profiles for Open SystemsInternetworking Technologies(POSIT)

• FIPS 148, Procedures for DocumentFacsimile Transmission

• FIPS 153–1, Programmer’sHierarchical Interactive GraphicsSystem (PHIGS) (ANSI/ISO9592.1,2,3:1989; 9592.1a,2a,3a,4:1992;9593.1:1990; 9593.2–1990;9593.4:1991; and 9593.1/AM1, 3/AM1, 4/AM1:1991)

• FIPS 154, High Speed 25-PositionInterface for Data TerminalEquipment and Data Circuit-Terminating Equipment (EIA–530–1987)

• FIPS 177–1, Initial Graphics ExchangeSpecification (IGES) (ANSI/US PRO–100–1993, Version 5.2, LEPApplication Protocol, IP–110–1994,and Engr. Dwg. (Class II) Subset (MIL–D–28000A), Dec. 1992 Version)

• FIPS 178, Video TeleconferencingServices at 56 to 1,920 kb/s (ITU–TRecommendations H.221–1993,H.230–1993, H.242–1993, H.261–1993, and H.320–1993)

• FIPS 179–1, Government NetworkManagement Profile (GNMP)The written comments submitted by

interested parties and other materials


available to the Department relevant tothese publications were reviewed byNIST. On the basis of this review, NISTrecommended that the Secretaryapprove the withdrawal of the sixteenFIPS Publications, and prepared adetailed justification document for theSecretary’s review in support of thatrecommendation.

Because of comments received, NISTwill delay the withdrawal of three FIPSthat had been proposed for withdrawalin the February 24, 1998, notice. FIPS183, Integration Definition for FunctionModeling (IDEFO), and FIPS 184,Integration Definition for InformationModeling (IDEF1X), will be retaineduntil voluntary industry standards areavailable. FIPS 160, C (ANSI/ISO9899:1992), will be retained untilNIST’s validation program for the Cprogramming language ends later thisyear, and then the FIPS will bewithdrawn at that time. NIST willpublish a Federal Register noticeannouncing the withdrawal of FIPS 160before December 31, 1998.

The detailed justification documentwhich was presented to the Secretary ispart of the public record and is availablefor inspection and copying in theDepartment’s Central Reference andRecords Inspection Facility, Room 6020,Herbert C. Hoover Building, 14th Streetbetween Pennsylvania and ConstitutionAvenues, NW, Washington, DC 20230.

Authority: Federal Information ProcessingStandards Publications (FIPS PUBS) areissued by the National Institute of Standardsand Technology after approval by theSecretary of Commerce pursuant to Section5131 of the Information TechnologyManagement Reform Act of 1996 and theComputer Security Act of 1987, Public Law104–106.

Dated: November 12, 1998.Robert E. Hebner,Acting Deputy Director.[FR Doc. 98–30796 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510–CN–M



Initiation of Review of ManagementPlan/Regulations of the StellwagenBank National Marine Sanctuary; IntentTo Prepare a Draft EnvironmentalImpact Statement and ManagementPlan; Public Scoping Meetings

AGENCY: Office of Ocean and CoastalResource Management (OCRM),National Ocean Service (NOS) NationalOceanic and AtmosphericAdministration (NOAA), Department ofCommerce (DOC).

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepareenvironmental impact statement; noticeof scoping meetings.

SUMMARY: The Stellwagen Bank NationalMarine Sanctuary (SBNMS orSanctuary) was designated in November1992, and consists of 638 squarenautical miles of open ocean over andsurrounding Stellwagen Bank, occurringbetween Cape Ann and Cape Cod,Massachusetts. The presentmanagement plan for the Sanctuary wascompleted in July 1993. In accordancewith Section 304(e) of the NationalMarine Sanctuaries Act, as amended,(NMSA) (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.), theMarine Sanctuaries Division (MSD) ofthe National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration (NOAA) is initiatingreview of the management plan, toevaluate substantive progress towardimplementing goals for the Sanctuary,and to make revisions to the plan andregulations as necessary to fulfill thepurposes and policies of the NMSA.

The revised management plan willlikely involve changes to existingpolicies and regulations of theSanctuary, to address contemporaryissues and challenges, and to betterprotect and manage the Sanctuary’sresources and qualities. The reviewprocess is composed of four majorstages: information collection andcharacterization; preparation andrelease of a draft management plan/environmental impact statement, andany proposed amendments to theregulations; public review andcomment; and preparation and releaseof a final management plan/environmental impact statement, andany final amendments to theregulations. NOAA anticipatescompletion of the revised managementplan and concomitant documents willrequire approximately eighteen months.

NOAA will conduct public scopingmeetings to gather information andother comments from individuals,organizations, and government agencieson the scope, types and significance ofissues related to the Sanctuary’smanagement plan and regulations. Thescoping meetings are scheduled for thesecond week in December 1998, asdetailed below. All interested personsare invited to attend, and to provide oralcomments. Interested persons may alsosubmit written comments at the scopingmeetings, or to the address below.Written comments should be receivedby January 15, 1999.DATES AND ADDRESSES: Scopingmeetings will be held at:

(1) Cape Cod Community College,Commons Building, Upper CommonsRoom, 2240 Iyanough Road, West

Barnstable, MA, Tuesday, December 8,1998, 7–9 p.m.;

(2) National Marine Fisheries Service(New England Region), 1st FloorConference Room, One Blackburn Drive,Gloucester, MA, Wednesday, December9, 1998, 7–9 p.m.; and

(3) New England Aquarium,Education Center, Central Wharf,Boston, MA, Thursday, December 10,1998, 7–9 p.m.

Written comments may be sent toStellwagen Bank National MarineSanctuary (Management Plan Review),Scituate Coast Guard Station, 175Edward Foster Road, Scituate, MA02066. Comments will be available forpublic review at the same address.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Brad Barr, Sanctuary Manager, at (508)747–1691. The Sanctuary office islocated at 14 Union Street, Plymouth,MA. Following December 15, 1998, theSanctuary office will be located at theScituate address listed above.(Federal Domestic Assistance CatalogNumber 11.429 Marine Sanctuary Program)

Dated: November 13, 1998.Capt Evelyn Fields,Deputy Assistant Administrator for OceanServices and Coastal Zone Management.[FR Doc. 98–30863 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510–08–M



[I.D. 111298C]

Endangered Species; Permits

AGENCY: National Marine FisheriesService (NMFS), National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA),Commerce.ACTION: Receipt of applications for ascientific research permit (1184) andmodifications to scientific researchpermits (1074, 1124).

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of thefollowing actions regarding permits fortakes of endangered and threatenedspecies for the purposes of scientificresearch and/or enhancement: NMFShas received a permit application fromGarcia and Associates (GAA) in SanAnselmo, CA (1184); NMFS hasreceived applications for modificationsto existing permits from: Pacific LumberCompany in Scotia, CA (PALCo) (1074),and Idaho Department of Fish and Gameat Boise, ID (IDFG) (1124).DATES: Written comments or requests fora public hearing on any of theapplications must be received on orbefore December 18, 1998.


ADDRESSES: The applications andrelated documents are available forreview in the following offices, byappointment:

For permits 1074 and 1184: ProtectedSpecies Division, NMFS, 777 SonomaAvenue, Room 325, Santa Rosa, CA95404–6528 (707–575–6066).

For permit 1124: Protected ResourcesDivision, F/NWO3, 525 NE OregonStreet, Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232–4169 (503–230–5400).

All documents may also be reviewedby appointment in the Office ofProtected Resources, F/PR3, NMFS,1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring,MD 20910–3226 (301–713–1401).FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Forpermits 1074 and 1184: Tom Hablett,Protected Resources Division, (707–575–6066).

For permit 1124: Leslie Schaeffer,Portland, OR (503–230–5433).SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

AuthorityPermits are requested under the

authority of section 10 of theEndangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA)(16 U.S.C. 1531–1543) and the NMFSregulations governing ESA-listed fishand wildlife permits (50 CFR parts 217–227).

Those individuals requesting ahearing on these requests for permitsshould set out the specific reasons whya hearing would be appropriate (seeADDRESSES). The holding of such ahearing is at the discretion of theAssistant Administrator for Fisheries,NOAA. All statements and opinionscontained in the below applicationsummaries are those of the applicantand do not necessarily reflect the viewsof NMFS.

Species Covered in this NoticeThe following species are covered in

this notice: Chinook salmon(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Cohosalmon (O. kisutch), Sockeye salmon (O.nerka), and Steelhead trout (O. mykiss).

New Application ReceivedGAA (1184) requests a 5-year permit

for takes of adult and juvenile,threatened, central California coast cohosalmon, and adult and juvenile,endangered, southern California coaststeelhead associated with fishpopulation studies throughout theEvolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs)within California. Salmon and steelheadstudies conducted by GAA will consistof four assessment tasks for which ESA-listed fish are proposed to be taken: (1)Presence/absence, (2) populationestimates, (3) fish rescue, and (4) tissue/scale sampling for genetic studies. ESA-listed fish will be observed or captured,

anesthetized, handled (weighed,measured, fin-clipped), allowed torecover from the anesthetic, andreleased. Indirect mortalities associatedwith the research are also requested.

Modification Requests Received

PALCo (1074) requests modification 1to permit 1074 for authorization toinclude takes of adult and juvenile,threatened coho salmon forenhancement purposes in Yager CreekBasin within the California portion ofthe southern Oregon/northern Californiacoast (SONCC) coho salmon ESU.PALCo will conduct an adult samplingprogram in Humboldt County. Thesestudies are to determine: (1) populationestimates; (2) hatchery to wild salmonidratios; (3) stream utilization; and (4)genetic heritage. Adults will be trapped,measured, sampled for tissues and/orscales, marked and released (if not beingretained for broodstock). Spawnersurveys are also proposed, including thehandling and sampling of carcasses. Thepropagation program conducted at thePLC’s Yager Creek Hatchery is to rebuilddepleted populations of coho salmon tonaturally self-sustaining levels. Bothwild and hatchery-produced adults willbe used for broodstock. The control ofdisease, maintenance of geneticviability, and the annual releases ofjuveniles are in accordance with theguidance of NMFS and the CaliforniaDepartment of Fish and Game.Modification 1 is requested to be validfor the duration of the permit, whichexpires on June 30, 2003.

IDFG requests modification 1 topermit 1124. The permit authorizesannual takes of adult and juvenile,endangered, Snake River (SnR) sockeyesalmon; adult and juvenile, threatened,naturally produced and artificiallypropagated, SnR spring/summerchinook salmon; and juvenile,threatened, SnR fall chinook salmonassociated with scientific research in thestate of Idaho. Research activitiesconducted under this permit areexpected to provide information aboutESA-listed fish population status anddynamics, life history traits, survivalrates, behavior features, and fish health.For modification 1, IDFG requests anincrease in the annual take of juvenile,threatened, naturally produced, SnRspring/summer chinook salmon. IDFGunderestimated parr production andemigration of this species in 1998. ESA-listed juvenile fish are proposed to becaptured, handled, and released.Modification 1 is requested to be validfor the duration of the permit, whichexpires on December 31, 2002.

Dated: November 12, 1998.Margaret Lorenz,Acting Chief, Endangered Species Division,Office of Protected Resources, NationalMarine Fisheries Service.[FR Doc. 98–30840 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510–22–F


National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration[I.D. 111298B]

Endangered Species; Permits

AGENCY: National Marine FisheriesService (NMFS), National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA),Commerce.ACTION: Issuance of scientific researchpermits (1174, 1176, 1178) and amodification to a scientific researchpermit (1053)

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of thefollowing actions regarding permits fortakes of endangered and threatenedspecies for the purposes of scientificresearch and/or enhancement: NMFShas issued permits to: Mr. HaroldBrundage III, of Environmental Researchand Consulting, Inc., Chadds Ford, PA(ECRI) (1174), Mr. W. Coleman Long, ofUS Army Corps of Engineers,Wilmington, DE (COE) (1176), andMichael P. Sissenwine, Ph.D., NortheastFisheries Science Center, NationalMarine Fisheries Service, Woods Hole,MA (NEFSC) (1178); and NMFS hasissued a modification to a scientificresearch permit to Molly Lutcavage,Ph.D., New England Aquarium, Boston,MA (NEA) (1053).DATES: Written comments or requests fora public hearing on any of theapplications must be received on orbefore December 18, 1998.ADDRESSES: The applications andrelated documents are available forreview in the following offices, byappointment:

For permits 1053, 1174, and 1178:Protected Resources Division, F/NER3,One Blackburn Dr., Gloucester, MA01930 (978–281–9328).

For permits 1176: Office of ProtectedResources, Endangered SpeciesDivision, F/PR3, 1315 East-WestHighway, Silver Spring, MD 20910(301–713–1401).

All documents may also be reviewedby appointment in the Office ofProtected Resources, F/PR3, NMFS,1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring,MD 20910–3226 (301–713–1401).FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Forpermits 1174 and 1176: Terri Jordan,Silver Spring, MD (301–713–1401);


For permits 1053 and 1178: MichelleRogers, Silver Spring, MD (301–713–1401)SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

AuthorityIssuance of permits and permit

modifications, as required by the ESA,is based on a finding that such permits/modifications: (1) Are applied for ingood faith; (2) would not operate to thedisadvantage of the listed species whichare the subject of the permits; and (3)are consistent with the purposes andpolicies set forth in section 2 of theESA. Permits and modifications areissued in accordance with and aresubject to parts 217–222 of Title 50 CFR,the NMFS regulations governing listedspecies permits.

Species Covered in this NoticeThe following species are covered in

this notice: Green turtle (Cheloniamydas), Hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelysimbricata), Kemp’s ridley turtle(Lepidochelys kempii), Leatherbackturtle (Dermochelys coriacea),Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta), andShortnose sturgeon (Acipenserbrevirostrum).

Permits and Modifications IssuedNotice was published on September 1,

1998 (63 FR 46416), that NEA had filedan application for a modification topermit 1053. Modification 1 was issuedon November 19, 1998, and authorizesNEA to conduct direct in-water captureof 8 leatherback turtles, which will besatellite tagged, PIT tagged, bloodsampled, weighed, measured, andphotographed. The turtles will becaptured using a breakaway hoop net, amethod that has been used successfullyto capture porpoise, pinnipeds, andsmall cetaceans. Modification 1 alsoauthorizes a 2-year extension to permit1053. Modification 1 is valid for theduration of the permit, which expires onDecember 31, 2000.

Notice was published on August 3,1998 (63 FR 41229), that an applicationhad been filed by ECRI. Permit 1174 wasissued on October 22, 1998, andauthorizes ECRI to sample for andcollect shortnose sturgeon in theDelaware River and Estuary system andin the lower Susquehanna River/Chesapeake Bay Complex. Theobjectives of the study are to collect dataon current distribution, abundance,length structure and movements ofshortnose sturgeon in the DelawareRiver Estuary and in the lowSusquehanna River and ChesapeakeBay. Emphasis will be placed oncalculating reliable populationestimates, determining aggregation

areas, and obtaining information onjuvenile shortnose sturgeon. Informationon population size and lengthdistribution for the Delaware Riverpopulation will be compared with thatduring the 1980s. Permit 1174 expireson August 31, 2003.

Notice was published on August 31,1998 (63 FR 46218), that an applicationhad been filed by COE. Permit 1176 wasissued on November 9, 1998, andauthorizes COE to use hatchery bredshortnose sturgeon to test the potentialimpacts of blasting to deepenWilmington harbor in North Carolina.COE will place hatchery raised sturgeonin wire cages below the surface andsubject them to a series of tests blasts todetermine the effect that the harbordeepening will have on wild sturgeon inthe harbor. As required by a September13, 1996, biological opinion, additionalprotective measures will be takenduring the test blasting to prevent wildsturgeon from being affected. Thesemeasures include relocation of any wildsturgeon found to be in the area prior tothe blasts and air bubble curtains. Dueto contract awards schedule, the testblast schedule would likely begin inNovember, 1998 and may continuethrough January, 1999. Permit 1176expires on December 31, 1999.

Notice was published on September15, 1998 (63 FR 49335), that anapplication had been filed by NEFSC.Permit 1178 was issued on October 29,1998, and authorizes NEFSC to takelisted sea turtles taken incidental tofisheries in the Northwest AtlanticOcean. The work will be conducted byscientific observers aboard such vessels.The following species and take numbershave been authorized: 300 loggerhead,85 leatherback, 10 Kemp’s ridley, 10hawksbill, and 10 green turtles. NEFSCis authorized to measure, photograph,flipper tag, scan for PIT tags, resuscitate(if necessary) and release turtles takenby foreign and domestic commercialfishing vessels operating in state watersand the Exclusive Economic Zone.Further, NEFSC is authorized to bring toshore, when feasible, dead sea turtles fornecropsy. Necropsy will only beperformed by personnel currentlypermitted to conduct such research.This research supports the NMFSmission of assessing the impacts ofcommercial fisheries on marineresources of interest to the UnitedStates. Permit 1178 expires onDecember 31, 2003.

Dated: November 12, 1998.Margaret Lorenz,Acting Chief, Endangered Species Division,Office of Protected Resources, NationalMarine Fisheries Service.[FR Doc. 98–30841 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510–22–F



[I.D. 102998C]

Marine Mammals; Permit No. 1024(P77–2#69)

AGENCY: National Marine FisheriesService (NMFS), National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA),Commerce.

ACTION: Issuance of scientific researchpermit amendment.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that arequest for amendment of scientificresearch permit no. 1024 submitted bythe Southwest Fisheries Science Center,National Marine Fisheries Service, 8604La Jolla Shores Drive, La Jolla, CA 92038[Co- Investigator: Dr. Rennie S. Holt) hasbeen granted to increase the number ofAntarctic fur seals to be taken annually.

ADDRESSES: The amendment and relateddocuments are available for reviewupon written request or by appointmentin the following office(s):

Permits and Documentation Division,Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,1315 East-West Highway, Room 13130,Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301/713–2289).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OnSeptember 15, 1998, notice waspublished in the Federal Register (63FR 49337) that an amendment of permitno. 1024, issued December 30, 1996 (62FR 1875), had been requested by theabove-named organization. Therequested amendment has been grantedunder the authority of the MarineMammal Protection Act of 1972, asamended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), theprovisions of § 216.39 of the RegulationsGoverning the Taking and Importing ofMarine Mammals (50 CFR part 216), andthe Fur Seal Act of 1966, as amended(16 U.S.C. 1151 et seq.).

Dated: November 9, 1998.Ann D. Terbush,Chief, Permits and Documentation Division,Office of Protected Resources, NationalMarine Fisheries Service.[FR Doc. 98–30831 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510–22–F




[I.D. 110498C]

Marine Mammals; File No.914–1470

AGENCY: National Marine FisheriesService (NMFS), National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA),Commerce.

ACTION: Issuance of permit.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given thatUniversity of Southern Mississippi,Department of Biological Sciences, USMBox 5018, Hattiesburg, MS 39401[Principal Investigator: Mr. Bobby L.Middlebrooks], has been issued a permitto import fluid and tissue samples ofbottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatusand gilli), beluga whale (Delphinapterusleucas), and Pacific white-sided dolphin(Lagenorhynchus obliquidens) heldcaptive in facilities in Nassau, Bahamas,Honduras, and Finland for purposes ofscientific research.

ADDRESSES: The permit and relateddocuments are available for reviewupon written request or by appointmentin the following office(s):

Permits and Documentation Division,Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705,Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301/713–2289); and

Regional Administrator, SoutheastRegion, NMFS, 9721 Executive CenterDrive North, St. Petersburg, FL 33702–2432 (813/570–5312).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Ruth Johnson or Sara Shapiro 301/713–2289.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OnSeptember 15, 1998, notice waspublished in the Federal Register (63FR 49337) that a request for a scientificresearch permit to import samples hadbeen submitted by the above-namedorganization. The requested permit hasbeen issued under the authority of theMarine Mammal Protection Act of 1972,as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), andthe Regulations Governing the Takingand Importing of Marine Mammals (50CFR part 216).

Dated: November 12, 1998.Ann D. Terbush,Chief, Permits and Documentation Division,Office of Protected Resources, NationalMarine Fisheries Service.[FR Doc. 98–30832 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510–22–F


National Technical Information Service

NTIS Advisory Board Meeting

AGENCY: National Technical InformationService, Technology Administration,Department of Commerce.ACTION: Notice of partially closedmeeting.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the FederalAdvisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app.2, notice is hereby given that theNational Technical Information ServiceAdvisory Board (the ‘‘Board’’) will meeton Wednesday, December 2, 1998, from9 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. and from 1 p.m. to4 p.m. The session from 9 a.m. to 11:30a.m. will be closed to the Public.

The Board was established under theauthority of 15 U.S.C. 3704b(c), and wasChartered on September 15, 1989. TheBoard is composed of five membersappointed by the Secretary of Commercewho are eminent in such fields asinformation resources management,information technology, and library andinformation services. The purpose of themeeting is to review and makerecommendations regarding generalpolicies and operations of NTIS,including policies in connection withfees and charges for its services. Theagenda will include a progress report onNTIS activities, an update on theprogress of FedWorld, and a discussionof NTIS’ long range plans. The closedsession discussion is scheduled to beginat 9 a.m. and end at 11:30 a.m. onDecember 2, 1998. The session will beclosed because premature disclosure ofthe information to be discussed wouldbe likely to significantly frustrateimplementation of NTIS’ businessplans.

DATES: The meeting will convene onDecember 2, 1998, at 9 a.m. and adjournat 4 p.m.ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held inRoom 2029 Sills Building, NationalTechnical Information Service, 5285Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia22161.PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: The meeting willbe open to public participation from 1p.m. to 4 p.m. on December 2, 1998.Approximately thirty minutes will beset aside on December 2, 1998, forcomments or questions from the public.Seats will be available for the publicand for the media on a first-come, first-served basis. Any member of the publicmay submit written commentsconcerning the Board’s affairs at anytime. Copies of the minutes of the open

session meeting will be available withinthirty days of the meeting from theaddress given below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Linda Lucas, NTIS Advisory BoardSecretary, National TechnicalInformation Service, 5285 Port RoyalRoad, Springfield, Virginia 22161Telephone: (703) 605–6400; Fax (703)605–6700.


Donald W. Corrigan,

Acting Director.[FR Doc. 98–30849 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]


COMMITTEE FOR THEIMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILEAGREEMENTS

Announcement of Import RestraintLimits for Certain Cotton, Wool andMan-Made Fiber Textile ProductsProduced or Manufactured in theFederative Republic of Brazil

November 12, 1998.

AGENCY: Committee for theImplementation of Textile Agreements(CITA).

ACTION: Issuing a directive to theCommissioner of Customs establishinglimits.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RoyUnger, International Trade Specialist,Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S.Department of Commerce, (202) 482–4212. For information on the quotastatus of these limits, refer to the QuotaStatus Reports posted on the bulletinboards of each Customs port, call (202)927–5850, or refer to the U.S. Customswebsite at http://www.customs.ustreas.gov. Forinformation on embargoes and quota re-openings, call (202) 482–3715.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:Authority: Section 204 of the Agricultural

Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854);Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, asamended.

The import restraint limits for textileproducts, produced or manufactured inBrazil and exported during the periodJanuary 1, 1999 through December 31,1999 are based on limits notified to theTextiles Monitoring Body pursuant to


the Uruguay Round Agreement onTextiles and Clothing (ATC).

Effective on January 1, 1999, a visawill no longer be required for productsintegrated in the second stage of theintegration of textiles and clothing intoGATT 1994 from WTO membercountries (see 63 FR 53881, publishedon October 7, 1998). A visa willcontinue to be required for non-integrated products. For quota purposesonly, products remaining in categoriespartially integrated will continue to bedesignated by the designator ‘‘pt.’’

In the letter published below, theChairman of CITA directs theCommissioner of Customs to establishthe 1999 limits.

A description of the textile andapparel categories in terms of HTSnumbers is available in theCORRELATION: Textile and ApparelCategories with the Harmonized TariffSchedule of the United States (seeFederal Register notice 62 FR 66057,published on December 17, 1997).Information regarding the 1999CORRELATION will be published in theFederal Register at a later date.D. Michael Hutchinson,Acting Chairman, Committee for theImplementation of Textile Agreements.

Committee for the Implementation of TextileAgreementsNovember 12, 1998.Commissioner of Customs,Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC

20229.Dear Commissioner: Pursuant to section

204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, asamended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended; and theUruguay Round Agreement on Textiles andClothing (ATC), you are directed to prohibit,effective on January 1, 1999, entry into theUnited States for consumption andwithdrawal from warehouse for consumptionof cotton, wool and man-made fiber textileproducts in the following categories,produced or manufactured in Brazil andexported during the twelve-month periodbeginning on January 1, 1999 and extendingthrough December 31, 1999, in excess of thefollowing levels of restraint:

Category Twelve-month restraintlimit

Aggregate Limit200–227, 237,

239pt. 1, 300–326,331–348, 350–352, 359pt. 2, 360–363, 369–D 3,369pt. 4, 400–431,433–438, 440–448, 459pt. 5, 464,469pt. 6, 600–629,631, 633–652,659pt. 7, 666, 669–P 8, 669pt. 9 and670, as a group.

544,207,428 squaremeters equivalent.


Sublevels within theaggregate

218 ........................... 6,762,406 square me-ters.

219 ........................... 24,688,791 squaremeters.

225 ........................... 11,834,212 squaremeters.

300/301 .................... 9,171,379 kilograms.313 ........................... 56,792,206 square

meters.314 ........................... 9,298,311 square me-

ters.315 ........................... 27,894,932 square

meters.317/326 .................... 25,359,027 square

meters.334/335 .................... 181,974 dozen.336 ........................... 101,098 dozen.338/339/638/639 ...... 1,819,750 dozen.342/642 .................... 535,814 dozen.347/348 .................... 1,314,263 dozen.350 ........................... 203,896 dozen.361 ........................... 1,374,921 numbers.363 ........................... 29,344,134 numbers.369–D ...................... 655,395 kilograms.410/624 .................... 13,524,815 square

meters of which notmore than 2,735,601square meters shallbe in Category 410.

433 ........................... 18,990 dozen.445/446 .................... 74,391 dozen.604 ........................... 641,996 kilograms of

which not more than490,670 kilogramsshall be in Category604–A 10.

607 ........................... 5,961,398 kilograms.647/648 .................... 606,584 dozen.669–P ...................... 2,184,653 kilograms.

1 Category 239pt.: only HTS number6209.20.5040 (diapers).

2 Category 359pt.: all HTS numbers except6406.99.1550.

3 Category 369–D: only HTS numbers6302.60.0010, 6302.91.0005 and6302.91.0045.

4 Category 369pt.: all HTS numbers except6302.60.0010, 6302.91.0005, 6302.91.0045(Category 369–D); 5601.10.1000,5601.21.0090, 5701.90.1020, 5701.90.2020,5702.10.9020, 5702.39.2010, 5702.49.1020,5702.49.1080, 5702.59.1000, 5702.99.1010,5702.99.1090, 5705.00.2020 and6406.10.7700.

5 Category 459pt.: all HTS numbers except6405.20.6030, 6405.20.6060, 6405.20.6090,6406.99.1505 and 6406.99.1560.

6 Category 469pt.: all HTS numbers except5601.29.0020, 5603.94.1010 and6406.10.9020.

7 Category 659pt.: all HTS numbers except6406.99.1510 and 6406.99.1540.

8 Category 669–P: only HTS numbers6305.32.0010, 6305.32.0020, 6305.33.0010,6305.33.0020 and 6305.39.0000.

9 Category 669pt.: all HTS numbers except6305.32.0010, 6305.32.0020, 6305.33.0010,6305.33.0020, 6305.39.0000 (Category 669–P); 5601.10.2000, 5601.22.0090,5607.49.3000, 5607.50.4000 and6406.10.9040.

10 Category 604–A: only HTS number5509.32.0000.

The limits set forth above are subject toadjustment pursuant to the provisions of theATC and administrative arrangementsnotified to the Textiles Monitoring Body.

Products in the above categories exportedduring 1998 shall be charged to theapplicable category limits for that year (seedirective dated December 19, 1997) to theextent of any unfilled balances. In the eventthe limits established for that period havebeen exhausted by previous entries, suchproducts shall be charged to the limits setforth in this directive.

The conversion factor for mergedCategories 338/339/638/639 is 10 (squaremeters equivalent/category unit).

Effective on January 1, 1999, a visa will nolonger be required for products integrated inthe second stage of the integration of textilesand clothing into GATT 1994 from WTOmember countries (see directive datedSeptember 30, 1998). A visa will continue tobe required for non-integrated products. Forquota purposes only, products remaining incategories partially integrated will continueto be designated by the designator ‘‘pt.’’

In carrying out the above directions, theCommissioner of Customs should construeentry into the United States for consumptionto include entry for consumption into theCommonwealth of Puerto Rico.

The Committee for the Implementation ofTextile Agreements has determined thatthese actions fall within the foreign affairsexception of the rulemaking provisions of 5U.S.C. 553(a)(1).

Sincerely,D. Michael Hutchinson,Acting Chairman, Committee for theImplementation of Textile Agreements.[FR Doc. 98–30797 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510–DR–F


Adjustment of Import Limits for CertainCotton, Wool, Man-Made Fiber, SilkBlend and Other Vegetable FiberTextiles and Textile ProductsProduced or Manufactured in HongKong

November 10, 1998.AGENCY: Committee for theImplementation of Textile Agreements(CITA).ACTION: Issuing a directive to theCommissioner of Customs adjustinglimits.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 19, 1998.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Janet Heinzen, International TradeSpecialist, Office of Textiles andApparel, U.S. Department of Commerce,(202) 482–4212. For information on thequota status of these limits, refer to theQuota Status Reports posted on thebulletin boards of each Customs port orcall (202) 927–5850. For information on


embargoes and quota re-openings, call(202) 482–3715.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority: Section 204 of the AgriculturalAct of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854);Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, asamended.

The current limits for certaincategories are being adjusted, variously,for swing and special shift.

A description of the textile andapparel categories in terms of HTSnumbers is available in theCORRELATION: Textile and ApparelCategories with the Harmonized TariffSchedule of the United States (seeFederal Register notice 62 FR 66057,published on December 17, 1997). Alsosee 62 FR 67830, published onDecember 30, 1997.Troy H. Cribb,Chairman, Committee for the Implementationof Textile Agreements.


20229.Dear Commissioner: This directive

amends, but does not cancel, the directiveissued to you on December 22, 1997, by theChairman, Committee for the Implementationof Textile Agreements. That directiveconcerns imports of certain cotton, wool,man-made fiber, silk blend and othervegetable fiber textiles and textile products,produced or manufactured in Hong Kong andexported during the twelve-month periodwhich began on January 1, 1998 and extendsthrough December 31, 1998.

Effective on November 19, 1998, you aredirected to adjust the limits for the followingcategories, as provided for under the UruguayRound Agreement on Textiles and Clothing:

Category Adjusted twelve-monthlimit 1

Group I200–227, 300–326,

360–363, 369(1) 2,369pt. 3, 400–414,464, 469pt. 4, 600–629, 666, 669pt. 5

and 670, as agroup.


Group II237, 239pt. 6, 331–

348, 350–352,359(1) 7, 359(2) 8,359pt. 9, 431, 433–438, 440–448,459pt. 10, 631,633–652,659(1) 11,659(2) 12,659pt. 13, and 443/444/643/644/843/844(1), as a group.


Sublevels in Group II359(1) ...................... 642,706 kilograms.


659(1) ...................... 690,724 kilograms.Within Group II sub-

group351 ........................... 1,222,151 dozen.651 ........................... 321,445 dozen.

1 These limits have not been adjusted to ac-count for any imports exported after December31, 1997.

2 Category 369(1): only HTS number6307.10.2005.

3 Category 369pt.: all HTS numbers except5601.10.1000, 5601.21.0090, 5701.90.1020,5701.90.2020, 5702.10.9020, 5702.39.2010,5702.49.1020, 5702.49.1080, 5702.59.1000,5702.99.1010, 5702.99.1090, 5705.00.2020,6406.10.7700 and HTS number in 369(1).

4 Category 469pt.: all HTS numbers except5601.29.0020, 5603.94.1010 and6406.10.9020.



7 Category 359(1): only HTS numbers6103.42.2025, 6103.49.8034, 6104.62.1020,6104.69.8010, 6114.20.0048, 6114.20.0052,6203.42.2010, 6203.42.2090, 6204.62.2010,6211.32.0010, 6211.32.0025 and6211.42.0010.

8 Category 359(2): only HTS numbers6103.19.2030, 6103.19.9030, 6104.12.0040,6104.19.8040, 6110.20.1022, 6110.20.1024,6110.20.2030, 6110.20.2035, 6110.90.9044,6110.90.9046, 6201.92.2010, 6202.92.2020,6203.19.1030, 6203.19.9030, 6204.12.0040,6204.19.8040, 6211.32.0070 and6211.42.0070.

9 Category 359pt.: all HTS numbers except6406.99.1550 and HTS numbers in 359(1)and 359(2).


11 Category 659(1): only HTS numbers6103.23.0055, 6103.43.2020, 6103.43.2025,6103.49.2000, 6103.49.8038, 6104.63.1020,6104.63.1030, 6104.69.1000, 6104.69.8014,6114.30.3044, 6114.30.3054, 6203.43.2010,6203.43.2090, 6203.49.1010, 6203.49.1090,6204.63.1510, 6204.69.1010, 6210.10.9010,6211.33.0010, 6211.33.0017 and6211.43.0010.

12 Category 659(2): only HTS numbers6112.31.0010, 6112.31.0020, 6112.41.0010,6112.41.0020, 6112.41.0030, 6112.41.0040,6211.11.1010, 6211.11.1020, 6211.12.1010and 6211.12.1020.

13 Category 659pt.: all HTS numbers except6406.99.1510, 6406.99.1540 and HTS num-bers in 659(1) and 659(2).

The Committee for the Implementation ofTextile Agreements has determined thatthese actions fall within the foreign affairsexception to the rulemaking provisions of 5U.S.C. 553(a)(1).

Sincerely,

Troy H. Cribb,

Chairman, Committee for the Implementationof Textile Agreements.[FR Doc.98–30798 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DR–F


Adjustment of Import Limits for CertainCotton, Man-Made Fiber, Silk Blendand Other Vegetable Fiber Textiles andTextile Products Produced orManufactured in India


EFFECTIVE DATE: November 19, 1998.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Janet Heinzen, International TradeSpecialist, Office of Textiles andApparel, U.S. Department of Commerce,(202) 482–4212. For information on thequota status of these limits, refer to theQuota Status Reports posted on thebulletin boards of each Customs port orcall (202) 927–5850. For information onembargoes and quota re-openings, call(202) 482–3715.



The current limits for certaincategories are being adjusted, variously,for swing and carryforward.

A description of the textile andapparel categories in terms of HTSnumbers is available in theCORRELATION: Textile and ApparelCategories with the Harmonized TariffSchedule of the United States (seeFederal Register notice 62 FR 66057,published on December 17, 1997). Alsosee 62 FR 67831, published onDecember 30, 1997.Troy H. Cribb,Chairman, Committee for the Implementationof Textile Agreements.



amends, but does not cancel, the directiveissued to you on December 22, 1997, by theChairman, Committee for the Implementationof Textile Agreements. That directiveconcerns imports of certain cotton, man–made fiber, silk blend and other vegetablefiber textiles and textile products, producedor manufactured in India and exportedduring the twelve-month period which beganon January 1, 1998 and extends throughDecember 31, 1998.




Levels in Group I218 ........................... 14,051,165 square

meters.314 ........................... 7,478,793 square me-

ters.334/634 .................... 156,421 dozen.336/636 .................... 1,038,204 dozen.338/339 .................... 4,176,074 dozen.345 ........................... 206,479 dozen.363 ........................... 44,958,680 numbers.369–S 2 .................... 720,820 kilograms.641 ........................... 1,343,145 dozen.647/648 .................... 481,433 dozen.Group II.200, 201, 220–227,

237, 239pt. 3, 300,301, 331–333,350, 352, 359pt. 4,360–362, 600–604, 606 5, 607,611–629, 631,633, 638, 639,643–646, 649,650, 652, 659pt. 6,666, 669pt. 7, 670,831, 833–838,840–858 and859pt. 8, as agroup.


1 The limits have not been adjusted to ac-count for any imports exported after December31, 1997.

2 Category 369–S: only HTS number6307.10.2005.


4 Category 359pt.: all HTS numbers except6406.99.1550.

5 Category 606: all HTS numbers except5403.31.0040 (for administrative purposesCategory 606 is designated as 606(1)).

6 Category 659pt.: all HTS numbers except6406.99.1510 and 6406.99.1540.

7Category 669pt.: all HTS numbers except5601.10.2000, 5601.22.0090, 5607.49.3000,5607.50.4000 and 6406.10.9040.

8 Category 859pt.: only HTS numbers6115.19.8040, 6117.10.6020, 6212.10.5030,6212.10.9040, 6212.20.0030, 6212.30.0030,6212.90.0090, 6214.10.2000 and6214.90.0090.


Sincerely,

Troy H. Cribb,

Chairman, Committee for the Implementationof Textile Agreements.[FR Doc.98–30800 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]



Announcement of Import RestraintLimits for Certain Cotton and Man-Made Fiber Textile Products Producedor Manufactured in Nepal

November 12, 1998.


ACTION: Issuing a directive to theCommissioner of Customs establishinglimits.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Janet Heinzen, International TradeSpecialist, Office of Textiles andApparel, U.S. Department of Commerce,(202) 482–4212. For information on thequota status of these limits, refer to theQuota Status Reports posted on thebulletin boards of each Customs port,call (202) 927–5850, or refer to the U.S.Customs website at http://www.customs.ustreas.gov. Forinformation on embargoes and quota re-openings, call (202) 482–3715.



The Bilateral Textile Agreement,effected by exchange of notes dated May30 and June 1, 1986, as amended andextended, and Memoranda ofUnderstanding (MOUs) dated November6, 1996 and June 20, 1997, between theGovernments of the United States andNepal establish limits for the periodJanuary 1, 1999 through December 31,1999.

These limits may be revised if Nepalbecomes a member of the World TradeOrganization (WTO) and the UnitedStates applies the WTO agreement toNepal.

In the letter published below, theChairman of CITA directs theCommissioner of Customs to establishthe 1999 limits.

A description of the textile andapparel categories in terms of HTSnumbers is available in theCORRELATION: Textile and ApparelCategories with the Harmonized TariffSchedule of the United States (seeFederal Register notice 62 FR 66057,published on December 17, 1997).Information regarding the 1999

CORRELATION will be published in theFederal Register at a later date.D. Michael Hutchinson,Acting Chairman, Committee for theImplementation of Textile Agreements.


20229.Dear Commissioner: Pursuant to section

204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, asamended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended; theBilateral Textile Agreement, effected byexchange of notes dated May 30 and June 1,1986, as amended and extended; andMemoranda of Understanding datedNovember 6, 1996 and June 20, 1997 betweenthe Governments of the United States andNepal, you are directed to prohibit, effectiveon January 1, 1999, entry into the UnitedStates for consumption and withdrawal fromwarehouse for consumption of cotton andman-made fiber textile products in thefollowing categories, produced ormanufactured in Nepal and exported duringthe twelve-month period beginning onJanuary 1, 1999 and extending throughDecember 31, 1999, in excess of the followinglevels of restraint:


336/636 .................... 248,267 dozen.340 ........................... 358,576 dozen.341 ........................... 1,151,784 dozen.342/642 .................... 312,957 dozen.347/348 .................... 807,673 dozen.363 ........................... 7,303,400 numbers.369–S 1 .................... 954,810 kilograms.640 ........................... 180,469 dozen.641 ........................... 406,913 dozen.

1 Category 369–S: only HTS number6307.10.2005.

The limits set forth above are subject toadjustment pursuant to the provisions of thecurrent bilateral agreement between theGovernments of the United States and Nepal.

Products in the above categories exportedduring 1998 shall be charged to theapplicable category limits for that year (seedirective dated November 6, 1997) to theextent of any unfilled balances. In the eventthe limits established for that period havebeen exhausted by previous entries, suchproducts shall be charged to the limits setforth in this directive.

These limits may be revised if Nepalbecomes a member of the World TradeOrganization (WTO) and the United Statesapplies the WTO agreement to Nepal.

In carrying out the above directions, theCommissioner of Customs should construeentry into the United States for consumptionto include entry for consumption into theCommonwealth of Puerto Rico.

The Committee for the Implementation ofTextile Agreements has determined that


1 The limit has not been adjusted to account forany imports exported after December 31, 1997.

these actions fall within the foreign affairsexception of the rulemaking provisions of 5U.S.C. 553(a)(1).

Sincerely,D. Michael Hutchinson,Acting Chairman, Committee for theImplementation of Textile Agreements.[FR Doc. 98–30799 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510–DR–F


Adjustment of an Import Limit forCertain Cotton Textile ProductsProduced or Manufactured in Nepal

November 10, 1998.AGENCY: Committee for theImplementation of Textile Agreements(CITA).ACTION: Issuing a directive to theCommissioner of Customs increasing alimit.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 19, 1998.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Janet Heinzen, International TradeSpecialist, Office of Textiles andApparel, U.S. Department of Commerce,(202) 482–4212. For information on thequota status of this limit, refer to theQuota Status Reports posted on thebulletin boards of each Customs port orcall (202) 927–5850. For information onembargoes and quota re-openings, call(202) 482–3715.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:


The current limit for Category 363 isbeing increased for carryover.

A description of the textile andapparel categories in terms of HTSnumbers is available in theCORRELATION: Textile and ApparelCategories with the Harmonized TariffSchedule of the United States (seeFederal Register notice 62 FR 66057,published on December 17, 1997). Alsosee 62 FR 60828, published onNovember 13, 1997.Troy H. Cribb,Chairman, Committee for the Implementationof Textile Agreements.



amends, but does not cancel, the directiveissued to you on November 6, 1997, by theChairman, Committee for the Implementation

of Textile Agreements. That directiveconcerns imports of certain cotton and man-made fiber textile products, produced ormanufactured in Nepal and exported duringthe twelve-month period which began onJanuary 1, 1998 and extends throughDecember 31, 1998.

Effective on November 19, 1998, you aredirected to increase the limit for Category 363to 8,061,300 numbers 1, as provided for underthe terms of the current bilateral textileagreement between the Governments of theUnited States and Nepal.

The Committee for the Implementation ofTextile Agreements has determined that thisaction falls within the foreign affairsexception of the rulemaking provisions of 5U.S.C. 553(a)(1).

Sincerely,Troy H. Cribb,Chairman, Committee for the Implementationof Textile Agreements.[FR Doc. 98–30801 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510–DR–F


Adjustment of Import Restraint Limitsfor Certain Cotton, Wool, Man-MadeFiber, Silk Blend and Other VegetableFiber Textile Products Produced orManufactured in Thailand


EFFECTIVE DATE: November 18, 1998.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RossArnold, International Trade Specialist,Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S.Department of Commerce, (202) 482–4212. For information on the quotastatus of these limits, refer to the QuotaStatus Reports posted on the bulletinboards of each Customs port or call(202) 927–5850. For information onembargoes and quota re-openings, call(202) 482–3715.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:


The current limits for certaincategories are being adjusted, variously,for carryover, carryforward, recreditingunused carryforward, and carryforwardused.

A description of the textile andapparel categories in terms of HTS

numbers is available in theCORRELATION: Textile and ApparelCategories with the Harmonized TariffSchedule of the United States (seeFederal Register notice 62 FR 66057,published on December 17, 1997). Alsosee 62 FR 65246, published onDecember 11, 1997.D. Michael Hutchinson,Acting Chairman, Committee for theImplementation of Textile Agreements.



amends, but does not cancel, the directiveissued to you on December 5, 1997, by theChairman, Committee for the Implementationof Textile Agreements. That directiveconcerns imports of certain cotton, wool,man-made fiber, silk blend and othervegetable fiber textiles and textile products,produced or manufactured in Thailand andexported during the twelve-month periodwhich began on January 1, 1998 and extendsthrough December 31, 1998.



Group II237, 331–348, 350–

352, 359–H 2,359pt. 3, 431, 433–438, 440, 442–448, 459pt. 4, 631,633–652, 659–H 5,659pt. 6, 831, 833–838, 840–858 and859pt. 7, as agroup.


Sublevels in Group II338/339 .................... 2,315,889 dozen.638/639 .................... 2,200,813 dozen.

1 The limits have not been adjusted to ac-count for any imports exported after December31, 1997.

2 Category 359–H: only HTS numbers6505.90.1540 and 6505.90.2060.

3 Category 359pt.: all HTS numbers except6505.90.1540, 6505.90.2060 (Category 359–H); and 6406.99.1550.


5 Category 659–H: only HTS numbers6502.00.9030, 6504.00.9015, 6504.00.9060,6505.90.5090, 6505.90.6090, 6505.90.7090and 6505.90.8090.

6 Category 659pt.: all HTS numbers except6502.00.9030, 6504.00.9015, 6504.00.9060,6505.90.5090, 6505.90.6090, 6505.90.7090,6505.90.8090 (Category 659–H);6406.99.1510 and 6406.99.1540.

7 Category 859pt.: only HTS numbers6115.19.8040, 6117.10.6020, 6212.10.5030,6212.10.9040, 6212.20.0030, 6212.30.0030,6212.90.0090, 6214.10.2000 and6214.90.0090.



Sincerely,

D. Michael Hutchinson,

Acting Chairman, Committee for theImplementation of Textile Agreements.[FR Doc. 98–30803 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]



New Export Visa Stamp for CertainTextile Products Produced orManufactured in Mauritius

November 12, 1998.


ACTION: Issuing a directive to theCommissioner of Customs providing forthe use of a new export visa stamp.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 1, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Naomi Freeman, International TradeSpecialist, Office of Textiles andApparel, U.S. Department of Commerce,(202) 482–4212.



Beginning on December 1, 1998, theGovernment of Mauritius will startissuing a new export visa stamp forshipments of textile products, producedor manufactured in Mauritius andexported from Mauritius on or afterDecember 1, 1998 to reflect the namechange of the ‘‘Ministry of Trade andShipping’’ to the ‘‘Ministry of Industryand Commerce.’’ There will be a one-month grace period from December 1,1998 through December 31, 1998,during which products exported fromMauritius may be accompanied byeither the old or new export visa stamp.Products exported from Mauritius on orafter January 1, 1999 must beaccompanied by the new export visastamp.

A facsimile of the new visa stamp ison file at the U.S. Department ofCommerce, 14th and ConstitutionAvenue, NW., room 3104, Washington,DC.

See 60 FR 62076, published onDecember 4, 1995.D. Michael Hutchinson,Acting Chairman, Committee for theImplementation of Textile Agreements.



amends, but does not cancel, the directiveissued to you on November 28, 1995, asamended, by the Chairman, Committee forthe Implementation of Textile Agreements.That directive directed you to prohibit entryof certain textile products, produced ormanufactured in Mauritius for which theGovernment of the Mauritius has not issuedan appropriate export visa.

Beginning on December 1, 1998, you aredirected to amend further the directive datedNovember 28, 1995 to provide for the use ofa new export visa stamp issued by theGovernment of Mauritius to accompanyshipments of textile products, produced ormanufactured in Mauritius and exportedfrom Mauritius on or after December 1, 1998.This new visa stamp reflects the namechange of the ‘‘Ministry of Trade andShipping’’ to the ‘‘Ministry of Industry andCommerce.’’

Textile products exported from Mauritiusduring the period December 1, 1998 throughDecember 31, 1998 may be accompanied byeither the old or new export visa stamp.Products exported from Mauritius on or afterJanuary 1, 1999 must be accompanied by thenew export visa stamp.

A facsimile of the new visa stamp isenclosed with this letter.

Shipments entered or withdrawn fromwarehouse according to this directive whichare not accompanied by an appropriateexport visa shall be denied entry and a newvisa must be obtained.

The Committee for the Implementation ofTextile Agreements has determined that thisaction falls within the foreign affairsexception to the rulemaking provisions of 5U.S.C. 553(a)(1).

Sincerely,D. Michael Hutchinson,Chairman, Committee for the Implementationof Textile Agreements.[FR Doc. 98–30802 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510–DR–F

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Notice of Proposed InformationCollection Requests

AGENCY: Department of Education.ACTION: Notice of Proposed InformationCollection Requests.

SUMMARY: The Acting Deputy ChiefInformation Officer, Office of the ChiefInformation Officer, invites commentson the proposed information collection

requests as required by the PaperworkReduction Act of 1995.DATES: An emergency review has beenrequested in accordance with the Act(44 U.S.C. Chapter 3507 (j)), sincepublic harm is reasonably likely toresult if normal clearance proceduresare followed. Approval by the Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) hasbeen requested by November 12, 1998.Interested persons are invited to submitcomments on or before November 30,1998.ADDRESSES: Written commentsregarding the emergency review shouldbe addressed to the Office ofInformation and Regulatory Affairs,Attention: Danny Werfel, Desk Officer:Department of Education, Office ofManagement and Budget; 725 17thStreet, NW., Room 10235, NewExecutive Office Building, Washington,D.C. 20503 or should be electronicallymailed to the internet address Werfel—[email protected]. Requests for copies of theproposed information collection requestshould be addressed to Patrick J.Sherrill, Department of Education, 600Independence Avenue, S.W., Room5624, Regional Office Building 3,Washington, D.C. 20202–4651, orshould be electronically mailed to theinternet address Pat—[email protected],or should be faxed to 202–708–9346.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 Director of OMB provideinterested Federal agencies and thepublic an early opportunity to commenton information collection requests. TheOffice of Management and Budget(OMB) may amend or waive therequirement for public consultation tothe extent that public participation inthe approval process would defeat thepurpose of the information collection,violate State or Federal law, orsubstantially interfere with any agency’sability to perform its statutoryobligations. The Acting Deputy ChiefInformation Officer, Office of the ChiefInformation Officer, publishes thisnotice containing proposed informationcollection requests at the beginning ofthe Departmental review of theinformation collection. 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. ED invitespublic comment at the address specifiedabove. Copies of the requests areavailable from Patrick J. Sherrill at theaddress specified above.

The Department of Education isespecially interested in public commentaddressing the following issues: (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: November 13, 1998.Hazel Fiers,Acting Deputy Chief Information Officer,Office of the Chief Information Officer.

Office of Postsecondary Education

Type of Review: New.Title: Request for Comment on

Planning and Implementation of theLearning Anytime AnywherePartnerships Grant Competition.

Abstract: The Learning AnytimeAnywhere Partnerships is a new grantcompetion. The information collectedwill be used by Dept. Of Education staffto help set priorities and planimplementation of the grant program. Itis expected that comments will bereceived from college and universityfaculty and administrators, highereducation associations, softwaredevelopers and publishers, industrytraining groups and other interestedorganizations or individuals.

Additional Information: Thisemergency notice is needed to collectfeedback in order to develop the grantapplication.

Frequency: On occasion.Affected Public: Individuals or

households; Business or other for-profit;Not-for-profit institutions; State, local orTribal Gov’t, SEAs or LEAs.

Reporting and Recordkeeping HourBurden: Responses: 50; Burden Hours:100.




AGENCY: Department of Education.ACTION: Submission for OMB review;comment request.

SUMMARY: The Leader, InformationManagement Group, Office of the ChiefFinancial and Chief Information Officer,invites comments on the submission forOMB review as required by thePaperwork Reduction Act of 1995.DATES: Interested persons are invited tosubmit comments on or beforeDecember 18, 1998.ADDRESSES: Written comments shouldbe addressed to the Office ofInformation and Regulatory Affairs,Attention: Danny Werfel, Desk Officer,Department of Education, Office ofManagement and Budget, 725 17thStreet, NW, Room 10235, NewExecutive Office Building, Washington,DC 20503 or should be electronicallymailed to the internet [email protected]. Requests forcopies of the proposed informationcollection requests should be addressedto Patrick J. Sherrill, Department ofEducation, 600 Independence Avenue,SW, Room 5624, Regional OfficeBuilding 3, Washington, DC 20202–4651, or should be electronically mailedto the internet [email protected], or should befaxed to 202–708–9346.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 Leader,Information Management Group, Officeof the Chief Financial and ChiefInformation Officer, publishes thisnotice containing proposed informationcollection requests prior to submissionof these requests to OMB. Eachproposed information collection,

grouped by office, contains thefollowing: (1) Type of review requested,e.g., new, revision, extension, existingor reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summaryof the collection; (4) Description of theneed for, and proposed use of, theinformation; (5) Respondents andfrequency of collection; and (6)Reporting and/or Recordkeepingburden. OMB invites public comment atthe address specified above. Copies ofthe requests are available from Patrick J.

Dated: November 12, 1998.Kent H. Hannaman,Leader, Information Management Group,Office of the Chief Financial and ChiefInformation Officer.

Office of Elementary and SecondaryEducation

Type of Review: Reinstatement.Title: Alaskan Native Educational

Equity Program.Frequency: Annually.Affected Public: Individuals or

households; Not-for-profit institutions;State, local or Tribal Gov’t; SEAs orLEAs.

Reporting and Recordkeeping HourBurden: Responses: 200. Burden Hours:3,200.

Abstract: The Alaskan NativePrograms address the severe educationalhandicaps of Alaska Native schoolchildren. The Department uses theinformation to make grant awards. Thiscollection involves a discretionary grantwhich falls under the StreamlinedDiscretionary Process, 1890–0001.



Notice of Program Interest;Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-BanTreaty Research and DevelopmentProgram

AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE),Office of Nonproliferation and NationalSecurity, Office of Research andDevelopment (NN–20).ACTION: Notice of Program Interest—tofund unsolicited applications/proposalsfor financial assistance awardscontributing to the mission of theComprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty(CTBT) Research and Development(R&D) Program.

SUMMARY: The DOE is interested inreceiving for consideration applicationsfor Federal Financial Assistance Awardspursuant to the financial assistancerules contained in Title 10 CFR part 600(10 CFR part 600, specifically 10 CFR


600.9). On behalf of the DOE CTBT R&DProgram, DOE invites UnsolicitedApplications/Proposals from interestedand qualified Nonprofit Organizations,Institutions of Higher Education, andCommercial Organizations to pursueresearch that supports the CTBT R&DProgram mission.

The CTBT R&D Program mission is:‘‘to carry out research and developmentnecessary to provide U.S. governmentagencies, that are responsible formonitoring and/or verifying CTBTcompliance, with technologies,algorithms, hardware and software forintegrated systems to detect, locate,identify and characterize nuclearexplosions at the thresholds andconfidence levels that meet U.S.requirements in a cost-effectivemanner.’’ Program priorities focus onthe advancement of seismic, infrasound,radionuclide, and hydroacousticknowledge and capabilities. This Noticeof Program Interest is intended toencourage the participation of NonprofitOrganizations, Institutions of HigherLearning, and CommercialOrganizations in furthering theseprogram mission interests.DATES: This Notice of Program Interestexpires September 30, 1999. This date isnot a deadline for applications;applications may be submitted at anytime. An updated notice may be issuedafter September 30, 1999.ADDRESSES: Applicants seeking fundingconsideration by the CTBT R&DProgram under this Notice of ProgramInterest are requested to mark andsubmit their Unsolicited Applications/Proposals, eight (8) total, as follows:

Original and copies # 1–6: Leslie A.Casey, Treaty Monitoring ProgramsManager, c/o CTBT R&D Program—Notice of Program Interest—NN–20,U.S. Department of Energy, 1000Independence Ave., SW., Washington,DC 20585–0420. DOE/NN–20 willinitiate the objective merit reviewprocess.

Copy # 7: John N. Augustine,Unsolicited Applications/ProposalsManager, c/o CTBT R&D Program—Notice of Program Interest—NN–20,U.S. Department of Energy, FederalEnergy Technology Center (FETC), 626Cochrans Mill Road, PO Box 10940,Pittsburgh, PA 15236–0940. DOE–FETCwill assign a DOE identification numberand acknowledge receipt of theproposal.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: U.S.Department of Energy (NN–20), 1000Independence Ave., SW., Washington,DC 20585–0420. Attn.: Leslie A. Casey,Telephone Number: (202) 586–2151,Fax Number: (202) 586–0485.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Responsesto this Notice of Program Interest mustexplain how the proposed work furthersthe CTBT R&D Program mission andresolves program research issues. Theseare summarized on the Web Page:‘‘http://www.ctbt.rnd.doe.gov/coordination/’’, under the heading ‘‘R&DIssues and Metrics’’. Successfulapplications will: demonstrate aknowledge of the CTBT R&D Program(as represented in the Reports Listing atthe Program’s web site—http://www.ctbt.rnd.doe.gov); offer novel orinnovative approaches leading toperformance improvements and costreductions; and/or respond to groundtruth data deficiencies.

Application Submission Requirements

Applications/proposals are to followthe ‘‘Guide for the Submission ofUnsolicited Applications/Proposals,’’(DOE/PR–0014) which is available onthe Web Page ‘‘http://www.fetc.doe.gov/business/index.html). This guideidentifies What to Submit with respectto Departmental informationrequirements for Basic Information,Business and Financial Information,Technical Information, andCertifications. It is imperative thatUnsolicited Applications/Proposalsadequately address these requirementsas omissions could delay proposalprocessing.

In addition, Unsolicited Applications/Proposals are to address the technicalwork to be performed and costsassociated with that work. The requiredinformation and format are as follows:

(1) Project Description: (Provide acomprehensive, but succinct (350character) summary of the proposedresearch project. It should convey theproject objective, application, method,product and value to U.S. governmentagencies and other users).

(2) Objective(s): (State researchobjectives).

(3) Application: (Describe the productand how it is to be used. Discuss theproduct’s merits over the currentbaseline and any technical uncertaintiesthat could impede the performance ofthe resulting product).

(4) User(s): (Identify potential usersand indicate whether they haveexpressed interest in the product).

(5) Prior Work: (Summarize thecurrent state-of-the-art for the statedfield of endeavor. Provide credentials ofkey participants and describe theirprevious relevant work. Cite applicablebibliographic references).

(6) Collaborators: (Identify otherparticipants and describe their role andcontribution).

(7) Proposed Work & Scientific Basis:(Specify the technical approach tomanage the project; describe specifictasks and subtask activities to beconducted by Work BreakdownStructure (WBS) to achieve the researchobjectives; and identify key decisionpoints (milestones). Relate theseelements to how they further the statedresearch objectives and advance thestate-of-the-art).

(8) Research Issues: (Identify thetechnical issues that will be addressedby the project; list potential barriers andexplain how they will be overcome).

(9) Tasks: (By WBS element list thetasks, associated subtasks, andassociated costs. Differentiate the costfor fully burdened labor, equipment,materials, other (such as travel, taxes,fee (if applicable), etc.) (OnceUnsolicited Proposals are selected forfunding, a complete break-down by costelement will be required.)

(10) Milestones: (List milestones (keydecision points) and scheduledcompletion dates by task).

(11) Deliverables: (List deliverables(products) and scheduled completiondates by task).

Unsolicited Applications/Proposalswill be evaluated against many factors.Some of the criteria that are likely toapply include: technical merit;applicant’s familiarity with otherongoing work; the relevance and qualityof the applicant’s prior work; theeffectiveness of the proposed technicalapproach; timeliness; cost; and theperiod of performance. Successfulproposals will also facilitate evaluationagainst these criteria.

Funding ConsiderationsFinancial Assistance Awards (Grants

or Cooperative Agreements) areanticipated to be funded for projectdurations of 1–3 years and awards willgenerally range from $100,000 to$500,000. While UnsolicitedApplications/Proposals may beconsidered for funding at any timefollowing receipt, favorableconsideration may be enhanced bytiming submission to parallel DOE’sreview and funding cycle. Applications/proposals that are submitted by March1, 1999 will support funding decisionsin June/July, 1999 followed by contractnegotiations over the summer inpreparation for awards in early FY 2000.

Submission, Withdrawal, andUnsuccessful Applications

Unsolicited Proposals will beaccepted on an ongoing basis.Unsolicited Applications/Proposalsmust state an acceptance period of 180days; however, Unsolicited


Applications/Proposals may bewithdrawn by the Applicant at any timeby written notification to the DOEUnsolicited Applications/ProposalsManager previously identified.Unsolicited Applications/Proposals thatare received may be considered forfunding at any time following receipt.Unsolicited Applications/Proposals thatare not selected in FY 98 may bereconsidered for funding in thefollowing year. UnsolicitedApplications/Proposals that are notfunded and not withheld forreconsideration will be destroyed andthe Applicant will be notifiedaccordingly. A Federal FinancialAssistance Award (Grant andCooperative Agreements) applicationpackage which includes a sample awardcan be obtained from the DOEContracting Officer previouslyidentified or can be down-loaded fromthe DOE AL Web Page: ‘‘http://www.doeal.gov/cpd/’’ under theheading ‘‘Solicitations’’.

It is DOE policy to exercise extremecare to ensure that the proposalinformation is not duplicated, used ordisclosed in whole or in part for anypurpose other than to evaluate theproposal, without written permission ofthe Applicant. Furthermore, withrespect to the Unsolicited Proposalevaluation, the Applicant is herebyinformed that it is standard practice ofthe CTBT R&D program officials toinclude review by DOE laboratorymanagers and experts in the topic areaof the proposal. If you are an expert andare willing to serve as a reviewer on anon-remunerative basis, the CTBT R&DProgram would like to be notified ofyour interest. Serving as a technicalreviewer could encompass theseUnsolicited Proposals, subject to non-disclosure agreements, as well as otherproposals related to the CTBT R&DProgram. Interested individuals arerequested to forward their resume andcover letter expressing their interest to:Manager, Treaty and MonitoringProgram (NN–20), U.S. Department ofEnergy, 1000 Independence AvenueSW, Washington, DC 20585–0420.Finally, proposal evaluation mayinclude coordination with othergovernment agencies or their designatedcontractors, primarily to check forduplication of effort and end userinterest. This is an important integrationpractice appropriate to a full-scope,ongoing and mature program such as theCTBT R&D program.

Issued in Washington, DC on November 12,1998.Leslie A. Casey,Treaty Monitoring Programs Manager, NN–20.[FR Doc. 98–30785 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6450–01–P


Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Rocky Flats

AGENCY: Department of Energy.ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions ofthe Federal Advisory Committee Act(Pub. L. 92–463, 86 Stat. 770) notice ishereby given of the following AdvisoryCommittee meeting: EnvironmentalManagement Site-Specific AdvisoryBoard (EM SSAB), Rocky Flats.DATES: Thursday, December 3, 1998, 6p.m.–9:30 p.m.ADDRESSES: Arvada Center for the Artsand Humanities, 6901 WadsworthBoulevard, Arvada, CO.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: KenKorkia, Board/Staff Coordinator, EMSSAB-Rocky Flats, 9035 NorthWadsworth Parkway, Suite 2250,Westminster, CO 80021, phone: (303)420–7855, fax: (303) 420–7579.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Purpose of the Board: The purpose ofthe Board is to make recommendationsto DOE and its regulators in the areas ofenvironmental restoration, wastemanagement, and related activities.

Tentative Agenda:

1. The Board plans to continue itsdiscussion on waste management topics.

2. Other Board business may beconducted as necessary.

Public Participation: The meeting isopen to the public. Written statementsmay be filed with the Committee eitherbefore or after the meeting. Individualswho wish to make oral statementspertaining to agenda items shouldcontact Ken Korkia at the address ortelephone number listed above.Requests must be received 5 days priorto the meeting and reasonable provisionwill be made to include the presentationin the agenda. The Designated FederalOfficial is empowered to conduct themeeting in a fashion that will facilitatethe orderly conduct of business. Eachindividual wishing to make publiccomment will be provided a maximumof 5 minutes to present their commentsat the beginning of the meeting.

Minutes: The minutes of this meetingwill be available for public review andcopying at the Freedom of Information

Public Reading Room, 1E–190, ForrestalBuilding, 1000 Independence Avenue,SW, Washington, DC 20585 between 9a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday-Friday, exceptFederal holidays. Minutes will also beavailable at the Public Reading Roomlocated at the Board’s office at 9035North Wadsworth Parkway, Suite 2250,Westminster, CO 80021; telephone (303)420–7855. Hours of operation for thePublic Reading Room are 9 a.m. and 4p.m. on Monday through Friday.Minutes will also be made available bywriting or calling Deb Thompson at theBoard’s office address or telephonenumber listed above.

Issued at Washington, DC on November 13,1998.Rachel M. Samuel,Deputy Advisory Committee ManagementOfficer.[FR Doc. 98–30864 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6450–01–P


Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission

[Docket No. RP99–142–000]

ANR Pipeline Company; Notice ofProposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

November 12, 1998.Take notice that on November 5,

1998, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR)tendered for filing as part of its FERCGas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No.1, the following revised tariff sheet to beeffective December 7, 1998:Fourth Revised Sheet No. 70

ANR states that the purpose of thisfiling is to set forth in the pro formaservice agreement contained in its tariffthe specific types of discounts that ANRmay agree to enter into with itsshippers.

ANR states that copies of the filinghave been mailed to all affectedcustomers and state regulatorycommissions.

Any person desiring to be heard or toprotest said filing should file a motionto intervene or a protest with theFederal Energy Regulatory Commission,888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.20426, in accordance with Sections385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission’sRules and Regulations. All such motionsor protests must be filed in accordancewith Section 154.210 of theCommission’s Regulations. Protests willbe considered by the Commission indetermining the appropriate action to betaken, but will not serve to makeprotestants parties to the proceedings.


1 See 80 FERC ¶ 61,264 (1997); order denyingrehearing issued January 28, 1998, 82 FERC ¶61,058 (1998).

2 Public Service Company of Colorado v. FERC,91 F.3d 1478 (D.C. 1996), cert. denied, Nos. 96–954and 96–1230 (65 U.S.L.W. 3751 and 3754, May 12,1997) (Public Service).

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.David P. Boergers,Secretary.[FR Doc. 98–30819 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–M



[Docket No. SA99–1–000]

Burlington Resources Oil & GasCompany; Notice of Petition forAdjustment

November 12, 1998.Take notice that on October 30, 1998,

Burlington Resources Oil & GasCompany (Burlington), filed a petitionfor adjustment under section 502(c) ofthe Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978(NGPA), requesting an order from theCommission finding that Burlington hasno Kansas ad valorem tax refundliability to Panhandle Eastern Pipe LineCompany (Panhandle), under theCommission’s September 10, 1997 orderin Docket No. RP97–369–000 et al.1Burlington’s petition is on file with theCommission and open to publicinspection.

The Commission’s September 10order on remand from the D.C. CircuitCourt of Appeals 2 directed First Sellersunder the NGPA to make Kansas advalorem tax refunds, with interest, forthe period from 1983 to 1988.

Panhandle served Southland RoyaltyCompany (Southland) with a Kansas advalorem tax refund claim. Burlingtonstates that Southland was merged intoBurlington on January 1, 1996, i.e.,Burlington is Southland’s successor.

Burlington further states thatSouthland entered into a November 24,1992 Letter Agreement with Panhandle,which terminated the applicable GasPurchase Agreements giving rise toSouthland’s refund obligation toPanhandle. Burlington adds thatParagraph 7 of that Letter Agreementreleased the parties from any claimsunder those contracts. In view of this,Burlington contends that Panhandle’sKansas ad valorem tax refund claim is

a claim against Southland that relates tothe Southland-Panhandle contracts andthat, as such, Panhandle assumed therisk of and liability for the subjectrefunds. Accordingly, Burlingtoncontends that it does not owe anyrefunds to Panhandle.

Any person desiring to be heard or tomake any protest with reference to saidpetition should on or before 15 daysafter the date of publication in theFederal Register of this notice, file withthe Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission, Washington, D.C. 20426, amotion to intervene or a protest inaccordance with the requirements of theCommission’s Rules of Practice andProcedure (18 CFR 385.214, 385.211,385.1105, and 385.1106). All protestsfiled with the Commission will beconsidered by it in determining theappropriate action to be taken but willnot serve to make the protestants partiesto the proceeding. Any person wishingto become a party to a proceeding or toparticipate as a party in any hearingtherein must file a motion to intervenein accordance with the Commission’sRules.David P. Boergers,Secretary.[FR Doc. 98–30818 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–M




KN Wattenberg Transmission LimitedLiability Co.; Notice of Tariff Filing


1998, KN Wattenberg TransmissionLimited Liability Co. (KNW) tenderedfor filing to become a part of KNW’sFERC Gas Tariff, First Revised VolumeNo. 1, the following revised tariff sheets,to be effective December 5, 1998:First Revised Sheet No. 0First Revised Sheet No. 16First Revised Sheet No. 77First Revised Sheet No. 80First Revised Sheet No. 81First Revised Sheet No. 82First Revised Sheet No. 88First Revised Sheet No. 91First Revised Sheet No. 92First Revised Sheet No. 93First Revised Sheet No. 94First Revised Sheet No. 95First Revised Sheet No. 99

KNW is making this housekeepingfiling as an effort to clarify and correctvarious sections of KNW’s FERC Tariff.

KNW states that copies of the filingwere served upon all affected firmcustomers of KNW and applicable stateagencies.

Any person desiring to be heard or toprotest said filing should file a motionto intervene or a protest with theFederal Energy Regulatory Commission,888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.20426, in accordance with Sections385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission’sRules and Regulations. All such motionsor protests must be filed in accordancewith Section 154.210 of theCommission’s Regulations. Protests willbe considered by the Commission indetermining the appropriate action to betaken, but will not serve to makeprotestants parties to the proceedings.

Any person wishing to become a partymust file a motion to intervene. Copiesof this filing are on file with theCommission and are available for publicinspection in the Public ReferenceRoom.David P. Boergers,Secretary.[FR Doc. 98–30820 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–M



[Docket Nos. RP98–259–001 and TM99–2–31–001 (not consolidated)]

NorAm Gas Transmission Company;Notice of Proposed Changes in FERCGas Tariff


1998, NorAm Gas TransmissionCompany (NGT) tendered for filing aspart of its FERC Gas Tariff, FourthRevised volume No. 1, the followingrevised tariff sheets to be effectiveNovember 1, 1998:

Docket No. RP98–259–000

Substitute Thirteenth Revised Sheet No. 5Substitute Thirteenth Revised Sheet No. 6

Docket No. TM99–2–31–000

Substitute Fourteenth Revised Sheet No. 5Substitute Fourteenth Revised Sheet No. 6

NGT states that this filing is beingsubmitted to reflect administrativecorrections related to NGT’s approvedElectric Power Costs (EPC) surchargewith respect to its inclusion in theMaximum and Minimum Commodityand Overrun Rates.

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 proceedings.Copies of this filing are on file with theCommission and are available for publicinspection in the Public ReferenceRoom.David P. Boergers,Secretary.[FR Doc. 98–30762 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–M



[Docket No. CP99–47–000]

NorAm Gas Transmission Company;Notice of Request Under BlanketAuthorization


1998, NorAm Gas TransmissionCompany (NorAm), 1111 LouisianaStreet, Houston, Texas 77210, filed inDocket No. CP99–47–000 a requestpursuant to Sections 157.205, 157.211and 157.216 of the Commission’sRegulations under the Natural Gas Act(18 CFR 157.205, 157.211, and 157.216)for authorization to abandon, construct,and operate certain facilities inArkansas. NorAm makes such requestunder its blanket certificate issued inDocket Nos. CP82–384–000 and CP82–384–001 pursuant to Section 7 of theNatural Gas Act, all as more fully setforth in the request on file with theCommission.

NorAm proposes to abandon, by saleand transfer to Arkla, the facilities listbelow which are located in Lafayetteand Columbia Counties, Arkansas. Thefacilities will be sold to Arkla at theirnet book value of $140,931.73.Specifically, NorAm proposes to sell toArkla a 1.53 mile segment of Line AM–39 that serves the Town of Buckner,Arkansas and nine rural delivery taps.NorAm also proposes to abandon a 5.33mile segment of Line AM–39, Line AM–42 in its entirety, and approximately 1.6miles of Line AM–44 used to deliver gasto the Town of Waldo, Arkansas andeight rural delivery taps.

It is stated that Arkla will operatethese facilities as part of its distributionsystem to provide low-pressure serviceto its existing customers. It is averred

that no service will be abandoned as aresult of this proposed abandonment.

In conjunction with theseabandonments, NorAm proposes toinstall a 2-inch meter station on LineAM–190 and a 3-inch meter station onLine AM–44 to continue deliveries toArkla. NorAm estimates the cost toconstruct these two taps to beapproximately $13,076.

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.David P. Boergers,Secretary.[FR Doc. 98–30765 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–M


Federal Energy RegulationCommission


Northern Border Pipeline Company;Notice of Proposed Changes in FERCGas Tariff


1998, Northern Border PipelineCompany (Northern Border) tenderedfor filing to become part of its FERC GasTariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, thefollowing tariff sheets to becomeeffective January 1, 1999:Fortheenth Revised Sheet Number 156Thirteenth Revised Sheet Number 157

Northern Border proposed to increasethe Maximum Rate from 3.683 cents per100 Dekatherm-Miles to 3.716 cents per100 Dekatherm-Miles and to decreasethe Minimum Revenue Credit from1.535 cents per 100 Dekatherm-Miles to1.463 cents per 100 Dekatherm-Miles.The revised Maximum Rate andMinimum Revenue Credit are beingfiled in accordance with NorthernBorder’s Tariff provisions under RateSchedule IT–1.

The herein proposed changes do notresult in a change in Northern Border’stotal revenue requirement.

Northern Border states that copies ofthis filing have been sent to all ofNorthern Border’s contracted shippersand interested state regulatorycommissions.

Any person desiring to be heard or toprotest said filing should file a motionto intervene or a protest with theFederal Energy Regulatory Commission,888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.20426, in accordance with Sections385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission’sRules and Regulations. All such motionsor protests must be filed in accordancewith Section 154.210 of theCommission’s Regulations. Protests willbe considered by the Commission indetermining the appropriate action to betaken, but will not serve to makeprotestants parties to the proceedings.Any person wishing to become a partymust file a motion to intervene. Copiesof this filing are on file with theCommission and are available for publicinspection in the Public ReferenceRoom.David P. Boergers,Secretary.[FR Doc. 98–30816 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–M




OkTex Pipeline Company; Notice ofProposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff


1998, OkTex Pipeline Company(OkTex), filed the tariff sheets incompliance with the Commission’sdirectives in Order No. 587–H.

OkTex states that the tariff sheetsreflect the changes to OkTex’s tariff thatresulted from the Gas IndustryStandards Board’s (GISB) consensusstandards that were adopted by theCommission in its July 15, 1998 OrderNo. 587–H in Docket No. RM96–1–008.OkTex further states that Order No.587–H contemplates that OkTex willimplement the GISB consensusstandards for November 1998 business,and that the tariff sheets therefore reflectan effective date of November 2, 1998.

OkTex states that copies of the filinghave been mailed to all affectedcustomers and state regulatorycommissions.

Any person desiring to protest thisfiling should file a protest with the


Federal 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 proceedings.Copies of this filing are on file with theCommission and are available for publicinspection in the Public ReferenceRoom.David P. Boergers,Secretary.[FR Doc. 98–30761 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–M




Portland Natural Gas TransmissionSystem; Notice of Application


1998, Portland Natural GasTransmission System (PNGTS), OneHarbour Place, Portsmouth, NewHampshire 03801, filed in Docket No.CP99–55–000, an application, pursuantto Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act,for a certificate of public convenienceand necessity authorizing theconstruction and operation of pipelinefacilities, all as more fully set forth inthe application which is on file with theCommission and open to publicinspection.

Specifically, PNGTS proposes toconstruct and operate a 4-inch diameterpipe that will extend three feet aboveground and a 4-inch diameter valve andflange, near milepost 149.55 inWindham, Maine. PNGTS states thatthese facilities will be enclosed withina standard six-foot high and ten-footsquare chain link fence located onPNGTS’s permanent right-of-way.PNGTS expects to utilize these facilitiesto construct a delivery tap in Windham,Maine in the future to provide naturalgas service. PNGTS is currentlyconstructing its pipeline from theCanadian border to Portland, Maine.PNGTS contends that it is moreefficient, less expensive,environmentally preferable, and safer toconstruct the proposed facilities duringconstruction of the PNGTS pipelinerather than after the pipeline has beenplaced into operation. PNGTS states that

the estimated cost of the project is$32,000.

Any person desiring to be heard or tomake any protest with reference to saidapplication should on or beforeNovember 19, 1998, file with theFederal Energy Regulatory Commission,888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC20426, a motion to intervene or a protestin accordance with the requirements ofthe Commission’s Rules of Practice andProcedure (18 CFR 385.211 and385.214) and the regulations under theNatural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.10). Allprotests filed with the Commission willbe considered by it in determining theappropriate action to be taken but willnot serve to make the protestants partiesto the proceeding. The Commission’srules require that protestors providecopies of their protests to the party orparties directly involved. Any personwishing to become a party in anyproceeding herein must file a motion tointervene in accordance with theCommission’s rules.

A person obtaining intervenor statuswill be placed on the service listmaintained by the Secretary of theCommission and will receive copies ofall documents filed by the applicant andby every one of the intervenors. Anintervenor can file for rehearing of anyCommission order and can petition forcourt review of any such order.However, an intervenor must submitcopies of comments or any other filingit makes with the Commission to everyother intervenor in the proceeding, aswell as 14 copies with the Commission.

A person does not have to intervene,however, in order to have commentsconsidered. A person, instead, maysubmit two copies of comments to theSecretary of the Commission.Commenters will be placed on theCommission’s environmental mailinglist, will receive copies ofenvironmental documents and will beable to participate in meetingsassociated with the Commission’senvironmental review process.Commenters will not be required toserve copies of filed documents on allother parties. However, commenterswill not receive copies of all documentsfiled by other parties or issued by theCommission and will not have the rightto seek rehearing or appeal theCommission’s final order to a federalcourt.

The Commission will consider allcomments and concerns equally,whether filed by commenters or thoserequesting intervenor status.

Take further notice that, pursuant tothe authority contained in and subject tothe jurisdiction conferred upon theCommission by Sections 7 and 15 of the

Natural Gas Act and the Commission’sRules of Practice and Procedure, ahearing will be held without furthernotice 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 abandonments and a grant ofthe certificate are required by the publicconvenience and necessity. If a motionfor leave to intervene is timely filed, orif the Commission on its own motionbelieves that formal hearing is required,further notice of such hearing will beduly given.

Under the procedure herein providedfor, unless otherwise advised, it will beunnecessary for PNGTS to appear or tobe represented at the hearing.David P. Boergers,Secretary.[FR Doc. 98–30763 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–M




Questar Pipeline Company; Notice ofTariff Filing


1998, Questar Pipeline Company(Questar) tendered for filing as part ofits FERC Gas Tariff, First RevisedVolume No. 1, the following tariffsheets, with an effective date of January1, 1999:Ninth Revised Sheet Nos. 5 and 5AEighth Revised Sheet No. 40Third Revised Sheet No. 90Original Sheet No. 90A

Questar tendered this tariff filing incompliance with the Commission’sApril 29 order that approved theStipulation and Agreement (S&A) filedby the Gas Research Institute (GRI) onJanuary 21, 1998. The S&A reflects theGRI Surcharge rates for 1999.Additionally, the S&A created aVoluntary Contribution Mechanism forshippers who voluntarily choose tocontribute to GRI through a ‘‘check-the-box’’ mechanism. This filingincorporates both the 1999 GRISurcharge rates and the VoluntaryContribution Mechanism into Questar’stariff.

Questar states that a copy of this filinghas been served upon its customers, thePublic Service Commission of Utah and


the Public Service Commission ofWyoming.

Any person desiring to be heart or toprotest said filing should file a motionto intervene or a protest with theFederal Energy Regulatory Commission,888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.20426, in accordance with Sections385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission’sRules and Regulations. All such motionsor protests must be filed in accordancewith Section 154.210 of theCommission’s Regulations. Protests willbe considered by the Commission indetermining the appropriate action to betaken, but will not serve to makeprotestants parties to the proceedings.Any person wishing to become a partymust file a motion to intervene. Copiesof this filing are on file with theCommission and are available for publicinspection in the Public ReferenceRoom.David P. Boergers,Secretary.[FR Doc. 98–30821 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–M




Southern Natural Gas Company;Notice of Request Under BlanketAuthorization


1998, Southern Natural Gas Company(Southern), Post Office Box 2563,Birmingham, Alabama 35202–2563,filed a request with the Commission inDocket No. CP99–50–000, pursuant toSections 157.205 and 157.212 of theCommission’s Regulations under theNatural Gas Act (NGA) for authorizationto relocate certain delivery pointfacilities including metering andapprutenant facilities where it servesMississippi Valley Gas Company (MVG)authorized in blanket certificate issuedin Docket No. CP82–406–000, all asmore fully set forth in the request on filewith the Commission and open topublic inspection.

Southern proposes to relocate theexisting meter at its existing ClaytonVillage Delivery Point which iscurrently located at the end of MVG’s 2-inch Clayton Village Line. Southernfurther proposes to relocate the facilitiesto a site at or near Mile Post 7.500 onSouthern’s 6-inch Starkville Lateral Linein Oktibbeha County, Mississippi.Southern reported that the estimatedcost of the relocation of the delivery

point facilities would be approximately$12,000. Southern continued that thenew location would be more accessibleto Southern’s general operations in thisarea of its system.

Any person or the Commission’s staffmay, within 45 days after theCommission has issued this notice, filepursuant 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 theNGA (18 CFR 157.205) allowed time,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 NGA.David P. Boergers,Secretary.[FR Doc. 98–30764 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–M




Texas Eastern TransmissionCorporation; Notice of SupplementalFiling


1998, Texas Eastern TransmissionCorporation (Texas Eastern) submittedfor filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff,Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, thefollowing substitute revised tariff sheetto become effective December 1, 1998:Sub Twenty-second Revised Sheet No. 35

Texas Eastern states that the abovesubstitute tariff sheet is being filed tosupplement Texas Eastern’s October 15,1998 filing in Docket No. RP99–92–000(October 15 Filing) which reflects adecrease in the PCB-Related Costscomponent of Texas Eastern’s currentlyeffective rates. Texas Eastern states thatdue to a transposition error in theOctober 15 Filing, the Rate ScheduleSCT Demand Charge for the MarketArea path, M1–M3, was understated onthe tariff sheet. Texas Eastern states thatthis supplemental filing is made for thesole purpose of correcting such SCTDemand Charge on Twenty-secondRevised Sheet No. 35.

Texas Eastern states that copies of thefiling were mailed to all affected

customers of Texas Eastern andinterested state commissions.

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 proceedings.Copies of this filing are on file with theCommission and are available for publicinspection in the Public ReferenceRoom.David P. Boergers,Secretary.[FR Doc. 98–30822 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–M




Texas Eastern TransmissionCorporation; Notice of SupplementalFiling

November 12, 1998.Take notice on November 6, 1998,

that Texas Eastern TransmissionCorporation (Texas Eastern) submittedfor filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff,Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, thefollowing substitute revised tariff sheetto become effective December 1, 1998:Sub Twenty-third Revised Sheet No. 35

Texas Eastern states that the abovesubstitute tariff sheet is being filed tosupplement Texas Eastern’s October 19,1998 filing in Docket No. RP99–93–000(October 19 Filing) in the subjectdocket. A tariff sheet was filed with atransposition error which occurred inTexas Eastern’s Docket No. RP99–92–000 October 15, 1998 filing. The RateSchedule SCT Demand Charge for theMarket Area path, M1–M3, wasunderstated on the tariff sheet. TexasEastern states that this supplementalfiling is made for the sole purpose ofcorrecting such SCT Demand Charge onTwenty-third Revised Sheet No. 35 filedon October 19, 1998.

Texas Eastern states that copies of thefiling were mailed to all affectedcustomers of Texas Eastern andinterested state commissions.

Any person desiring to be heard or toprotest said filing should file a motionto intervene or a protest with the


Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.20426, in accordance with Sections385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission’sRules and Regulations. All such motionsor protests must be filed in accordancewith Section 154.210 of theCommission’s Regulations. Protests willbe considered by the Commission indetermining the appropriate action to betaken, but will not serve to makeprotestants parties to the proceedings.Any person wishing to become a partymust file a motion to intervene. Copiesof this filing are on file with theCommission and are available for publicinspection in the Public ReferenceRoom.David P. Boergers,Secretary.[FR Doc. 98–30823 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–M




Williston Basin Interstate PipelineCompany; Notice of Request UnderBlanket Authorization


1998, Williston Basin Interstate PipelineCompany (Williston Basin), 200 NorthThird Street, Suite 300, Bismarck, NorthDakota 58501, filed in Docket No. CP99–51–000 a request pursuant to Sections157.205 and 157.216 of theCommission’s Regulations under theNatural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205 and157.216) for authorization to abandonan existing meter and associatedappurtenant facilities at the St. Mariemeter station in Valley County,Montana. Williston Basin makes suchrequest under its blanket certificateissued in Docket No. CP82–487–000, etal., pursuant to Section 7 of the NaturalGas Act, all as more fully set forth in therequest on file with the Commission.

Williston Basin states that it wasauthorized to acquire and operate the St.Marie meter station pursuant to theCommission’s Order dated February 13,1985 in Docket Nos. CP82–487–000, etal., at 30 FERC ¶ 61,143. It is indicatedthat on October 10, 1989, WillistonBasin filed a prior notice application inDocket No. CP90–24–000 to addadditional metering to its existingmetering capabilities to more accuratelymeasure the volumes being delivered tothe local distribution customer,Montana-Dakota Utilities Company(Montana-Dakota) at that meter station.

In that docket Williston Basin wasauthorized to install an additional meterand a larger relief valve parallel to theexisting metering. The new meter wasused in conjunction with the smallerexisting meter to measure winter loaddeliveries.

It is averred that the smaller meter atthat site is not currently being used andthat Williston Basin has determined thatdue to a reduction in usage in the areabecause of the closure of a Boeingaircraft test facility, two meters at thatlocation are no longer required.Therefore, Williston Basin proposesherein to abandon the old rotary meterand associated appurtenant facilities atthe St. Marie meter station.

Williston Basin states that theabandonment of the old meter andassociated appurtenant facilities at theSt. Marie meter station will not affectWilliston Basin’s peak day or annualtransportation, since service willcontinue to be provided through theexisting second meter at that site.

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 authorizied 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.David P. Boergers,Secretary.[FR Doc. 98–30817 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–M



[Docket No. ER99–488–000]

Wisconsin Public Service Corporation;Notice of Filing


1998, Wisconsin Public ServiceCorporation (WPSC), tendered for filingan amendment to its February 22, 1993,Agreement with the City of Marshfieldconcerning the ownership and operationof combustion turbine generation. The

amendment implements a revision tothe capacity rating of the West MarinetteUnit.

Wisconsin Public Service Requestswaiver of the Commission’s Regulationsto permit the amendment to becomeeffective on January 1, 1999.

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 Rules 211and 214 of the Commission’s Rules ofPractice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211and 18 CFR 385.214). All such motionsand protests should be filed on or beforeNovember 23, 1998. Protests will beconsidered by the Commission todetermine the appropriate action to betaken, but will not serve to makeprotestants parties to the proceedings.Any person wishing to become a partymust file a motion to intervene. Copiesof this filing are on file with theCommission and are available for publicinspection.Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,Acting Secretary.[FR Doc. 98–30771 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–M



[Docket No. EG98–92–000, et al.]

Medical Area Total Energy Plant, Inc.,et al.; Electric Rate and CorporateRegulation Filings

November 6, 1998.Take notice that the following filings

have been made with the Commission:

1. Medical Area Total Energy Plant,Inc.

[Docket No. EG98–92–000]

Take notice that on November 2,1998, Medical Area Total Energy Plant,Inc. (MATEP), for good cause shown,hereby amends its application fordetermination of exempt wholesalegenerator (EWG) status, filed July 2,1998, pursuant to 18 CFR 365.5 of theCommission’s Regulations. MATEPamends its EWG application in order todemonstrate further that it is exclusivelyin the business of owning and operatingelectric generation facilities therebyqualifying for EWG status.

Copies of the amended applicationwere served upon the Securities andExchange Commission and theMassachusetts Department ofTelecommunications and Energy.


Comment date: November 27, 1998, inaccordance with Standard Paragraph Eat the end of this notice. TheCommission will limit its considerationof comments to those that concern theadequacy or accuracy of the application.

2. Commonwealth ChesapeakeCompany, L.L.C.


Take notice that on October 30, 1998,Commonwealth Chesapeake Company,L.L.C. (CCCo), filed with the FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission anapplication for determination of exemptwholesale generator status pursuant toPart 365 of the Commission’sregulations.

CCCo will own and operate an eligiblefacility (a 300–MW, oil-fired, electricgenerating facility) to be located inAccomack County, Virginia.


3. ISO New England Inc.

[Docket No. ER98–3554–000]

Take notice that on October 30, 1998,ISO New England Inc. (ISO) tenderedfor filing proposed rates under Section205 of the Federal Power Act for itsFERC Tariff for Transmission Dispatchand Power Administration Services (theTariff).

Pursuant to Section 35.13(a)(1) of theCommission’s Regulations, 18 CFR35.13(a)(1), the ISO seeks approval ofthe rates set forth in its Tariff andaccompanying rate schedules.

The ISO requests that these rates beallowed to go into effect on January 1,1999.

Copies of the filing were served uponall participants in the New EnglandPower Pool (NEPOOL) and all non-participant entities that are customersunder the NEPOOL Open AccessTransmission Tariff, as well as on theutility regulatory agencies of the sixNew England States.

Comment date: November 19, 1998, inaccordance with Standard Paragraph Eat the end of this notice.

4. Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., aDivision of MDU Resources Group, Inc.

[Docket No. ER98–4289–001]

Take notice that on November 2,1998, Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., aDivision of MDU Resources Group, Inc.(Montana-Dakota) tendered for filingwith the Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission pursuant to theCommission’s October 16, 1998 Order in

this proceeding, a compliance filingrelated to its Market-Based WholesalePower Sales Rate Schedule.


5. CET Marketing L.P. and CogenEnergy Technologies L.P.

[Docket Nos. ER98–4412–000 and ER98–4423–000 (not consolidated)]

Take notice that on October 30, 1998,CET Marketing L.P. and Cogen EnergyTechnologies L.P. submitted with theFederal Energy Regulatory Commission(Commission) the Power Put andInterconnection Agreement betweenNiagara Mohawk Power Corporationand Cogen Energy Technologies, asrequested by Commission Staff in theabove-referenced proceeding.

A copy of this filing letter has beenserved on all parties on theCommission’s official service list.


6. Carolina Power & Light Co.


Take notice that on October 30, 1998,Carolina Power & Light Company(CP&L) tendered for filing theAgreement Between North CarolinaEastern Municipal Power Agency andCarolina Power 7 Light CompanyApplicable to Remaining Supplementalload Beginning January 1, 1999. TheAgreement is intended to supplementthe 1981 Power CoordinationAgreement, filed as FERC Rate ScheduleNo. 121.

CP&L requests an effective date ofJanuary 1, 1999.

CP&L states that copies of the filinghave been served on the Power Agencyas well as on the North CarolinaUtilities Commission and the SouthCarolina Public Service Commission.


7. Atlantic City Electric Co., et. al.,Baltimore Gas and Electric Co.,Delmarva Power & Light Co., PECOEnergy Co., PP&L, Inc., PotomacElectric Power Co., Public ServiceElectric and Gas Co., Jersey CentralPower & Light Co., Metropolitan EdisonCo., Pennsylvania Electric Co., UGIUtilities, Inc.


Take notice that on October 30, 1998,Atlantic City Electric Company,Baltimore Gas and Electric Company,Delmarva Power & Light Company,PECO Energy Company, PP&L, Inc.,

Potomac Electric Power Company,Public Service Electric and GasCompany, Jersey Central Power & LightCompany, Metropolitan EdisonCompany, Pennsylvania ElectricCompany, and UGI Utilities, Inc.,submitted for filing amendments to thePJM Open Access Transmission Tariff,designated as PJM Interconnection,L.L.C., FERC Electric Tariff, FirstRevised Volume No. 1 (PJM OATT). Theamendments modify the PJM OATT toinclude a new Schedule 1A—RTOScheduling, System Control andDispatch Service.


8. Allegheny Power Service Corp., onbehalf of Monongahela Power Co. andThe Potomac Edison Co., and WestPenn Power Co. (Allegheny Power)

[Docket No. ER99–397–000]Take notice that on October 30, 1998,

Allegheny Power Service Corporationon behalf of Monongahela PowerCompany, The Potomac EdisonCompany and West Penn PowerCompany (Allegheny PowerCompanies), filed Amendment No. 6 tothe Power Supply Agreement betweenthe Allegheny Power Companies.

The Allegheny Power Companiesrequest a January 1, 1999 effective datefor this amendment.

Copies of the filing have been servedon the Public Utilities Commission ofOhio, the Pennsylvania Public UtilityCommission, the Maryland PublicService Commission, the Virginia StateCorporation Commission, and the WestVirginia Public Service Commission.


9. Consumers Energy Co.


Consumers Energy Company (CECo),tendered for filing revisions to Sections1.18 and 34.1 of its Open AccessTransmission Tariff. The proposedamendment would allow CECo tocalculate the Load Ratio Share of itsnetwork transmission service customerson an annual basis, rather than by arolling twelve month calculation of thisratio. According to CECo, the proposedamendment should have no materialimpact on transmission compensation.

Copies of the filing have been servedon all CECo network transmissioncustomers and the Michigan PublicService Commission.



10. Pacific Gas and Electric Co.

[Docket No.ER99–418–000]

Take notice that on October 30, 1998,Pacific Gas and Electric Company(PG&E) tendered for filing a request toextend the Commission’s October 2,1998 Order through June 30,1999. AnOctober 2, 1998 Order approved PG&E’sCalifornia Independent SystemOperator’s (ISO) Grid ManagementCharge (GMC) Pass-Through to existingwholesale contract customers for 1998.PG&E seeks an extension of this pass-through authority under the same termsand conditions through June 30, 1999.PG&E also seeks to add the City andCounty of San Francisco and theNorthern California Power Agency torevised rate sheets for this tariff.

PG&E requests that its filing be madeeffective January 1, 1999.

This filing is part of thecomprehensive restructuring proposalfor the California electric powerindustry that is before the FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission.

Copies of this filing have been servedupon the California Public UtilitiesCommission and all other parties on theService List to this proceeding.


11. American Electric Power ServiceCorp.


Take notice that on October 30, 1998,The American Electric Power ServiceCorporation (AEPSC), tendered for filingexecuted Firm and Non-Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service Agreementsfor Hoosier Energy REC, Inc. and forPotomac Electric Power Company, anda Network Integration TransmissionService Agreement for Buckeye PowerInc., all under the AEP Companies;Open Access Transmission ServiceTariff (OATT). The OATT has beendesignated as FERC Electric TariffOriginal Volume No. 4, effective July 9,1996.

AEPSC requests waiver of notice topermit the Service Agreements to bemade effective for service billed on andafter October 1, 1998.

A copy of the filing was served uponthe Parties and the state utilityregulatory commissions of Indiana,Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee,Virginia and West Virginia.


12. Atlantic City Electric Co., et. al.


Atlantic City Electric Company,Baltimore Gas and Electric Company,Delmarva Power & Light Company,PECO Energy Company, PP&L, Inc.,Potomac Electric Power Company,Public Service Electric and GasCompany, Jersey Central Power & LightCompany, Metropolitan EdisonCompany, Pennsylvania ElectricCompany and UGI Utilities, Inc.submitted an amendment to theTransmission Owners Agreement(TOA). The purpose of this modificationto the TOA is to accommodate retailchoice in the PJM region.

An effective date of January 1, 1999,has been requested for thismodification.

A copy of this filing has been sent tothe regulatory commissions ofPennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland,Delaware, Virginia and the District ofColumbia for their information, as wellas to PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.


13. Cogentrix Energy Power Marketing,Inc.

[Docket No. ER99–452–000]On October 30, 1998, Cogentrix

Energy Power Marketing, Inc. (CEPM)filed a Notification of Change in Status,notifying the Commission that CEPMhad become affiliated with additionalgenerating companies, as a result ofindirect acquisitions by its parentcompany, Cogentrix Energy, Inc. CEPMalso submitted a market power analysisfor each market in which a new affiliateowns or controls generation.


14. Northern States Power Co.(Minnesota) and (Wisconsin)


Northern States Power Company(Minnesota) and Northern States PowerCompany (Wisconsin) (jointly NSP)filed proposed Substitute First RevisedSheet Nos. 73 and 74, Schedule 4—Energy Imbalance Service, to the NSPOpen Access Transmission Tariff(Tariff). The substitute tariff sheetsreplace First Revised Sheet Nos. 73 and74 accepted for filing effective October1, 1998, in the Commission’s orderdated April 30, 1998 in this docket. 83FERC ¶ 61,203 (1998). The substitutetariff sheets are necessary because theCPEX price index to be used to

determine the value of hourlyimbalances is no longer published. NSPproposes the substitute tariff pages alsobe effective October 1, 1998, subject torefund.

In addition, NSP proposes to amendthe comparable energy imbalanceprovisions pursuant to the WesternTransmission Agreement (WTA) withWisconsin Public Power, Inc. (WPPI)and the energy imbalance provisionspursuant to the pre-tariff TM–1transmission service agreements withvarious municipal customers.

NSP states that it served a copy of thefiling on parties to this consolidatedproceeding, on affected Tariff customersand the utility commissions inMinnesota, Michigan, North Dakota,South Dakota and Wisconsin.


15. American Electric Power ServiceCorp.


Take notice that on November 2,1998, the American Electric PowerService Corporation (AEPSC), tenderedfor filing service agreements under theWholesale Market Tariff of the AEPOperating Companies (Power SalesTariff). The Power Sales Tariff wasaccepted for filing effective October 10,1997 and has been designated AEPOperating Companies’ FERC ElectricTariff Original Volume No. 5.

AEPSC respectfully requests waiver ofnotice to permit the service agreementsto be made effective on the datesspecified in the initial filings.

A copy of this filing was served uponthe parties and the State UtilityRegulatory Commission’s of Indiana,Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee,Virginia and West Virginia.


16. Citizens Utilities Co.


Take notice on that on November 2,1998, Citizens Utilities Companytendered for filing a Line LossAmendment to Settlement Agreement.This Line Loss Amendment toSettlement Agreement is sponsored andentered into by all of the signatories tothe Settlement Agreement in DocketNos. ER95–1586–000, EL–96–17–000,and OA96–184–000, including Citizens,Burlington Electric Department, CentralVermont Public Service Corporation, theVermont Department of Public Service,Vermont Marble Power Division ofOMYA, Inc., Vermont Public Power


Supply Authority, Barton Village, Inc.,Enosburg Falls Water & LightDepartment and the Village of Orleans.The Commission approved theSettlement Agreement by letter orderissued on November 13, 1997, 81 FERC¶ 61,197(1997).

Citizens proposes an effective date ofJanuary 1, 1999 for the Line LossAmendment.

Copies of the filing have been servedon all of the above persons, as well asall of the parties in Docket Nos. ER95–1586-000, EL96–17–000, and OA96–184–000.


17. New England Power Pool


Take notice that on November 2,1998, the New England Power PoolExecutive Committee filed foracceptance signature pages to the NewEngland Power Pool (NEPOOL)Agreement dated September 1, 1971, asamended, signed by FPL Energy Maine,Inc.; FPL Energy Power Marketing, Inc.;ESI Northeast Energy GP, Inc.; FPLEnergy Maine Hydro LLC; FPL EnergyMason LLC; FPL Energy Wyman LLC;FPL Energy Wyman IV LLC; FPL EnergyAvec LLC (the ‘‘Applicants’’). TheNEPOOL Agreement has beendesignated NEPOOL FPC No. 2.

The Executive Committee states thatthe Commission’s acceptance of theApplicants’ signature pages wouldpermit NEPOOL to expand itsmembership to include the Applicants.NEPOOL further states that the filedsignature pages do not change theNEPOOL Agreement in any manner,other than to make the Applicantsmembers in NEPOOL. NEPOOL requestsan effective date of January 1, 1999, forcommencement of participation inNEPOOL by the Applicants.


18. MidAmerican Energy Co.


Take notice that on November 2,1998, MidAmerican Energy Company(MidAmerican), 666 Grand Avenue, DesMoines, Iowa 50309 tendered for filingan initial rate schedule consisting of anInterconnection Agreement datedOctober 9, 1998 between MidAmericanand Storm Lake Power Partners I LLC(SLPP) and a First Amendment theretodated October 9, 1998 which includesEnron Wind Development Corp. (EnronWind) as a party.

MidAmerican states that theInterconnection Agreement enables theinterconnection of electric facilitiesowned by SLPP (or Enron Wind) andMidAmerican for the purpose of thedelivery of power by SLPP (or EnronWind) to MidAmerican. The FirstAmendment makes Enron Wind a partyto the Interconnection Agreementsubject to the terms of the FirstAmendment.

Copies of the filing were served onrepresentatives of SLPP, Enron Wind,the Iowa Utilities Board, the IllinoisCommerce Commission and the SouthDakota Public Utilities Commission.


19. Public Service Company of NewMexico


Take notice that on November 2,1998, Public Service Company of NewMexico (PNM) submitted for filing aService Agreement executed October 15,1998, for Firm Point-to-PointTransmission Service between PNM(Transmission Provider) andConstellation Power Source, Inc.(Transmission Customer), under theterms of PNM’s Open AccessTransmission Service Tariff. PNM’sfiling is available for public inspectionat its offices in Albuquerque, NewMexico.

Copies of this filing have been servedon Constellation Power Source, Inc. andthe New Mexico Public UtilityCommission.


20. The Montana Power Co.


Take notice that on November 2,1998, The Montana power Company(Montana) tendered for filing with theFederal Energy Regulatory Commissionpursuant to 18 CFR 35.13, anunexecuted Network IntegrationTransmission Service Agreement andNetwork Operating Agreement withConoco Pipe Line Company (Conoco)and the Colstrip Project Owners(Colestrip Owners) under Montana’sFERC Electric Tariff, Second RevisedVolume No. 5 (Open AccessTransmission Tariff).

A copy of the filing was served uponConoco and Colstrip Owners.


21. Rochester Gas and Electric Corp.


Take notice that on November 2,1998, Rochester Gas and ElectricCorporation (RG&E) filed a ServiceAgreement between RG&E andAllegheny Energy (Customer). ThisService Agreement specifies that theCustomer has agreed to the rates, termsand conditions of the RG&E open accesstransmission tariff filed on July 9, 1996in Docket No. OA96–141–000.

RG&E requests waiver of theCommission’s sixty (60) day noticerequirements and an effective date ofOctober 12, 1998 for the StrategicEnergy LTD. Service Agreement.

RG&E has served copies of the filingon the New York State Public ServiceCommission and on the Customer.


22. Commonwealth Edison Company


Take notice that on November 2, 1998Commonwealth Edison Company(ComEd) tendered for filing serviceagreements establishing Baltimore Gas &Electric (BGE), Cargill-Alliant, LLC (C-A), Constellation Power Source, Inc.(CONS), Duke Power (DUKE), KentuckyUtilities Company (KU) and AmerenServices Company (AMRN) ascustomers under ComEd’s FERC ElectricMarket Based-Rate Schedule for powersales.

ComEd requests an effective date ofOctober 3, 1998 for the serviceagreements, and accordingly, seekswaiver of the Commission’s noticerequirements.

Copies of the filing were served onBGE, C-A, CONS, DUKE, KU AMRN,LGE and the Illinois CommerceCommission.


23. Maine Public Service Co.


Take notice that on November 2,1998, Maine Public Service Company(Maine Public) filed an executed ServiceAgreement for Non-Firm Point-to-PointTransmission Service under MainePublic’s Open Access TransmissionTariff with Energy Atlantic LLC.

Main Public requests waiver of theCommission’s 60-day noticerequirements so that the agreement canbecome effective on October 29, 1998.



24. Florida Power Corp.

[Docket No. ER99–460–000]Take notice that on November 2,

1998, Florida Power Corporation (FPC)tendered for filing a service agreementbetween the City of Bartow, Florida andFPC for service under FPC’s Cost-BasedWholesale Power Sales Tariff (CR–1),FERC Electric Tariff, Original VolumeNumber 9. This Tariff was accepted forfiling by the Commission on April 20,1998, effective as of October 29, 1997,in Docket No. ER98–374–000.


25. Central Hudson Gas and ElectricCorp.


1998, Central Hudson Gas and ElectricCorporation (CHG&E), tendered forfiling pursuant to Section 35.12 of theFederal Energy RegulatoryCommission’s (Commission)Regulations (18 CFR 35.12), a ServiceAgreement between CHG&E andMerchant Energy Group of theAmericas, Inc. The terms and conditionsof service under this Agreement aremade pursuant to CHG&E’s FERCElectric Rate Schedule, Original Volume1 (Power Sales Tariff) accepted by theCommission in Docket No. ER97–890–000.

A copy of this filing has been servedon the Public Service Commission of theState of New York.


26. Madison Gas and Electric Co.


1998, Madison Gas and ElectricCompany (MGE) tendered for filing withthe Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission (Commission), a ServiceAgreement with Merchant Energy Groupof the Americas, Inc.


27. Nevada Power Co.

[Docket No. OA97–2–003]Take notice that on November 2,

1998, Nevada Power Company tenderedfor filing a Statement of Policy and Codeof Conduct pursuant to the Commis-sion’s order issued in the above-mentioned docket on September 18,1998.

Comment date: December 2, 1998, inaccordance with Standard Paragraph Eat the end of this notice.

28. Gregory Power Partners, L.P.

[Docket No. QF99–32–000]

Take notice that on October 30, 1998,Gregory Power Partners, L.P., c/o LG&EPower Inc., 12500 Fair lakes Circle,Suite 350, Fairfax, Virginia 22033, filedwith the Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission, an Application forCertification of Qualifying Status of aCogeneration Facility pursuant toSection 292.207(b) of the Commission’sRegulations. No determination has beenmade that the submittal constitutes acomplete filing.

The facility is an approximately 427MW (net) topping-cycle cogenerationfacility located in Gregory, Texas. Thefacility is interconnected with CentralPower & Light Company.


29. Commonwealth Chesapeake Co.,L.L.C.


Take notice that on October 30, 1998,Commonwealth Chesapeake Company,L.L.C. (CCCo), filed with the FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission anapplication for determination of exemptwholesale generator status pursuant toPart 365 of the Commission’sregulations.

CCCo will own and operate an eligiblefacility (a 300-MW, oil-fired, electricgenerating facility) to be located inAccomack County, Virginia.


Standard Paragraphs

E. Any person desiring to be heard orto protest said filing should file amotion to intervene or protest with theFederal Energy Regulatory Commission,888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC20426, in accordance with Rules 211and 214 of the Commission’s Rules ofPractice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211and 18 CFR 385.214). All such motionsor protests should be filed on or beforethe comment date. Protests will beconsidered by the Commission indetermining the appropriate action to betaken, but will not serve to makeprotestants parties to the proceeding.Any person wishing to become a partymust file a motion to intervene. Copiesof these filings are on file with the

Commission and are available for publicinspection.David P. Boergers,Secretary.[FR Doc. 98–30815 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–P


[FRL–6190–4]

Effluent Guidelines Task Force OpenMeeting

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency.ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: The Effluent Guidelines TaskForce, an EPA advisory committee, willhold a meeting to discuss the Agency’sEffluent Guidelines Program. Themeeting is open to the public.DATES: The meeting will be held onTuesday, December 1, 1998 from 9:00a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and Wednesday,December 2, 1998 from 8:30 a.m. to 3:00p.m.ADDRESSES: The meeting will take placeat the Radisson Barcelo Hotel, 2121 PStreet, N.W., Washington, D.C.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Beverly Randolph, Office of Water(4303), 401 M Street, SW, Washington,D.C. 20460; telephone (202) 260–5373;fax (202) 260–7185.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Pursuant to the Federal AdvisoryCommittee Act (Pub.L. 92–463), theEnvironmental Protection Agency givesnotice of a meeting of the EffluentGuidelines Task Force (EGTF). TheEGTF is a committee of the NationalAdvisory Council for EnvironmentalPolicy and Technology (NACEPT), theexternal policy advisory board to theAdministrator of EPA.

The EGTF was established in July of1992 to advise EPA on the EffluentGuidelines Program, which developsregulations for dischargers of industrialwastewater pursuant to Title III of theClean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).The Task Force consists of membersappointed by EPA from industry, citizengroups, state and local government, theacademic and scientific communities,environmental justice community, andEPA regional offices. The Task Forcewas created to offer advice to theAdministrator on the long-term strategyfor the effluent guidelines program, andparticularly to providerecommendations on a process forexpediting the promulgation of effluentguidelines. The Task Force generally


does not discuss specific effluentguideline regulations currently underdevelopment.

The meeting is open to the public,and limited seating for the public isavailable on a first-come, first-servedbasis. The public may submit writtencomments to the Task Force regardingimprovements to the EffluentGuidelines program. Comments shouldbe sent to Beverly Randolph at theabove address. Comments submitted byNovember 24, 1998 will be consideredby the Task Force at or subsequent tothe meeting.

Dated: November 12, 1998.Tudor T. Davies,Director, Office of Science and Technology.[FR Doc. 98–30846 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560–50–P


[FRL–6190–7]

Notice of Proposed Settlement;Talisman Sugar CorporationProperties, Palm Beach and HendryCounties, Florida

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency.ACTION: Notice of proposed settlement.

SUMMARY: Under the ComprehensiveEnvironmental Response,Compensation, and Liability Act(CERCLA), and under section 7003(d) ofthe Resource Conservation andRecovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C.6973(d), the United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA)proposes to enter into a ‘‘prospectivepurchaser agreement’’ (PPA) concerningproperty owned by the Talisman SugarCorporation (‘‘Talisman’’) in PalmBeach and Hendry Counties, Florida.EPA proposes to enter into the PPA withThe Nature Conservancy (‘‘TNC’’), anon-profit District of Columbiacorporation, and the South FloridaWater Management District, (the‘‘District’’), a special ad valorem taxingauthority established by the Floridalegislature, which is responsible formanagement of water delivery in SouthFlorida. The PPA concerns theacquisition by TNC and the District ofcertain real property presently owned orleased by Talisman in Palm Beach andHendry Counties, Florida.

The real property in question (the‘‘Property’’) consists of approximately50,757 acres in the EvergladesAgricultural Area (‘‘EAA’’). Most of theProperty is currently owned byTalisman, but the Property includes

certain parcels leased by Talisman. TheProperty is the subject of a Purchase andSale Agreement between Talisman andthe TNC (the ‘‘Purchase and SaleAgreement’’), dated July 2, 1998, whichgives TNC the right to purchaseTalisman’s interest in the Property.

TNC is also a party to a CooperativeAgreement with the United StatesDepartment of the Interior and theDistrict (the ‘‘Cooperative Agreement’’),dated July 24, 1998, pursuant to whichportions of the Property may betransferred to the District. The purposeof TNC’s and the District’s participationin the Purchase and Sale Agreementand/or Coopertive Agreements is tofurther restoration of the FloridaEverglades ecosystem. The PPAobligates TNC and the District tomanage portions of the Property thatthey acquire in a manner that isconsistent with the comprehensiveEverglades restoration programenvisioned by the CooperativeAgreement.

Pursuant to the PPA, TNC and theDistrict will be protected from CERCLAliability and from liability under section7003(d) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6973(d),which may arise from their participationin the acquisition of the Property, asdescribed above. This protection iscontingent on TNC’s and the District’smanagement of the property asdescribed above.

EPA will consider public commentson the proposed settlement for thirty(30) days. Commenters may request anopportunity for a public meeting in theaffected area, in accordance with section7003(d) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6973(d).EPA may withdraw from or modify theproposed settlement should publiccomments disclose facts orconsiderations which indicate theproposed settlement is inappropriate,improper or inadequate.

Copies of the proposed settlement areavailable from Ms. Paula V. Batchelor,Waste Management Division, U.S. EPA,Region 4, Atlanta Federal Center, 61Forsyth Street, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia30303–8909.

Written comments may be submittedto Ms. Batchelor within thirty (30)calendar days of the date of publication.Franklin E. Hill,Chief, Program Services Branch, WasteManagement Division.[FR Doc. 98–30953 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]



[FRL–6190–3]

Proposed Administrative PenaltyAssessments and Opportunity toComment

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency.ACTION: Notice of proposed assessmentsof Clean Water Act Class Iadministrative penalties andopportunity to comment.

SUMMARY: EPA is providing notice ofproposed administrative penalties foralleged violations of the Clean WaterAct. EPA is also providing notice ofopportunity to comment on theproposed penalties.

EPA is authorized under section309(g) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 1319(g), toassess a civil penalty after providing theperson subject to the penalty notice ofthe proposed penalty and theopportunity for a hearing, and afterproviding interested persons notice ofthe proposed penalty and a reasonableopportunity to comment on its issuance.Under section 309(g), any person whowithout authorization discharges apollutant to a navigable water, as thoseterms are defined in section 502 of theAct, 33 U.S.C. 1362, may be assessed apenalty in a ‘‘Class I’’ administrativepenalty proceeding. Class I proceedingsunder section 309(g) are conducted inaccordance with proposed consolidatedrules of practice governing theadministrative assessment of civilpenalties, published at 63 FR 9464 (Feb.25, 1998).

EPA is providing notice of thefollowing proposed Class I penaltyproceedings initiated by the WaterDivision, U.S. EPA, Region 9, 75Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA94105:

In the Matter of S&H Dairy, DocketNo. CWA–IX–FY98–28, filed September28, 1998; proposed penalty, $5,000; forunauthorized discharge from the S&HDairy, 4125 Bentley Road, Oakdale, CA95361, on January 23, 1998, to a canaloperated by the Oakdale IrrigationDistrict; and

In the Matter of Bairos Brothers Dairy,Inc., Docket No. CWA–IX–FY98–27,filed September 28, 1998; proposedpenalty, $5,000; for unauthorizeddischarge from the Bairos BrothersDairy, 3037 Albers Road, Modesto, CA95357, on January 23, 1998, to theAlbers Lateral of the Oakdale IrrigationDistrict.

Procedures by which the public maycomment on a proposed Class I penaltyor participate in a Class I penalty


1 Report and Order, General Docket No. 87–112,3 FCC Rcd 905 (1987).


3 Order, Private Radio Docket 91–143, 6 FCC Rcd5335 (1991).

proceeding are set forth in the proposedconsolidated rules. The deadline forsubmitting public comment on aproposed Class I penalty is thirty daysafter issuance of public notice. TheRegional Administrator of EPA, Region9 may issue an order upon default if therespondent in the proceeding fails to filea response within the time periodspecified in the proposed consolidatedrules.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Persons wishing to received a copy ofthe proposed consolidated rules, reviewthe complaints, proposed consentorders, or other documents filed in theseproceedings, comment upon theproposed penalties, or participate in anyhearings that may be held, shouldcontact Danielle Carr, Regional HearingClerk, U.S. EPA, Region 9, 75Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA94105, (415) 744–1391. Documents filedas part of the public record in theseproceedings are available for inspectionduring business hours at the office ofthe Regional Hearing Clerk.

In order to provide opportunity forpublic comment, EPA will not take finalaction in these proceedings prior tothirty days after issuance of this notice.

Dated: October 28, 1998.Alexis Strauss,Acting Director, Water Division.[FR Doc. 98–30845 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560–50–M


Fifth Meeting of the AdvisoryCommittee for the 2000 WorldRadiocommunication Conference(WRC–2000 Advisory Committee)

AGENCY: Federal CommunicationsCommission.ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: In accordance with theFederal Advisory Committee Act, thisnotice advises interested persons thatthe next meeting of the WRC–2000Advisory Committee will be held onDecember 9, 1998, at the FederalCommunications Commission. Thepurpose of the meeting is to continuepreparations for the 2000 WorldRadiocommunication Conference. TheAdvisory Committee will consider anyconsensus views or proposalsintroduced by the Advisory Committee’sInformal Working Groups.DATES: The meeting will be held onWednesday, December 9, 1998 at 10:00a.m.–12:00 noon.

ADDRESSES: Federal CommunicationsCommission, 1919 M Street, N.W.,Room 856, Washington D.C. 20554.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Damon C. Ladson, FCC InternationalBureau, Planning and NegotiationsDivision, at (202) 418–0420.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: TheFederal Communications Commission(FCC) established the WRC–2000Advisory Committee to provide advice,technical support and recommendationsrelating to the preparation of UnitedStates proposals and positions for the2000 World RadiocommunicationConference (WRC–2000). In accordancewith the Federal Advisory CommitteeAct, Public Law 92–463, as amended,this notice advises interested persons ofthe fifth meeting of the WRC–2000Advisory Committee. The WRC–2000Advisory Committee has an openmembership. All interested parties areinvited to participate in the AdvisoryCommittee and to attend its meetings.The proposed agenda for the fifthmeeting is as follows:

AGENDA—Fifth Meeting of the WRC–2000 Advisory Committee, FederalCommunications Commission, 1919 MStreet, N.W., Room 856, Washington,D.C. 20554

December 9, 1998; 10:00 a.m.–12:00noon

1. Opening Remarks2. Approval of Agenda3. Approval of the Minutes of the Fourth

Meeting4. IWG Reports5. Consideration of Consensus Views and

Issue Papers6. Development of Draft Proposals7. Future Meetings8. Other BusinessFederal Communications Commission.Shirley S. Suggs,Chief, Publications Branch.[FR Doc. 98–30746 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6712–01–P


[PR Docket No. 91–143; DA 98–2257]

Private Land Mobile Radio ServiceRules, Arizona Public Safety Plan

AGENCY: Federal CommunicationsCommission.ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Chief Public Safety andPrivate Wireless Division released thisPublic Notice approving an amendmentto the Arizona Public Safety RegionalPlan (Region 3 Plan) that revises thecurrent channel allotments for radio

frequencies in the 821–824/866–869MHz bands within the state of Arizona.In accordance with the National PublicSafety Plan, each region is responsiblefor planning its use of public safetyradio frequency spectrum in the 821–824/866–869 MHz bands.1

DATES: November 6, 1998.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: JoyAlford, Federal CommunicationsCommission, Washington, DC, (202)418–0694.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By thisnotice, the minor amendment to theRegion 3 Public Safety Radio Plan(Region 3 Plan) that proposes to revisethe current channel allotments for radiofrequencies in the 821–824/866–869MHz bands within the state of Arizonais approved. The amendment assignscertain frequencies to new users inRegion 3. The amendment also includesminor non-frequency assignmentchanges or corrections to the plan. Inaccordance with the Public SafetyNational Plan, each region isresponsible for planning its use of thepublic safety radio frequency spectrumin the 821–824–866–869 MHz bands.2The Region 3 Plan was originallyadopted by the Commission onSeptember 4, 1991,3 and wassubsequently revised by letter on May24, 1995. On August 28, 1998, theCommission issued a Public Notice(Report No. WT 98–40) invitinginterested parties to file commentsregarding a proposed amendment to theRegion 3 Plan that was filed with theCommission on June 12, 1998. We havereviewed the Region 3 request. Theamendment is a minor change to theRegion 3 Plan and includesconcurrences from each of the adjacentRegions 5, 7, 27, 29, and 41. Further, wehave received no comments in responseto the Public Notice of August 28, 1998,referenced above. The amendment, istherefore, accepted and approved assubmitted. The Secretary’s office willplace the amended Region 3 Plan in theofficial docket file where it will remainavailable to the public. Questionsregarding this public notice may bedirected to Joy Alford, WirelessTelecommunications Bureau (202) 418–0694. The original Region 3 PublicSafety Plan, is available for inspectionand copying during normal businesshours in the FCC Reference Center(Room 230) 1919 M Street, NW,Washington, DC. The original Region 3



2 Report and Order, General Docket No. 87–112,3 FCC Rcd 905 (1987), at paragraph 57.

3 Order, General Docket 88–549, 4 FCC Rcd 5401(1989).



3 Order, General Docket 90–287, 5 FCC Rcd 7132(1990).

4 Order, DA 92–1009, 7 FCC Rcd 4908 (1992).5 Order, 9 FCC Rcd 6128 (1994).6 Public Notice, Report No. WT–97–33.

Public Safety Plan, may also be orderedfrom the Commission’s copy contractor,International Transcription Services,Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW, Washington,DC 20036, Telephone (202) 857–3800.Federal Communications Commission.Shirley Suggs,Chief, Publications Branch.[FR Doc. 98–30806 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6712–01–P


[Gen. Docket No. 88–549; DA 98–2256]

Private Land Mobile Radio ServiceRules, North Central Texas PublicSafety Plan


SUMMARY: The Chief Public Safety andPrivate Wireless Division released thisPublic Notice approving an amendmentto the North Central Texas Public SafetyRegional Plan (Region 40 Plan) thatrevises the current channel allotmentsfor radio frequencies in the 821-824/866–869 MHz bands within NorthCentral Texas. In accordance with theNational Public Safety Plan, each regionis responsible for planning its use ofpublic safety radio frequency spectrumin the 821–824/866–869 MHz bands. 1

DATES: November 6, 1998.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: JoyAlford, Federal CommunicationsCommission, Washington, D.C., (202)418–0694.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By thisnotice, the minor amendment to theRegion 40 Public Safety Radio Plan(Region 40 Plan) that proposes to reviseits current channel allotments for radiofrequencies in the 821–824/866–869MHz bands within the North CentralTexas area, is approved. Theamendment assigns certain frequencieswithin Region 40 for low powerinteroperability purposes. In accordancewith the Public Safety National Plan,each region is responsible for planningits use of public safety radio frequencyspectrum in the 821–824/866–869 MHzbands.2 The Region 40 Plan wasoriginally adopted by the Commissionon June 22, 1989,3 and wassubsequently modified by letter on

December 31, 1992. On August 28, 1998,the Commission issued a Public Notice(Report No. WT 98–30) invitinginterested parties to file comments to aproposed amendment that was filedwith the Commission on July 17, 1997,to amend the Region 40 Plan. We havereviewed the Region 40 request. Wehave received no comments to thePublic Notice of August 28, referencedabove. The amendment is a minorchange to the Region 40 Plan and isapproved as submitted. The Secretary’soffice will place the amended Region 40Plan in the official docket file where itwill remain available to the public.Questions regarding this public noticemay be directed to Joy Alford, WirelessTelecommunications Bureau (202) 418–0694. The original Region 40 PublicSafety Plan, is available for inspectionand copying during normal businesshours in the FCC Reference Center(Room 230) 1919 M Street, N.W.,Washington, D.C. The original Region40 Public Safety Plan, may also beordered from the Commission’s copycontractor, International TranscriptionServices, Inc., 1231 20th Street, N.W.,Washington, D.C. 20036, Telephone(202) 857–3800.Federal Communications Commission.Shirley Suggs,Chief, Publications Branch.[FR Doc. 98–30807 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6712–01–P


[Gen. Docket No. 90–287; DA 98–2258]

Private Land Mobile Radio ServiceRules, Northern California PublicSafety Plan


SUMMARY: The Chief Public Safety andPrivate Wireless Division released thisPublic Notice approving an amendmentto the Northern California Public SafetyRegional Plan (Region 6 Plan) thatrevises the current channel allotmentsfor radio frequencies in the 821–824/866–869 MHz bands within NorthernCalifornia. In accordance with theNational Public Safety Plan, each regionis responsible for planning its use ofpublic safety radio frequency spectrumin the 821–824/866–869 MHz bands.1

DATES: November 6, 1998.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: JoyAlford, Federal Communications

Commission, Washington, D.C., (202)418–0694.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By thisnotice, the minor amendment to theRegion 6 Public Safety Radio Plan(Region 6 Plan) that proposes to revisethe current channel allotments for radiofrequencies in the 821–824/866–869MHz bands in the Northern Californiaarea is approved. The amendmentexchanges several channels previouslyallocated and designates new use forsome channels which were allotted foruse in specific counties. In accordancewith the Public Safety National Plan,each region is responsible for planningits use of public safety radio frequencyspectrum in the 821–824/866–869 MHzbands.2 The Region 6 Plan wasoriginally adopted by the Commissionon November 20, 1990,3 and wassubsequently revised on July 22, 1992,4October 17, 1994,5 and August 4, 1997.6On September 15, 1998, theCommission issued a Public Notice (DA98–1777) inviting interested parties tofile comments regarding a proposedamendment that was filed with theCommission on March 6, 1998, toamend the Region 6 Plan. We havereviewed the Region 6 request. We havereceived no comments in response tothe Public Notice of September 15,1998, referenced above. The amendmentis a minor change to the Region 6 Planand is approved as submitted. TheSecretary’s office will place theamended Region 6 Plan in the officialdocket file where it will remainavailable to the public. Questionsregarding this public notice may bedirected to Joy Alford, WirelessTelecommunications Bureau (202) 418–0694. The original Region 6 PublicSafety Plan, is available for inspectionand copying during normal businesshours in the FCC Reference Center(Room 230) 1919 M Street, N.W.,Washington, D.C. The original Region 6Public Safety Plan, may also be orderedfrom the Commission’s copy contractor,International Transcription Services,Inc., 1231 20th Street, N.W.,Washington, DC 20036, Telephone (202)857–3800.Federal Communications Commission.Shirley Suggs,Chief, Publications Branch.[FR Doc. 98–30808 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6712–01–P



[Report No. 2303]

Petitions for Reconsideration andClarification of Action in RulemakingProceedings

November 10, 1998.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 by December 3, 1998. See Section1.4(b)(1) of the Commission’s rules (47CFR 1.4(b)(1). Replies to an oppositionmust be filed within 10 days after thetime for filing oppositions has expired.

Subject: Review of the Commission’sRules Regarding the Main Studio andLocal Public Inspection Files ofBroadcast Television and Radio Stations(MM Docket No. 97–138).

Number of Petitions Filed: 5.Federal Communications Commission.Shirley Suggs,Chief, Publications Branch.[FR Doc. 98–30809 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6712–01–M

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONSAUTHORITY

[FLRA Docket No. DA–RO–60006]

Notice of Opportunity To Submit AmiciCuriae Briefs in RepresentationProceeding Pending Before theFederal Labor Relations Authority

AGENCY: Federal Labor RelationsAuthority.ACTION: Notice of the opportunity to filebriefs as amici curiae in a proceedingbefore the Federal Labor RelationsAuthority in which the Authority isdetermining the standard for evaluatinga union petition for a representationelection where an activity hasunlawfully assisted the petitioningunion.

SUMMARY: The Federal Labor RelationsAuthority provides an opportunity forall interested persons to file briefs asamici curiae on significant issues arisingin a case pending before the Authority.The Authority is considering this casepursuant to its responsibilities underthe Federal Service Labor-Management

Relations Statute, 5 U.S.C. 7101–7135(the Statute) and its Regulations, setforth at 5 CFR part 2422. The issues inthis case concern the standard forevaluating a union petition for arepresentation election where anactivity has unlawfully assisted thepetitioning union.DATES: Briefs submitted in response tothis notice will be considered ifreceived by mail or personal delivery inthe Authority’s Office of Case Control by5 p.m. on or before Friday, December18, 1998. Placing submissions in themail by this deadline will not besufficient. Extensions of time to submitbriefs will not be granted.ADDRESSES: Mail or deliver writtencomments to Peter J. Constantine,Director, Case Control Office, FederalLabor Relations Authority, 607 14thStreet, NW., Suite 415, Washington, DC20424–0001.FORMAT: All briefs shall be captioned:United States Army Air DefenseArtillery Center, and Fort Bliss, FortBliss, Texas, Case No. DA–RO–60006,Amicus Brief. Briefs shall also containseparate, numbered headings for eachissue discussed. An original and four (4)copies of each amicus brief must besubmitted, with any enclosures, on81⁄2×11 inch paper. Briefs must includea signed and dated statement of servicethat complies with the Authority’sregulations showing service of one copyof the brief on all counsel of record orother designated representatives. 5 CFR2429.27 (a) and (c). Copies of theAuthority’s decision granting theapplication for review in this case anda list of the designated representativesfor the case may be obtained by mail orby facsimile by contacting Peter J.Constantine at the Authority’s CaseControl Office at the address set forthabove.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Peter J. Constantine, at the addresslisted above or by telephone: (202) 482–6540.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OnNovember 3, 1998, the Authoritygranted an application for review of theRD’s Decision and Order in UnitedStates Army Air Defense Artillery Centerand Fort Bliss, Fort Bliss, Texas, CaseNo. DA–RO–60006 (54 FLRA No. 127(1998)). A summary of that case follows.

1. BackgroundFollowing organizing efforts, the

National Federation of FederalEmployees (NFFE) filed a petitionpursuant to section 7111 of the Statuteand § 2422.2 of the Authority’sRegulations, 5 CFR 2422.2, (theRegulations in effect prior to March 15,

1996, are applicable in this case),seeking an election to represent abargaining unit represented by theNational Association of GovernmentEmployees (NAGE). NAGE filed anunfair labor practice (ULP) charge,claiming that the Activity unfairly aidedNFFE in its attempt to collect signaturesby allowing a non-employee NFFEorganizer onto its premises. TheRegional Director (RD) held therepresentation case in abeyance untilthe charge was resolved. NAGEcontended that the Activity hadpermitted the non-employee NFFEorganizer access to work areas whereemployees represented by NAGEworked. NAGE and the Activity settledthe ULP charge. Without admitting aviolation of the Statute, the Activityagreed to post a notice indicating that itwould not permit NFFE access to itspremises.

After the settlement of the ULPcharge, NFFE argued that the RD shouldschedule an election and that no hearingwas required because the ULP chargehad been settled. Instead, the RDscheduled a hearing to determinewhether the petition should bedismissed because of the Activity’salleged improper conduct. At thehearing, NFFE claimed that a largenumber of signatures were lawfullyobtained by employees who wereassisting NFFE in its organizing effortsand were not obtained by its non-employee organizer, and that there wasno showing that its organizer unlawfullyobtained any signatures supporting theshowing of interest petition. NAGEcontended that a hearing wasappropriate in the circumstances of thiscase.

2. The Regional Director’s DecisionThe RD found that the Activity had

improperly granted NFFE access to itspremises. The RD determined, based onemployees’ testimony, that the organizerwas seen in work areas during dutyhours soliciting signatures, but that noone actually saw the organizer obtainsignatures during those times. The RDalso determined that NFFE obtainedapproximately 75 percent of thesignatures it collected during a timeperiod that roughly corresponded to theorganizer’s activity.

Relying on Social SecurityAdministration and National TreasuryEmployees Union, 52 FLRA 1159 (1997)(Social Security), rev’d in part sub nom.National Treasury Employees Union v.FLRA, 139 F.3d 214 (D.C. Cir. 1998), theRD found that the Activity improperlyassisted NFFE, in violation of section7116(a)(3) of the Statute, when it failedto determine whether NFFE had other


means of contacting the employees itwas seeking to organize, beforepermitting the NFFE organizer access toits premises, including common areas.According to the RD, the Activitypermitted the NFFE organizer improperaccess when the only limit it placed onhim was to solicit signatures ofemployees in work areas on their non-duty time.

The RD concluded that, under thetotality of the circumstances, theActivity had unlawfully assisted NFFE,because it controlled the premises, itfailed to verify whether NFFE hadalternative means of contact, and itpermitted NFFE access to the premises.The RD concluded that, because theunlawful assistance interfered with theemployees’ rights under section 7102 ofthe Statute, any cards signed during theperiod of the Activity’s unlawfulassistance were tainted. Therefore, theRD dismissed the petition.

3. The Application for ReviewAs applicable here, NFFE contends

that its non-employee organizer had aright to be on the Activity’s premisesbecause NFFE represents employees atthat Activity and because NFFE did notdo anything illegal in its solicitation ofthe showing of interest. NFFE contendsthat the signatures on its showing ofinterest petition were validly obtainedby bargaining unit employees. NFFEasserts that its organizer merelygathered the petition sheets from theemployees who had obtained thesignatures. NFFE also asserts that therewas no showing that any of thesignatures was improperly obtained.

NAGE asserts that the facts supportthe conclusion that the Activityunlawfully assisted NFFE in obtainingsignatures.

Addressing NFFE’s contentions, theAuthority concluded that NFFE did notestablish that the RD committedprejudicial procedural error in holdinga hearing or that the RD disregardedAuthority Regulations, and deniedNFFE’s application in these and otherrespects. NFFE did not raise and theAuthority did not reach the question ofwhether the RD properly applied thestandards set forth in Social Security.

Finding that there is an absence ofprecedent, the Authority granted theapplication for review on the issue ofwhat standard should apply to evaluatewhether the type of improper conductalleged in this case warrants dismissalof an otherwise valid election petition.

4. Question on Which Briefs AreSolicited

The Authority has directed the partiesin the case to file briefs addressing the

following question: What standardshould be used to determine whether anactivity’s improper conduct should leadto the dismissal of an election petitionon the basis that the accompanyingshowing of interest was tainted?

As this matter is likely to be ofconcern to agencies, labor organizations,and other interested persons, theAuthority finds it appropriate to providefor the filing of amicus briefs addressingthese issues.

(Authority: 5 U.S.C. 7105(a)(2) (B) and (I)).

For the authority.

Peter J. Constantine,Director, Case Control Office, Federal LaborRelations Authority.[FR Doc. 98–30868 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6727–01–P

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Change in Bank Control Notices;Acquisitions of Shares of Banks orBank Holding Companies

The notificants listed below haveapplied under the Change in BankControl Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and §225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bankholding company. The factors that areconsidered in acting on the notices areset forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available forimmediate inspection at the FederalReserve Bank indicated. The noticesalso will be available for inspection atthe offices of the Board of Governors.Interested persons may express theirviews in writing to the Reserve Bankindicated for that notice or to the officesof the Board of Governors. Commentsmust be received not later thanDecember 2. 1998.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta(Lois Berthaume, Vice President) 104Marietta Street, NW, Atlanta, Georgia30303-2713:

1. Philip Bachman & MarthaBachman, both of Greeneville,Tennessee; to retain voting shares ofGreene County Bancshares, Inc.,Greeneville, Tennessee, and therebyindirectly retain voting shares of GreeneCounty Bank, Greeneville, Tennessee.

2. James G. Tanner, III, Baton Rouge,Louisiana; to acquire voting shares ofFirst National Bancshares of Eunice,Inc., Eunice, Louisiana, and therebyindirectly acquire voting shares of FirstBank, Eunice, Louisiana.

Board of Governors of the Federal ReserveSystem, November 12, 1998.Robert deV. Frierson,Associate Secretary of the Board.[FR Doc. 98–30774 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6210–01–F


Formations of, Acquisitions by, andMergers of Bank Holding Companies

The companies listed in this noticehave applied to the Board for approval,pursuant to the Bank Holding CompanyAct of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.)(BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part225), and all other applicable statutesand regulations to become a bankholding company and/or to acquire theassets or the ownership of, control of, orthe power to vote shares of a bank orbank holding company and all of thebanks and nonbanking companiesowned by the bank holding company,including the companies listed below.

The applications listed below, as wellas other related filings required by theBoard, are available for immediateinspection at the Federal Reserve Bankindicated. The application also will beavailable for inspection at the offices ofthe Board of Governors. Interestedpersons may express their views inwriting on the standards enumerated inthe BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If theproposal also involves the acquisition ofa nonbanking company, the review alsoincludes whether the acquisition of thenonbanking company complies with thestandards in section 4 of the BHC Act.Unless otherwise noted, nonbankingactivities will be conducted throughoutthe United States.

Unless otherwise noted, commentsregarding each of these applicationsmust be received at the Reserve Bankindicated or the offices of the Board ofGovernors not later than December 11,1998.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston(Richard Walker, Community AffairsOfficer) 600 Atlantic Avenue, Boston,Massachusetts 02106-2204:

1. Marlborough Bancorp,Marlborough, Massachusetts; to becomea bank holding company by acquiring100 percent of the voting shares ofMarlborough Co-Operative Bank,Marlborough, Massachusetts.

B. Federal Reserve Bank ofPhiladelphia, (Michael E. Collins,Senior Vice President) 100 North 6thStreet, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania19105-1521:

1. Commerce Bancorp, Inc., CherryHill, New Jersey; to acquire 100 percentof the voting shares of Prestige Financial


Corp., Flemington, New Jersey, andPrestige State Bank, Flemington, NewJersey.

C. Federal Reserve Bank ofRichmond (A. Linwood Gill III,Assistant Vice President) 701 East ByrdStreet, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528:

1. First Union Corporation, Charlotte,North Carolina; to acquire additionalnonvoting common stock of UnitedBancshares, Inc., Philadelphia,Pennsylvania, and thereby increase itsinvestment in United Bank ofPhiladelphia.

D. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago(Philip Jackson, Applications Officer)230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago,Illinois 60690-1413:

1. Peotone Bancorp, Inc., Peotone,Illinois, and its subsidiary, SouthwestBancorp, Inc., Worth, Illinois; to retaindirect and indirect ownership of 7.98percent of the voting shares of Bank ofthe San Juans, Durango, Colorado.



Notice of Proposals to Engage inPermissible Nonbanking Activities orto Acquire Companies that areEngaged in Permissible NonbankingActivities

The companies listed in this noticehave given notice under section 4 of theBank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C.1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12CFR Part 225) to engage de novo, or toacquire or control voting securities orassets of a company, including thecompanies listed below, that engageseither directly or through a subsidiary orother company, in a nonbanking activitythat is listed in § 225.28 of RegulationY (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board hasdetermined by Order to be closelyrelated to banking and permissible forbank holding companies. Unlessotherwise noted, these activities will beconducted throughout the United States.

Each notice is available for inspectionat the Federal Reserve Bank indicated.The notice also will be available forinspection at the offices of the Board ofGovernors. Interested persons mayexpress their views in writing on the

question whether the proposal complieswith the standards of section 4 of theBHC Act.

Unless otherwise noted, commentsregarding the applications must bereceived at the Reserve Bank indicatedor the offices of the Board of Governorsnot later than December 2, 1998.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston(Richard Walker, Community AffairsOfficer) 600 Atlantic Avenue, Boston,Massachusetts 02106-2204:

1. Fleet Financial Group, Inc., Boston,Massachusetts; to acquire Merrill LynchSpecialists, Inc., New York, New York,and thereby engage in dealing to alimited extent in all types of ineligiblesecurities; and in providing securitiesbrokerage services, pursuant to §225.28(b)(7)(i) of Regulation Y, andincidental activities (including relatedsecurities credit activities and custodialservices as well as acting as a ‘‘conduit’’or ‘‘intermediary’’ in securitiesborrowing and lending) See FleetFinancial Group, Inc., 84 Fed. Res. Bull.227 (1998).


GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE

Federal Accounting StandardsAdvisory Board

AGENCY: General Accounting Office.ACTION: Notice of Meeting on December3 and 4.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) ofthe Federal Advisory Committee Act(Pub. L. 92–463), as amended, notice ishereby given that the FederalAccounting Standards Advisory Boardwill hold a two-day meeting onThursday, December 3 and Friday,December 4, 1998 in room 7C13, theComptroller General’s Briefing Room, ofthe General Accounting Office building,441 G St., NW., Washington, DC.

The purposes of the meeting are to:(A) discuss the following issues: (1)Direct Loans and Loan Guarantees, (2)Social Insurance, and (3) GrantAccounting; and (B) hold a roundtablediscussion on Accounting for NationalProperty, Plant, and Equipment.

Any interested person may attend themeeting as an observer. Boarddiscussions and reviews are open to thepublic.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT:Wendy Comes, Executive Director, 441G St., NW., Room 3B18, Washington, DC20548, or call (202) 512–7350.

Authority: Federal Advisory CommitteeAct. Pub. L. 92–463, sec. 10(a)(2), 86 Stat.770, 774 (1972) (current version at 5 U.S.C.app. section 10(a)(2) (1988); 41 CFR 101–6.1015 (1990).

Dated: November 13, 1998.Wendy M. Comes,Executive Director.[FR Doc. 98–30869 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 1610–01–M


Administration for Children andFamilies


Title: Financial Institution DataMatch.

OMB No.: New.Description: Section 372 of Pub. L.

104–193, requires State to establishprocedures under which the State childsupport enforcement (IV–D) agencyshall enter into agreements withfinancial institutions doing business inthe State for the purpose of securinginformation leading to the enforcementof child support orders. States willdevelop and operate, a data matchsystem in which each financialinstitution will provide quarterly thename, record address, social securitynumber or taxpayer identificationnumber, and other identifyinginformation for each noncustodialparent who maintains an account atsuch institution and who owes past-duesupport. H.R. 3130, the ‘‘Child SupportPerformance and Incentive Act of1998’’, section 506 amends section 452and 466(a)(17)(A)(i) of the PRWORA of1996 to permit the Secretary of Healthand Human Services, through theFederal Parent Locator Service (FPLS),to aid State CSE agencies incoordinating data matches with multi-state financial institutions.

Respondents: State, Local or TribalGovernment.


ANNUAL BURDEN ESTIMATES

Title Number of re-spondents

Number of re-sponses perrespondent

Average bur-den per re-

sponseBurden

Financial on Data Match Tape ......................................................................... 1,886 4 .5 3,772

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 3,772.

Additional InformationCopies of the proposed collection may

be obtained by writing to theAdministration for Children andFamilies, Office of Information Services,370 L’Enfant Promenade, SW.,Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACFReports Clearance Officer.

OMB CommentOMB is required to make a decision

concerning the collection of informationbetween 30 and 60 days afterpublication of this document in theFederal Register. Therefore, a commentis best assured of having its full effectif OMB receives it within 30 days ofpublication. Written comments andrecommendations for the proposedinformation collection should be sentdirectly to the following: Office ofManagement and Budget, PaperworkReduction Project, 725 17th Street, NW.,Washington, DC 20503, Attn: Ms.Wendy Taylor.

Dated: November 12, 1998.Bob Sargis,Acting Reports Clearance Officer.[FR Doc. 98–30843 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4184–01–M




Agency Information CollectionActivities; Submission for OMBReview; Comment Request; VeterinaryAdverse Drug Reaction, Lack ofEffectiveness, Product Defect Report

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration,HHS.ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Food and DrugAdministration (FDA) is announcingthat the proposed collection ofinformation listed below has beensubmitted to the Office of Managementand Budget (OMB) for review andclearance under the PaperworkReduction Act of 1995 (the PRA).DATES: Submit written comments on thecollection of information by December18, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit written commentson the collection of information toOffice of Information and RegulatoryAffairs, OMB, New Executive OfficeBldg., 725 17th St. NW., rm. 10235,Washington, DC 20503, Attn: DeskOfficer for FDA.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Denver Presley, Office of InformationResources Management (HFA–250),Food and Drug Administration, 5600Fishers Lane, rm. 16B–26, Rockville,MD 20857, 301–827–1472.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Incompliance with section 3507 of thePRA (44 U.S.C. 3507), FDA hassubmitted the following proposedcollection of information to OMB forreview and clearance.

Veterinary Adverse Drug Reaction,Lack of Effectiveness, Product DefectReport—21 CFR Part 510—(OMBControl Number 0910–0012)

Section 512(l) of the Federal Food,Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C.360b(l)), 21 CFR 510.300, 510.301, and510.302 require that applicants ofapproved new animal drug applications(NADA‘s), submit within 15-workingdays of receipt, complete records ofreports of certain adverse drug reactionsand unusual failure of new animaldrugs. Other reporting requirements ofadverse reactions to these drugs must bereported annually or semiannually in aspecific format.

This continuous monitoring ofapproved new animal drugs, affords theprimary means by which FDA obtainsinformation regarding potentialproblems in safety and effectiveness ofmarketed animal drugs and potentialmanufacturing problems. Data alreadyon file with FDA is not adequatebecause animal drug effects can changeover time and less apparent effects maytake years to manifest themselves.Reports are reviewed along with thosepreviously submitted for a particulardrug to determine if any change isneeded in the product or labeling, suchas package insert changes, dosagechanges, additional warnings orcontraindications, or productreformulation.

Adverse reaction reports are requiredto be submitted by the drugmanufacturer on FDA Forms 1932 or

1932a (voluntary reporting form),following complaints from animalowners or veterinarians. Product defectsand lack of effectiveness complaints aresubmitted to FDA by the drugmanufacturer following their owndetection of a problem or complaintsfrom product users or their veterinariansalso using FDA Forms 1932 and 1932a.Form FDA 2301 is used for the requiredtransmittal of periodic reports andpromotional material for new animaldrugs. Respondents to this collection ofinformation are applicants of approvedNADA’s.

In the Federal Register of June 10,1998 (63 FR 31788), the agencyrequested comments on the proposedcollection of information using thereporting forms cited previously. Inresponse, FDA received one comment tothe docket. The comment expressedfavor in submitting adverse drugreactions, lack of effectiveness andproduct defect reports (data),electronically and suggested that FormFDA 1932 be formatted in industrystandard format (Microsoft Word orWord Perfect), so that these data can besubmitted electronically. The Center forVeterinary Medicine (CVM), isdeveloping procedures for electronicsubmission of adverse drug reactions,lack of effectiveness and productdefects. Currently, CVM is not able toaccept electronic submission of thisspecific data until the electronicsubmission data standards are in placeand the hardware/software technologyis set up. In the meantime, the currentregulations do allow for acceptance ofcomputerized reports under 21 CFR510.302(c)(1), in lieu of Form FDA 1932.The information contained in acomputerized report and the sequencein which it is presented must beequivalent to that required in the hardcopy of Form FDA 1932 and shouldinclude the valid OMB control numberidentified with Form FDA 1932, i.e.,0910–0012. The computerized reportmust be submitted in duplicate to CVMfor approval prior to initial use. Further,once the forms are approved anddisseminated for use, CVM will postelectronic copies via the Worldwide


Web (WWW). Both the computerizedreport and forms available via theWWW must be submitted via paper.

FDA estimates the burden for thiscollection of information as follows:

TABLE 1.—ESTIMATED ANNUAL REPORTING BURDEN1

Form No. 21 CFR Section No. ofRespondents

AnnualFrequency per

Response

Total AnnualResponses

Hours perResponse Total Hours

Form FDA 2301 510.302a 190 19.74 3,750 0.5 1,875Form FDA 1932 510.302b 190 15.25 2,900 1.0 2,900Form FDA 1932a (voluntary) 510.302b 100 1.0 100 1.0 100Total Burden Hours 4,875

1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

TABLE 2.—ESTIMATED ANNUAL RECORDKEEPING BURDEN1

21 CFR Section No. ofRecordkeepers

AnnualFrequency perRecordkeeping

Total AnnualResponse perRecordkeeper

Hours perRecordkeeper Total Hours

510.300(a) and 510.301(a) 190 15.26 3,750 10.35 38,812510.300(b) and 510.301(b) 190 19.74 2,900 0.50 1,450Total Burden Hours 40,262

1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

The estimate of the times required forrecord preparation and maintenance isbased on agency communication withindustry. Other information needed tocalculate the total burden hours (i.e.,adverse drug reaction, lack ofeffectiveness, and product defectreports) are derived from agency recordsand experience.




[Docket No. 98P–0833]

Medical Devices; Exemptions FromPremarket Notification; Class IIDevices


SUMMARY: The Food and DrugAdministration (FDA) is publishingnotice of a petition requestingexemption from the premarketnotification requirements for a class IIdevice, the audiometer. FDA ispublishing this notice in order to obtaincomments on this petition inaccordance with procedures establishedby the Food and Drug AdministrationModernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA).

DATES: Written comments by December18, 1998.ADDRESSES: Submit written commentson this notice to the DocketsManagement Branch (HFA–305), Foodand Drug Administration, 5630 FishersLane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Heather S. Rosecrans, Center for Devicesand Radiological Health (HFZ–404),Food and Drug Administration, 9200Corporate Blvd., Rockville, MD 20850,301–594–1190.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Statutory Background

Under section 513 of the FederalFood, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act)(21 U.S.C. 360c), FDA must classifydevices into one of three regulatoryclasses: Class I, class II, or class III. FDAclassification of a device is determinedby the amount of regulation necessary toprovide a reasonable assurance of safetyand effectiveness. Under the MedicalDevice Amendments of 1976 (the 1976amendments (Pub. L. 94–295)), asamended by the Safe Medical DevicesAct of 1990 (Pub. L. 101–629)), devicesare to be classified into class I (generalcontrols) if there is information showingthat the general controls of the act aresufficient to assure safety andeffectiveness; into class II (specialcontrols), if general controls, bythemselves, are insufficient to providereasonable assurance of safety andeffectiveness, but there is sufficientinformation to establish special controlsto provide such assurance; and intoclass III (premarket approval), if there is

insufficient information to supportclassifying a device into class I or classII and the device is a life-sustaining orlife-supporting device or is for a usewhich is of substantial importance inpreventing impairment of humanhealth, or presents a potentialunreasonable risk of illness or injury.

Most generic types of devices thatwere on the market before the date ofthe 1976 amendments (May 28, 1976)(generally referred to as preamendmentdevices) have been classified by FDAunder the procedures set forth in section513(c) and (d) of the act through theissuance of classification regulationsinto one of these three regulatoryclasses. Devices introduced intointerstate commerce for the first time onor after May 28, 1976, (generallyreferred to as postamendment devices)are classified through the premarketnotification process under section510(k) of the act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)).Section 510(k) of the act and theimplementing regulations, 21 CFR part807, require persons who intend tomarket a new device to submit apremarket notification report (510(k))containing information that allows FDAto determine whether the new device is‘‘substantially equivalent’’ within themeaning of section 513(i) of the act toa legally marketed device that does notrequire premarket approval.

On November 21, 1997, the Presidentsigned into law FDAMA (Pub. L. 105–115). Section 206 of FDAMA, in part,added a new section 510(m)(1) of the actwhich requires FDA, within 60 daysafter enactment of FDAMA, to publishin the Federal Register a list of each


type of class II device that does notrequire a report under section 510(k) ofthe act to provide reasonable assuranceof safety and effectiveness. Section510(m) of the act further provides thata 510(k) will no longer be required forthese devices upon the date ofpublication of the list in the FederalRegister. FDA published that list in theFederal Register of January 21, 1998 (63FR 3142).

Section 510(m)(2) of the act providesthat, 1 day after the date of publicationof the list under section 510(m)(1), FDAmay exempt a device on its owninitiative or upon petition of aninterested person, if FDA determinesthat a 510(k) is not necessary to providereasonable assurance of the safety andeffectiveness of the device. This sectionrequires FDA to publish in the FederalRegister a notice of intent to exempt adevice, of the petition, and to provide a30-day comment period. Within 120days of publication of this document,FDA must publish in the FederalRegister its final determinationregarding the exemption of the devicethat was the subject of the notice. If FDAfails to respond to a petition under thissection within 180 days of receiving it,the petition shall be deemed granted.

II. Criteria for ExemptionThere are a number of factors FDA

may consider to determine whether a510(k) is necessary to providereasonable assurance of the safety andeffectiveness of a class II device. Thesefactors are discussed in the guidance theagency issued on February 19, 1998,entitled ‘‘Procedures for Class II DeviceExemptions from PremarketNotification, Guidance for Industry andCDRH Staff.’’ That guidance can beobtained through the World Wide Webon the CDRH home page at ‘‘http://www.fda.gov/cdrh’’ or by facsimilethrough CDRH Facts-on-Demand at 1–800–899–0381 or 301–827–0111.Specify ‘‘159’’ when prompted for thedocument shelf number.

III. PetitionFDA has received the following

petition requesting an exemption frompremarket notification for a class IIdevice:

1. Hearing Industries Association, 21CFR 874.1050, Audiometer.

IV. CommentsInterested persons may, on or before

December 18, 1998, submit to theDockets Management Branch (addressabove) written comments regarding thisnotice. Two copies of any comments areto be submitted, except that individualsmay submit one copy. Comments are to

be identified with the docket numberfound in brackets in the heading of thisdocument. The petition and receivedcomments may be seen in the officeabove between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.,Monday through Friday.

Dated: November 5, 1998.D.B. Burlington,Director, Center for Devices and RadiologicalHealth.[FR Doc. 98–30813 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4160–01–F



Pilot Program for StreamliningLicensure of Blood and BloodComponents; Public Workshop


The Food and Drug Administration(FDA) is announcing a public workshopentitled ‘‘Pilot Program for StreamliningLicensure of Blood and BloodComponents.’’ At the workshop, FDAwill describe a pilot program that isunder development and solicit inputfrom blood and blood componentmanufacturers about streamlining thelicensure review process.

Date and Time: The workshop will beheld on Wednesday, December 9, 1998,8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

Location: The workshop will be heldat the Doubletree Hotel, 1750 RockvillePike, Rockville, MD.

Contact: Joseph Wilczek, Center forBiologics Evaluation and Research(HFM–350), Food and DrugAdministration, 1401 Rockville Pike,Rockville, MD 20852–1448, 301–827–6129, or Cody Bridges, LaurelConsulting Group, 3030 ClarendonBlvd., suite 240, Arlington, VA 22201,703–351–7676, FAX 703–528–0716, oremail ‘‘[email protected]’’.

Registration: Send or fax registrationinformation (including name, title, firmname, address, telephone, and faxnumber) to Cody Bridges by Friday,November 27, 1998. Registration at thesite will be done on a space availablebasis on the day of the workshopbeginning at 7:30 a.m. There is noregistration fee for the workshop.

If you need special accommodationsdue to a disability, please contact CodyBridges at least 7 days in advance.

Transcripts: Transcripts of theworkshop may be requested in writingfrom the Freedom of Information Office(HFI–35), Food and Drug

Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, rm.12A–16, Rockville, MD 20857,approximately 15 days after theworkshop at a cost of 10 cents per page.The workshop transcript will also beavailable on CBER’s website at ‘‘http://www.fda.gov/cber/minutes/workshop-min.htm’’.

Supplementary Information: FDA willsponsor a 1-day workshop to provideguidance to blood and blood componentmanufacturers on how to certify thatthey are in compliance with pilotmonographs in lieu of traditional bloodapplications and supplements. Twopilot monographs to be discussed at theworkshop apply to irradiation of bloodand blood components and red bloodcell immunization programs.

The objectives of the workshop are todescribe FDA’s pilot program and tosolicit input from blood and bloodcomponent manufacturers aboutstreamlining the licensure reviewprocess for certain blood products.




Blood Products Advisory Committee;Notice of Meeting


This notice announces a forthcomingmeeting of a public advisory committeeof the Food and Drug Administration(FDA). The meeting will be open to thepublic.

Name of Committee: Blood ProductsAdvisory Committee.

General Function of the Committee:To provide advice andrecommendations to the agency onFDA’s regulatory issues.

Date and Time: The meeting will beheld on December 10, 1998, 8 a.m. to5:30 p.m. and December 11, 1998, 8 a.m.to 3 p.m.

Location: DoubleTree Hotel, 1750Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD.

Contact Person: Linda A. Smallwood,Center for Biologics Evaluation andResearch (HFM–350), Food and DrugAdministration, 1401 Rockville Pike,Rockville, MD 20852–1448, 301–827–3514, or FDA Advisory CommitteeInformation Line, 1–800–741–8138


(301–443–0572 in the Washington, DCarea), code 19516. Please call theInformation Line for up-to-dateinformation on this meeting.

Agenda: On December 10, 1998, thecommittee will: (1) Hear updates on theHepatitis C Virus (HCV) LookbackGuidance, malaria deferral, and supplyissues regarding plasma derivatives; (2)hear informational summaries on theDonor Suitability Workshop and thePilot Program for Streamlining theLicensure of Blood and BloodComponents Workshop; and (3) discussthe topic of Hepatitis B Anti-Core (Anti-HBc) Re-entry. In the afternoon, thecommittee will discuss and providerecommendations on end usernotification initiatives for plasmaderivatives. On December 11, 1998, thecommittee will discuss and providerecommendations on the topic ofinadvertent contamination of plasmapools for fractionation and recombinantB-Domain-Deleted Antihemophilicfactor, sponsor: Genetics Institute.

Procedure: Interested persons maypresent data, information, or views,orally or in writing, on issues pendingbefore the committee. Writtensubmissions may be made to the contactperson by November 30, 1998. Oralpresentations from the public will bescheduled from approximately 9 a.m. to9:30 a.m.; 11:30 a.m. to 12 m.; and 3p.m. to 3:30 p.m. on December 10, 1998,and from approximately 9 a.m. to 9:30a.m. and 12 m. to 12:30 p.m. onDecember 11, 1998. Time allotted foreach presentation may be limited. Thosedesiring to make formal oralpresentations should notify the contactperson before November 30, 1998, andsubmit a brief statement of the generalnature of the evidence or argumentsthey wish to present, the names andaddresses of proposed participants, andan indication of the approximate timerequested to make their presentation.

Notice of this meeting is given underthe Federal Advisory Committee Act (5U.S.C. app. 2).


Michael A. Friedman,Deputy Commissioner for Operations.[FR Doc. 98–30749 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]





Transmissible SpongiformEncephalopathies AdvisoryCommittee; Notice of Meeting


This notice announces a forthcomingmeeting of a public advisory committeeof the Food and Drug Administration(FDA). The meeting will be open to thepublic.

Name of Committee: TransmissibleSpongiform Encephalopathies AdvisoryCommittee.

General Function of the Committee:To provide advice andrecommendations to the agency onFDA’s regulatory issues.

Date and Time: The meeting will beheld on December 18, 1998, 8 a.m. to5:30 p.m. Written comments must besubmitted on or before Friday,December 4, 1998.

Location: Holiday Inn, VersaillesBallrooms I and II, 8120 WisconsinAve., Bethesda, MD.

Addresses: Submit written commentsto the Dockets Management Branch(HFA–305), Food and DrugAdministration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm.1061, Rockville, MD 20852, e-mail‘‘[email protected]’’.Comments should be identified with thedocket number found in brackets in theheading of this document.

Contact Person: William Freas orSheila D. Langford, Center for BiologicsEvaluation and Research (HFM–71),Food and Drug Administration, 1401Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852–1448, 301–827–0314, or FDA AdvisoryCommittee Information Line, 1–800–741–8138 (301–443–0572 in theWashington, DC area), code 12392.Please call the Information Line for up-to-date information on this meeting.

Agenda: The committee will discusspossible deferral of blood or plasmadonors based on geographical criterialinked to possible foodborne exposureto the agent of Bovine SpongiformEncephalopathy as a measure to reducethe potential for transmission of newvariant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease(nvCJD) through blood and bloodproducts. The potential effects of suchdeferrals on the supply of blood andblood products will be considered aspart of the committee’s deliberations.

Procedure: Interested persons maypresent data, information, or views,

orally or in writing, on issues pendingbefore the committee. Writtensubmissions may be made to theDockets Management Branch (addressabove) on or before December 4, 1998,as described under the Commentscaption. Oral presentations from thepublic will be scheduled betweenapproximately 2:15 p.m. and 3:15 p.m.Time allotted for each presentation maybe limited. Those desiring to makeformal oral presentations should notifythe contact person before December 9,1998, and submit a brief statement ofthe general nature of the evidence orarguments they wish to present, thenames and addresses of proposedparticipants, and an indication of theapproximate time requested to maketheir presentation.

Comments: Interested persons may,on or before December 4, 1998, submitto the Dockets Management Branch(address above) written commentsregarding this subject. Receivedcomments will be given to thecommittee for review and madeavailable to the public. Two copies ofany comments are to be submitted,except that individuals may submit onecopy. Comments are to be identifiedwith the docket number found inbrackets in the heading of thisdocument. The received comments maybe seen in the Dockets ManagementBranch between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.,Monday through Friday.

Notice of this meeting is given underthe Federal Advisory Committee Act (5U.S.C. app. 2).

Dated: November 9, 1998.Michael A. Friedman,Deputy Commissioner for Operations.[FR Doc. 98–30748 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4160–01–F



[Docket No. 98D–0813]

Guidance for Industry on Fast TrackDrug Development Programs:Designation, Development, andApplication Review; Availability;Collection of Information


SUMMARY: The Food and DrugAdministration (FDA) is announcing theavailability of a guidance for industryentitled ‘‘Fast Track Drug DevelopmentPrograms: Designation, Development,


and Application Review.’’ Thisdocument provides guidance to industryon FDA’s fast track program, whichseeks to facilitate the development andexpedite the review of new drugs thatare intended to treat serious or life-threatening conditions and that have thepotential to address unmet medicalneeds for such conditions. The guidancedocument is also intended to meet therequirement of section 112(b) of theFood and Drug AdministrationModernization Act of 1997 (theModernization Act).DATES: Written comments on theguidance document may be submittedby February 16, 1999. Generalcomments on the agency guidancedocuments are welcome at any time.ADDRESSES: Copies of this guidance forindustry are available on the Internet at‘‘http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/index.htm’’ or ‘‘http://www.fda.gov/cber/guidelines.htm’’. Submit writtenrequests for single copies to the DrugInformation Branch (HFD–210), Centerfor Drug Evaluation and Research, Foodand Drug Administration, 5600 FishersLane, Rockville, MD 20857, or the Officeof Communication, Training, andManufacturers Assistance (HFM–540),Center for Biologics Evaluation andResearch, Food and DrugAdministration, 1401 Rockville Pike,Rockville, MD 20852. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist thatoffice in processing your requests.Submit written comments on thisguidance document to the DocketsManagement Branch (HFD–305), Foodand Drug Administration, 5630 FishersLane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.After the comment period, commentsmay be submitted to one of the centersat the address below.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Andrea C. Masciale, Center for DrugEvaluation and Research (HFD–7), Foodand Drug Administration, 5600 FishersLane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301–594–2041; or Bette A. Goldman, Center forBiologics Evaluation and Research(HFM–500), 1401 Rockville Pike,Rockville, MD 20852–1448, 301–827–5098.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

FDA is announcing the availability ofa guidance for industry entitled ‘‘FastTrack Drug Development Programs:Designation, Development, andApplication Review.’’ This guidancedocument is intended to meet therequirement of section 112(b) of theModernization Act (Pub. L. 105–115),which amends the Federal Food, Drug,and Cosmetic Act (the act) by addingnew section 506 (21 U.S.C. 356) anddirects FDA to issue guidance

describing its policies and procedurespertaining to fast track products.

FDA’s fast track programs aredesigned to facilitate the developmentand expedite the review of new drugsthat are intended to treat serious or life-threatening conditions and thatdemonstrate the potential to addressunmet medical needs (fast trackproducts). In this guidance document,FDA discusses the regulations, policies,and procedures of the Center forBiologics Evaluation and Research(CBER) and the Center for DrugEvaluation and Research (CDER) that arerelated to fast track products. Thisguidance document describes andclarifies the criteria and processes fordesignating a new drug as a product ina fast track drug development programand describes the diverse activities andprograms that can facilitate thedevelopment and expedite the review ofdrugs that demonstrate the potential toadvance the treatment of serious andlife-threatening illnesses.

This guidance document is beingissued as a Level 1 guidance consistentwith FDA’s Good Guidance Practices(62 FR 8961, February 27, 1997). It isbeing implemented without prior publiccomment because the guidancedocument is needed to implement theModernization Act. The agencyunderstands the need for this documentto be available immediately in order forthere to be clear guidance to industry,the public, and agency reviewers aboutthis very significant program. However,FDA also understands that manyinterested persons may wish to providecomments and suggest revisions to thisguidance. FDA is, therefore,emphasizing that it is solicitingcomment from all interested personsand is providing a 90-day commentperiod and establishing a docket forreceipt of comments. The agency willgive full consideration to all commentsreceived and make any appropriatechanges to the guidance in a timelymanner.

This guidance document representsthe agency’s current thinking on itspolicies and procedures relating toproducts in fast track drug developmentprograms. 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.

This guidance document containscollections of information that requireclearance by the Office of Managementand Budget (OMB) under the PaperworkReduction of 1995. In a notice publishedin the Federal Register of October 21,

1998 (63 FR 56195), FDA announcedthat this collection of information hasbeen submitted to OMB for emergencyprocessing. The notice also solicitedcomments on the collection ofinformation. An agency may notconduct or sponsor, and a person is notrequired to respond to, a collection ofinformation unless a currently validOMB control number has beendisplayed.

Interested persons may, at any time,submit to the Dockets ManagementBranch (address above) writtencomments on the guidance document.Two copies of any comments are to besubmitted, except that individuals maysubmit one copy. Comments are to beidentified with the docket numberfound in brackets in the heading of thisdocument. The guidance document andreceived comments are available forpublic examination in the DocketsManagement Branch between 9 a.m. and4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Dated: November 11, 1998.William B. Schultz,Deputy Commissioner for Policy.[FR Doc. 98–30811 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4160–01–F




‘‘Guidance for Industry: Evaluation ofthe Human Health Impact of theMicrobial Effects of Antimicrobial NewAnimal Drugs Intended for Use inFood-Producing Animals’’; Availability


SUMMARY: The Food and DrugAdministration (FDA) is announcing theavailability of a draft guidance entitled‘‘Guidance for Industry: Evaluation ofthe Human Health Impact of theMicrobial Effects of Antimicrobial NewAnimal Drugs Intended for Use in Food-Producing Animals.’’ This draftguidance announces that FDA nowbelieves it is necessary to evaluate thehuman health impact of the microbialeffects associated with all uses of allclasses of antimicrobial new animaldrugs intended for use in food-producing animals when approvingsuch drugs.DATES: Written comments should besubmitted by December 18, 1998.ADDRESSES: Submit written requests forsingle copies of this draft guidance to


the Communications Staff (HFV–12),Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM),Food and Drug Administration, 7500Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855. Sendone self-addressed adhesive label toassist the office in processing yourrequests.

Submit written comments to theDockets Management Branch (HFA–305), Food and Drug Administration,5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, RockvilleMD 20852. Comments should beidentified with the full title of the draftguidance and the docket number foundin brackets in the heading of thisdocument. See the SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION section of this documentfor electronic access to the draftguidance.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Margaret A. Miller, Office of NewAnimal Drug Evaluation (HFV–100),Center for Veterinary Medicine, Foodand Drug Administration, 7500 StandishPl., Rockville, MD 20855, 301–594–1620.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. BackgroundFDA’s ‘‘Good Guidance Practices’’

(GGP’s) require the agency to publish, asLevel 1 guidance, a change ininterpretation or policy that is of morethan a minor nature (62 FR 8961,February 27, 1997). Therefore, FDA isannouncing the availability of a draftguidance entitled ‘‘Guidance forIndustry: Evaluation of the HumanHealth Impact of the Microbial Effects ofAntimicrobial New Animal DrugsIntended for Use in Food-ProducingAnimals.’’ The draft guidance describesthe agency’s current thinking on thissubject.

Since the 1970’s, FDA has evaluatedthe effects of an antimicrobial drugproduct on enteric bacteria of food-producing animals in determiningwhether certain feed uses of anantimicrobial new animal drug are safeunder section 512 of the Federal Food,Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21U.S.C. 360b). Under section 512 of theact, an application for approval of a newanimal drug must ‘‘include adequatetests by all methods reasonablyapplicable to show whether or not suchdrug is safe for use * * *’’ (21 U.S.C.360b(d)(1)(A)) . Section 201(u) of the act(21 U.S.C. 321(u)) states that when‘‘safe’ is used in section 512, the term‘‘has reference to the health of man oranimal’’. In addition, section 512(d)(2)of the act states that, when determiningthe safety of a new animal drug, theagency ‘‘shall consider, among otherrelevant factors, (A) the probableconsumption of such drug and of anysubstance formed in or on food because

of the use of such drug, [and] (B) thecumulative effect on man * * * of suchdrug, taking into account anychemically or pharmacologically relatedsubstance * * *’’ (21 U.S.C. 360b(d)(2)).

In the past, FDA evaluated the humanhealth impact of the microbial effects ofonly certain uses of antimicrobial newanimal drugs in animal feeds (Ref. 1).However, based on scientific evidencereferenced in the draft guidance, theagency now believes that sponsors of allantimicrobial new animal drugsintended for use in food-producinganimals should provide information thatwill allow the agency to evaluate thehuman health impact of the intendeduse.

To assess the human health impact,the following two separate, but relatedaspects, should be evaluated: (1) Thequantity of resistant enteric bacteriaformed in the animal’s intestinal tractfollowing exposure to the antimicrobialnew animal drug (resistance) and (2)changes in the number of entericbacteria in the animal’s intestinal tractthat can cause human illness (pathogenload). In some cases, a preapprovalstudy or studies may be needed. FDArecognizes that there is no standardizedprotocol established for determining thehuman health impact of the microbialeffect(s) of an antimicrobial product,and that one standard study is likely tobe inappropriate for all intended uses.

This draft guidance represents theagency’s current thinking only about itsauthority under the act to consider thehuman health impact of the microbialeffects associated with all uses of allclasses of antimicrobial new animaldrugs intended for use in food-producing animals. It does not providetechnical guidance regarding the designof studies or types of informationrequired to satisfy the requirements todemonstrate safety. The agency intendsto solicit public comments on this issueat a meeting of the Veterinary MedicineAdvisory Committee in Rockville, MD,on December 10 and 11, 1998, andpossibly later at other public meetingsthat involve experts in public health.

The draft document does not create orconfer any rights for or on any personand does not operate to bind FDA or thepublic. An alternative approach may beused if such approach satisfies therequirement of the applicable statute,regulations, or both.

References that are cited in the draftguidance have been placed on displayin the Dockets Management Branch(address above), and may be seen byinterested persons between 9 a.m. and 4p.m., Monday through Friday.

II. CommentInterested persons may, on or before

December 18, 1998, submit to theDockets Management Branch (addressabove) written comments regarding thisdraft guidance. Two copies of anycomments are to be submitted, exceptthat individuals may submit one copy.Comments are to be identified with thedocket number found in brackets in theheading of this document. A copy of thedraft guidance and received commentsmay be seen in the office above between9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday throughFriday.

III. Electronic AccessPersons with access to the Internet

may obtain the draft guidance using theWorld Wide Web (WWW). For WWWaccess, connect to CVM at ‘‘http://www.fda.gov/cvm’’.

IV. ReferencesThe following references have been

placed on display in the DocketsManagement Branch (address above)and may be seen by interested personsbetween 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Mondaythrough Friday.

1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration,‘‘Human Health Safety Criteria,’’ Center forVeterinary Medicine, Guideline 18.

2. Food and Drug Administration,‘‘Penicillin Use in Animal Feeds,’’ 42 FR43769–43793, August 30, 1977.

3. Endtz, H., G. Ruiijs, et. al., ‘‘QuinoloneResistance in Campylobacter Isolated FromMan and Poultry Following the Introductionof Fluoroquinolones in VeterinaryMedicine,’’ Journal of AntimicrobialChemotherapy, 27, 199–208, 1991.

4. Aserkoff, B., and J. V. Bennett, ‘‘Effectof Antibiotic Therapy in Acute Salmonellosison the Fecal Excretion of Salmonella,’’NewEngland Journal of Medicine, 281, 636–640,1969.

5. Seyfarth, A. M., H. C. Wegener, and N.Frimodt-Moller, ‘‘Antimicrobial Resistance inSalmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovartyphimurium from Humans and ProductionAnimals,’’ Journal of AntimicrobialChemotherapy, 40, 67–75, 1997.

6. D’Aoust, J-Y., Salmonella Species, In:Food Microbiology Fundamentals andFrontiers, edited by Doyle, M. P., L. R.Beuchat, and T. J. Montville, ASM Press,Washington, DC, pp. 129–158, 1997.

7. Nachamkin, I., Campylobacter jejuni, In:Food Microbiology Fundamentals andFrontiers, edited by Doyle, M. P., L. R.Beuchat, T. J. Montville, ASM Press,Washington, DC, pp. 159–170, 1997.

8. Bates, J., J. Z. Jordens, and D. T. Griffiths,‘‘Farm Animals as a Putative Reservoir forVancomycin-resistant Enterococcal Infectionin Man,’’ Journal of AntimicrobialChemotherapy, 34, 507–514, 1994.

9. Department of Agriculture, Food SafetyInspection Service, ‘‘Pathogen Reduction;Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point(HACCP) Systems; Final Rule,’’ 61 FR 38805–38989, July 25, 1996.


10. Department of Agriculture,‘‘Nationwide Beef Microbiological Baseline:Steers and Heifers,’’ October 1992–September1993; ‘‘Nationwide Broiler ChickenMicrobiological Baseline,’’ July 1994–June1995; and ‘‘Nationwide Pork MicrobiologicalBaseline: Market Hogs,’’ April 1995–March1996: Food Safety Inspection Service, DataCollection Programs, Microbiology Division.

11. U.S. Food and Drug Administration,‘‘Microbiological Testing of AntimicrobialDrug Residues in Food,’’ Center forVeterinary Medicine, Guideline 52.

Dated: November 10, 1998.William B. Schultz,Deputy Commissioner for Policy.[FR Doc. 98–30747 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4160–01–F

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Services

North American WetlandsConservation Council; Membership

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,Interior.ACTION: Notice of policy and request forcomments.

SUMMARY: The purpose of this action isto notify the public regarding anexisting term rotation policy formembership of charitable and non-profitorganizations of the North AmericanWetlands Conservation Council. Thispolicy will assure broad representationfrom such organizations in keeping withthe purposes of the North AmericanWetlands Conservation Act.DATES: Comments on this policy mustbe received by January 19, 1999.ADDRESSES: Comments regarding thisnotice should be addressed to: Director(FSW/NAWWO), U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, 110 ARLSQ, 1849 C ST., NW,Washington, D.C. 20240. Commentsreceived on this notice will be availablefor public inspection during normalbusiness hours in Room 110, ArlingtonSquare Building, 4401 No. Fairfax Drive,Arlington, VA 22203.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Mr. David A. Smith, Executive Director,or Mr. Douglas A. Ryan, WildlifeBiologist, North American Waterfowland Wetlands Office, 703/358–1784;Facsimile 703/358–2282.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The North American WetlandsConservation Council (Council) was

established by the North AmericanWetlands Conservation Act (Act), 16U.S.C. 4401–4412, Public Law 101–233,and is comprised of nine members. TheCouncil reviews and recommendswetland conservation projects to theMigratory Bird ConservationCommission, following criteria given inthe Act. Two permanent Council seatsare occupied by the Director of the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service and theSecretary of the Board of the NationalFish and Wildlife Foundation. Four ofthe seven non-permanent seats areDirectors of State Fish and Wildlifeagencies representing the four migratorybird flyways. Individuals representingnon-governmental organizations (NGOs)that are actively participating incarrying out wetland conservationprojects under the Act, the Plan, or theTripartite Agreement (among the U.S.,Canada, and Mexico) occupy the otherthree non-permanent seats.Appointment of the non-permanentmembers is at the discretion of theSecretary of the Interior (Secretary). Theterm for non-permanent seats is threeyears. In addition, the Secretaryappoints an alternate member and mayappoint ex-officio non-voting membersto the Council.

What is the Policy?

In the Spring of 1998, the Secretaryadopted a term rotation policy of twoconsecutive terms or six consecutiveyears for organizations occupying thethree NGO Council seats. An NGO thathas completed two terms would beeligible for full reappointment to thenext vacancy among the three NGOseats and also eligible for appointmentto either the alternate seat or an ex-officio seat.

Why Was the Policy Adopted?

The Secretary adopted a two-termrotation policy for NGO members on theCouncil for the following reasons:

• The purpose of the Act is toencourage partnership among publicagencies and other interests for theconservation of wetlands and migratorybirds in North America. This policy isintended to build broad support for theAct by opening the door to a variety oforganizations to take full advantage ofopportunities available through Councilparticipation.

• All organizations that meet therequirements for NGOs stated above inthe Act should be given full and fairconsideration for Council membership.

• Given the detailed approvalprocess, and frequent consideration ofcomplex issues associated with Councilparticipation, appointing any NGOrepresentative to serve two consecutiveterms is appropriate, as it would allowthat representative to become familiarwith Council operations and to reachtheir full potential for contributing tothe work of the Council.

• While the Act requires that NGOson the Council be active participants inwetlands conservation, it does notrestrict Council participation to onlythose NGOs that are most active (i.e., interms of matching dollars and services,and grants received).

• Each NGO can only represent itsown organization, unlike State agencieson the Council that have theresponsibility and capability torepresent the flyways, of which they area part.

• Regardless of appointment status,those NGOs that have contributedsubstantially to Act-funded projects areencouraged to continue as instrumentalparticipants in project development andimplementation.

In summary, the purpose of thisaction is to notify the public and inviteany comments regarding the Secretary’sexisting term rotation policy forcharitable and non-profit organizationson the North American WetlandsConservation Council, to fullyimplement the purpose of the NorthAmerican Wetlands Conservation Act.

NEPA Consideration

Pursuant to the requirements ofsection 102(2)(C) of the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act of 1969(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4332(C)), and theCouncil on Environmental Quality’sregulation for implementing NEPA (40CFR parts 1500–1508), the Service hasdetermined that the policy published inthis document is categorically excludedfrom the NEPA process as provided by516 DM 2, Appendix 1.10 of theDepartmental Manual.

Authorship: The primary author ofthis notice is Mr. Douglas A. Ryan, U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service NorthAmerican Waterfowl and WetlandsOffice, Arlington, Virginia.

Dated: November 6, 1998.Jamie Rappaport Clark,Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.[FR Doc. 98–30766 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310–55–M



Fish and Wildlife Service

Availability of an EnvironmentalAssessment and Finding of NoSignificant Impact, and Receipt of anApplication for an Incidental TakePermit for a Proposed ResidentialDevelopment Called Ocean Reef Club,Plats 18 and 19, Monroe County,Florida

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,Interior.ACTION: Notice.

Driscoll Properties, Inc. and DriscollFoundation, Inc. previously obtained anincidental take permit (ITP) pursuant tosection 10(a)(1)(B) of the EndangeredSpecies Act of 1973 (U.S.C. 1531 etseq.), as amended (Act). The previousITP authorized the take of theendangered Key Largo woodrat(Neotoma floridana smalli), Key Largocotton mouse (Peromyscus gossypinusallapaticola), and Schaus swallowtailbutterfly (Heraclides aristodemusponceanus) in association withresidential construction on 89 lots inPlats 18 and 19 of Ocean Reef Club,north Key Largo, Monroe County,Florida. However, the original ITPexpired on May 31, 1995, and 70 of the89 lots covered under that ITP were notaltered. Accordingly, a new ITP isrequired to ensure compliance with theprohibitions of section 9 of the Actwhile residential construction occurs onthe remaining undeveloped lots thatstill contain suitable habitat for thespecies listed above. Review of theundeveloped lots by the Fish andWildlife Service (Service) indicated that49 of the 70 lots still contain suitablehabitat for the Key Largo woodrat, KeyLargo cotton mouse, and Schausswallowtail butterfly.

Forty-one of the 49 lots for which takeof federally listed species will occurduring construction related activitieshave been sold by Driscoll Properties,Inc. and Driscoll Foundation, Inc. tothird parties. The Ocean ReefCommunity Association represents allthird party lot owners.

Driscoll Properties, Inc., DriscollFoundation, Inc., and Ocean ReefCommunity Association (Applicants),seek an ITP from the Service. The ITPwould authorize for a period of 10 yearsthe incidental take of the endangeredKey Largo woodrat, Key Largo cottonmouse and Schaus swallowtail butterfly.The proposed residential developmentis called Ocean Reef Club, Plats 18 and19 and will consist of 49 homes locatedon about 20 acres in section 24,

Township 59 South, Range 40 East, andsection 19, Township 59 South, Range41 East, Monroe County, Florida(Project). Clearing of the 49 residentiallots will destroy suitable habitat for thethree species identified above. A moredetailed description of the mitigationand minimization measures to addressthe effects of the Project to the protectedspecies are outlined in the Applicant’sHabitat Conservation Plan (HCP), theService’s Environmental Assessment(EA), and in the SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION section below.

The Service also announces theavailability of an EA and HCP for theincidental take application. Copies ofthe EA and/or HCP may be obtained bymaking a request to the Regional Office(see ADDRESSES). Requests must be inwriting to be processed. This notice alsoadvises the public that the Service hasmade a preliminary determination thatissuing the ITP is not a major Federalaction significantly affecting the qualityof the human environment within themeaning of Section 102(2)(C) of theNational Environmental Policy Act of1969, as amended (NEPA). The Findingof No Significant Impact (FONSI) isbased on information contained in theEA and HCP. The final determinationwill be made no sooner than 30 daysfrom the date of this notice. This noticeis provided pursuant to Section 10 ofthe Act and NEPA regulations (40 CFR1506.6).

The Service specifically requestsinformation, views, opinions from thepublic via this Notice on the Federalaction, including the identification ofany other aspects of the humanenvironment not already identified inthe Service’s EA. Further, the Service isspecifically soliciting informationregarding the adequacy of the HCP asmeasured against the Service’s ITPissuance criteria found in 50 CFR Parts13 and 17.DATES: Written comments on the ITPapplication, EA, and HCP should besent to the Service’s Regional Office (seeADDRESSES) and should be received onor before December 18, 1998.ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to reviewthe application, HCP, and EA mayobtain a copy by writing the Service’sSoutheast Regional Office, Atlanta,Georgia. Documents will also beavailable for public inspection byappointment during normal businesshours at the Regional Office, 1875Century Boulevard, Suite 200, Atlanta,Georgia 30345 (Attn: EndangeredSpecies Permits), or Field Supervisor,Fish and Wildlife Service, Post OfficeBox 2676, Vero Beach, Florida 32961–2676. Written data or comments

concerning the application, EA, or HCPshould be submitted to the RegionalOffice. Requests for the documentationmust be in writing to be processed.Comments must be submitted in writingto be adequately considered in theService’s decision-making process.Please reference permit numberTE004859–0 in such comments, or inrequests of the documents discussedherein.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.Rick G. Gooch, Regional HCPCoordinator, (see ADDRESSES above),telephone: 404/679–7110, facsimile:404/679–7081; or Mr. Mike Jennings,Fish and Wildlife Biologist, SouthFlorida Ecosystem Office, Vero Beach,Florida (see ADDRESSES above),telephone: 561/562–3909.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The KeyLargo woodrat and Key Largo cottonmouse are subspecies that occur only onNorthern Key Largo. They have beenextirpated from much of the Key Largodue to clearing of tropical hardwoodhammocks for urban development. TheSchaus swallowtail butterfly isrestricted to extreme Southeast Floridaand the upper and middle keys. Thisbutterfly is also dependant on tropicalhardwood hammock vegetation and hasbeen adversely affected by urban growthin South Florida and the Florida Keys.

The Key Largo woodrat represents thesouthern most subspecies of the easternwoodrat (Neotoma floridana). It isrestricted to the tropical hardwoodhammocks of Key Largo. Like the cottonmouse, the woodrat has experiencedsubstantial declines in their range dueprincipally to urban development onKey Largo. Extant woodrats are nowfound only north of the intersection ofU.S. 1 and C.R. 905. More than 41percent of the historical habitat of thisspecies has been lost to urbanization.Like the cotton mouse, woodrats arevulnerable to habitat loss andfragmentation and the indirect affects ofurban encroachment (e.g., competitionwith black rats and increased predationfrom domestic animals).

Key Largo woodrats, like othermembers of the genus Neotoma, areknown for their construction of largestick nests. Nests are typically built atthe base of a tree and are composed ofsticks, twigs, and other organic matter.Woodrats are territorial in the vicinity oftheir nest sites, but probably interactsocially under some form of hierarchywith other woodrats. Woodrats appearto attain their greatest densities inmature hardwood hammocks, withlower densities found adjacent to urbansettings.


The Key Largo cotton mouse is largerand more reddish in appearance thanother subspecies in Florida. It is foundonly on Key Largo in relict tropicalhardwood hammock vegetation.Historically the Key Largo cotton mousewas found throughout Key Largo wheretropical hardwood hammocks existedbut development and the subsequentloss of tropical hardwood vegetationresulted in a range reduction of thisspecies. It is now found only in NorthKey Largo, north of the intersection ofU.S. 1 and C.R. 905.

Little is known about the Key Largocotton mouse and much is inferred fromother cotton mice populations inFlorida. In general, this subspecies isconsidered a nocturnal tropicalhardwood hammock dweller thatconstructs nests in logs, tree hollowsand rock crevices. Key Largo cottonmice may breed at any time of the yearand produce two to three litters peryear. These cotton mice are omnivorousand are believed to rely heavily on thelarge fruit and berry crop produced bytropical hardwood hammock vegetation.

Key Largo cotton mice are threatenedby habitat loss and fragmentation aswell as the indirect effects ofurbanization. As of 1991, 41.2 percent ofall tropical hardwood hammockvegetation had been cleared to meethuman needs. Residential andcommercial development also lead toincreases in feral or free-roamingdomestic animals and provide habitatfor black rats. Domestic animals andblack rats compete with or prey uponKey Largo cotton mice.

The Schaus swallowtail butterfly is alarge dark brown and yellow butterflythat inhabits tropical hardwoodhammocks of extreme South Florida.Historically, the Schaus swallowtailbutterfly was distributed from SouthMiami to Lower Matecumbe Key. Morerecently, Schaus swallowtail butterflieswere known only from undisturbedtropical hardwood hammocks fromElliott Key in Biscayne National Parksouth to Northern Key Largo.Reintroductions have recently occurredfrom Southern Dade County to LowerMatecumbe Key. This species wasfederally listed due to habitatdestruction, mortality associated withapplication of pesticides for mosquitocontrol, and over-harvesting bycollectors. These factors acting incombination with high natural mortalityassociated with predation of caterpillarsresulted in substantial declines in thenumber and range of this species.

The Schaus swallowtail butterflyprefers dense, mature tropical hardwoodhammocks where direct sunlight isfiltered or dappled. Adults feed on a

number of nectar producing plantspecies endemic to hardwoodhammocks, but have most often beenobserved feeding on guava (Psidiumguajava), cheese shrub (Morinda royoc),and wild coffee (Psychotria undata).Adults rarely feed in open areasexposed to direct sunlight. The eggs ofthis species are typically laid on wildlime (Zanthoxylem fagara) andtorchwood (Amyris elemifera) withcaterpillars subsequently eating young,tender shoots of these species.

The Applicant’s HCP and theService’s EA describes the followingminimization and mitigation strategy tobe employed by the Applicant to offsetthe impacts of the Project to the KeyLargo woodrat, Key Largo cotton mouse,and Schaus swallowtail butterfly. Manyof the mitigation measures identifiedbelow were implemented andcompleted as part of the ITP previouslyissued to Driscoll Properties, Inc. andDriscoll Foundation, Inc.:

• Protect and convey throughconservation easement 5.94 acres oftropical hardwood hammock to theFlorida Game and Fresh Water FishCommission (completed).

• Construct 10 rock piles withinconservation easement to providenesting habitat for woodrats(completed).

• Revegetate scarified portions ofconservation easement (completed).

• Revegetate five acres of scarifiedland with tropical hardwood hammockvegetation (complete).

• Monitor revegetation success(ongoing).

• Sixty to 80 percent of each lot to notbe disturbed (ongoing, pursuant toMonroe County ordinance).

• Hand clearing of vegetation fromthe footprint of construction activitiesand allowing a minimum of 14 daysbefore mechanical removal of felledvegetation. This measure minimizes thepotential for directly killing Key Largowoodrats or Key Largo cotton mice(ongoing).

• Deed restrictions to prohibit freeranging domestic animals (completed)

The EA considers the environmentalconsequences of two alternatives. Athird alternative, acquisition of lots, wasconsidered but not fully evaluated inthe EA because ranking of lands suitablefor acquisition under the State ofFlorida Conservation and RecreationLands (CARL) acquisition program didnot identify these lots (either singularlyor in combination) as a priorityproperties. Their small size, proximityto adjacent residential areas, high cost,and low biological value likelypreempted consideration foracquisition.

The no action alternative may resultin the loss of habitat and exposure of theApplicants under Section 9 of the Actif lots were cleared. If the ITP were notissued and the Applicants did notremove vegetation from any of the lots,habitat for the three federally listedspecies would remain intact andprobably provide suitable habitat in thefuture. The proposed action alternativeis issuance of the ITP according to theHCP as submitted and described above.Under the proposed alternative, about19.6 acres of suitable habitat will bedestroyed during residentialdevelopment. The effect of theminimization and mitigation strategywill be that about 11 acres of habitatwill be protected or enhanced andanother 11 to 15 acres will be preservedonsite through vegetation set asides.

As stated above, the Service has madea preliminary determination that theissuance of the ITP is not a majorFederal action significantly affecting thequality of the human environmentwithin the meaning of Section 102(2)(C)of NEPA. This preliminary informationmay be revised due to public commentreceived in response to this notice andis based on information contained in theEA and HCP. An appropriate excerptfrom the FONSI reflecting the Service’sfinding on the application is providedbelow:

Based on the analysis conducted bythe Service, it has been determined that:

• Issuance of the ITP will notappreciably reduce the likelihood ofsurvival and recovery of the affectedspecies in the wild.

• The HCP contains provisions whichsufficiently minimize and/or mitigatethe impacts of issuing the ITP.

• Issuance of the ITP would not havesignificant effects on the humanenvironment in the project area.

• The proposed take is incidental toan otherwise lawful activity.

• Adequate funding will be providedto implement the measures proposed inthe submitted HCP and authorizing ITP.

• Other than impacts to endangeredand threatened species as outlined inthe documentation of this decision, theindirect impacts which may result fromissuance of the ITP are addressed byother regulations and statutes under thejurisdiction of other governmententities. The validity of the Service’sITP is contingent upon the Applicant’scompliance with the terms of the permitand all other laws and regulations underthe control of State, local, and otherFederal governmental entities.

The Service will also evaluatewhether the issuance of a Section10(a)(1)(B) ITP complies with Section 7of the Act by conducting an intra-


Service Section 7 consultation. Theresults of the biological opinion, incombination with the above findings,will be used in the final analysis todetermine whether or not to issue theITP.

Dated: November 10, 1998.H. Dale Hall,Deputy Regional Director.[FR Doc. 98–30787 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310–55–P


Bureau of Land Management

[MT–020–1320–00]

Notice of Intent to Plan

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management(BLM), Montana, Miles City FieldOffice, Interior.ACTION: Notice of Intent to Plan, SpringCreek Coal Company’s Coal LeaseApplication MTM 88405 for CertainCoal Resources in the Powder RiverCoal Region, Big Horn County, Montana.

SUMMARY: On June 26, 1998, SpringCreek Coal Company (SCCC) filed anapplication with the Bureau of LandManagement (BLM) to lease a 150 acretract containing about 19.8 million tonsof Federally owned coal reserves nearthe Spring Creek Coal Mine. On June 3,1998, Spring Creek Coal Company filedan application with the State ofMontana Department of NaturalResources and Conservation (DNRC) tolease a 479 acre coal tract. The tract,which would consist of three separatestate leases, contains an estimated 62.1million tons of state owned coal.

As Co-Lead Agencies, the BLM andMontana DNRC will prepare oneEnvironmental Assessment to evaluatethe impacts of coal mining which wouldresult from leasing the tracts of Federaland State coal.

The lands included in the coal leaseapplications are located in Big HornCounty, Montana and are described asfollows:

Federal Lease Tract MTM 88405T. 8 S., R. 39 E., P.M.M.

Sec. 13: SW1⁄4SW1⁄4SW1⁄4,SW1⁄4SE1⁄4SW1⁄4SW1⁄4;

Sec. 14: S1⁄2SW1⁄4NE1⁄4SE1⁄4,S1⁄2NE1⁄4SE1⁄4SE1⁄4,NW1⁄4NE1⁄4SE1⁄4SE1⁄4, S1⁄2SE1⁄4SE1⁄4,NW1⁄4SE1⁄4SE1⁄4;

Sec. 23: NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, SE1⁄4SW1⁄4NW1⁄4NE1⁄4,N1⁄2SW1⁄4NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, E1⁄2NW1⁄4NE1⁄4;

Sec. 24: NW1⁄4SE1⁄4NW1⁄4NW1⁄4,N1⁄2SW1⁄4NW1⁄4NW1⁄4, N1⁄2NW1⁄4NW1⁄4.

150 acres, more or less

State of Montana Lease Tracts

Lease C–1099–XX

T. 8 S., R., 39 E., P.M.M.Sec. 14: S1⁄2S1⁄2NW1⁄4, SW1⁄4, W1⁄2SE1⁄4.

Lease C–1100–XX

T. 8 S., R., 39 E., P.M.MSec. 15: NE1⁄4SW1⁄4SE1⁄4, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4,

N1⁄2SE1⁄4, S1⁄2SE1⁄4NE1⁄4.

Lease C–1101–XX

T. 8 S., R., 39 E., P.M.MSec. 23: N1⁄2N1⁄2NW1⁄4, NW1⁄4NW1⁄4NE1⁄4.479.16 acres, more or less

This action could amend the PowderRiver Resource Management Plan (1984)if certain Federal coal leasingunsuitability designations on oradjacent to the Federal coal tracts arechanged. The analysis will be based onexisting statutory requirements and willmeet the requirements of the FederalLand Policy and Management Act(FLPMA) of 1976 and the SurfaceMining Control and Reclamation Act(SMCRA) of 1977.DATES: Public scoping on the proposalwill begin with the date of publicationof this Notice and will end 30 days afterpublication. Any issues, concerns oralternatives should be submitted to BLMDecember 18, 1998, so they can beaddressed in the environmentalanalysis.

To facilitate the planning effort, twopublic scoping meetings have beenscheduled as follows:

1. December 3, 2 pm, Lame Deer,Montana, Dull Knife Memorial CollegeAuditorium;

2. December 3, 7 pm, Hardin,Montana, Becker Hotel ConferenceRoom, 200 North Center.

3. December 7, 1 pm, Sheridan,Wyoming, Fulmer Public Library, 335W. Alger.ADDRESSES: All submissions should besent to the following address: Bureau ofLand Management, Miles City Field

Office, Dan Benoit, Team Leader, 111Garryowen Road, Miles City, Montana59301.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: DanBenoit, Team Leader, Bureau of LandManagement, Miles City Field Office,(406) 232–7001, ext 206.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SpringCreek Coal Company is the lessee andoperator of Federal Coal Lease MTM069782 at the Spring Creek Mine. Theproposed lease area adjoins the currentlease to the north.

Due to its coal reserve base andconfiguration, the Spring Creek leaseapplication area is a logical step toextend the life of the Spring Creek Mine.With the current permitted reserves ofcoal, the current level of production atthe Spring Creek Mine can bemaintained for approximately 19 moreyears.

The areas applied for would be minedas an extension of the Spring CreekMine and would utilize the samemethods as those currently being used.The leases being applied for wouldextend the life of the mine for anadditional 8 years beyond what iscurrently permitted, and enablerecovery of coal as a logical extension ofthe current pits at the Spring CreekMine.

Dated: November 9, 1998.Timothy M. Murphy,Miles City Field Manager.[FR Doc. 98–30860 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310–DN–P


Bureau of Land Management

[CO–956–98–1420–00]

Colorado: Filing of Plats of Survey

November 5, 1998.The plats of survey of the following

described land will be officially filed inthe Colorado State Office, Bureau ofLand Management, 2850 YoungfieldStreet, Lakewood, Colorado, 80215–7093, effective 10:00 am, November 5,1998. All inquiries should be sent tothis address.

Township Range Meridian Group No. Approval date

T. 13 S. ............................................................................. R. 85 W. 6 1216 ................................. October 1, 1998.T. 04 N. ............................................................................. R. 84 W. 6 1134 ................................. October 13, 1998.T. 05 N. ............................................................................. R. 92 W. 6 1188 ................................. October 23, 1998.T. 03 N. ............................................................................. R. 75 W. 6 1208 ................................. October 23, 1998.T. 01 S. ............................................................................. R. 78 W. 6 1198 ................................. October 26, 1998.T. 45 N. ............................................................................. R. 03 W. NM Supplemental Plat ............ October 26, 1998.T. 13 S. ............................................................................. R. 85 W. 6 1216 ................................. November 3, 1998.T. 01 S. ............................................................................. R. 01 W. UTE 1144 ................................. November 4, 1998.


Donald W. Ashbaugh,Acting Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Colorado.[FR Doc. 98–30861 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310–JB–P


National Park Service

Notice of Inventory Completion forNative American Human Remains andAssociated Funerary Objects in thePossession of the University ofNebraska State Museum, University ofNebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.ACTION: Notice.

Notice is hereby given in accordancewith provisions of the Native AmericanGraves Protection and Repatriation Act(NAGPRA), 43 CFR 10.9, of thecompletion of an inventory of humanremains and associated funerary objectsin the possession of the University ofNebraska State Museum, University ofNebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE.

A detail assessment of the humanremains was made by University ofNebraska professional staff inconsultation with representatives of theOmaha Tribe of Nebraska.

In 1939, human remains representingan unknown number of individualswere removed from a historic Omahacemetery (25 DK 2a) in Dakota County,NE during excavations under thedirection of Stanley Bartos, Jr. Noknown individuals were identified.During NAGPRA inventory activity in1994–1995, five individuals from thissite were found in the University’scollections.

In 1940, human remains representingan unknown number of individualswere removed from a historic Omahacemetery (25 DK 10) in Dakota County,NE during excavations under thedirection of John Champe. No knownindividuals were identified. DuringNAGPRA inventory activity in 1994–1995, three individuals from this sitewere found in the University’scollections.

Prior to November 16, 1990, theUniversity of Nebraska, Lincoln and theOmaha Tribe agreed to repatriate allindividuals and associated funeraryobjects then identified from these twosites. Consultations with representativesof the Omaha Tribe during this timeidentified these two sites as historicOmaha cemeteries.

Based on the above mentionedinformation, officials of the Universityof Nebraska have determined that,pursuant to 43 CFR 10.2(d)(1), thehuman remains listed above represent

the physical remains of eightindividuals of Native Americanancestry. Officials of the University ofNebraska have not determined thecultural affiliation of these NativeAmerican human remains because,pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3009(2), thesehuman remains are part of an action ona repatriation request pending on thedate of enactment of NAPGRA and willtherefore be repatriated to the OmahaTribe.

In 1941, human remains representingtwo individuals were recovered fromthe Maxwell site (25 DK 13) nearHomer, NE during excavationsconducted by S. Bartos Jr. under thedirection of John L. Champe and PaulCooper. No known individuals wereidentified. No associated funeraryobjects are present.

Based on the degree of preservationand skeletal morphology, theseindividuals have been determined to beNative American from the historicperiod. Based on the apparent age of theremains and the location of this burial,this individual has been determined tobe affiliated with the Omaha Tribe ofNebraska.

During the 1910s, human remainsrepresenting one individual wererecovered during construction activityat 13th and I Street in Omaha, NE byRobert Gilder who donated the humanremains to the University of NebraskaState Museum. No known individualwas identified. No associated funeraryobjects are present.

Based on the condition of the remainsand copper staining on a hand phalanx,this individual has been determined tobe Native American. A historic Omahavillage site is located several miles tothe south of this burial site. Based onthe apparent age of the remains and thelocation of this burial, this individualhas been determined to be affiliatedwith the Omaha Tribe of Nebraska.

In 1940, human remains representingone individual were recovered fromEmil Entenmann’s cornfield in StantonCounty, NE, and acquired by theMuseum. No known individual wasidentified. No associated funeraryobjects are present.

Because glass beads are reported tohave been associated with the burial,these human remains have beendetermined to be Native American fromthe historic period. During the historicperiod, the Omaha Tribe occupied theimmediate vicinity of this burial.Consultation with representatives of theOmaha Tribe confirms this informationthat this burial is attributable to theOmaha Tribe.

Based on the above mentionedinformation, officials of the University

of Nebraska-Lincoln have determinedthat, pursuant to 43 CFR 10.2(d)(1), thehuman remains listed above representthat physical remains of fourindividuals of Native Americanancestry. Officials of the University ofNebraska-Lincoln have determined that,pursuant to 43 CFR 10.2(e), there is arelationship of shared group identitywhich can be reasonably traced betweenthese Native American human remainsand the Omaha Tribe of Nebraska.

This notice has been sent to officialsof the Omaha Tribe of Nebraska.Representatives of any other Indian tribethat believes itself to be culturallyaffiliated with these human remains andassociated funerary objects shouldcontact Dr. Priscilla Grew, ViceChancellor for Research, University ofNebraska-Lincoln, 302 CanfieldAdministration Building, Lincoln, NE68588–0433; telephone (402) 472–3123,before December 18, 1998. Repatriationof the human remains to the OmahaTribe of Nebraska may begin after thatdate if no additional claimants comeforward.

The National Park Service is notresponsible for the determinationswithin this notice.

Dated: November 10, 1998.Francis P. McManamon,Departmental Consulting Archeologist,Manager, Archeology and EthnographyProgram.[FR Doc. 98–30683 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310–70–M

INTERNATIONAL TRADECOMMISSION

[Investigations Nos. 701–TA–385(Preliminary) and 731–TA–809–810(Preliminary)]

Live Cattle From Canada and Mexico

AGENCY: United States InternationalTrade Commission.ACTION: Notice of withdrawal ofpetitions in countervailing duty andantidumping investigations.

SUMMARY: On November 10, theDepartment of Commerce and theCommission received a letter frompetitioner in the subject investigations(Ranchers-Cattlemen Action LegalFoundation (‘‘R–CALF’’), Columbus,MT) withdrawing its petitions.Commerce has not initiated itsinvestigations as provided for insections 702(c) and 732(c) of the TariffAct of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671a(c) and1673a(c)). Accordingly, the Commissiongives notice that its countervailing dutyand antidumping investigations


concerning live cattle from Canada andMexico (investigations Nos. 701–TA–385 (Preliminary) and 731–TA–809–810(Preliminary)) are discontinued.EFFECTIVE DATE: November 10, 1998.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Elizabeth Haines (202–205–3200), Officeof Investigations, U.S. InternationalTrade Commission, 500 E Street SW,Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired individuals are advised thatinformation on this matter can beobtained by contacting theCommission’s TDD terminal on 202–205–1810. Persons with mobilityimpairments who will need specialassistance in gaining access to theCommission should contact the Officeof the Secretary at 202–205–2000.General information concerning theCommission may also be obtained byaccessing its internet server (http://www.usitc.gov).

Issued: November 13, 1998.By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,Secretary.[FR Doc. 98–30851 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADECOMMISSION

[Investigation 332–400]

Conditions of Competition in U.S.Forest Products Trade

AGENCY: United States InternationalTrade Commission.ACTION: Institution of investigation andscheduling of public hearing.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 9, 1998.SUMMARY: Following receipt of a requeston October 19, 1998, from theCommittee on Finance, U.S. Senate, theCommission instituted investigation No.332–400, Conditions of Competition inU.S. Forest Products Trade, undersection 332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930(19 U.S.C. 1332(g)).FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Industry-specific information may be obtainedfrom William Hoffmeier (202–205–3321), Vincent Honnold (202–205–3314), or William Lipovsky (202–205–3330), Office of Industries, U.S.International Trade Commission,Washington, DC 20436. For informationon the legal aspects of this investigationcontact William Gearhart of the Office ofthe General Counsel (202-205–3091).News media should contact PegO’Laughlin, Office of External Relations(202–205–1819). Hearing impairedindividuals are advised that information

on this matter can be obtained bycontacting the TDD terminal on (202)205–1810.

Background

The Committee on Finance hasrequested that the Commissioninvestigate the conditions ofcompetition in forest products trade,with special emphasis on trade barriersand forest practices that may distortdomestic and international markets inAsia, Europe, and Latin America, andprovide a report setting forth the resultsof that investigation. As requested bythe Committee, the Commission willprovide in its report, to the extentpossible, the following:

• An overview of the global marketfor forest products, includingconsumption, production, capacity, andtrade trends during 1994–98;

• A description of the U.S. forestproducts industry and the major foreignforest products industries in Asia,Europe, and Latin America, includingrecent changes in production, capacity,marketing practices and market shares;

• A description of trade patterns(both imports and exports) andconditions affecting U.S. forest productstrade, including tariff and non-tariffbarriers (especially in Asia, Europe, andLatin America), fluctuations inexchange rates, and competition fromexporting countries;

• A description of Asian, European,and Latin American governmentpolicies affecting U.S. forest productstrade, including factors such as financialand other domestic support programs,access to raw materials, regulatoryenforcement, forestry practices that maydistort domestic and/or internationalmarkets for forest products, as well assupport from entities such asinternational financial institutions; and

• A comparison of the strengths andweaknesses of major U.S., Asian,European, and Latin Americanproducers in such areas as rawmaterials, capital availability,technological capabilities, extent ofplant and equipment modernization,present capacity and future plannedcapacity expansion, and governmentsupport.

The investigation will be limited toforest products covered in chapters 44,47, and 48 of the Harmonized TariffSchedules of the United States. Thereport will include information onfuture forest products supply anddemand trends. As requested, theCommission will provide its completedreport to the Committee by October 19,1999.

Public Hearing

A public hearing in connection withthe investigation will be held at the U.S.International Trade CommissionBuilding, 500 E Street SW., Washington,DC, beginning at 9:30 a.m. on May 26,1999. All persons will have the right toappear, by counsel or in person, topresent information and to be heard.Requests to appear at the public hearingshould be filed with the Secretary, U.S.International Trade Commission, 500 EStreet SW., Washington, DC, 20436, nolater than 5:15 p.m., May 12, 1999. Anyprehearing briefs (original and 14copies) should be filed not later than5:15 p.m., May 14, 1999; the deadlinefor filing post-hearing briefs orstatements is 5:15 p.m., June 9, 1999. Inthe event that, as of the close of businesson May 12, 1999, no witnesses arescheduled to appear at the hearing, thehearing will be canceled. Any personinterested in attending the hearing as anobserver or non-participant may call theSecretary to the Commission (202–205–1816) after May 12, 1999, to determinewhether the hearing will be held.

Written Submissions

In lieu of, or in addition to,participating in the hearing, interestedparties are invited to submit writtenstatements concerning the matters to beaddressed by the Commission in itsreport on this investigation. Commercialor financial information that a submitterdesires the Commission to treat asconfidential must be submitted onseparate sheets of paper, each clearlymarked ‘‘Confidential BusinessInformation’’ at the top. All submissionsrequesting confidential treatment mustconform with the requirements ofsection 201.6 of the Commission’s Rulesof Practice and Procedure (19 C.F.R.201.6). All written submissions, exceptfor confidential business information,will be made available in the Office ofthe Secretary to the Commission forinspection by interested parties. To beassured of consideration by theCommission, written statements relatingto the Commission’s report should besubmitted to the Commission at theearliest practical date and should bereceived no later than 5:15 p.m. on June9, 1999. All submissions should beaddressed to the Secretary, U.S.International Trade Commission, 500 EStreet SW., Washington, DC 20436. TheCommission’s rules do not authorizefiling of submissions with the Secretaryby facsimile or electronic means.

Persons with mobility impairmentswho will need special assistance ingaining access to the Commissionshould contact the Office of the


Secretary at 202–205–2000. Generalinformation concerning the Commissionmay also be obtained by accessing itsInternet server (http://www.usitc.gov).

List of SubjectsForest products, exports, imports,

markets, trade, production,consumption, capacity, barriers,distortions, financial and governmentsupport, exchange rates, United States,Asia, Europe, Latin America, and futuretrends.

By order of the Commission.Issued: November 12, 1998.

Donna R. Koehnke,Secretary.[FR Doc. 98–30850 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Immigration and Naturalization Service

Agency Information CollectionActivities: Comment Request

ACTION: Request OMB EmergencyApproval; Petition for NonimmigrantFiling Fee Exemption.

The Department of Justice,Immigration and Naturalization Service(INS) has submitted an emergencyinformation collection request (ICR)utilizing emergency review procedures,to the Office of Management and Budget(OMB) for review and clearance inaccordance with section 1320.13(a)(1) ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.The INS has determined that it cannotreasonably comply with the normalclearance procedures under this partbecause normal clearance proceduresare reasonably likely to prevent ordisrupt the collection of information.Therefore, OMB approval has beenrequested by November 20, 1998. Ifgranted, the emergency approval is onlyvalid for 180 days. ALL comments and/or questions pertaining to this pendingrequest for emergency approval MUSTbe directed to OMB, Office ofInformation and Regulatory Affairs,Attention: Mr. Stuart Shapiro, 202–395–7316, Department of Justice DeskOfficer, Washington, DC 20503.Comments regarding the emergencysubmission of this informationcollection may also be submitted viafacsimile to Mr. Shapiro at 202–395–6974.

During the first 60 days of this sameperiod, a regular review of thisinformation collection is also beingundertaken. During the regular reviewperiod, the INS requests writtencomments and suggestions from thepublic and affected agencies concerning

this information collection. Commentsare encouraged and will be accepteduntil January 19, 1999. During 60-dayregular review, ALL comments andsuggestions, or questions regardingadditional information, to includeobtaining a copy of the informationcollection instrument with instructions,should be directed to Mr. Richard A.Sloan, 202–514–3291, Director, PolicyDirectives and Instructions Branch,Immigration and Naturalization Service,U.S. Department of Justice, Room 5307,425 I Street, NW., Washington, DC20536. Written comments andsuggestions from the public and affectedagencies concerning the proposedcollection of information should addressone or more of the following four points:

(1) Evaluate whether the proposedcollection of information is necessaryfor the proper performance of thefunctions of the agency, includingwhether the information will havepractical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of theagencies estimate of the burden of theproposed collection of information,including the validity of themethodology and assumptions used;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, andclarity of the information to becollected; and

(4) 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.

Overview of this informationcollection:

(1) Type of Information Collection:New information collection.

(2) Title of the Form/Collection:Petition for Nomimmigrant Filing FeeExemption.

(3) Agency form number, if any, andthe applicable component of theDepartment of Justice sponsoring thecollection: Form I–129W. Office ofAdjudications, Immigration andNaturalization Service.

(4) Affected public who will be askedor required to respond, as well as a briefabstract: Primary: Business or other for-profit. This addendum to Form I–129will be used by the INS to determine ifan H–1B petitioner is exempt from theadditional filing fee of $500, as providedby the American Competitiveness andWorkforce Improvement Act of 1998.

(5) An estimate of the total number ofrespondents and the amount of timeestimated for an average respondent torespond: 100,000 responses at 15minutes (.25) hours per response.

(6) An estimate of the total publicburden (in hours) associated with thecollection: 25,000 annual burden hours.

If additional information is requiredcontact: Mr. Robert B. Briggs, ClearanceOfficer, United States Department ofJustice, Information Management andSecurity Staff, Justice ManagementDivision, Suite 850, Washington Center,1001 G Street, NW., Washington, DC20530.

Dated: November 13, 1998.Robert B. Briggs,Department Clearance Officer, United StatesDepartment of Justice.[FR Doc. 98–30865 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4410–10–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Assistance, NationalWhite Collar Crime Center; AgencyInformation Collection Activities:Proposed Collection; CommentRequest

ACTION: Notice of information collectionunder review; new collection: NationalOpinion Poll on White Collar Crime.

The Department of Justice, Office ofJustice Programs, Bureau of JusticeAssistance, has submitted the followinginformation collection request to theOffice of Management and Budget(OMB) for review and clearance inaccordance with emergency reviewprocedures of the Paperwork ReductionAct of 1995. OMB approval has beenrequested by November 24, 1998. Theproposed information collection ispublished to obtain comments from thepublic and affected agencies. If granted,the emergency approval is only valid for180 days. Comments should be directedto OMB, Office of InformationRegulation Affairs, Attention: Mr.Stewart Shapiro, (202) 395–7857,Department of Justice Desk Officer,Washington, DC 20530.

During the first 60 days of this samereview period, a regular review of thisinformation collection is also beingundertaken. All comments andsuggestions, or questions regardingadditional information, to includeobtaining a copy of the proposedinformation collection instrument withinstructions, should be directed to JennySundra Layne, 200 Commerce Drive,Suite 200, Morgantown WV 26505, orfacsimile at (304) 291–2282. Requestwritten comments and suggestions fromthe public and affected agenciesconcerning the proposed collection ofinformation. Your comments should


address one or more of the followingfour points:

(1) Evaluate whether the proposedcollection of information is necessaryfor the proper performance of thefunctions of the agency, includingwhether the information will havepractical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of theagency’s estimate of the burden of theproposed collection of information,including the validity of themethodology and assumptions used;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, andclarity of the information to becollected; and

(4) 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.

Overview of This Information

(1) Type of Information Collection:New Collection.

(2) Title of the Form/Collection:National Opinion Poll on White CollarCrime.

(3) Agency form number, if any, andthe applicable component of theDepartment sponsoring the collection:Form: None. National White CollarCrime Center, Bureau of JusticeAssistance, Office of Justice Programs,U.S. Department of Justice.

(4) Affected public who will be as orrequired to respond, as well as a briefabstract: Primary: Individual orHouseholds. Other: None. The NWCCCTraining and Research Instituteanticipates conducting a survey ofpublic attitudes and perceptions ofwhite collar crime. Particular areas ofinterest include seriousness, awareness,arrest and imprisonment, knowledge ofprevention resources, victim riskbehaviors, victim experience, andgeneral demographics.

(5) An estimate of the total number ofrespondents and the amount of timeestimated for an average respondent torespond/reply: 1810 respondents at 20minutes per telephone interview.

(6) An estimate of the total publicburden (in hours) associated with thecollection: 603 annual burdens hours.

If additional information is requiredcontact: Ms. Brenda E. Dyer, DeputyClearance Office, United StatesDepartment of Justice, InformationManagement and Security Staff, JusticeManagement Division, Suite 850,Washington Center, 1001 G Street NW,Washington, DC 20530.

Dated: November 12, 1998.Brenda E. Dyer,Department Clearance Officer, United StatesDepartment of Justice.[FR Doc. 98–30755 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4410–18–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mine Safety and Health Administration

Petitions for Modification

The following parties have filedpetitions to modify the application ofmandatory safety standards undersection 101(c) of the Federal MineSafety and Health Act of 1977.

1. Consolidation Coal Company

[Docket No. M–98–89–C]Consolidation Coal Company, Consol

Plaza, 1800 Washington Road,Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15241–1421has filed a petition to modify theapplication of 30 CFR 75.503(permissible electric face equipment;maintenance) to its Loveridge No. 22Mine (I.D. No. 46–01433) located inMarion County, West Virginia. Thepetitioner proposes to increase themaximum length of their trailing cablesto 1,000 feet for the mining machine,loading machine, shuttle car, roof bolter,and the section ventilation fan whiledeveloping longwall panels. Thepetitioner asserts that the proposedalternative method would provide atleast the same measure of protection aswould the mandatory standard.

2. Cyprus Plateau Mining Corporation

[Docket No. M–98–90–C]Cyprus Plateau Mining Corporation,

One Oxford Centre, 301 Grant Street,20th Floor, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania15219–1410 has filed a petition tomodify the application of 30 CFR75.323(e) (actions for excessivemethane) to its Willow Creek Mine (I.D.No. 42–02113) located in CarbonCounty, Utah. The petitioner requests amodification of the standard to permitmore than 2 percent methane in ableeder split of air immediately beforethe split joins another split of air. Thepetitioner asserts that application of thestandard would result in a diminutionof safety to the miners. In addition, thepetitioner asserts that the proposedalternative method would provide atleast the same measure of protection aswould the mandatory standard.

3. Deitz Bros. Coal Company

[Docket No. M–98–92–C]Deitz Bros. Coal Company, 137 W. 7th

Street, Tuscarora, Pennsylvania 17851

has filed a petition to modify theapplication of 30 CFR 75.1100–2(quantity and location of firefightingequipment) to its 4 Ft. Vein (I.D. No. 36–08706) located in Schuylkill County,Pennsylvania. The petitioner proposesto use only portable fire extinguishers toreplace existing requirements whererock dust, water cars, and other waterstorage equipped with three 10 quartpails are not practical. The petitionerasserts that the proposed alternativemethod would provide at least the samemeasure of protection as would themandatory standard.

4. Deitz Bros. Coal Company

[Docket No. M–98–93–C]Deitz Bros. Coal Company, 137 W. 7th

Street, Tuscarora, Pennsylvania 17851has filed a petition to modify theapplication of 30 CFR 75.1400 (hoistingequipment; general) to its 4 Ft. Vein(I.D. No. 36–08706) located inSchuylkill County, Pennsylvania. Thepetitioner requests a modification of theexisting standard to permit the gunboatto be operated without safety catches orother no less effective devices. Thepetitioner proposes to operate the mancage or steel gunboat with secondarysafety connections securely fastenedaround the gunboat and to the hoistingrope above the main connecting deviceand to use hoisting ropes with a safetyfactor in excess of the 4 to 8 to 1. Thepetitioner asserts that the proposedalternative method would provide atleast the same measure of protection aswould the mandatory standard.

5. Bowie Resources, Inc.

[Docket No. M–98–94–C]Bowie Resources, Inc., 1855 Old Hwy.

133, PO Box 483, Paonia, Colorado81428 has filed a petition to modify theapplication of 30 CFR 75.701 (groundingmetallic frames, casings, and otherenclosures of electric equipment) to itsBowie Mine (I.D. No. 05–04591) locatedin Delta County, Colorado. Thepetitioner proposes to use a portablediesel powered generator for utilitypower and to move electrically poweredmining equipment in and around themine following the specific proceduresoutlined in this petition. The petitionerasserts that the proposed alternativemethod would provide at least the samemeasure of protection as would themandatory standard.

6. Bowie Resources, Inc.

[Docket No. M–98–95–C]Bowie Resources, Inc., 1855 Old Hwy.

133, PO Box 483, Paonia, Colorado81428 has filed a petition to modify theapplication of 30 CFR 75.901 (protection


of low- and medium-voltage three-phasecircuits used underground) to its BowieMine (I.D. No. 05–04591) located inDelta County, Colorado. The petitionerproposes to use a portable dieselpowered generator for utility power andto move electrically powered miningequipment in and around the minefollowing the specific proceduresoutlined in this petition. The petitionerasserts that the proposed alternativemethod would provide at least the samemeasure of protection as would themandatory standard.

7. Mettiki Coal Corporation

[Docket No. M–98–96–C]

Mettiki Coal Corporation, 293 TableRock Road, Oakland, Maryland 21550has filed a petition to modify theapplication of 30 CFR 75.1100–2(e)(2)(quantity and location of firefightingequipment) to its Mettiki Mine (I.D. No.18–00621) located in Garrett County,Maryland. The petitioner requests amodification of the standard to permitprovision of two portable fireextinguishers at each temporaryelectrical installation. The petitionerproposes to store at each temporaryelectrical installation two multipurpose,dry chemical, portable fireextinguishers, each having at least aminimum capacity of 10 pounds of drypowder. The petitioner states that allportable fire extinguishers would beapproved by the UnderwritersLaboratories, Inc., or Factory ResearchCorporation, and each would have arating of 2A 10BC or higher. Thepetitioner asserts that the proposedalternative method would provide atleast the same measure of protection aswould the mandatory standard.

8. The Pittsburg & Midway Coal MiningCompany

[Docket No. M–98–97–C]

The Pittsburg & Midway Coal MiningCompany, PO Box 6518, Englewood,Colorado 80155–6518 has filed apetition to modify the application of 30CFR 75.364(b)(4) (weekly examination)to its Sebree #1 Mine (I.D. No. 15–17044) located in Webster County,Kentucky. Due to a rock fall in front ofthe No. 2 Seal at the No. 7 entry in theNorth Submain return, examining thearea every 7 days would be unsafe. Thepetitioner proposes to examine the inbyand outby side of the rock fall at the No.2 Seal once during each 24 hour period.The petitioner asserts that the proposedalternative method would provide atleast the same measure of protection aswould the mandatory standard.

9. Oxbow Mining, Inc.

[Docket No. M–98–98–C]Oxbow Mining, Inc., PO Box 535,

Somerset, Colorado 81434 has filed apetition to modify the application of 30CFR 75.380(d)(5) (escapeways;bituminous and lignite mines) to itsSanborn Creek Mine (I.D. No. 05–04452)located in Gunnison County, Colorado.The petitioner requests a modificationof the standard to allow continued usageof the current secondary escapeway asan alternative intake escapeway insteadof using the No. 3 Substation ReturnAirshaft. The petitioner asserts that theproposed alternative method wouldprovide at least the same measure ofprotection as would the mandatorystandard.

Request for CommentsPersons interested in these petitions

are encouraged to submit comments viae-mail to ‘‘[email protected]’’, or ona computer disk along with an originalhard copy to the Office of Standards,Regulations, and Variances, Mine Safetyand Health Administration, 4015Wilson Boulevard, Room 627,Arlington, Virginia 22203. Allcomments must be postmarked orreceived in that office on or beforeDecember 18, 1998. Copies of thesepetitions are available for inspection atthat address.

Dated: November 10, 1998.Carol J. Jones,Acting Director, Office of Standards,Regulations, and Variances.[FR Doc. 98–30862 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4510–43–P

MEDICARE PAYMENT ADVISORYCOMMISSION

Commission Meeting

AGENCY: Medicare Payment AdvisoryCommission.ACTION: Notice of Meeting.

SUMMARY: The Commission will hold itsnext public meeting on Monday,November 23, 1998 and Tuesday,November 24, 1998 at the Embassy SuiteHotel, 1250 22nd Street NW.,Washington, DC. The meeting istentatively scheduled to begin at 9:30a.m. on November 23, and at 9:00 a.m.on November 24.

The Commission will discussdemonstration program for frail elderly,care at the end of life, and its workplanon end-stage renal disease. It willconsider beneficiary financial liability,access to care, and two quality issues:informed consumer choice and health

care errors. Finally, it will discussgraduate medical education, thephysician fee schedule, and payments tohospital outpatient departments.

Agendas were mailed on Monday,November 9, 1998. The final agenda willbe available on the Commission’s websites (WWW.MedPAC.GOV).ADDRESSES: MedPAC’s address is: 1730K Street, NW, Suite 800, Washington,D.C. 20006. The telephone number is202/653–7220.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Diane Ellison, Office Manager, 202/653–7220.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: If you arenot on the Commission mailing list andwish to receive an agenda, please call202/653–7220.Murray N. Ross,Executive Director.[FR Doc. 98–30770 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6820–BW–M

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THEARTS AND HUMANITIES

SES Performance Review Board

AGENCY: National Endowment for theArts.ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of thenames of members of the PerformanceReview Board for the NationalEndowment for the Arts. This noticesupersedes all previous notices of thePRB membership of the Agency.DATES: Upon publication.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Maxine C. Jefferson, Director of HumanResources, National Endowment for theArts, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,Room 627, Washington, DC 20506, (202)682–5405.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Sec.4314(c)(1) through (5) of Title 5, U.S.C.,requires each agency to establish, inaccordance with regulations prescribedby the Office of Personnel Management,one or more SES Performance ReviewBoards. The Board shall review andevaluate the initial appraisal of a seniorexecutive’s performance by thesupervisor, along with any response bythe senior executive, and makerecommendations to the appointingauthority relative to the performance ofthe senior executive.

The following persons have beenselected to serve on the PerformanceReview Board of the NationalEndowment for the Arts:Scott Shanklin-Peterson, Senior Deputy

Chairman


Karen K. Christensen, Deputy Chairmanfor Grants and Awards

Laurence M. Baden, Deputy Chairmanfor Management and Budget

Alfred B. Spellman, Jr., DeputyChairman for Guidelines, Panel, andCouncil Operations

Richard P. Woodruff, Congressional andWhite House Liaison

Leon Williams,Acting Director of Human Resources,National Endowment for the Arts.[FR Doc. 98–30804 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 7536–01–M

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Notice of Permits Issued Under theAntarctic Conservation Act of 1978

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.ACTION: Notice of permits issued underthe Antarctic Conservation of 1978, Pub.L. 95–541.

SUMMARY: The National ScienceFoundation (NSF) is required to publishnotice of permits issued under theAntarctic Conservation Act of 1978.This is the required notice.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Nadene G. Kennedy, Permit Office,Office of Polar Programs, Rm. 755,National Science Foundation, 4201Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OnSeptember 21, 1998, the NationalScience Foundation published a noticein the Federal Register of permitapplications received. A permit wasissued on November 5, 1998 to thefollowing applicant:Erick Chiang Permit No. 99–012Nadene G. Kennedy,Permit Officer.[FR Doc. 98–30866 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 7555–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION

Advisory Committee on ReactorSafeguards; Meeting Notice

In accordance with the purposes ofSections 29 and 182b. of the AtomicEnergy Act (42 U.S.C. 2039, 2232b), theAdvisory Committee on ReactorSafeguards will hold a meeting onDecember 3–5, 1998, in ConferenceRoom T–2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike,Rockville, Maryland. The date of thismeeting was previously published inthe Federal Register on Thursday,November 20, 1997 (62 FR 62079).

Thursday, December 3, 1998

8:30 A.M.–8:45 A.M.: OpeningRemarks by the ACRS Chairman(Open)—The ACRS Chairman will makeopening remarks regarding the conductof the meeting.

8:45 A.M.–10:30 A.M.: NEI WholePlant Study and Options to Make 10CFR Part 50 Risk-Informed (Open)—TheCommittee will hear presentations byand hold discussions withrepresentatives of the NRC staff and theNuclear Energy Institute (NEI) regardingstaff options to make 10 CFR Part 50risk-informed and NEI Whole PlantStudy to evaluate options for modifying10 CFR Part 50 requirements.

10:45 A.M.–12:15 P.M.: ProposedOptions to Make 10 CFR 50.59 Risk-Informed (Open)—The Committee willhear presentations by and holddiscussions with representatives of theNRC staff and NEI regarding staffoptions to make 10 CFR 50.59 (Changes,tests and experiments) risk-informed.

1:15 P.M.–4:15 P.M.: IntegratedReview of Assessment Processes andImprovements to the SeniorManagement Meeting Process (Open)—The Committee will hear presentationsby and hold discussions withrepresentatives of the NRC staff and NEIregarding the integrated review of theassessment processes, improvements tothe Senior Management MeetingProcess, changes to the inspectionprogram, and related matters.

4:30 P.M.–7:00 P.M.: Preparation ofACRS Reports (Open)—The Committeewill discuss proposed ACRS reports,including those on the role offrequency-consequence curves in risk-informed decisionmaking, NRC SafetyResearch Program, and on lessonslearned from the review of the AP600passive plant design.

Friday, December 4, 1998

8:30 A.M.–8:35 A.M.: OpeningRemarks by the ACRS Chairman(Open)—The ACRS Chairman will makeopening remarks regarding conduct ofthe meeting.

8:35 A.M.–9:00 A.M.: SubcommitteeReport (Open)—The Committee willhear a report of the Plant LicenseRenewal Subcommittee regardingmatters discussed during the November18, 1998 meeting as well as a proposedACRS report on license renewalactivities.

9:00 A.M.–9:45 A.M.: Report of thePlanning and Procedures Subcommittee(Open/Closed)—The Committee willhear a report of the Planning andProcedures Subcommittee on mattersrelated to the conduct of ACRSbusiness, and organizational and

personnel matters relating to the ACRS,including status of appointment of anew member to the ACRS.

[Note: A portion of this session may beclosed to discuss organizational andpersonnel matters that relate solely to theinternal personnel rules and practices of thisAdvisory Committee, and information therelease of which would constitute a clearlyunwarranted invasion of personal privacy.]

9:45 A.M.–10:30 A.M.: Future ACRSActivities (Open)—The Committee willdiscuss the recommendations of thePlanning and Procedures Subcommitteeregarding items proposed forconsideration by the full Committeeduring future meetings.

10:45 A.M.–11:00 A.M.: Reconciliationof ACRS Comments andRecommendations (Open)—TheCommittee will discuss the responsesfrom the NRC Executive Director forOperations (EDO) to comments andrecommendations included in recentACRS reports. The EDO’s responses areexpected prior to the meeting.

11:00 A.M.–11:30 A.M.: Election ofOfficers for Calendar Year 1999(Open)—The Committee will elect aChairman and a Vice Chairman to theACRS and a Member-at-Large to thePlanning and Procedures Subcommittee.

1:15 P.M.–2:30 P.M.: Potential Itemsfor Meeting with the NRCCommissioners (Open)—The Committeewill discuss potential items fordiscussion during the ACRS meetingwith the Commissioners on February 3,1999. (The commission has notapproved topics for this meeting.)

2:30 P.M.–7:00 P.M.: Preparation ofACRS Reports (Open)—The Committeewill continue its discussion of proposedACRS reports.

Saturday, December 5, 19988:30 A.M.–2:00 P.M.: Preparation of

ACRS Reports (Open)—The Committeewill continue its discussion of proposedACRS reports.

2:00 P.M.–2:30 P.M.: Miscellaneous(Open)—The Committee will discussmatters related to the conduct ofCommittee activities and matters andspecific issues that were not completedduring previous meetings, as time andavailability of information permit.

Procedures for the conduct of andparticipation in ACRS meetings werepublished in the Federal Register onSeptember 29, 1998 (63 FR 51968). Inaccordance with these procedures, oralor written views may be presented bymembers of the public, includingrepresentatives of the nuclear industry.Electronic recordings will be permittedonly during the open portions of themeeting and questions may be askedonly by members of the Committee, its


consultants, and staff. Persons desiringto make oral statements should notifyMr. Sam Duraiswamy, Chief of theNuclear Reactors Branch, at least fivedays before the meeting, if possible, sothat appropriate arrangements can bemade to allow necessary time during themeeting for such statements. Use of still,motion picture, and television camerasduring this meeting may be limited toselected portions of the meeting asdetermined by the Chairman.Information regarding the time to be setaside for this purpose may be obtainedby contacting the Chief of the NuclearReactors Branch prior to the meeting. Inview of the possibility that the schedulefor ACRS meetings may be adjusted bythe Chairman as necessary to facilitatethe conduct of the meeting, personsplanning to attend should check withthe Chief of the Nuclear Reactors Branchif such rescheduling would result inmajor inconvenience.

In accordance with subsection 10(d)Pub. L. 92–463, I have determined thatit is necessary to close portions of thismeeting noted above to discuss mattersthat relate solely to the internalpersonnel rules and practices of thisAdvisory Committee per 5 U.S.C.552b(c)(2), and to discuss informationthe release of which would constitute aclearly unwarranted invasion ofpersonal privacy per 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6).

Further information regarding topicsto be discussed, whether the meetinghas been canceled or rescheduled, theChairman’s ruling on requests for theopportunity to present oral statementsand the time allotted therefor, can beobtained by contacting Mr. SamDuraiswamy, Chief of the NuclearReactors Branch (telephone 301/415–7364), between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m.EST.

ACRS meeting agenda, meetingtranscripts, and letter reports areavailable for downloading or viewing onthe internet at http://www.nrc.gov/ACRSACNW.

Video teleconferencing service isavailable for observing open sessions ofACRS meetings. Those wishing to usethis service for observing ACRSmeetings should contact Mr. TheronBrown, ACRS Audio Visual Technician,(301–415–8066) between 7:30 a.m. and3:45 p.m. EST at least 10 days before themeeting to ensure the availability of thisservice. Individuals or organizationsrequesting this service will beresponsible for telephone line chargesand for providing the equipmentfacilities that they use to establish thevideo teleconferencing link. Theavailability of video teleconferencingservices is not guaranteed.

The ACRS meeting dates for CalendarYear 1999 are provided below:

ACRS meetingNo. 1999 ACRS meeting date

January 1999—No meeting.459 ................ February 4–6, 1999.460 ................ March 10 (1:00 p.m.)–13,

1999.461 ................ April 7 (1:00 p.m.)–10, 1999.462 ................ May 5 (1:00 p.m.)–8, 1999.463 ................ June 2–4, 1999.464 ................ July 7–9, 1999.

August 1999—No meeting.465 ................ September 1–3, 1999.466 ................ September 30–October 2,

1999.467 ................ November 4–6, 1999.468 ................ December 2–4, 1999.

Dated: November 13, 1998.Andrew L. Bates,Advisory Committee Management Officer.[FR Doc. 98–30870 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 7590–01–P


Advisory Committee on ReactorSafeguards Subcommittee Meeting onPlanning and Procedures

The ACRS Subcommittee on Planningand Procedures will hold a meeting onDecember 2, 1998, Room T–2B1, 11545Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

The entire meeting will be open topublic attendance, with the exception ofa portion that may be closed pursuantto 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (2) and (6) to discussorganizational and personnel mattersthat relate solely to internal personnelrules and practices of ACRS, andinformation the release of which wouldconstitute a clearly unwarrantedinvasion of personal privacy.

The agenda for the subject meetingshall be as follows:

Wednesday, December 2, 1998—2:00p.m.

The Subcommittee will discussproposed ACRS activities and relatedmatters. It may also discuss the status ofappointment of a new member to theACRS. The purpose of this meeting is togather information, analyze relevantissues and facts, and to formulateproposed positions and actions, asappropriate, for deliberation by the fullCommittee.

Oral statements may be presented bymembers of the public with theconcurrence of the SubcommitteeChairman; written statements will beaccepted and made available to theCommittee. Electronic recordings willbe permitted only during those portions

of the meeting that are open to thepublic, and questions may be asked onlyby members of the Subcommittee, itsconsultants, and staff. Persons desiringto make oral statements should notifythe cognizant ACRS staff person namedbelow five days prior to the meeting, ifpossible, so that appropriatearrangements can be made.

Further information regarding topicsto be discussed, the scheduling ofsessions open to the public, whether themeeting has been canceled orrescheduled, the Chairman’s ruling onrequests for the opportunity to presentoral statements, and the time allottedtherefor can be obtained by contactingthe cognizant ACRS staff person, Dr.John T. Larkins (telephone: 301/415–7360) between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m.(EST). Persons planning to attend thismeeting are urged to contact the abovenamed individual one or two workingdays prior to the meeting to be advisedof any changes in schedule, etc., thatmay have occurred.

Dated: November 13, 1998.Sam Duraiswamy,Chief, Nuclear Reactors Branch.[FR Doc. 98–30871 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 7590–01–P


Biweekly Notice; Applications andAmendments to Facility OperatingLicenses Involving No SignificantHazards Considerations

I. Background

Pursuant to Pub. L. 97–415, the U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission (theCommission or NRC staff) is publishingthis regular biweekly notice. Pub. L. 97–415 revised section 189 of the AtomicEnergy Act of 1954, as amended (theAct), to require the Commission topublish notice of any amendmentsissued, or proposed to be issued, undera new provision of section 189 of theAct. This provision grants theCommission the authority to issue andmake immediately effective anyamendment to an operating licenseupon a determination by theCommission that such amendmentinvolves no significant hazardsconsideration, notwithstanding thependency before the Commission of arequest for a hearing from any person.

This biweekly notice includes allnotices of amendments issued, orproposed to be issued from October 24,1998, through November 5, 1998. Thelast biweekly notice was published onNovember 4, 1998 (63 FR 59584).


Notice of Consideration of Issuance ofAmendments to Facility OperatingLicenses, Proposed No SignificantHazards Consideration Determination,and Opportunity for a Hearing

The Commission has made aproposed determination that thefollowing amendment requests involveno significant hazards consideration.Under the Commission’s regulations in10 CFR 50.92, this means that operationof the facility in accordance with theproposed amendment would not (1)involve a significant increase in theprobability or consequences of anaccident previously evaluated; or (2)create the possibility of a new ordifferent kind of accident from anyaccident previously evaluated; or (3)involve a significant reduction in amargin of safety. The basis for thisproposed determination for eachamendment request is shown below.

The Commission is seeking publiccomments on this proposeddetermination. Any comments receivedwithin 30 days after the date ofpublication of this notice will beconsidered in making any finaldetermination.

Normally, the Commission will notissue the amendment until theexpiration of the 30-day notice period.However, should circumstances changeduring the notice period such thatfailure to act in a timely way wouldresult, for example, in derating orshutdown of the facility, theCommission may issue the licenseamendment before the expiration of the30-day notice period, provided that itsfinal determination is that theamendment involves no significanthazards consideration. The finaldetermination will consider all publicand State comments received beforeaction is taken. Should the Commissiontake this action, it will publish in theFederal Register a notice of issuanceand provide for opportunity for ahearing after issuance. The Commissionexpects that the need to take this actionwill occur very infrequently.

Written comments may be submittedby mail to the Chief, Rules andDirectives Branch, Division ofAdministration Services, Office ofAdministration, U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, Washington, DC 20555–0001, and should cite the publicationdate and page number of this FederalRegister notice. Written comments mayalso be delivered to Room 6D22, TwoWhite Flint North, 11545 RockvillePike, Rockville, Maryland from 7:30a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays.Copies of written comments receivedmay be examined at the NRC Public

Document Room, the Gelman Building,2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC.The filing of requests for a hearing andpetitions for leave to intervene isdiscussed below.

By December 18, 1998, the licenseemay file a request for a hearing withrespect to issuance of the amendment tothe subject 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 for the particularfacility involved. If a request for ahearing or petition for leave to interveneis filed by the above date, theCommission or an Atomic Safety andLicensing Board, designated by theCommission or by the Chairman of theAtomic Safety and Licensing BoardPanel, will rule on the request and/orpetition; and the Secretary or thedesignated Atomic Safety and LicensingBoard will issue a notice of a hearing oran appropriate order.

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 thepetitioner’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.

If a hearing is requested, theCommission will make a finaldetermination on the issue of nosignificant hazards consideration. Thefinal determination will serve to decidewhen the hearing is held.

If the final determination is that theamendment request involves nosignificant hazards consideration, theCommission may issue the amendmentand make it immediately effective,notwithstanding the request for ahearing. Any hearing held would takeplace after issuance of the amendment.

If the final determination is that theamendment request involves asignificant hazards consideration, anyhearing held would take place beforethe issuance of any amendment.

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:Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, ormay be delivered to the Commission’s


Public Document Room, the GelmanBuilding, 2120 L Street, NW.,Washington DC, by the above date. Acopy of the petition should also be sentto the Office of the General Counsel,U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,Washington, DC 20555–0001, and to theattorney for the licensee.

Nontimely filings of petitions forleave to intervene, amended petitions,supplemental petitions and/or requestsfor a hearing will not be entertainedabsent a determination by theCommission, the presiding officer or theAtomic Safety and Licensing Board thatthe petition and/or request should begranted based upon a balancing offactors specified in 10 CFR2.714(a)(1)(i)–(v) and 2.714(d).

For further details with respect to thisaction, see the application foramendment which is available forpublic inspection at the Commission’sPublic Document Room, the GelmanBuilding, 2120 L Street, NW.,Washington, DC, and at the local publicdocument room for the particularfacility involved.

Commonwealth Edison Company,Docket Nos. 50–373 and 50–374, LaSalleCounty Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalleCounty, Illinois

Date of amendment request: October16, 1998.

Description of amendment request:The proposed amendments would lowerthe power level below which the turbinecontrol valve (TCV) and turbine stopvalve (TSV) closure scram signals andthe end-of-cycle recirculation pump trip(EOC-RPT) signals are not in effect. Thebypass setpoint (Pbypass) would bereduced from 30 percent rated power to25 percent rated power. The licenseealso proposes to delete the reference toturbine first stage pressure as a measureof core thermal power in the TechnicalSpecifications. To ensure that the tripfunctions will not be inadvertentlybypassed when they are required to beoperable, a requirement would be addedto periodically verify that TCV and TSVscram trip functions and the ECO-RPTtrip functions are not bypassed atgreater than or equal to 25 percent ofrated thermal power.

Basis for proposed no significanthazards consideration determination:As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), thelicensee has provided its analysis of theissue of no significant hazardsconsideration, which is presentedbelow:

(1) Involve a significant increase in theprobability of occurrence or consequences ofan accident previously evaluated:

The probability of an accident previouslyevaluated will not increase as a result of this

change because the setpoint change does notalter any of the initiators of an accident orcause them to occur more frequently.

The consequences of an accidentpreviously evaluated are not impacted.LaSalle Units 1 and 2 each haveapproximately 30 percent bypass capability.Therefore, a scram on TCV or TSV closuresignals is not needed until 30 percent corethermal power is reached, as adequate steambypass capacity is available. A lower Pbypass

remains conservative with respect to thiscriterion.

LaSalle utilizes power and flow dependentthermal limits. The power dependent portionof these thermal limits is dependent on thePbypass setpoint. These limits provideassurance that adequate fuel thermal-mechanical margin is maintained throughadherence to the thermal limits TechnicalSpecification requirements.

Revised thermal limits have beendetermined based on the results of GEtransient analyses. Adhering to these thermallimits ensures that the consequences of anaccident or transient would not be increasedfrom the consequences under the approved30 percent setpoint. Adjustments to thethermal limits were determined through useof the NRC-approved ODYN reactor dynamicmodel for the limiting Load RejectionWithout Bypass and the Feedwater ControllerFailure events.

The deletion of the reference to turbinefirst stage pressure and rewording theTechnical Specifications Notes does notaffect either accident initiators or plantequipment, as they are administrativechanges.

Adding the periodic verification that thebypass channels are set correctly ensures thatscrams or EOC-RPT will not be inadvertentlybypassed when Thermal Power is greaterthan or equal to 25 percent of Rated ThermalPower. The statement that specification 4.0.2applies to the 18 month interval is needed,since the notes are not standard surveillancerequirements and the interval is consistentwith other similar instrumentation to which4.0.2 currently applies.

Therefore, the proposed changes do notinvolve a significant increase in theprobability of occurrence or consequences ofan accident previously evaluated.

(2) Create the possibility of a new ordifferent kind of accident from any accidentpreviously evaluated:

The setpoint change and proposed bypassverification notes ensure that the scrams forTSV closure and TCV fast closure, and EOC–RPT, will be enabled above 25 percent ofrated thermal power, rather than above 30percent of rated thermal power. This changeresults in simplified reload transient analysesand does not impact any other equipment.

No other physical modifications are beingproposed by this submittal. The only plantoperational impact is that between 25 percentand 30 percent power, the plant will nowscram upon a turbine trip, which is ananalyzed transient.

The remaining changes to TechnicalSpecification wording are administrative innature and consistent with other TechnicalSpecifications.

Therefore, the proposed changes do notcreate the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any accidentpreviously evaluated.

(3) Involve a significant reduction in themargin of safety:

LaSalle Units 1 and 2 each haveapproximately 30 percent bypass capability.Therefore, a scram on TCV or TSV closuresignals in not needed until 30 percent corethermal power is reached, as adequate steambypass capacity is available. However,reduction of this setpoint to 25 percentpower actually aids the plant transientresponse between 25 percent and 30 percentpower.

The new thermal limits reflect the revisedsetpoint and have been determined based onrevised limiting transient analyses that haveincluded the new Pbypass value. If a transientwere to occur, the revised operating limitsensure that adequate margin would beavailable to preclude violation of theMinimum Critical Power Ratio (MCPR) safetylimit and the fuel thermal-mechanical limits.

All other UFSAR [Updated Final SafetyAnalysis Report] events are either boundedby the analyses performed or are notimpacted by the Pbypass change.

The wording changes to the TechnicalSpecifications do not change the requirementfor the bypass function and for maintainingthe bypass function and thus do not affect theanalyses discussed above.

The addition of the Notes periodicallyverifying the TCV and TSV Closure TripFunctions are not bypassed at greater than orequal to 25 percent Rated Thermal Powerensures the trip functions will not beinadvertently bypassed when required to beOperable.

Therefore, the proposed changes do notinvolve a significant reduction in the marginof safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed thelicensee’s analysis and, based on thisreview, it appears that the threestandards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) aresatisfied. Therefore, the NRC staffproposes to determine that therequested amendments involve nosignificant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Roomlocation: Jacobs Memorial Library, 815North Orlando Smith Avenue, IllinoisValley Community College, Oglesby,Illinois 61348–9692.

Attorney for licensee: Michael I.Miller, Esquire; Sidley and Austin, OneFirst National Plaza, Chicago, Illinois60603.

NRC Project Director: Stuart A.Richards.

Duke Energy Corporation (DEC), et al.,Docket Nos. 50–413 and 50–414,Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2,York County, South Carolina

Date of amendment request: July 22and October 22, 1998.

Description of amendment request:The proposed amendments wouldrevise the Technical Specifications (TS)to reflect the licensee’s planned use offuel supplied by Westinghouse. The


Westinghouse fuel has different designcharacteristics from the fuel currently inuse. Accordingly, the following changeswould need to be made to the TS: Figure2.1.1–1, ‘‘Reactor Core Safety Limits—Four Loops in Operation’’; various coreoperating parameters specified bySurveillance Requirements 3.2.1.2,3.2.1.3, and 3.2.2.2; Section 4.2.1, ‘‘FuelAssemblies’’; and Section 5.6.5, ‘‘CoreOperating Limits Report (COLR).’’

Basis for proposed no significanthazards consideration determination:As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), thelicensee has provided its analysis of theissue of no significant hazardsconsideration, addressing the threestandards of 10 CFR 50.92(c):

First StandardImplementation of this LAR [license

amendment request] would not involve asignificant increase in the probability orconsequences of an accident previouslyevaluated. The revised Reactor Core SafetyLimits Figure further restricts acceptableoperation. Moving an uncertainty factor fromthe Improved Technical Specifications to theCore Operating Limits Report (COLR) doesnot exempt this factor from regulatoryrestrictions. COLR parameters are generatedby NRC approved methods with the intent ofensuring that previously evaluated accidentsremain bounding. The COLR is submitted tothe NRC upon implementation of each fuelcycle or when the document is otherwiserevised. No accident probabilities orconsequences will be impacted by this LAR.

Second StandardImplementation of this LAR would not

create the possibility of a new or differentkind of accident from any previouslyevaluated. The revised Reactor Core SafetyLimits Figure further restricts acceptableoperation. Moving an uncertainty factor fromthe Improved Technical Specifications to theCOLR does not exempt this factor fromregulatory restrictions. Since the parameterin question is not being deleted, thepossibility of a new or different kind ofaccident from any previously evaluated doesnot exist.

Third StandardImplementation of this LAR would not

involve a significant reduction in a margin ofsafety. Margin of safety is related to theconfidence in the ability of the fissionproduct barriers to perform their designfunctions during and following an accidentsituation. These barriers include the fuelcladding, the reactor coolant system, and thecontainment system. Use of the ZIRLOTM

cladding material has been reviewed andapproved in Reference 1 (as listed in Chapter2.1 of Topical Report DPC–NE–2009/DPC–NE–2009P, Duke Power CompanyWestinghouse Fuel Transition Report).ZIRLOTM cladding has been extensively usedin Westinghouse nuclear reactors. Thechanges proposed in this LAR are necessaryto ensure that the performance of the fissionproduct barriers (cladding) will not beimpacted following the replacement of one

fuel design for another. No safety margin willbe significantly impacted.

The NRC staff reviewed the licensee’sanalysis, and agrees that the threestandards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) aresatisfied. Therefore, the NRC staffproposes to determine that theamendment request involves nosignificant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Roomlocation: York County Library, 138 EastBlack Street, Rock Hill, South Carolina.

Attorney for licensee: Mr. Paul R.Newton, Legal Department (PB05E),Duke Energy Corporation, 422 SouthChurch Street, Charlotte, NorthCarolina.

NRC Project Director: Herbert N.Berkow.

Duquesne Light Company, et al., DocketNos. 50–334 and 50–412, Beaver ValleyPower Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2,Shippingport, Pennsylvania

Date of amendment request: June 18,1996. This notice supersedes the noticepublished on July 31, 1996 (61 FR40015) in its entirety.

Description of amendment request:For Beaver Valley Power Station, UnitNo. 1 (BVPS–1) only, the proposedamendment would revise TechnicalSpecification (TS) 4.4.5 and associatedBases; the Bases for TS 3/4.4.6.2 wouldalso be revised. The proposed changesare editorial in nature and are intendedto provide consistency between the TSsand associated Bases. Index page XIXwould be revised to reflect the revisionof page numbers for TS Tables 4.4–1and 4.4–2 due to shifting of text.

For Beaver Valley Power Station, UnitNo. 2 (BVPS–2) only, the proposedamendment would implement a voltage-based repair criteria for steam generatortubes similar to the changes approvedfor BVPS–1 by License Amendment No.198. The proposed changes are intendedto reflect the guidance provided in NRCGeneric Letter 95–05, ‘‘Voltage-BasedRepair Criteria for Westinghouse SteamGenerator Tubes Affected by OutsideDiameter Stress Corrosion Cracking.’’The proposed changes would revise TSs4.4.5 and 3.4.6.2 and associated Bases.TS Table 4.4–2 would be revised toreference TS 6.6 for reportingrequirements.


1. Does the change involve a significantincrease in the probability or consequencesof an accident previously evaluated?

Tube burst criteria are inherently satisfiedduring normal operating conditions due tothe proximity of the tube support plate (TSP).Test data indicates that tube burst cannotoccur within the TSP, even for tubes whichhave 100% throughwall electric dischargemachining notches, 0.75 inch long, providedthat the TSP is adjacent to the notched area.Since tube-to-TSP proximity precludes tubeburst during normal operating conditions,use of the criteria must retain tube integritycharacteristics which maintain a margin ofsafety of 1.43 times the bounding faultedcondition, main steamline break (MSLB)pressure differential. The Regulatory Guide(RG) 1.121 criterion requiring maintenance ofa safety factor of 1.43 times the MSLBpressure differential on tube burst is satisfiedby 7⁄8′′ diameter tubing with bobbin coilindications with signal amplitudes less than8.6 volts, regardless of the indicated depthmeasurement.

The upper voltage repair limit (VURL) willbe determined prior to each outage using themost recently approved NRC database todetermine the tube structural limit (VSL). Thestructural limit is reduced by allowances fornondestructive examination (NDE)uncertainty (VNDE) and growth (VGR) toestablish VURL. Using the Generic Letter (GL)95–05 NDE and growth allowances for anexample, the NDE uncertainty component of20% and a voltage growth allowance of 30%per full power year can be utilized toestablish a VURL of 5.7 volts. The 20% NDEuncertainty represents a square-root-sum-of-the-squares (SRSS) combination of probewear uncertainty and analyst variability. Thedegradation growth allowance should be anaverage growth rate or 30% per effective fullpower year, whichever is larger.

Relative to the expected leakage duringaccident condition loadings, it has beenpreviously established that a postulatedMSLB outside of containment but upstreamof the main steam isolation valve (MSIV)represents the most limiting radiologicalcondition relative to the plugging criteria. Insupport of implementation of the revisedplugging limit, analyses will be performed todetermine whether the distribution ofcracking indications at the tube support plateintersections during future cycles areprojected to be such that primary-to-secondary leakage would result in postulatedsite boundary and control room dosesexceeding 10 CFR 100, 10 CFR 50 AppendixA, and GDC–19 [General Design Criterion-19]requirements, respectively. A separatecalculation has determined the maximumallowable MSLB leakage limit in a faultedloop. This limit was calculated using thetechnical specification reactor coolant system(RCS) Iodine-131 activity level of 1.0microcuries per gram dose equivalent Iodine-131 and the recommended Iodine-131transient spiking values consistent withNUREG–0800. The projected MSLB leakagerate calculation methodology prescribed inSection 2.b of GL 95–05 will be used tocalculate the end-of-cycle (EOC) leakage.Projected EOC voltage distribution will bedeveloped using the most recent EOC eddycurrent results and considering anappropriate voltage measurementuncertainty. The log-logistic probability of


leakage correlation will be used to establishthe MSLB leakrate used for comparison withthe faulted loop allowable limit. Therefore, asimplementation of the voltage-based repaircriteria does not adversely affect steamgenerator tube integrity and implementationwill be shown to result in acceptable doseconsequences, the proposed amendment doesnot result in any increase in the probabilityor consequences of an accident previouslyevaluated in the Updated Final SafetyAnalysis Report (UFSAR).

The proposed changes to the BVPS–1Index, Specifications and associated Basesand the proposed change to BVPS–2 Table4.4–2 are editorial in nature. Therefore, thesechanges do not involve an increase in theprobability or consequences of an accidentpreviously evaluated.

2. Does the change create the possibility ofa new or different kind of accident from anyaccident previously evaluated?

Implementation of the proposed steamgenerator tube voltage-based repair criteriadoes not introduce any significant changes tothe plant design basis. Use of the voltage-based repair criteria does not provide amechanism which could result in an accidentoutside of the region of the tube support plateelevations as no outside diameter stresscorrosion cracking (ODSCC) is occurringoutside the thickness of the tube supportplates. Neither a single or multiple tuberupture event would be expected in a steamgenerator in which the plugging limit hasbeen applied (during all plant conditions).

Duquesne Light Company will implementa maximum primary-to-secondary leakagerate limit of 150 gpd [gallons per day] persteam generator to help preclude thepotential for excessive leakage during allplant conditions. The RG 1.121 criterion forestablishing operational leakage rate limitsthat require plant shutdown are based uponleak-before-break considerations to detect afree span crack before potential tube ruptureduring faulted plant conditions. The 150 gpdlimit provides for leakage detection and plantshutdown in the event of the occurrence ofan unexpected single crack resulting inleakage that is associated with the longestpermissible crack length. RG 1.121acceptance criteria for establishing operatingleakage limits are based on leak-before-breakconsiderations such that plant shutdown isinitiated if the leakage associated with thelongest permissible crack is exceeded.

The single through-wall crack lengths thatresult in tube burst at 1.43 times the MSLBpressure differential and the MSLB pressuredifferential alone are approximately 0.57inch and approximately 0.84 inch,respectively. A leak rate of 150 gpd willprovide for detection of approximately 0.41inch long cracks at nominal leak rates andapproximately 0.62 inch long cracks at thelower 95% confidence level leak rates. Sincetube burst is precluded during normaloperation due to the proximity of the TSP tothe tube and the potential exists for thecrevice to become uncovered during MSLBconditions, the leakage from the maximumpermissible crack must preclude tube burst atMSLB conditions. Thus, the 150 gpd limitprovides for plant shutdown prior toreaching critical crack lengths for MSLB

conditions using the lower 95% leakratedata. Additionally, this leak-before-breakevaluation assumes that the entire crevicearea is uncovered during blowdown. Partialuncovery will provide benefit to the burstcapacity of the intersection. Analyses haveshown that only a small percentage of theTSPs are deflected greater than the TSPthickness during a postulated MSLB.

As steam generator tube integrity uponimplementation of the voltage-based repaircriteria continues to be maintained throughinservice inspection and primary-to-secondary leakage monitoring, the possibilityof a new or different kind of accident fromany accident previously evaluated is notcreated.

The proposed change to BVPS–1 Index,Specifications and associated Bases and theproposed change to BVPS–2 Table 4.4–2 areeditorial in nature. These changes do notchange the performance of plant systems,plant configuration or method of operatingthe plant.

Therefore, the proposed change does notcreate the possibility of a new or differentkind of accident from any accidentpreviously evaluated.

3. Does the change involve a significantreduction in a margin of safety?

The use of the voltage-based repair criteriaat BVPS–2 maintains steam generator tubeintegrity commensurate with the criteria ofRG 1.121. This guide describes a methodacceptable to the Commission for meetingGDCs 14, 15, 30, 31, and 32 by reducing theprobability or the consequences of steamgenerator tube rupture. This is accomplishedby determining the limiting conditions ofdegradation of steam generator tubing, asestablished by inservice inspection, forwhich tubes with unacceptable crackingshould be repaired or removed from service.Upon implementation of the proposedcriteria, even under the worst caseconditions, the occurrence of ODSCC at thetube support plate elevations is not expectedto lead to a steam generator tube ruptureevent during normal or faulted plantconditions. The EOC distribution of crackindications at the tube support plateelevations will be confirmed to result inacceptable primary-to-secondary leakageduring all plant conditions and thatradiological consequences remain within thelicensing basis.

In addressing the combined effects of loss-of-coolant-accident (LOCA) + safe shutdownearthquake (SSE) on the steam generatorcomponent (as required by GDC 2), it hasbeen determined that tube collapse mayoccur in the steam generators at some plants.This is the case as the tube support platesmay become deformed as a result of lateralloads at the wedge supports at the peripheryof the plate due to the combined effects ofthe LOCA rarefaction wave and SSE loadings.Then, the resulting pressure differential onthe deformed tubes may cause some of thetubes to collapse. There are two issuesassociated with steam generator tubecollapse. First, the collapse of steamgenerator tubing reduces the RCS flow areathrough the tubes. The reduction in flow areaincreases the resistance to flow of steam fromthe core during a LOCA which, in turn, may

potentially increase peak clad temperature.Second, there is a potential that partialthrough-wall cracks in tubes could progressto complete through-wall cracks during tubedeformation or collapse.

The results of an analysis using the largerbreak inputs show that the LOCA loads werefound to be of insufficient magnitude toresult in steam generator tube collapse orsignificant deformation. Since the leak-before-break methodology is applicable to thereactor coolant loop piping, the probability ofbreaks in the primary loop piping issufficiently low that they need not beconsidered in the structural design of theplant. The limiting LOCA event becomes thepressurizer spray line break. Analysis resultshave demonstrated that no tubes were subjectto deformation or collapse. No tubes havebeen excluded from application of the subjectvoltage-based steam generator tube repaircriteria.

Addressing RG 1.83 considerations,implementation of the voltage-based repaircriteria is supplemented by: enhanced eddycurrent inspection guidelines to provideconsistency in voltage normalization, thebobbin coil inspection will include 100% ofthe hot-leg TSP intersections and cold-legintersections down to the lowest cold-legTSP with known ODSCC, the determinationof the TSPs having ODSCC will be based onthe performance of at least 20% randomsampling of tubes inspected over their fulllength, and rotating pancake coil inspectionrequirements for the larger indications leftinservice to characterize the principaldegradation as ODSCC.

As noted previously, implementation ofthe tube support plate intersection voltage-based repair criteria will decrease thenumber of tubes which must be repaired. Theinstallation of steam generator tube plugsreduces the RCS flow margin. Thus,implementation of the voltage-based repaircriteria will maintain the margin of flow thatwould otherwise be reduced in the event ofincreased tube plugging.

The proposed change to the BVPS–1 Index,Specifications and associated Bases and theproposed change to BVPS–2 Table 4.4–2 areeditorial in nature. These changes will notreduce the margin of safety because theyhave no impact on any safety analysisassumptions.

Based on the above, it is concluded that theproposed license amendment request doesnot result in a significant reduction in marginwith respect to plant safety as defined in theUFSAR or any BASES of the plant technicalspecifications.

The NRC staff has reviewed thelicensee’s analysis and, based on thisreview, it appears that the threestandards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) aresatisfied. Therefore, the NRC staffproposes to determine that theamendment request involves nosignificant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Roomlocation: B. F. Jones Memorial Library,663 Franklin Avenue, Aliquippa, PA15001.

Attorney for licensee: Jay E. Silberg,Esquire, Shaw, Pittman, Potts &


Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW.,Washington, DC 20037.

NRC Project Director: Robert A. Capra.

Duquesne Light Company, et al., DocketNos. 50–334 and 50–412, Beaver ValleyPower Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2,Shippingport, Pennsylvania


Description of amendment request:The proposed amendment would makeseveral changes that are administrativein nature. The changes would (1) makeeditorial changes to delete obsoletematerial or material adequatelydescribed elsewhere, change actionstatement numbers, update the technicalspecification (TS) index pages, andmake changes to be consistent with theguidance of the improved standardtechnical specifications (ISTS); (2)delete reporting requirements thatduplicate reporting requirementscontained in 10 CFR; and (3) relocatethe requirement for meteorologicalmonitoring instrumentation from the TSto the Licensing Requirements Manual.



a. This change deletes an expired Unit 1license condition and a Unit 2 licenserequirement that is not required since it isredundant to the reporting requirementsaddressed in 10 CFR 50.73. Deleting theserequirements does not involve any increasein the probability or consequences of anaccident previously evaluated.

b. The reference to Specification 3.0.6 wasomitted from Specification 3.0.1 in Unit 1Amendment 213 and Unit 2 Amendment 90and is being added to 3.0.1 to be consistentwith the Improved Standard TechnicalSpecifications of NUREG 1431. This does notinvolve any increase in the probability orconsequences of an accident previouslyevaluated.

c. The Core Alteration definition has beenupdated to be consistent with the regulationsand ISTS. The Offsite Dose CalculationManual (ODCM) definition has been updatedto be consistent with the change toAdministrative Control 6.9.3. The Membersof the Public definition has been changed tobe consistent with 10 CFR 20.1003. This doesnot involve any increase in the probability orconsequences of an accident previouslyevaluated.

d. Changing Table 3.3–6 Action Statement36 to Action Statement 35 is an editorialchange to eliminate redundant use of actionstatement numbers. This does not involveany increase in the probability orconsequences of an accident previouslyevaluated.

e. The technical specification index isbeing revised to address removal of theMeteorological Monitoring specification andtitle and page number changes to theadministrative control reportingrequirements section. The MeteorologicalMonitoring specification is being relocated tothe Licensing Requirements Manual (LRM).Relocating the Meteorological Monitoringrequirements is in accordance with theguidance in the Commission’s Final PolicyStatement and revisions to 10 CFR 50.36 onthe content of the technical specificationsand the ISTS. The Meteorological Monitoringrequirements do not meet any of the criteria,1 thru 4 of 10 CFR 50.36 and can, therefore,be relocated from the TechnicalSpecifications to the LRM. These changes donot involve any increase in the probability orconsequences of an accident previouslyevaluated.

f. The exclusion area boundary isadequately described in each unit’s UFSAR[Updated Final Safety Analysis Report],therefore, design feature 5.1 Site Location isalso being modified by deleting thedescription of the exclusion area boundary.This does not involve any increase in theprobability or consequences of an accidentpreviously evaluated.

g. The change to refer to the Unit 1Overpressure Protection System (OPPS)enable temperature in Specification 3.4.9.3 inlieu of specifying 275 °F was evaluated andfound acceptable in the request for approvalof Amendment 160. The deletion of theasterisk in Unit 2 Specification 3.9.8.1 wasjustified as part of the request for approvalof Amendment 25. The inadvertent omissionof the ACTION to take in the case that thetemperature of the steam generator isprecisely 50 °F above the cold legtemperature is being corrected. The cases ofgreater than and less than 50 °F are alreadyincluded. These are editorial changes that donot involve any increase in the probability orconsequences of an accident previouslyevaluated.

h. The administrative control reportingrequirements have been modified toincorporate various ISTS requirements. Thisrequires changing titles and eliminatingrequirements addressed elsewhere, removingreference to deleted sections, and replacingreference to the administrative controlsection reporting requirements in variousspecifications with reference to 10 CFR 50.4.The 1993 NRC final policy statement set forththe criteria for determination of thoserequirements to be included in TS. Thereporting requirements being removed fromthe TS do not meet the criteria for inclusionin the TS; therefore, the reportingrequirements have been modified to reflectthose requirements provided in the ISTS.These are editorial changes that do notinvolve any increase in the probability orconsequences of an accident previouslyevaluated.

i. The Technical Specification index hasbeen modified to address the revised pages.

These changes have been determined to beeditorial and administrative in nature, and assuch, would not affect any accidentassumptions or radiological consequences ofan accident. Therefore, the proposed changes

would not involve a significant increase inthe probability or consequences of anaccident previously evaluated.


The editorial changes, the elimination ofreporting requirements which duplicate 10CFR requirements and administrativeimprovements to incorporate the ISTSrequirements are all changes that areadministrative in nature. The proposedchanges will not affect any plant system orstructure, nor will they affect any systemfunctional or operability requirements.Consequently, no new failure modes areintroduced as a result of the proposedchanges. Therefore, the proposed change willnot create the possibility of a new or differenttype of accident from any accidentpreviously evaluated.

3. Does the change involve a significantreduction in a margin of safety?

The proposed amendment modifiesreporting requirements and incorporatesassociated editorial changes that do notimpact the UFSAR design basis or accidentanalyses assumptions. This change does notintroduce any new operational modes orphysical modifications to the plant; therefore,no action will occur that will involve asignificant reduction in a margin of safety. Inaddition, the proposed change does not affectradiological release limits, monitoringequipment or operating practices. Therefore,the proposed amendment does not involve asignificant reduction in a margin of safety.


Local Public Document Roomlocation: B.F. Jones Memorial Library,663 Franklin Avenue, Aliquippa, PA15001.

Attorney for licensee: Jay E. Silberg,Esquire, Shaw, Pittman, Potts &Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW.,Washington, DC 20037.


Entergy Gulf States, Inc., and EntergyOperations, Inc., Docket No. 50–458,River Bend Station, Unit 1, WestFeliciana Parish, Louisiana

Date of amendment request:September 23, 1998.

Description of amendment request:The proposed amendment wouldchange Division III battery specificgravity acceptance criteria outlined inRiver Bend Station (RBS) TechnicalSpecifications (TS). The change isrequired as a result of battery systemdesign modifications which arescheduled to be implemented in April1999 during refueling outage (RF) RF–8.During this time, the current Division III


battery will be replaced. The newbattery, which also will have a greatercapacity rating, will be supplied with anominal specific gravity of 1.215 at 77°Fin contrast to the existing Division IIIbattery supplied with a nominal specificgravity of 1.210 at 77°F. Since TSSection 3.8.6, Table 3.8.6–1 values forspecific gravity are based on themanufacturer’s nominal specific gravity,these values will need to be updated.


1. This request does not involve asignificant increase in the probability orconsequences of an accident previouslyevaluated.

The system loads, voltage requirements,and inrush currents have been calculated inaccordance with IEEE Std. 485, ‘‘IEEERecommended Practice for Sizing Large LeadStorage Batteries for Generating Stations andSubstations.’’ To support these designrequirements at a capacity of 80%, a newbattery must be installed. The nominalspecific gravity of the new battery, asprovided by the manufacturer of the battery,is 1.215 at 77°F.

A review of USAR Chapter 15, includingAppendix 15A, was conducted to determinewhat accidents, if any, may be impacted bythe proposed change to the Division IIIbattery specific gravity.

USAR Sections 15.2, ‘‘Increase in ReactorPressure;’’ 15.3, ‘‘Decrease in Reactor CoolantSystem Flow Rate;’’ and Section 15.6,‘‘Decrease in Reactor Coolant Inventory’’discuss accidents that involve the initiationof HPCS when reactor vessel level drops tothe initiation point. The function of theHPCS System is to mitigate the consequencesof an accident (i.e., to maintain reactor vesselcoolant inventory after small breaks whichdo not depressurize the reactor vessel, orprovide spray cooling heat transfer followinglarger breaks, Ref. USAR Section 6.3.1.2.1).The function of the Division III 125 VdcPower System is to provide a highly reliable,continuous, and independent source ofcontrol and motive power for the HPCSSystem logic, HPCS diesel generator setcontrol and protection, and all Division IIIrelated control (Ref. USAR Section 8.3.2.2.1).This is a support function for the HPCSSystem.

USAR Section 15.5, ‘‘Increase In ReactorCoolant Inventory,’’ postulates an inadvertentHPCS actuation resulting from operator error.The proposed changes to the Division IIIbattery specific gravity cannot result in aninadvertent HPCS actuation/injection. Theproposed changes to the allowable specificgravity values provided in TechnicalSpecification 3.8.6 are in agreement with themanufacturer’s nominal specific gravity. Therevision simply ensures that the battery hassufficient capacity to meet the energyrequirements of its critical loads. Theproposed change does not create any new

internally generated missiles, nor does itaffect the High Energy Line Break Analysis orany other accident described in Chapter 15of the USAR. Neither the function nor theoperation of the Division III battery isimpacted by the proposed change.

The replacement Division III battery willbe supplied by the manufacturer with anominal specific gravity of 1.215 at 77°F. Thebattery manufacturer’s rated performance isbased on the specific gravity of the batterybeing maintained near the nominal specificgravity. Since the Division III design basiscalculation depends on the batterymanufacturer’s rated performance, batteryparameters upon which that performance isbased must be monitored. The currentTechnical Specification values for specificgravity are based upon a nominal specificgravity of 1.210 at 77°F. The proposed valuesaccurately reflect the manufacturer’s nominalspecific gravity. Testing the Division IIIbattery to the proposed values providesassurance that the HPCS functions supportedby the 125 Vdc System will not be adverselyaffected by the Division III battery.

The proposed changes will not affectfailure modes of existing equipment. Theproposed changes do not affect the ability ofany structures, systems or components toperform their safety functions. Therefore, noundue risk to the health and safety of thepublic has been created by the proposedchanges, nor is there any change in theradiological consequences at the siteboundary.

By incorporating the correct value forbattery specific gravity verification in Table3.8.6–1, the Technical Specifications willaccurately reflect the new design basis valuefor the Division III battery specific gravity.This change allows the performance of theDivision III battery to be verified against thecorrect design basis value, thus providingassurance that the Division III 125 Vdc powersystem function will remain as assumed inthe accident analysis. Therefore, theproposed change cannot affect any accidentspreviously evaluated (probability orconsequences). Consequently, the proposedchange does not involve a significantincrease in the probability or consequencesof an accident previously evaluated.

2. This request does not create thepossibility of occurrence of a new or differentkind of accident from any previouslyevaluated.

Since a battery’s capacity decreases asspecific gravity decreases below themanufacturer’s nominal value, monitoringthe battery’s specific gravity is one means ofensuring that the battery will adequatelysupply the minimum energy required tosupport the system function assumed in theaccident analysis.

All safety systems will continue tofunction as originally designed. The subjectequipment will not function in a mannerdifferent than described in USAR Section8.3.2.2. The functional and performancerequirements of the Division III 125 VdcSystem and its associated interfaces have notbeen altered. The proposed change simplyensures that the HPCS battery performance isverified against the correct design basisvalue. This value provides assurance that the

HPCS System functions will not be adverselyaffected by the capacity of the battery.Therefore, the proposed changes do notcreate the possibility of occurrence of a newor different kind of accident from anypreviously evaluated.

3. This request does not involve asignificant reduction in a margin of safety.

This proposed change updates theacceptance criteria of the current specificgravity for the Division III battery. Thisacceptance criteria is in accordance withmanufactures recommendations. The designand license basis for the Division III systemsand functions remain unchanged and thebattery will continue to supply the 125 Vdcloads necessary to support these functions.This value will reflect the manufacturer’snominal specific gravity for the Division IIIbattery. With the system functions supportedas assumed in the accident analyses, themargin to safety remains unchanged.

As a result, the proposed change does notinvolve a significant reduction in a margin tosafety.

The NRC staff has reviewed thelicensee’s analysis and, based on thisreview, it appears that the threestandards of 10 CFR 50.92 are satisfied.Therefore, the NRC staff proposes todetermine that the amendment requestinvolves no significant hazardsconsideration.

Local Public Document Roomlocation: Government DocumentsDepartment, Louisiana State University,Baton Rouge, LA 70803.

Attorney for licensee: MarkWetterhahn, Esq., Winston & Strawn,1400 L Street, NW, Washington, DC20005.

NRC Project Director: John N.Hannon.

Entergy Gulf States, Inc., and EntergyOperations, Inc., Docket No. 50–458,River Bend Station, Unit 1, WestFeliciana Parish, Louisiana


Description of amendment request:The proposed amendment wouldimplement Boiling Water ReactorOwners Group (BWROG) EnhancedOption I–A (EIA) Reactor Stability LongTerm Solution as documented inNEDO–32339, Revision 1, ‘‘ReactorStability Long-Term Solution, EnhancedOption I–A.’’ The EIA long termsolution has been accepted by the NRCin Safety Evaluation Report, ‘‘ReactorStability Long-Term Solution, EnhancedOption I–A Generic TechnicalSpecifications (TS), NEDO–32339,Supplement 4.’’

The proposed changes to the RBS TSwill enable the full implementation ofthe Enhanced Option I–A (EIA) longterm solution to the neutronic/thermalhydraulic instability issue. Specifically,the proposed change deletes the limits


on power and flow conditionsassociated with the implementation ofthe guidance in General Electric ServiceInformation Letter #380, Revision 1,‘‘BWR Core Thermal HydraulicStability’’ (current TS 3.4.1, Figure3.4.1–1 and RBS plant procedures), addsnew specifications, to establish limitsfor Fraction of Core Boiling Boundary(FCBB) and the Period Based DetectionSystem (PBDS), modifies the RPSinstrumentation specification and thedescription of the contents of the CoreOperating Limits Report (COLR) incurrent TS 5.6.5. The two newspecifications require maintainingstability control and the availability ofa stability detection system duringoperation in defined regions of thepower and flow operating domain.


1. The proposed amendments do noinvolve a significant increase in theprobability or consequences of an accidentpreviously evaluated.

The proposed amendments allow theimplementation of the Enhanced Option I–A(EIA) long term solution to the neutronic/thermal hydraulic instability issue. CurrentTS restrictions on power and flowconditions, number of operating recirculationloops, and operator actions implemented toreduce the probability of neutronic/thermalhydraulic instability are eliminated and newstability requirements consistent withNEDO–32339–A, Supplement 4, Revision 1,are imposed.

While the proposed amendments permitoperation in regions of the power and flowoperating domain postulated to besusceptible to neutronic/thermal hydraulicinstability, the implementation of the EIAsolution ensures there is not a significantincrease in the probability or consequencesof an accident previously evaluated.Operation in these regions does not increasethe probability of occurrence of initiators andprecursors of other previously analyzedaccidents. The proposed amendments permitthe implementation of the features of the EIAsolution which prevent neutronic/thermalhydraulic instability. The features includepre-emptive reactor scram upon entry intothe regions of the power and flow operatingdomain most susceptible to neutronic/thermal hydraulic instability—the ExclusionRegion. The EIA solution prevents neutronic/thermal hydraulic instability duringoperation in regions of the power and flowoperating domain previously excluded fromoperation and therefore does not significantlyincrease the probability of a previouslyanalyzed accident.

The EIA solution also requiresimplementation of stability control prior toentry into a region of the power and flowoperating domain which is potentially

susceptible, in the absence of stabilitycontrol, to neutronic/thermal hydraulicinstability. The modified rod block functionsproviding the restricted region entry alarm(RREA), boiling boundary limits, and PBDSfunctions are required on entry into theRestricted Region of the power to flow map.The boiling boundary limits, and PeriodBased Detection System (PBDS) functions arerequired on entry into the Monitored Regionof the power to flow map. The EIA solutionprevents or allows for detection andsuppression of neutronic/thermal hydraulicinstability during operation in these regionsof the power and flow operating domain.

The EIA solution includes restrictions onpower and flow conditions and actionsassociated with the modified APRM flowbiased scram and RREA functions. Requiredactions include adherence to the boilingboundary limit stability control prior to entryand during operation in the region of thepower and flow operating domain which ispotentially susceptible to neutronic/thermalhydraulic instability—in the absence ofstability control. In addition, the proposedamendments require operator actions basedupon control room indications generated bya new PBDS. The PBDS is designed toprovide alarm indication that conditionsconsistent with a significant degradation inthe stability performance of the reactor haveoccurred and the potential for imminentonset of neutronic/thermal hydraulicinstability may exist. The PBDS also providesanalog indication of the highest and secondhighest successive period confirmation countfor all of the LPRMs monitored. Thisprovides the plant operators with continuousindication of reactor stability operatingconditions. The PBDS system providesindication only and does not affect plantstructures, systems, or components in anyway that could increase the probability orconsequences of an accident. Rather, theimproved control room indications providethe operator with more accurate and timelyinformation.

The EIA solution allows for the ‘‘Setup’’ ofAPRM flow biased scram and control rodblock function. The EIA solution requiresadherence to certain boiling boundary limitstability controls prior to selection by theoperator of APRM flow biased scram andcontrol rod block function ‘‘Setup’’ setpoints.This ‘‘Setup’’ function allows operation in aregion of the power and flow operatingdomain potentially susceptible to neutronic/thermal hydraulic instability provided theadditional limits of the flow control boilingboundary (FCBB) and PBDS are met. Afterexiting the region requiring the stabilitycontrol to be met, the setpoints can bemanually reset to their normal values.Stability controls are required to be in placewhen setpoints are ‘‘Setup’’. As a backup EIAfeature, the APRM flow biased setpointsautomatically reset to their normal valuesabove a pre-determined flow condition. Thisautomatic reset to the more conservativesetpoints ensures that the pre-emptive reactorscram will prevent operation as a result of ananticipated operational occurrence in theregion most susceptible to neutronic/thermalhydraulic instability should the operator notselect the more conservative setpoints

appropriate for operation following exit fromthe region requiring stability control. TheFCBB, PBDS, and automatic reset of theAPRM flow biased scram and control rodblock function ‘‘setup’’ setpoints allow forthe use of the ‘‘setup’’ feature and helpensure that there is not an increase in theprobability or consequences of an accident.

Operation in the regions of the power andflow operating domain excluded by currentTS 3.4.1 and Figure 3.4.1–1 can occur as aresult of anticipated operational occurrences.In the absence of operator actions the severityof these anticipated operational occurrencesmay increase due to the potential occurrenceof neutronic/thermal hydraulic instability asa result of operation in these regions. Uponentry, as a result of an anticipatedoperational occurrence, into the region mostsusceptible to neutronic/thermal hydraulicinstability the pre-emptive reactor scramprevents neutronic/thermal hydraulicinstability. Therefore, the consequences of anaccident do not significantly increase whileoperating with stability control in place.

The required EIA features is designed tolimit possible neutronic/thermal hydraulicinstabilities and to detect and suppressfurther neutronic/thermal hydraulicinstabilities. These features include: a pre-emptive automatic scram, the control rodblock and alarms associated with entry intothe region susceptible to neutronic/thermalhydraulic instabilities, automatic reset ofAPRM flow biased setpoints, PBDS, FCBB,and the required operator actions, includingmanual reactor scram. Therefore, theproposed amendments prevent theoccurrence of neutronic/thermal hydraulicinstability during operation or as aconsequence of an anticipated operationaloccurrence and do not significantly increasethe consequences of any previously analyzedaccident.

2. The proposed amendments do not createthe possibility of a new or different kind ofaccident from any previously evaluated.

The proposed amendments eliminateexisting restrictions on power and flowconditions and impose alternativerestrictions which permit the implementationof the EIA long term stability solution. Thecurrent restrictions on the power and flowconditions do not prevent entry into regionsof the power and flow operating domain mostsusceptible to neutronic/thermal hydraulicinstability and therefore the possibility ofneutronic/thermal hydraulic instability existsin the absence of operator action. Therequired features of the EIA solutionimplement a pre-emptive scram upon entryinto the region most susceptible to neutronic/thermal hydraulic instability, withoutoperator action. The accessible operatingdomain allowed by the proposedamendments is essentially a subset of thepower and flow operating domain currentlyallowed. Initial conditions are bounded bythe current initiators and precursors ofaccidents and anticipated operationaloccurrences. Accordingly, no new accident ofinitiator is present. Therefore, the proposedamendments do not create the possibility ofa new or different kind of accident from thatpreviously evaluated.

Concurrent with the implementation of theproposed amendments, a modified Flow


Control Trip Reference (FCTR) card, EIAFCTR card, and a new Period BasedDetection System (PBDS) will be installed asrequired by the EIA solution. The function ofthe EIA FCTR card is to aid the operator inthe identification of entry into regions of thepower and flow operating domain potentiallysusceptible to neutronic/thermal hydraulicinstability in the absence of stability controlsand to initiate a pre-emptive scram uponentry into the regions most susceptible toneutronic/thermal hydraulic instability. Thisis accomplished by altering the existingvalues of setpoints of the APRM flow biasedscram and the control rod block functionsgenerated by the EIA FCTR card.

The design of the EIA digital FCTR card isa functional equivalent of the original analogFCTR card. The Failure Modes and EffectsAnalysis (FMEA) for the card detailed inNEDC–32339P-A Supplement 2 found nosingle failure that would increase theconsequences of an accident. The EIA FCTRcard maintains the original basis for the NMSinterface functions of the analog FCTR cardit replaces. The plant specific environmentalconditions (temperature, humidity, pressure,seismic, and electromagnetic compatibility)have been confirmed to be enveloped by theenvironmental qualification values for theEIA FCTR cards. Therefore, the potential forspurious scrams or common mode failuresinduced by environmental effects (e.g.,electromagnetic interference) is considerednegligible. The installation of the EIA FCTRcard will therefore not create the possibilityof a new or different kind of accident fromany accident previously evaluated.

The function of the PBDS is to provide theoperator with an indication that conditionsconsistent with a significant degradation inthe stability performance of the reactor hasoccurred and the potential for imminentonset of neutronic/thermal hydraulicinstability may exist. This is accomplishedby the installation of a new PBDS card in theNeutron Monitoring System in accordancewith NRC approved BWROG and GE design.The PBDS card takes inputs from individuallocal power range monitors and providesanalog indication of the highest and secondhighest successive period confirmationcount, provides a Hi DR and Hi-Hi DR alarm,and INOP status indication to the operator inthe control room. These displays can notcreate the possibility of a new or differentkind of accident from any accidentpreviously evaluated. The plant specificenvironmental conditions (temperature,humidity, pressure, seismic, andelectromagnetic compatibility) have beenconfirmed to be enveloped by the PBDSenvironmental qualification values.Therefore, the installation of the PBDS cardwill not create the possibility of a new ordifferent kind of accident from any accidentpreviously evaluated.

3. The proposed amendments do notinvolve a significant reduction in the marginof safety.

The proposed amendments permit theimplementation of the EIA long term solutionto the stability issue. Under certainconditions, existing BWR designs aresusceptible to neutronic/thermal hydraulicinstability. GDC 10 of 10 CFR 50, Appendix

A, requires that specified acceptable fueldesign limits not be exceeded duringanticipated operational occurrences. GeneralDesign Criterion (GDC) 12 of 10 CFR 50,Appendix A, requires thermal hydraulicinstability to be prevented by design or bereadily and reliably detected and suppressed.When the design of the reactor system doesnot prevent the occurrence of neutronic/thermal hydraulic instability, instability isconsidered an anticipated operationaloccurrence. The proposed amendments andthe associated design modifications provideautomatic features and operationalinformation to the Control Room that replacethe existing BWROG Interim CorrectiveActions (ICAs). Thus the EIA solution assurescompliance with GDC-10 and GDC 12 byproviding for reliable detection andsuppression and by the prevention ofneutronic/thermal hydraulic instability. Thistherefore precludes neutronic/thermalhydraulic instability from becoming acredible consequence of an anticipatedoperational occurrence. As a result themargins of safety are maintained.

Analyses performed by the BWROGindicate that neutronic/thermal hydraulicinstability induced power oscillations couldresult in conditions exceeding the MCPR SLprior to detection and suppression by thecurrent design of the Neutron MonitoringSystem and Reactor Protection System. Toensure compliance with GDC 12 the BWROGdeveloped Interim Corrective Actions (ICAs)to enhance the capability of the operator toreadily and reliably detect and suppressneutronic/thermal hydraulic instability. TheBWROG ICAs also provided additionalguidance for monitoring local power rangemonitors beyond the requirements of currentTS 3.4.1 to ensure adequate margin to theonset of neutronic/thermal hydraulicinstability. Reliance on operator actions tocomply with GDC 12 was accepted on aninterim basis by the NRC pending finalimplementation of a long term solution to thestability issue. The modified design of theReactor Protection System (APRM flowbiased scram) and stability control prior toentry into a region of the power and flowoperating domain which is potentiallysusceptible, in the absence of stabilitycontrol, to neutronic/thermal hydraulicinstability implemented with the EIAsolution prevents neutronic/thermalhydraulic instability. In addition, significantbackup protection features, including thePBDS and specified operator actions, arerequired to be implemented. As a result, themargin to the onset of neutronic/thermalhydraulic instability provided by the existingTS requirements and BWROG ICAsrecommendations is not reduced by theimplementation of the EIA solution. The EIAsolution assures compliance with GDC 12 bythe prevention of neutronic/thermalhydraulic instability and therefore precludesneutronic/thermal hydraulic instability frombecoming a credible consequence of ananticipated operational occurrence. Theconsequences of anticipated operationaloccurrences will not increase and the marginto the MCPR SL will not decrease uponimplementation of the EIA solution.Therefore, the proposed amendment does notinvolve a reduction in a margin of safety.


Local Public Document Roomlocation: Government DocumentsDepartment, Louisiana State University,Baton Rouge, LA 70803.

Attorney for licensee: MarkWetterhahn, Esq., Winston & Strawn,1400 L Street, NW, Washington, DC20005.


Entergy Operations Inc., Docket No. 50–382, Waterford Steam Electric Station,Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana


Description of amendment request:The proposed change modifiesTechnical Specification (TS) 3.3.3.7.3and Surveillance Requirement 4.3.3.7.3for the broad range gas detection system.A change to Technical SpecificationBasis 3/4.3.3.7 has been included tosupport this change. This change to theTS is necessary for the installation of anew, more reliable broad range gasdetection system.


1. Will operation of the facility inaccordance with this proposed changeinvolve a significant increase in theprobability or consequences of an accidentpreviously evaluated?

Response: No.The broad range gas detection system has

no effect on the accidents analyzed inChapter 15 of the Final Safety AnalysisReport. It’s only effect is on habitability ofthe control room, which will be enhanced byinstallation of the new monitoring systemand this change to the TechnicalSpecifications. Qualitative analysis based ona quantitative risk assessment has shown thatthe impact on operator incapacitation andsubsequent core damage risk of the periodicautomatic background/reference spectrumcheck is negligible and that the probability ofmalfunction of the BRGMs due to a slowlyincreasing toxic chemical concentration isnegligible.

Therefore, the proposed change will notinvolve a significant increase in theprobability or consequences of any accidentpreviously evaluated.

2. Will operation of the facility inaccordance with this proposed change createthe possibility of a new or different type of


accident from any accident previouslyevaluated?

Response: No.The proposed Technical Specification

change in itself does not change the designor configuration of the plant. The new broadrange toxic gas monitoring system performsthe same function as the old system, but itaccomplishes this function with increasedreliability.

Therefore, the proposed change will notcreate the possibility of a new or differentkind of accident from any accidentpreviously evaluated.

3. Will operation of the facility inaccordance with this proposed changeinvolve a significant reduction in a margin ofsafety?

Response: No.The broad range gas detection system has

no effect on a margin of safety as defined bySection 2 of the Technical Specifications. Itsonly effect is on habitability of the controlroom, which will be enhanced by installationof the new monitoring system and thischange to the Technical Specifications.

Therefore, the proposed change will notinvolve a significant reduction in a margin ofsafety.


Local Public Document RoomLocation: University of New OrleansLibrary, Louisiana Collection, Lakefront,New Orleans, LA 70122.

Attorney for licensee: N.S. Reynolds,Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1400 L StreetNW, Washington, DC 20005–3502.


Florida Power Corporation, et al.,Docket No. 50–302, Crystal RiverNuclear Generating Plant, Unit No. 3(CR–3), Citrus County, Florida

Date of amendment request: July 30,1998 (LAR–222).

Description of amendment request:The proposed amendment will changethe Improved Technical Specifications(ITS) to add a new Required Action forthe existence of breaches in the ControlComplex Habitability Envelope (CCHE)that are in excess of allowances. A newsurveillance requirement for theperformance of a periodic integratedleak test of the CCHE boundary on a 24-month frequency would also be added.Changes to the current Ventilation FilterTest Program (VFTP) are proposed toadopt current standards for laboratorytesting, change acceptable values ofcontrol room emergency ventilationflow rate and filter differential pressure,and add the Auxiliary Building

Ventilation Exhaust Filters to the VFTP.Conforming changes to the ITS Bases arealso included.

Basis for proposed no significanthazards consideration determination:As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), thelicensee has provided its analysis of theissue of no significant hazardsconsideration, which is presentedbelow.

1. Does not involve a significant increasein the probability or consequences of anaccident previously evaluated.

Operation of the facility in accordancewith the proposed amendment would notinvolve a significant increase in theprobability of occurrence or consequences ofan accident previously evaluated. TheControl Room Emergency Ventilation System(CREVS) and the Control ComplexHabitability Envelope (CCHE) are designed tolimit the radiation dose to the control roomoperating staff following a design basisaccident. Since these systems are onlyeffective in limiting dose following anaccident, the existence of limited breaches inthe CCHE, the performance of periodic leaktests, and changes to the Ventilation FilterTest Program (VFTP) would not increase theprobability of occurrence of any evaluatedevent. The features of the CREVS and theControl Complex emergency filters, or theCCHE have no direct function in mitigatingthe offsite consequences of any evaluatedaccident. The Auxiliary Building exhaustfilters are not credited with reducing offsitedoses, however, if available would filterreleases from the Auxiliary Building. Addingthem to the VFTP will not increase theconsequences calculated for any evaluatedaccident.

The proposed changes are consistent withthe revised control room operator dosecalculations as presented in the ControlRoom Habitability Report dated July 1998.Since all calculated doses are within 10 CFRPart 50, Appendix A GDC 19 limits there isno significant increase in consequences.

It is conceivable that the existence ofadditional breaches in the CCHE could resultin an increase in operator dose, however thelow probability of a catastrophic reactoraccident, the relatively short time allowed forbreaches to be open in excess of approveddose calculation assumptions, and the abilityto close breaches expeditiously makes therisk increase insignificant.

The changes to the ITS Bases improveinformation on the operation and function ofCREVS, and establish that CREVS operabilityis dependent on maintaining CCHE integrity.The inclusion of this information reinforcesthe importance of maintaining the CCHEboundary, and will help to ensure the CREVSis capable of performing its intended safetyfunction.

The Control Room Habitability Report,dated July 1998, provided with this LARpresents the methodology used and theresults of the operator dose calculations forthe Maximum Hypothetical Accident, toxicgas release, and other design basis accidents.The report provides the information neededfor NRC review of LAR 222, Revision I andthe associated unreviewed safety question.

This evaluation concludes that the currentlevel of CCHE integrity provides adequateprotection for the control room operator.

Based on the foregoing, the proposedamendment does not significantly increasethe probability or consequence of an accidentpreviously evaluated.

2. Does not create the possibility of a newor different kind of accident from anyaccident previously evaluated.

Neither performance of periodic CCHE leaktests nor changes to the existing VFTP cancreate the possibility of a new or differentkind of accident. During the period of timewhen CCHE breaches are greater than thedesign calculation, there exists the possibilitythat control room dose from an analyzedaccident may be greater than specified inGeneral Design Criterion 19. This conditionwill not however create the possibility of anew or different kind of accident. SinceCREVS and the emergency filtration unitsfunction to provide protection following aradiological accident the changes proposed toimprove their performance cannot create anew or different kind of accident. Changes tothe Bases to provide better information ondetermining CREVS and CCHE operabilitycannot create the possibility of a new ordifferent kind of accident.

3. Does not involve a significant reductionin a margin of safety.

The proposed amendment does not involvea significant reduction in a margin of safety.Neither performance of periodic CCHE leaktests nor changes to the existing VFTP cancreate a reduction in the margin of safety.The changes to both of these programs willresult in improved assurance that the CREVSand CCHE will perform as expected ifrequired for operator protection. Changes tothe Bases of the CREVS TechnicalSpecification which clarify the conditionsnecessary for operability will improveunderstanding of the requirements formaintaining control room habitability, andwill not create a reduction in the margin ofsafety. The existence of additional breachesin the CCHE for short periods of time doesnot significantly increase the risk of controlroom operator exposure to airborneradioactivity or toxic gas. There is no changein the risk to the public since the CCHE hasno direct function in mitigating the offsiteconsequences of any evaluated accident. Anyevent that could create these exposures hasan extremely low probability of occurrence,and while the potential for higher operatorexposure exists if additional breaches areopen, the short duration allowed would notsignificantly increase the risk of exposure.Therefore, for the reason stated above theexisting margin of safety would not bereduced.

The NRC staff has reviewed thelicensee’s analysis and, based on thisreview, it appears that the threestandards of 50.92(c) are satisfied.

Therefore, the NRC staff proposes todetermine that the amendment requestinvolves no significant hazardsconsideration.

Local Public Document Roomlocation: Coastal Region Library, 8619


W. Crystal Street, Crystal River, Florida34428.

Attorney for licensee: R. AlexanderGlenn, General Counsel, Florida PowerCorporation, MAC–A5A, P.O. Box14042, St. Petersburg, Florida 33733–4042.

NRC Project Director: Frederick J.Hebdon.


Date of amendment request:September 30, 1998 (LAR–238).

Description of amendment request:The proposed amendment will correctthe reactor coolant system (RCS) leakagedetection capability of the ReactorBuilding atmosphere gaseousradioactivity monitor described in theImproved Technical Specification Basesand the Final Safety Analysis Report(FSAR). These documents currentlyidentify that the gaseous radioactivitymonitor is capable of detecting a onegallon per minute (gpm) RCS leakwithin one hour. The licensee hasdetermined that it would takeapproximately 14 hours for thisinstrument to detect a one gpm RCS leakusing currently accepted assumptions.The capability of other monitors todetect a one gpm RCS leak within onehour is not affected by this change.

The licensee cited several factorswhich contribute to the difficulty inreliably detecting RCS leakage increasesof one gpm within one hour using agaseous radioactivity monitor. Theseinclude the relatively long half-life ofXe-133 (primary nuclide of detection),fluctuations in background levels ofradioactivity, the existence of minorRCS leaks, improved performance ofnuclear fuel, and improved primarywater chemistry control. Based on RCSradioactivity concentrations assumed inthe Environmental Report, half-lives ofthe most abundant gaseous nuclides,and background radioactivity levels, thelicensee indicated a one gpm leak canconservatively be detected inapproximately 14 hours by the gaseousmonitor. The licensee has determinedthat this change to the licensing basis isan unreviewed safety question.


1. Involve a significant increase in theprobability or consequences of an accidentpreviously evaluated.

No. The function of the RM–A6 gaseousradioactivity monitor is to detect leakagefrom the RCS that may develop as a result ofa flaw in a pressure boundary component.The previously identified capability to detecta one gpm leak within one hour would haveprovided an earlier warning of a small RCSleak than the actual detection capability nowidentified. However, RCS loss of coolantaccidents evaluated in the FSAR cover thefull spectrum of break sizes up to andincluding a complete severance of the largestRCS piping. The results of these analysesdemonstrate that the consequences of suchleaks are acceptable.

No other equipment relies on the capabilityof the RM–A6 gaseous monitor’s ability todetect RCS leakage to perform its function.Likewise, no accident analyses rely on RCSleak detection for successful mitigation.Identifying the detector’s actual capability todetect an RCS leak will not increase theprobability of occurrence of an RCS leak.Detection time for an RCS leak was aconsideration in granting a partial exemptionto General Design Criterion 4. However, thecapability of the RCS piping to resistpropagation of a flaw from a leak into a breakwas based on material fracture analysis andmaterial properties, not on the ability todetect low levels of leakage.

2. Create the possibility of a new ordifferent kind of accident from any accidentpreviously evaluated.

No. The function of the RM–A6 gaseousradioactivity monitor is to detect RCS leakagethat may develop from a flaw in a pressureboundary component. The monitor is apassive component that provides anindication of possible leakage for furtheroperator evaluation. Identifying that a longerresponse time is required for the monitor todetect a small leak will not create thepossibility of a new or different kind ofaccident. Existing analyses for small andlarge break loss of coolant accidents providean evaluation of the full spectrum of RCSbreak sizes.

3. Involve a significant reduction in amargin of safety.

No. The RM–A6 gaseous radioactivitymonitor is included in plant technicalspecifications as one of two containmentatmosphere RCS leak detection instrumentsrequired to be operable to satisfy a limitingcondition for operation. If the RM–A6particulate monitor is not operable, then theresponse time of the containment atmospheremonitor will be increased. RCS pipinganalyses have demonstrated that thepropagation of a small primary loop leak intoa pipe break would not occur rapidly. NRCacceptance of the applicable analysesincluded significant safety factors for thepropagation of flaws into pipe breaks whichwere based on low probability stresscombinations of normal plus safe shutdownearthquake loads. Considering the actualdetection capability of the RM–A6 gaseousmonitor and the existence of other diverseleak detection capabilities, detection of a leakin a relatively short period of time isanticipated. In the event an RCS leakdeveloped into a pipe break, current accidentanalyses would bound the effects of the pipebreak on and off site. Therefore, the

possibility of increased time to detect an RCSleak does not represent a significantreduction in a margin of safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed thelicensee’s analysis and, based on thisreview, it appears that the threestandards of 50.92(c) are satisfied.Therefore, the NRC staff proposes todetermine that the amendment requestinvolves no significant hazardsconsideration.

Local Public Document Roomlocation: Coastal Region Library, 8619W. Crystal Street, Crystal River, Florida34428.




Date of amendment request: October16, 1998 (LAR–229).

Description of amendment request:The proposed amendment wouldchange the Crystal River Unit 3 (CR–3)Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR),Improved Technical Specifications (ITS)and ITS Bases to resolve an UnreviewedSafety Question (USQ). This USQ wascreated by changing the normal standbyposition of valves DHV–34 and DHV–35(low pressure injection (LPI) pumpsuction valves from borated waterstorage tank) from normally open tonormally closed. Maintaining thesevalves normally closed is necessary toensure assumptions used in fireprotection analyses remain valid. Theproposed amendment would also addnew ITS surveillance requirements forverifying on a periodic basis that the LPIsystem components and piping, and thebuilding spray suction piping, are full ofwater.


1. Involve a significant increase in theprobability or consequences of an accidentpreviously evaluated?

Valves DHV–34 and DHV–35 are located inthe suction lines between the borated waterstorage tank (BWST) and the low pressureinjection (LPI) and building spray (BS)pumps. These valves are maintainednormally closed, and are designed toautomatically open upon receipt of a reactorcoolant system (RCS) low-low pressure signal


of 500 psig or a reactor building (RB) highpressure signal of 4 psig from the engineeredsafeguards actuation system (ESAS). Thedesigned full stroke time of these valves iswithin the assumptions of the accidentanalyses performed for the specific designbasis accidents that require the LPI and/or BSsystems for accident mitigation. This is theoriginal design basis for these valves.Therefore, the valves are fully capable ofperforming their intended safety functionswhile being maintained normally closed.

The failure of one of these valves to opendoes not impact the mitigation of previouslyanalyzed accidents that require the operationof the LPI and/or BS systems, and cannotincrease the probability of these accidentsoccurring. No RCS or secondary systempressure boundaries are compromised, norelease paths for radioactive materials arecreated, and no challenge to any safety limitor acceptance limit are created bymaintaining these valves normally closed.

A single, active failure causing one of thesevalves to fail to open upon demand wouldrender one train of LPI and BS unavailablefor accident mitigation. However, theaccident analyses have already accounted forthe possibility of only one train of LPI andBS being available, and the consequences ofpreviously evaluated accidents wouldtherefore remain unchanged.

Undetected voiding in the LPI piping andcomponents, and BS suction piping, is highlyunlikely to occur. Based on the design andphysical layout of the LPI system and BSsystem, and the monitoring of the systemsperformed on a periodic basis, any potentialfor LPI piping and components and BSsuction piping voiding will be quickly andeasily recognized and corrected. Therefore,since voiding is not likely to occur, theconsequence of previously evaluatedaccidents would not be significantlyincreased by the proposed change.

2. Create the possibility of a new ordifferent kind of accident from previouslyevaluated accidents?

Failure of either valves DHV–34 or DHV–35 to open upon demand on an ESAS signalwill not create the possibility of a new ordifferent kind of accident. The LPI systemand BS system are maintained in a standbycondition during normal plant operations,and automatically actuate only after anaccident has occurred to mitigate the effectsof the initiating accident. No RCS orsecondary system pressure boundaries arecompromised, no release paths forradioactive materials are created, and nochallenges to any safety limit or acceptancelimit are created by maintaining these valvesnormally closed. Additionally, the possibilityof undetected voiding in the LPI piping andcomponents, and BS suction piping, is notlikely to occur by maintaining these valvesnormally closed. Therefore, maintainingvalves DHV–34 and DHV–35 normally closedwill not be an initiator of a new or differentkind of accident from previously evaluatedaccidents.

3. Involve a significant reduction in amargin of safety?

Maintaining valves DHV–34 and DHV–35normally closed will not create a reductionin the margin of safety. Maintaining valves

DHV–34 and DHV–35 normally closed willensure the capability to safely shut down thereactor under certain postulated firescenarios, but will result in an extremelysmall increase in the probability of failure ofone train of LPI and BS to perform its safetyfunctions. Based on use of the CR–3Probabilistic Safety Analysis (PSA) model,and assuming the failure of either valveDHV–34 or DHV–35 to open, the impact onthe core-damage frequency was estimatedand determined to slightly increase from 7.38E–6 to 7.41 E–6 per year. This increase (3 E–8 or 0.4%) is in the range consideredacceptable in Regulatory Guide 1.174, ‘‘AnApproach for Using Probabilistic RiskAssessment in Risk-Informed Decisions onPlant-Specific Changes to the CurrentLicensing Basis,’’ dated July 1998.

Maintaining these valves normally closedwill not result in undetected voiding in theLPI piping and components, and BS suctionpiping, as a result of performance of periodicpressure monitoring. If voiding occurs, theImproved Technical Specifications specifythe actions required to restore the affectedsystems to operable status, includingcorrecting the external leakage creating theobserved pressure decay. Therefore, theproposed monitoring will ensure the marginof safety is not reduced.

Based on these benefits and risks, there isno discernible change in the risk to thepublic in mitigating the offsite consequencesof any evaluated accident since the failure ofone train of LPI and/or BS for any reason isbounded by the assumptions of the accidentanalyses. Failure of valve DHV–34 or DHV–35 to open upon demand results in extremelylow increases in the potential for reactor coredamage. Therefore, the existing margin ofsafety will not be reduced.

The NRC staff has reviewed thelicensee’s analysis and, based on thisreview, it appears that the threestandards of 50.92(c) are satisfied.Therefore, the NRC staff proposes todetermine that the amendment requestinvolves no significant hazardsconsideration.

Local Public Document Roomlocation: Coastal Region Library, 8619W. Crystal Street, Crystal River, Florida34428.



GPU Nuclear, Inc., et al., Docket No. 50–289, Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,Unit No. 1, Dauphin County,Pennsylvania


Description of amendment request:The proposed amendment requestwould revise the TMI–1 Updated FinalSafety Analysis Report (UFSAR)Chapter 14 postulated accident analysis

radiological dose consequencesresulting from application of revisedatmospheric dispersion factors (X/Q) atthe Technical Specification Section5.1.1 defined exclusion area boundry(EAB) and low population zone (LPZ).


1. Operation of the facility in accordancewith the proposed amendment would notinvolve a significant increase in theprobability of occurrence or theconsequences of an accident previouslyevaluated. The proposed amendment has noeffect on structures, systems or components.More extensive and recent meteorologicaldata have been utilized for atmosphericdispersion factor (X/Q) determination forboth EAB and LPZ. An evaluation of thedesign basis accidents with revised EAB andLPZ X/Q values results in increases inUFSAR Chapter 14 EAB and LPZ doseconsequences which remain well within theguidelines of 10 CFR Part 100.

Therefore, this activity does not involve asignificant increase in the probability ofoccurrence or the consequences of anaccident previously evaluated.

2. Operation of the facility in accordancewith the proposed amendment would notcreate the possibility of a new or differentkind of accident from any previouslyevaluated. The proposed amendment has noimpact on any plant structures, systems orcomponents. The proposed change revisesthe atmospheric dispersion factors for EABand LPZ used in the existing UFSAR Chapter14 accident analyses, based on moreextensive meteorological data. These changesonly effect the postulated dose consequencesof currently analyzed accidents. Therefore,this activity does not create the possibility ofa new or different kind of accident from anypreviously evaluated.

3. Operation of the facility in accordancewith the proposed amendment would notinvolve a significant reduction in a margin ofsafety. The proposed amendment has noimpact on structures, systems or components.The proposed revisions to the EAB and LPZX/Q values are based on recent moreextensive meteorological data and RegulatoryGuide 1. 145 methods. The increased X/Qvalues provide a more accurate assessment ofmeteorological conditions which result inpostulated dose consequences which remainwell within the guidelines of 10 CFR Part100. Therefore, this activity does not reducethe margin of safety.



Local Public Document Roomlocation: Law/Government PublicationsSection, State Library of Pennsylvania,(REGIONAL DEPOSITORY) WalnutStreet and Commonwealth Avenue, Box1601, Harrisburg, PA 17105.

Attorney for licensee: Ernest L. Blake,Jr., Esquire, Shaw, Pitman, Potts &Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW.,Washington, DC 20037.

NRC Project Director: Cecil O.Thomas.



Description of amendment request:The proposed Technical Specificationchange request would add operabilityand surveillance requirements for theremote shutdown system similar tothose in NUREG–1430, ‘‘StandardTechnical Specifications—Babcock andWilcox Plants’’ Section 3.3.18 entitled‘‘Remote Shutdown System’’.


1. Operation of the facility in accordancewith the proposed amendment would notinvolve a significant increase in theprobability of occurrence or theconsequences of an accident previouslyevaluated. The proposed amendment addsoperability and surveillance requirements forthe existing TMI–1 remote shutdown systemsimilar to those contained in NRC NUREG–1430, ‘‘Standard Technical Specifications—Babcock & Wilcox Plants’’. The addition ofthese requirements to TechnicalSpecifications provides further assurance ofremote shutdown system operability in theevent that operators must place and maintainthe unit in a safe shutdown condition fromoutside the control room. The function andoperation of the remote shutdown system hasnot changed. Therefore, this activity has noaffect on the probability of occurrence orconsequences of an accident previouslyevaluated.

2. Operation of the facility in accordancewith the proposed amendment would notcreate the possibility of a new or differentkind of accident from any previouslyevaluated. The proposed amendment has noimpact on any plant structures, systems orcomponents. The function and operation ofthe remote shutdown system has notchanged. Therefore, this activity does notcreate the possibility of a new or differentkind of accident from any previouslyevaluated.

3. Operation of the facility in accordancewith the proposed amendment would notinvolve a significant reduction in a margin of

safety. The proposed amendment providesadditional assurance of remote shutdownsystem operability. The function andoperation of the remote shutdown system hasnot changed. Therefore, this activity does notreduce the margin of safety.



Attorney for licensee: Ernest L. Blake,Jr., Esquire, Shaw, Pittman, Potts &Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW.,Washington, DC 20037.




Description of amendment request:The proposed change to the TMI–1Technical Specification would revisethe limit on reactor coolant systemactivity to a maximum allowable of 1.0microcurie/gram dose equivalent I–131.The proposed revision provides anallowable reactor coolant systemspecific activity limit base on once-through steam generator (OTSG)inspection results performed eachrefueling outage.


1. Operation of the facility in accordancewith the proposed amendment would notinvolve a significant increase in theprobability of occurrence or theconsequences of an accident previouslyevaluated. The proposed amendment has noeffect on structures, systems or components.The existing steam line break criteria aremaintained. This change only accounts forradiological consequences resulting from arevised maximum allowable reactor coolantsystem (RCS) specific activity limit of 1.0µiCi/gm. The new radiological consequencesof the revised MSLB accident, which alsoincorporate more conservative values foratmospheric dispersion, are below 10 CFR100 limits and 10 CFR 50, Appendix A,GDC–19 limits for the control room. The use

of revised atmospheric dispersion factors forother TMI–1 accident analysis is addressedin a separate license amendment requestsubmittal. Therefore, this activity does notinvolve a significant increase in theprobability of occurrence or theconsequences of an accident previouslyevaluated.

2. Operation of the facility in accordancewith the proposed amendment would notcreate the possibility of a new or differentkind of accident from any previouslyevaluated. The proposed amendment has noimpact on any plant structures, systems orcomponents. OTSG tube structural integrityis maintained. Therefore, this activity doesnot create the possibility of a new or differentkind of accident from any previouslyevaluated.

3. Operation of the facility in accordancewith the proposed amendment would notinvolve a significant reduction in a margin ofsafety. The proposed amendment has noimpact on structures, systems or components.OTSG tube structural integrity is maintained.The existing TMI–1 Technical SpecificationSection 3.1.4.1 Bases state that thelimitations on the specific activity of theprimary coolant ensure that the resulting 2-hour doses at the site boundary will be wellwithin the Part 100 limit following associateddesign basis accidents postulated inconjunction with an assumed steady stateprimary-to-secondary steam generator tubeleakage of 1.0 gpm. This margin of safety ispreserved since resulting does consequencesincorporating more conservative values foratmospheric dispersion remain well withinthe Part 100 limit. Therefore, this activitydoes not reduce the margin of safety.



Attorney for licensee: Ernest L. Blake,Jr., Esquire, Shaw, Pitman, Potts &Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW.,Washington, DC 20037.


Illinois Power Company, Docket No. 50–461, Clinton Power Station, Unit 1,DeWitt County, Illinois


Description of amendment request:The proposed amendment would allowimplementation of a feedwater leakagecontrol system to address leakagethrough the primary containmentfeedwater penetration isolation valves.



1. The proposed change implements amethod of providing a qualified sealingsystem for the primary containmentfeedwater penetration isolation valves. Thiswater sealing function, i.e., the FWLCS,constitutes a new operating mode of theResidual Heat Removal (RHR) system. TheFWLCS introduces new piping thatconstitutes an extension of the reactorcoolant system (RCS); however, such pipingis designed to the same requirements as otherRCS piping and as such introduces nosignificant increase in the probability of anyaccident previously evaluated.Notwithstanding, a postulated line break inany of the new FWLCS piping would not, byitself, introduce any new effects orconsequences not already bounded bypostulated line-break or LOCA eventspreviously evaluated in the USAR. Since theproposed change does not affect anyparameters or conditions that contribute tothe initiation of any accidents previouslyevaluated, the proposed change cannotincrease the probability of any accidentpreviously evaluated.

The proposed change potentially affectsthe leak-tight integrity of the primarycontainment designed to mitigate theconsequences of a loss-of-coolant accident(LOCA). Once the FWLCS mode has beeninitiated and a water seal for the seatingsurfaces of the primary containmentfeedwater penetration isolation valves hasbeen established (within one hour after theaccident), post-LOCA primary containmentatmosphere will be prohibited from leakingthrough the feedwater penetrations and thusbypassing the secondary containment.

Calculations of post-accident DBA LOCAdoses affected by this change use acceptedICRP 30 dose conversion factors and takecredit for suppression pool scrubbing.Suppression pool scrubbing is effective inreducing iodine release but has no assumedeffect on the removal of noble gases. Sincethe methodology and assumptions forscrubbing are acceptable to the NRC per theguidance in SRP Section 6.5.5 and the valuesfor decontamination factors are conservative,considerable margin is preserved within theanalysis. However, these calculations showincreases in some of the previously evaluatedpost-accident doses when compared withdose calculations performed as part of theinitial plant licensing basis. Although someof the newly calculated post-accident dosesare larger than those that were previouslyapproved, the increases remain small enoughto be within the acceptance limits given in10 CFR 50, Appendix A, GDC 19 and in 10CFR 100.11.

Since all of the newly calculated post-accident doses resulting from the proposedaddition of a water sealing system for thefeedwater primary containment penetrationisolation valves are below the 10 CFR 50,Appendix A, GDC 19 and 10 CFR 100.11

acceptance limits, IP has concluded that theproposed change does not result in asignificant increase in the consequences of anaccident previously evaluated.

2. The proposed change institutes a newoperating mode of the RHR system (theFWLCS mode). When this mode isestablished, it will reduce primarycontainment atmosphere leakage to theenvironment in the event of a LOCA. Flowdiverted from the RHR system to the FWLCShas been evaluated, and has been determinedto have no adverse impact on the capabilityof the RHR system to perform its intendedsafety functions. Further, the additionalpiping added for the FWLCS is designed toappropriate requirements for the RCS, thusensuring that RCS integrity is maintained perdesign. Sufficient isolation between the RCSand the RHR low-pressure piping will also bemaintained per the FWLCS design. Thus, nosafety functions are altered or impacted as aresult of this change. Installing, operating, ortesting the components that support theFWLCS mode has no influence on, nor doesit contribute to the possibility of a new ordifferent kind of accident or malfunctionfrom those previously analyzed. Because theUSAR analysis already assumes leakagethrough the feedwater primary containmentpenetrations following a design basis LOCA,and the subject change does not affect thetype of accident(s) that are postulated tooccur, the proposed change does not presentthe possibility of an accident of a differenttype. Additionally, the change in doseanalysis methodology does not create anaccident or malfunction of a different typesince it only involves the analysis of theeffects of accidents or malfunctionspreviously evaluated in the USAR.

Based on the above, IP has concluded thatthe proposed change will not create thepossibility of a new or different kind ofaccident not previously evaluated.

3. The margin of safety impacted by theproposed change involves the doseconsequences of postulated accidents whichare directly related to the primarycontainment leakage rate, specifically thoseconsequences associated with doseattributable to leakage through the feedwaterlines which are secondary containmentbypass leakage paths.

Although considerable conservatisms wereincluded in the reanalysis, this reanalysisidentified some dose values that increasedabove the previously licensed values as wellas some dose values that decreased below thepreviously licensed values. However, all ofthe radiation dose consequences resultingfrom the proposed change will continue to bebelow the 10 CFR 50, Appendix A, GDC 19and 10 CFR 100.11 acceptance criteria.

Except for providing a method of sealingthe feedwater primary containmentpenetration isolation valves (and thereforethe method of performing periodic leakagetesting of these components) no other changein the method of primary containmentleakage testing or secondary containmentbypass leakage path testing is beingproposed. All other primary and secondarycontainment bypass leakage testing willcontinue to be performed in accordance withexisting Technical Specification

requirements. Adequate programs are inplace to ensure that proper maintenance andrepairs are performed during the service lifeof the primary containment, systems andcomponents penetrating the primarycontainment, and for all secondarycontainment bypass leakage paths.

As a result, IP has concluded that theproposed change will not result in asignificant reduction in a margin of safety.


Local Public Document Roomlocation: Vespasian Warner PublicLibrary, 120 West Johnson Street,Clinton, IL 61727.

Attorney for licensee: Leah ManningStetzner, Vice President, GeneralCounsel, and Corporate Secretary, 500South 27th Street, Decatur, IL 62525.


Omaha Public Power District, DocketNo. 50–285, Fort Calhoun Station, UnitNo. 1, Washington County, Nebraska


Description of amendment request:The proposed amendment requestwould resolve an unreviewed safetyquestion (USQ) and amend theoperating license to allow manualoverride capability for the containmentisolation actuation signal to reactorcoolant system letdown isolation valves.


1. The proposed change does not involvea significant increase in the probability orconsequences of an accident previouslyevaluated.

The proposed modification does notchange the probability of any accidentpreviously evaluated since it does not changeany mode of normal operation. Neither theaccident signal (CIAS) nor the overridefeature is an initiator of an analyzed event.The consequences of an accident are also notchanged significantly due to the fact thatdesign and administrative controls ensurethat previous accident analyses are bounding.The associated isolation valves will operateas they have in the past in response to anaccident signal. There is no single failure thatwould prevent the letdown isolation functionfrom occurring. The CIAS override featurecan only be used if operators have verifiedthat an UHE is the event which has takenplace and safety functions are being met.


This ensures that no significant fuel failureswill occur due to the event and theconsequences of overriding CIAS will notadversely impact radiological conditions inthe auxiliary building.

2. The proposed change does not create thepossibility of a new or different kind ofaccident from any accident previouslyevaluated.

The proposed modification does not createany failure mode which could impact theoperation of the RCS or associated systems ina manner that would create a new or differentkind of accident. With respect to the letdownisolation function, the plant will operate asit previously has and will respond the sameway, automatically, to an accident signal. Nonew accidents have been identified.

3. The proposed change does not involvea significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The procedural restrictions associated withthe use of the CIAS override feature willensure that existing analyses addressing theconsequences of an UHE will be boundingand that safety functions will be maintainedas defined in EOPs. The radiologicalconsequences of letdown restoration in theauxiliary building will be similar to normaloperating conditions and will be bounded bythat assumed in the EEQ analysis. RCSinventory and pressure control will bemaintained within the established procedurallimits.

Letdown restoration capability alreadyexists after ESF reset. The modificationpermits letdown restoration to occur earlierthan it would previously have been possible.


Local Public Document Roomlocation: W. Dale Clark Library, 215South 15th Street, Omaha, Nebraska68102.

Attorney for licensee: Perry D.Robinson, Winston & Strawn, 1400 LStreet, NW, Washington, DC 20005–3502.

NRC Project Director: William H.Bateman.

Philadelphia Electric Company, DocketNos. 50–352 and 50–353, LimerickGenerating Station, Units 1 and 2,Montgomery County, Pennsylvania


Description of amendment request:The proposed Technical Specification(TS) changes involve revising TSSection 3/4.10 to include a new SpecialTest Exception allowing the reactor tobe considered in operational condition(OPCON) 4 (cold shutdown) duringinservice leak or hydrostatic testingwith a reactor coolant water temperaturegreater than 200°F and less than or

equal to 212°F. This is an exception tocertain OPCON 3 (hot shutdown)requirements, including primarycontainment. The proposed TS changeswill permit unrestricted access to theprimary containment for theperformance of required inspections.


1. The proposed Technical Specifications(TS) changes do not involve a significantincrease in the probability or consequencesof an accident previously evaluated.

The proposed TS changes do not make anyphysical alterations or modifications to plantsystems or equipment. The proposed TSchanges will permit the performance ofinservice leak or hydrostatic testing, with thereactor in OPERATIONAL CONDITION(OPCON) 4 (COLD SHUTDOWN) and theaverage reactor coolant temperature greaterthan 200°F and less than or equal to 212°F.The probability of a leak in the reactorcoolant pressure boundary during inserviceleak or hydrostatic testing is not increased byconsidering the reactor in OPCON 4 withreactor coolant temperatures greater than200°F and less than or equal to 212°F. Theinservice leak and hydrostatic testing isperformed water solid or near water solid.The stored energy in the reactor core will bevery low and the potential for failed fuel anda subsequent increase in reactor coolantactivity above TS limits is minimal. Inaddition, Secondary Containment will beoperable and capable of handling airborneradioactivity from leaks that could occurduring the performance of inservice leak orhydrostatic testing. Requiring the SecondaryContainment to be operable will ensure thatpotential airborne radioactivity from leakswill be filtered through the Standby GasTreatment System (SGTS), thereby limitingany radioactivity releases to the environment.

In the event of a large primary system leak,the reactor vessel would rapidly depressurizeallowing the low pressure Emergency CoreCooling System (ECCS) subsystems tooperate. The capability of the systems thatare required for OPCON 4 would be adequateto keep the core flooded under thiscondition. Small system leaks would bedetected by leakage inspections beforesignificant inventory loss has occurred. Thisis an integral part of the hydrostatic testingprogram.

Therefore, the proposed TS changes willnot significantly increase the probability orconsequences of an accident previouslyevaluated.

2. The proposed TS changes do not createthe possibility of a new or different kind ofaccident from any accident previouslyevaluated.

The proposed TS changes do not make anyphysical alterations or modifications to plantsystems or equipment. The proposed TSchanges do not adversely impact theoperation of any plant equipment. Allowing

the reactor to be considered in OPCON 4during hydrostatic or inservice leak testing,with a reactor coolant temperature greaterthan 200°F and less than or equal to 212°F,is an exception to certain OPCON 3 (HOTSHUTDOWN) requirements, includingprimary containment integrity. Thehydrostatic or inservice testing is performedwater solid, or near water solid. The storedenergy in the reactor core will be very lowand the potential for failed fuel and asubsequent increase in coolant activity aboveTS limits is minimal. In addition, theSecondary Containment will be operable andcapable of handling airborne radioactivityfrom leaks that could occur during theperformance of hydrostatic or inserviceleakage testing.

The inservice leak or hydrostatic testconditions remain unchanged. The potentialfor a system leak remains unchanged sincethe reactor coolant system is designed fortemperatures exceeding 500°F with similarpressures. There are no alterations of anyplant systems or components that cope withthe spectrum of accidents.

Therefore, the proposed TS changes willnot create the possibility of a new or differentkind of accident from any previouslyevaluated.

3. The proposed TS changes do not involvea significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The proposed TS changes do not make anyphysical alterations or modifications to plantsystems or equipment. The proposed changeswill permit the performance of inservice leakand hydrostatic testing with a reactor coolanttemperature greater than 200°F and less thanor equal to 212°F and the reactor in OPCON4. Since the reactor vessel head will be inplace, Secondary Containment integrity willbe maintained, and all systems required inOPCON 4 will be operable in accordancewith the applicable TS requirements. Theproposed TS changes will not have anysignificant impact on any design basisaccident or safety limit. The hydrostatic orinservice leak testing is performed watersolid, or near water solid. The stored energyin the reactor core is very low and thepotential for failed fuel and a subsequentincrease in coolant activity would beminimal. In the event of a large primarysystem leak, the reactor pressure vesselwould rapidly depressurize and the lowpressure ECCS subsystems would function asdesigned to maintain adequate reactor corecoverage. This would ensure that the fuelwould not exceed peak clad temperaturelimits.

Also, requiring Secondary Containmentintegrity will assure that potential airborneradioactive material can be filtered throughthe SGTS. This will assure that any offsitedoses remain well within the limits of 10CFR 100 guidelines. Small system leakswould be detected by inspections beforesignificant inventory loss could occur.

Therefore, this proposed TS change willnot involve a significant reduction in amargin of safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed thelicensee’s analysis and, based on thisreview, it appears that the threestandards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are


satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staffproposes to determine that theamendment request involves nosignificant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Roomlocation: Pottstown Public Library, 500High Street, Pottstown, PA 19464.

Attorney for licensee: J. W. Durham,Sr., Esquire, Sr. V.P. and GeneralCounsel, Philadelphia ElectricCompany, 2301 Market Street,Philadelphia, PA 19101.


Public Service Electric & Gas Company,Docket No. 50–354, Hope CreekGenerating Station, Salem County, NewJersey


Description of amendment request:The proposed amendment wouldeliminate restrictions imposed byTechnical Specification (TS) 3.0.4 forthe Filtration, Recirculation andVentilation System (FRVS) during fuelmovement and core alteration activities.Specifically, TS Limiting Conditions forOperation (LCOs) 3.6.5.3.1 and 3.6.5.3.2would each be revised to add a notestating that the provisions of TS 3.0.4are not applicable for initiation ofhandling of irradiated fuel in thesecondary containment and corealterations provided that the plant is inOperational Condition 5, with reactorwater level equal to or greater than 22feet 2 inches.


(1) The proposed changes do not involvea significant increase in the probability orconsequences of an accident previouslyevaluated.

The proposed TS change does not involveany physical changes to plant structures,systems or components (SSC). FRVS willcontinue to function as designed. FRVS is anEngineered Safety Feature (ESF) designed tomitigate the consequences of an accident,and therefore, can not contribute to theinitiation of any accident. For refuelingaccidents, the current design basis analysis ofFRVS credits only the iodine removalcapability of the FRVS ventilation unit andneglects the considerable iodine removalcapability of the FRVS recirculation units. Inaddition, this proposed TS change will notincrease the probability of occurrence of amalfunction of any plant equipmentimportant to safety, since the time limitsimposed by the current FRVS LCO ActionStatements are not affected by these proposedchanges. The proposed changes merely allowentry into the FRVS LCO Action Statementin order to support refueling activities.

Therefore, the proposed TS changes, whichwould permit the initiation of core

alterations and handling of irradiated fuelwith only one operable FRVS ventilation unitand four operable FRVS recirculation unitsfor a limited seven day period under specificrefueling conditions, would not result in theincrease of the consequences of an accidentpreviously evaluated.

Therefore, the proposed TS change doesnot involve an increase in the probability orconsequences of an accident previouslyevaluated.

(2) The proposed change does not createthe possibility of a new or different kind ofaccident from any accident previouslyevaluated.

The proposed TS changes do not involveany physical changes to plant SSC. Thedesign and operation of the FRVS is notchanged from that currently described in the[Updated Final Safety Analysis Report]UFSAR. FRVS will continue to function asdesigned to mitigate the consequences of anaccident. No changes of any kind are beingmade to FRVS, or its support or supportedsystems. Deleting the restrictions imposed byTS 3.0.4 as proposed in this TS changerequest eliminates a compliance restrictionimposed by the current TS. Since the currentTS already provide a seven day period toperform refueling activities with inoperableFRVS ventilation and recirculation units, theproposed changes would not introduce plantoperation in a configuration that is notalready permitted in the TS. Therefore, thereis no possibility that implementing thisproposed TS change would create a differenttype of malfunction to the FRVS than anypreviously evaluated. In addition, theproposed TS changes do not alter theconclusions described in the UFSARregarding operation of FRVS.

Therefore, the proposed TS change doesnot create the possibility of a new or differentkind of accident from any previouslyevaluated.

(3) The proposed change does not involvea significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The proposed TS change involves theelimination of TS 3.0.4 restrictions imposedon the FRVS LCO. The TS 3.0.4 requirementsimpose an unnecessary challenge toperforming refueling activities when theFRVS LCO Action Statements alreadysufficiently define the remedial measures tobe taken. The time limits imposed by thecurrent FRVS LCO Action Statements are notaffected by these proposed changes. TheFRVS LCO will retain sufficientconfiguration controls to appropriatelymaintain the capability of FRVS to mitigatedesign basis refueling accidents, no newFRVS configurations will be permitted by theproposed changes, and there will be noreduction in any margin of safety resultingfrom this proposed TS change. Therefore, theproposed TS change does not involve asignificant reduction in a margin of safety.


Local Public Document Roomlocation: Pennsville Public Library, 190S. Broadway, Pennsville, NJ 08070.

Attorney for licensee: Jeffrie J. Keenan,Esquire, Nuclear Business Unit—N21,P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ08038.


South Carolina Electric & Gas Company(SCE&G), South Carolina Public ServiceAuthority, Docket No. 50–395, Virgil C.Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS), UnitNo. 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina


Description of amendment request:The proposed amendment would revisethe VCSNS Technical Specifications(TS) to address the Best EstimateAnalyzer for Core Operations—Nuclear(BEACON) core power distributionmonitoring and support system. TheBEACON system provides continuouscore monitoring capabilities to augmentthe flux mapping system when ratedthermal power (RTP) is greater than25%. The proposed amendment wouldalso make editorial changes to TS3.3.3.2 and 4.3.3.2.c to delete thereference to Fxy.



The proposed change allows the PowerDistribution Monitoring System (PDMS) to beused for measuring power distribution limitswhen Thermal Power is greater than 25%RTP. This includes relocating manufacturingand measurement uncertainty values fromthe Technical Specification to the COLR[core operating limit report]. Also includedin this change is the addition of a newspecification and bases section for the PowerDistribution Monitoring System (PDMS). TheTechnical Specification Power DistributionLimits are not being changed; only themethod in which they are measured is beingchanged. The probability of an accident isnot significantly increased. The measurementof power distribution limits and the locationof manufacturing and measurementuncertainty values are not initiators of anyanalyzed event. The change will not affectthe consequences of any analyzed event. Thepower distribution limits will still bemeasured and verified to be within limits asrequired by the current TechnicalSpecification Surveillance. The cycle-specificcore operating limits, although not inTechnical Specifications, will be followed inthe operation of VCSNS. The actions asrequired by current Technical Specifications,when or if limits are exceeded are not being


changed. This change will not significantlyaffect the assumptions relative to themitigation of accidents.

Each accident analysis addressed in theVCSNS Final Safety Analysis Report will beexamined with respect to changes in cycle-dependent parameters, which are obtainedfrom application of the NRC-approved reloaddesign methodologies, to ensure that thetransient evaluation of new reloads arebounded by previously accepted analyses.This examination, which will be performedper requirements of 10 CFR 50.59, ensuresthat future reloads will not involve anincrease in the probability or consequencesof an accident previously evaluated.

Therefore, the change does not involve asignificant increase in the probability orconsequences of an accident previouslyevaluated.


The proposed change allows the PowerDistribution Monitoring System (PDMS) to beused for measuring power distribution limitswhen Thermal Power is greater than 25%RTP. This includes relocating manufacturingand measurement uncertainty values fromthe Technical Specification to the COLR.Also included is the addition of a newspecification and bases section for the PowerDistribution Monitoring System. No safety-related equipment, safety function, or plantoperation will be altered as a result of thisproposed change. No hardware is beingadded to the plant as part of the change. Thecycle specific variables are calculated usingthe NRC-approved methods and submitted tothe NRC to allow the Staff to continue totrend the values of these limits. TheTechnical Specifications will continue torequire operation within the required coreoperating limits and appropriate actions willbe taken when or if limits are exceeded. Thechange will not introduce any new accidentinitiators. Therefore, the change does notcreate the possibility of a new or differentkind of accident from any accidentpreviously evaluated.

3. Does this change involve a significantreduction in margin of safety?

The proposed change allows the PowerDistribution Monitoring System (PDMS) to beused for measuring power distribution limitswhen Thermal Power is greater than 25%RTP. The margin of safety presently providedby current Technical Specifications remainsunchanged. Only the method in which thepower distribution measurements areobtained is being changed. This method isverified by Westinghouse, and reviewed andapproved by the NRC. Appropriate measuresexist to control the values of themanufacturing and measurementuncertainties. The proposed amendmentcontinues to require operation within thecore limits, as obtained from NRC-approvedreload design methodologies. Appropriateactions required to be taken when or if limitsare violated remain unchanged.

Future changes to measurement andmanufacturing uncertainties located in thecurrent Technical Specification will beevaluated per the requirements of 10 CFR50.59. Since the 10 CFR 50.59 process does

not allow any reduction in the margin ofsafety, prior NRC approval is required priorto a reduction in the margin of safety. If theevaluation of the changes [does] not result in[an] unreviewed safety question, prior NRCapproval will not be required. Additionally,the VCSNS Technical Specifications requirethat all revisions of the plant COLR besubmitted to the NRC upon issuance.

Therefore, the change does not involve asignificant reduction in a margin of safety.


Local Public Document Roomlocation: Fairfield County Library, 300Washington Street, Winnsboro, SC29180.

Attorney for licensee: Randolph R.Mahan, South Carolina Electric & GasCompany, Post Office Box 764,Columbia, South Carolina 29218.


Southern Nuclear Operating Company,Inc., Docket Nos. 50–348 and 50–364,Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant (FNP),Units 1 and 2, Houston County,Alabama


Description of amendment request:The proposed amendments wouldrevise Section 6, ‘‘AdministrativeControls,’’ of the current Units 1 and 2Technical Specifications (TS) torecognize additional managementpositions associated with the steamgenerator replacement project andproviding them the ability to approveprocedures regarding this project.


(1) The proposed changes do notsignificantly increase the probability orconsequences of an accident previouslyevaluated in the FSAR [Final Safety AnalysisReport]. The proposed changes have noimpact on the probability of an accident. Thechange being proposed is administrative innature and involves no physical alteration ofthe plant or changes to setpoints or operatingparameters. The change will provide anappropriate level of review and approval ofprocedures related to the FNP steamgenerator replacement without impacting theoperational attention of the current on-siteplant management. There is no change in theFNP design basis as a result of this changeand, as a result, does not involve a significant

increase in the consequences of an accidentpreviously evaluated.

(2) The proposed changes to the TS do notincrease the possibility of a new or differentkind of accident than any already evaluatedin the FSAR. No new limiting single failureor accident scenario has been created oridentified due to the proposed changes.Safety-related systems will continue toperform as designed. The proposed changesdo not create the possibility of a new ordifferent kind of accident from anypreviously evaluated.

(3) The proposed changes do not involvea significant reduction in the margin ofsafety. Adding individuals with theappropriate knowledge base to the list ofindividuals who can approve procedures,which may affect plant nuclear safety, isadministrative in nature. There is no impacton the accident analyses. The training andexperience requirements for the newlydesignated management positions are similarto those requirements for other FNPmanagement positions. Therefore theestablished level of procedure review andapproval is not adversely impacted. Inaddition, these changes allow FNPmanagement to remain focused on plantoperations. Thus the proposed changes donot involve a significant reduction in themargin of safety.


Local Public Document Roomlocation: Houston-Love MemorialLibrary, 212 W. Burdeshaw Street, PostOffice Box 1369, Dothan, Alabama36302.

Attorney for licensee: M. StanfordBlanton, Esq., Balch and Bingham, PostOffice Box 306, 1710 Sixth AvenueNorth, Birmingham, Alabama.


STP Nuclear Operating Company,Docket Nos. 50–498 and 50–499, SouthTexas Project, Units 1 and 2, MatagordaCounty, Texas


Description of amendment request:The proposed amendment wouldmodify the requirements applicablewhen one or more trains of fuelhandling building exhaust air or controlroom makeup and cleanup filtration areinoperable, and eliminate the need toenter Technical Specification 3.0.3when multiple trains of these systemsare inoperable. In addition, theproposed changes would align theactuating instrumentation and logicsystem required actions with those thatare applicable to the systems. Finally,


an administrative change is proposed toremove a footnote that is no longerapplicable to the facility.



The proposed changes do not involve asignificant increase in the probability orconsequences of an accident previouslyevaluated. The proposed changes consist of:

(a) Assuring that the Specifications defineconsistent allowed outage times when thesame safety function is addressed in multipleSpecifications,

(b) Allowing a system to remain inoperablewhen appropriately restrictive administrativecontrols are placed on operations that couldresult in a challenge to the safety function ofthe system,

(c) Providing an appropriately shortAllowed Outage Time for inoperabilityneeded to permit required maintenance andtesting that affects all trains of a system,

(d) Redefining system operability andassociated actions in a manner consistentwith the system design and function,

(e) Aligning a system to the actuatedcondition on the loss of an actuation channel,

(f) Using consistent terminologythroughout the Specifications.

The proposed changes do not representsignificant increases in the probability orconsequences of an accident because:

(a) The alignment of the action timesbetween actuating system and actuatedsystem operability requirements do not affectthe probability or consequences sinceinoperability of the actuated system has thesame effect as inoperability of the actuatingsystem. Since the changes proposed to theactuating system action times will reflectthose of the actuated system action times, nochange to the allowed outage time applicableto the safety function addressed and fulfilledby both, will occur.

(b) Administrative controls to prevent theconduct of operations that could lead to achallenge to the safety function of the systemwhen the actuation system is inoperable,assures that the design bases functions of thesystem will not be challenged. Therefore, theprobability or consequences of an eventpreviously identified have not beensignificantly changed.

(c) Allowing up to 12 hours to recover fromthe inoperability of all three trains of ControlRoom Ventilation or two or more trains ofFuel Handling Building HVAC does notrepresent a significant change to theprobability of an accident because theinoperability of these ventilation systems arenot identified as precursors to a design basisevent. The low likelihood of a design basisaccident during the limited period of allowedinoperability of these systems does notrepresent a significant increase in theconsequences of an accident.

(d) The redefinition of plant operabilityrequirements into functional trains ratherthan individual components does not affectthe required system functional operability.Therefore, this change does not represent anincrease in the probability or consequencesof an accident previously identified.

(e) The alignment of the Control RoomVentilation System to the same configurationit would be placed in from an actuation ofthe inoperable radiation monitoring channelplaces the system in the design condition.This alignment would result in maintainingthe control room envelope pressurized andincreases the protection afforded to theoperators.

(f) The change in terminology does notchange any requirements or actions in theSpecification. Therefore this change does notrepresent an increase in the probability orconsequences of any accident previouslyevaluated.

Based on the above discussion, theindividual changes do not represent anincrease in the probability or consequencesof any accident previously evaluated.

In addition to the changes proposed tocontrols over Control Room Ventilation, FuelHandling Building HVAC, and associatedactuation logic, an administrative change isproposed to remove the footnote at thebottom of page 3/4 7–20. Since the footnoteno longer has meaning or relevance to theoperation of the facility, its removal does notincrease the probability or consequences ofany accident previously evaluated.


The proposed changes make the existingSpecifications internally consistent,manually align a system to the actuatedposition, provide an alternative measure thatassures [that] a safety function which isunavailable is not required to [be]perform[ed], provide an extended period ofallowance for all trains of a system to beinoperable, and redefines system operabilityto reflect its functional design. The proposedchanges do not introduce any new equipmentinto the plant or significantly alter themanner in which existing equipment will beoperated. The systems affected by theproposed changes are not identified ascontributing causal factors in design basisaccidents, their function is to assist inmitigation of accidents postulated to occur.Since the proposed changes do not allowactivities that are significantly different fromthose presently allowed, no possibility existsfor a new or different kind of accident fromthose previously evaluated.

In addition to the changes proposed tocontrols over reactivity changes, anadministrative change is proposed to removethe footnote at the bottom of page 3/4 7–20.Since the footnote does not perform anyfunction and will never again apply to plantoperations, its removal cannot create thepossibility of a new or different kind ofaccident from those previously evaluated.

3. Does this change involve a significantreduction in a margin of safety?

The proposed changes do not involve asignificant reduction in a margin of safetybecause the ability of the Fuel Handling

Building HVAC and Control RoomVentilation Systems will be maintained. Themargin of safety is defined by the ability ofthe systems to limit the release of radioactivematerials and limit exposures to operatorsrespectively following a postulated designbasis accident. The only aspect of theproposed change that can be postulated tohave any effect on a margin of safety is theproposed allowance for all trains of ControlRoom Ventilation or Fuel Handling BuildingHVAC to be inoperable for a limited period.The low probability of a design basis eventthat would require the system to perform itssafety function during the limited periodallowed by the proposed action assures thatthe change does not involve a significantchange in a margin of safety. Therefore, theproposed changes do not significantly affectthese operating restrictions and the margin ofsafety which support the ability to make andmaintain the reactor in a safe shutdown andlimit the release of radioactive material is notaffected.

In addition to the changes described above,an administrative change is proposed toremove the footnote at the bottom of page3/4 7–20. Since the footnote is no longerapplicable to the facility, its removal cannotresult in a reduction in a margin of safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed thelicensee’s analysis and, based on thisreview, it appears that the standards of10 CFR 50.92 are satisfied. Therefore,the NRC staff proposes to determine thatthe request for amendments involves nosignificant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Roomlocation: Wharton County JuniorCollege, J.M. Hodges Learning Center,911 Boling Highway, Wharton, TX77488.

Attorney for licensee: Jack R.Newman, Esq., Morgan, Lewis &Bockius, 1800 M Street, NW,Washington, DC 20036–5869.




Description of amendment request:The licensee proposes to use a revisedmethodology to calculate mass andenergy release following a postulatedlarge-break loss-of-coolant accident. Theamendment request also includedproposed changes to the Updated FinalSafety Analysis Report.


1. The proposed change does not involvea significant increase in the probability or


consequences of an accident previouslyevaluated.

This proposal updates the design largebreak loss of coolant accident (LBLOCA)analysis and methodology described in theUFSAR to support replacement ofWestinghouse Model E Original SteamGenerators (OSG) with Westinghouse Delta-94 Replacement Steam Generators (RSG).

A safety analysis has been performed,including evaluation of existing analyses andperformance of bounding or confirmingcalculations, to determine effects of theproposed changes.

Analysis of mass and energy releases andresultant containment pressure andtemperature response for the RSG concludeda small reduction in peak pressure andtemperature for the RSG compared to theOSG. Thus, the proposed amendment doesnot involve a significant increase in theprobability of an accident previouslyevaluated.

Changes to the LBLOCA model caused byinstallation of the RSGs and associatedchanges in analysis methodology result in nochange in radiological consequence asdelineated in 10 CFR 100 and the StandardReview Plan (NUREG–0800). Consequencesof this design basis accident have notincreased.

Thus, changes in the LBLOCA design basisevent analysis associated with replacement ofOSGs with RSGs do not involve a significantincrease in the probability or consequencesof an accident previously evaluated.


This proposal updates the design basislarge break loss of coolant accident(LBLOCA) analysis and methodologydescribed in the Updated Final SafetyAnalysis Report (UFSAR) to supportreplacement of OSGs with RSGs.

Fit, form, and design function of RSGequipment is not significantly changed fromOSG equipment. Analyses of LBLOCA massand energy releases and resultantcontainment system response indicates thatperformance with RSGs remains within theexisting design limits. Thus, the proposedchange does not create the possibility of anew or different kind of accident from anyaccident previously evaluated.


A safety analysis has been performed,including evaluations of existing analysesand performance of bounding and/orconfirming calculations, to determine theeffect of the proposed changes. Results ofthese analyses demonstrate that the proposedlicense amendment and operation of STPUnits with Delta-94 steam generatorsinstalled will not produce post-accidentContainment pressures or temperaturesexceeding existing Technical Specificationlimits. Consequently, there are no effects ondose analyses due to design basis LBLOCAperformance of the RSGs. Radiologicalconsequences of the postulated accident didnot change, and all results remain within theacceptance criteria of 10 CFR 100 and theStandard Review Plan (NUREG–0800).

Thus, the change in LBLOCA analysisresults and methodology descriptions in theUFSAR associated with replacement ofModel E steam generators with Delta-94steam generators do not involve a significantreduction in a margin of safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed thelicensee’s analysis and, based on thisreview, it appears that the standards of10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore,the NRC staff proposes to determine thatthe request for amendments involves nosignificant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Roomlocation: Wharton County JuniorCollege, J. M. Hodges Learning Center,911 Boling Highway, Wharton, TX77488.

Attorney for licensee: Jack R.Newman, Esq., Morgan, Lewis &Bockius, 1800 M Street, NW,Washington, DC 20036–5869.




Description of amendment request:The proposed amendment wouldchange the Updated Final SafetyAnalysis Report and revise the offsitedose licensing basis to account foroperation of the existing steamgenerators at reduced feedwater inlettemperatures, and to account foroperation of the new replacement steamgenerators. The calculated offsite doseconsequences would increase for themain steamline break, reactor coolantpump shaft seizure, and rod clustercontrol assembly ejection accidents. Theproposed increases in offsite doses areminimal and all doses remain below thedose limits for their respectiveaccidents, as specified by 10 CFR Part100 and the Standard Review Plan(NUREG–0800).



This document updates the facilities’radiological design basis, as described in theUpdated Final Safety Analysis Report, toaddress both a reduction in allowed nominalfeedwater temperature for Model E steamgenerators from 440 °F to 420 °F and thereplacement of Model E steam generatorswith Delta-94 steam generators. Therefore,

these changes do not change the probabilityof an accident previously evaluated.

A safety analysis has been performed,including evaluations of existing analysesand performance of bounding and/orconfirming calculations, to determine theimpact of the proposed changes. Effects onthe dose analyses due to the accompanyingphysical changes to the plant are slight.However, some improvements were made tothe analytical models used in the analyses.These improvements were responsible for themajority of the increase in offsite doses.While the radiological consequences of somepostulated accidents increased, all resultsremain within the acceptance criteria, asdefined in 10 CFR 100 and the StandardReview Plan (NUREG–0800).

The radiological consequences of thepostulated accidents remain within theirrespective acceptance criteria with the use ofthe revised analysis methodologies.Therefore, the change to allow operation ofthe Model E steam generators at a reducedfeedwater temperature of 420°F and thereplacement of Model E steam generatorswith Delta-94 steam generators do notinvolve a significant increase in theprobability or consequences of an accidentpreviously evaluated.


This document updates the facilities’radiological design basis, as described in theUpdated Final Safety Analysis Report, toaddress both a reduction in allowed nominalfeedwater temperature for Model E steamgenerators from 440 °F to 420 °F and thereplacement of Model E steam generatorswith Delta-94 steam generators. Since theproposed changes to the Updated FinalSafety Analysis Report are analytical innature, the changes do not create thepossibility of a new or different kind ofaccident from any accident previouslyevaluated.


A safety analysis has been performed,including evaluations of existing analysesand performance of bounding and/orconfirming calculations, to determine theimpact of the proposed changes. Effects onthe dose analyses due to the accompanyingphysical changes to the plant are slight.However, some improvements were made tothe analytical models used in the analyses.These improvements were responsible for themajority of the increase in offsite doses.While the radiological consequences of somepostulated accidents increased, all resultsremain within the acceptance criteria, asdelineated in 10 CFR 100 and the StandardReview Plan (NUREG–0800), for therespective accidents.

The radiological consequences of thepostulated accidents remain within theirrespective acceptance criteria with the use ofthe revised analysis methodologies.Therefore, the change to allow operation ofthe Model E steam generators at a reducedfeedwater temperature of 420 °F and thereplacement of Model E steam generatorswith Delta-94 steam generators do not


involve a significant reduction in a margin ofsafety.

The NRC staff has reviewed thelicensee’s analysis and, based on thisreview, it appears that the standards of10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore,the NRC staff proposes to determine thatthe request for amendments involves nosignificant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Roomlocation: Wharton County JuniorCollege, J. M. Hodges Learning Center,911 Boling Highway, Wharton, TX77488.

Attorney for licensee: Jack R.Newman, Esq., Morgan, Lewis &Bockius, 1800 M Street, N.W.,Washington, DC 20036–5869.


Toledo Edison Company, CenteriorService Company, and The ClevelandElectric Illuminating Company, DocketNo. 50–346, Davis-Besse Nuclear PowerStation, Unit 1, Ottawa County, Ohio


Description of amendment request:The proposed amendment wouldchange Technical Specification (TS)Section 3/4.8.2.3, ‘‘Electrical PowerSystems—DC Distribution—Operating,’’and the associated bases. Thesurveillance requirements for batterytesting would be revised.

Basis for proposed no significanthazards consideration determination:As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), thelicensees have provided their analysis ofthe issue of no significant hazardsconsideration, which is presentedbelow:

The Davis-Besse Nuclear PowerStation (DBNPS) has reviewed theproposed changes and determined thata significant hazards consideration doesnot exist because operation of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, UnitNumber 1, in accordance with thesechanges would:

1a. Not involve a significant increase in theprobability of an accident previouslyevaluated because no accident initiators,conditions, or assumptions are adverselyaffected by the proposed changes to stationbattery testing methodology and frequency.

1b. Not involve a significant increase in theconsequences of an accident previouslyevaluated because no accident conditions orassumptions are adversely affected by theproposed changes in station battery testingmethodology and frequency. The proposedchanges do not alter the source term,containment isolation, or allowableradiological releases. The proposed changesare consistent with the most recent IEEEStandard 450–1995, ‘‘IEEE RecommendedPractice for Maintenance, Testing, andReplacement of Vented Lead-Acid Batteries

for Stationary Applications,’’ and the‘‘Improved Standard TechnicalSpecifications for Babcock and WilcoxPlants,’’ NUREG–1430, Revision 1.

2. Not create the possibility of a new ordifferent kind of accident from any accidentpreviously evaluated because no newaccident initiators or assumptions areintroduced by the proposed changes. Thebatteries are not an initiator or contributor tothe initiation of an accident. No new accidentscenarios, transient precursors, failuremechanisms, or limiting faults are introducedas a result of the proposed changes.

3. Not involve a significant reduction in amargin of safety because the proposed TSchanges do not significantly reduce oradversely affect the capabilities of any plantstructures, systems or components. Thesechanges increase the effectiveness andfrequency of the battery tests beingperformed. Therefore, there is not asignificant reduction in a margin of safety.


Local Public Document Roomlocation: University of Toledo, WilliamCarlson Library, GovernmentDocuments Collection, 2801 WestBancroft Avenue, Toledo, OH 43606.

Attorney for licensee: Jay E. Silberg,Esquire, Shaw, Pittman, Potts andTrowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW.,Washington, DC 20037.




Description of amendment request:The proposed amendment wouldrelocate a Technical Specification (TS)surveillance requirement from TSSection 3/4.6.5.1, ‘‘Shield Building-Emergency Ventilation System’’ to TSSection 3/4.6.5.2, ‘‘Shield BuildingIntegrity.’’ Administrative and baseschanges would also be made.


The Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station hasreviewed the proposed changes anddetermined that a significant hazardsconsideration does not exist becauseoperation of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power

Station, Unit Number 1, in accordance withthese changes would:

1a. Not involve a significant increase in theprobability of an accident previouslyevaluated because no accident initiator isaffected by the proposed changes to theTechnical Specifications (TS) Index; TSDefinition 1.6, ‘‘Shield Building Integrity’’;TS 3/4.6.5.1, ‘‘Emergency VentilationSystem’’; TS 3/4.6.5.2, ‘‘Shield BuildingIntegrity’’; TS Bases 3/4.6.5.1, ‘‘EmergencyVentilation System’’; or TS Bases 3/4.6.5.2,‘‘Shield Building Integrity.’’

1b. Not involve a significant increase in theconsequences of an accident previouslyevaluated because no accident conditionsand assumptions are significantly affected bythe above proposed changes. The proposedchange to relocate existing TS SurveillanceRequirement (SR) 4.6.5.1.d.4 to TS 3/4.6.5.2,and the subsequent application of theLimiting Condition for Operation (LCO) of TS3/4.6.5.2 should the Emergency VentilationSystem (EVS) be unable to produce therequired negative pressure in the annulusspace due to an opening in the ventilationboundary, would allow 24 hours to restorethe capability of maintaining the requirednegative pressure in the annulus. The currentSR 4.6.5.1.d.4 and associated TS LCO 3.6.5.1would require entry into TS 3.0.3, therebyallowing only one hour for restoration beforecommencing plant shutdown. The allowedoutage time of 24 hours is reasonableconsidering the limited leakage design ofcontainment and the low likelihood of aDesign Basis Accident (DBA) occurringduring this time period. The proposedchanges are consistent with the guidance ofthe ‘‘Improved Standard TechnicalSpecifications for Combustion EngineeringPlants,’’ NUREG–1432, Revision 1 and the‘‘Improved Standard TechnicalSpecifications for Westinghouse Plants,’’NUREG–1431, Revision 1. The ‘‘ImprovedStandard Technical Specifications forBabcock and Wilcox Plants,’’ NUREG–1430,Revision 1 does not contain guidance forshield building integrity because the DBNPSis the only Babcock and Wilcox-type plantwith the containment vessel/annulus space/shield building design. The proposedchanges do not alter the drawdown capabilityof the EVS. Since the likelihood of a DBAoccurring during this 24 hour period is lowand the containment is of a low leakagedesign, the radiological consequences of apreviously evaluated accident are notsignificantly increased. The proposedchanges do not alter the source term,containment isolation or allowableradiological releases.

2. Not create the possibility of a new ordifferent kind of accident from any accidentpreviously evaluated because no newaccident initiators or assumptions areintroduced by the proposed changes. No newaccident scenarios, transient precursors,failure mechanisms, or limiting failures areintroduced as a result of the proposedchanges.

3. Not involve a significant reduction in amargin of safety because the proposed TSchanges do not significantly reduce orsignificantly adversely affect the capabilitiesof any plant structures, systems or


components. The capability of the shieldbuilding/EVS to respond when necessary andto maintain a negative pressure will not besignificantly changed by these proposed TSchanges. Accordingly, there is not asignificant reduction in a margin of safety.







Description of amendment request:The proposed amendment wouldchange Technical Specification (TS)Section 6, ‘‘Administrative Controls.’’Several requirements would bemodified and/or relocated to theUpdated Safety Analysis Report.


The Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station hasreviewed the proposed changes anddetermined that a significant hazardsconsideration does not exist becauseoperation of the Davis-Besse Nuclear PowerStation, Unit Number 1, in accordance withthese changes would:

1a. Not involve a significant increase in theprobability of an accident previouslyevaluated because no accident initiators,conditions or assumptions are affected by theproposed changes to Technical Specification(TS) 6.5.1.6 ‘‘[Station Review Board]Responsibilities’’; TS 6.8.4.d, ‘‘RadioactiveEffluents Control Program’’; TS 6.10, ‘‘RecordRetention’’; TS 6.11, ‘‘Radiation ProtectionProgram’’; TS 6.12, ‘‘High Radiation Area’’;and TS 6.15, ‘‘Offsite Dose CalculationManual (ODCM).’’

These changes proposed to TS 6.5.1.6, TS6.8.4.d, TS 6.10, and TS 6.15 areadministrative changes that improve orupdate the content of TS Section 6.0,‘‘Administrative Controls.’’

The change proposed to TS 6.11 wouldrelocate its content to the DBNPS UpdatedSafety Analysis Report, thereby removing itfrom the TS consistent with the NRC’sNUREG–1430, Revision 1, ‘‘ImprovedStandard Technical Specifications forBabcock and Wilcox Plants.’’

The changes proposed to TS 6.12 are basedupon the current revision to 10 CFR Part 20,‘‘Standards for Protection AgainstRadiation,’’ as published in the FederalRegister, dated August 15, 1994, and TSapproved by the NRC for the San OnofreNuclear Generating Station Units 2 and 3 inOperating License Amendments 127 and 116,respectively. The changes to TS 6.12 alsoprovide for the use of alternative methods forcontrolling access to high radiation areas andstate-of-the-art radiation protectionmonitoring methods, such as closed circuittelevision and telemetry.

Under the proposed changes, the TS wouldcontinue to satisfy the applicablerequirements of 10 CFR 50.36(c)(5).

1b. Not involve a significant increase in theconsequences of an accident previouslyevaluated because no accident conditions orassumptions are affected by the proposedchanges. As described above, these changesare administrative changes or are proposedpursuant to the current revision to 10 CFRPart 20, ‘‘Standards for Protection AgainstRadiation.’’ The proposed changes do notalter the source term, containment isolation,or allowable releases. The proposed changes,therefore, will not increase the radiologicalconsequences of a previously evaluatedaccident.

2. Not create the possibility of a new ordifferent kind of accident from any accidentpreviously evaluated because no newaccident initiators or assumptions areintroduced by the proposed changes. Asdescribed above, these changes areadministrative changes or are proposedpursuant to the current revision to 10 CFRPart 20, ‘‘Standards for Protection AgainstRadiation.’’

3. Not involve a significant reduction in amargin of safety because the proposedchanges are administrative changes or areproposed pursuant to the current 10 CFR Part20 requirements. These proposed changes donot reduce or adversely affect the capabilitiesof any plant structures, systems orcomponents.





Wisconsin Public Service Corporation,Docket No. 50–305, Kewaunee NuclearPower Plant, Kewaunee County,Wisconsin


Description of amendment request:This proposed amendment requestwould modify Technical Specification(TS) 4.2.b, ‘‘Steam Generator Tubes,’’ toredefine the plugging limits for theWestinghouse Hybrid Expansion Jointsleeves (HEJs) and Westinghouse LaserWelded Sleeves (LWSs). Additionaladministrative changes are alsoproposed. The proposed changes are asfollows:

1. TS 4.2.b.3.c.1 would be changed tocorrect an oversight from a previousamendment. The current TS 4.2.b.2.c.1makes reference to TS 3.4.a.1.C. Thisreference is no longer valid because TS3.4.a.1.C became TS 3.4.d as a result ofTS Amendment 123. This changecorrects an oversight from a previousamendment and is administrative.

2. TS 4.2.b.4.a would be revised tospecify the updated revision of WCAP–14685 and the addendum to WCAP–13088.

3. TS 4.2.b.4.b would be revised tospecify the corrected value for theplugging limit of the Westinghousemechanical HEJ sleeves. The plugginglimit would change from 24 percent to23 percent or more sleeve walldegradation.

4. TS 4.2.b.4.e would be revised tospecify the corrected value for theplugging limit of Westinghouse laserwelded sleeves. The plugging limitwould change from 25 percent to 23percent or more sleeve wall degradation.

The associated bases pages for TSSection 4.2 would also be modified toreflect the above changes.


The proposed change was reviewed inaccordance with the provisions of 10 CFR50.92 to show no significant hazards exist.The proposed change will not:

1. Involve a significant increase in theprobability or consequence of an accidentpreviously evaluated.

The analysis of change in plugging limitswas performed in accordance with RG 1.121and ASME B&PV Code and, therefore, allrequired safety factors are met. The plugginglimit or allowed degraded wall thicknessvalue is not used in any accident analyses;therefore, this change has no significant


effect on any previously evaluated accidents.The change does not significantly increasethe probability or consequences of anaccident previously evaluated.

Because the maximum primary-to-secondary differential pressure parameter haschanged, the conventional analysistechniques originally used to qualify therequired weld width under predicted theshear stress in the LWS and LWR [laser weldrepair] of HEJ welds. Consequently, averification program using experimentalanalysis, as allowed by Section III of theASME B&PV Code, was performed to showthat the weld remains in compliance with theASME B&PV Code. Using a different analysistechnique to verify that the previouslyapproved weld width for LWS and LWR ofHEJs is still accurate does not increase theprobability or consequences of an accidentpreviously evaluated.

2. Create the possibility of a new ordifferent kind of accident from anypreviously evaluated.

Recalculating the allowable sleeve walldegradation and plugging limits andverifying the acceptability of the 0.015 inchweld width ensures that currently approvedconditions are maintained. Requiring tubes tobe plugged at a smaller sleeve walldegradation value does not result in any newor different conditions which could create anew or different accident.

Verification of the currently approved weldwidth using a different analysis techniquedoes not have a physical effect on any plantequipment or operating parameters and,therefore, can not create a new or differentkind of accident.

3. Involve a significant reduction in themargin of safety.

These TS changes are being made to ensurethat the current margins of safety aremaintained. This is accomplished byreducing the allowable sleeve walldegradation and plugging limit. Verifying therequired, minimum weld width by anallowed, alternate analysis technique, asdescribed by ASME B&PV Code, ensures thatan adequate margin of safety is maintainedand there is not a significant reduction in themargin of safety.

The minor administrative changes do notimpact the technical content orimplementation of the TS and therefore cannot create a significant hazard.

The changes to the steam generatortube and sleeve plugging limits arenecessary because of an increase in thenormal operating differential pressurebetween the primary and secondarycoolant systems. The differentialpressure was increased as a result of theeffects of extensive tube plugging onprimary to secondary heat transfer.Since, per Regulatory Guide 1.121, thesafety factor for mimimum acceptablewall thickness for steam generator tubesis based on normal operating pressures,it was found necessary to recalculate theplugging limits.

The NRC staff has reviewed thelicensee’s analysis and, based on thisreview, it appears that the three

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) aresatisfied. Therefore, the NRC staffproposes to determine that theamendment request involves nosignificant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Roomlocation: University of Wisconsin,Cofrin Library, 2420 Nicolet Drive,Green Bay, WI 54311–7001.

Attorney for licensee: Bradley D.Jackson, Esq., Foley and Lardner, P.O.Box 1497, Madison, WI 53701–1497.

NRC Project Director: Cynthia A.Carpenter.

Wolf Creek Nuclear OperatingCorporation, Docket No. 50–482, WolfCreek Generating Station, CoffeyCounty, Kansas


Description of amendment request:The amendment would revise TechnicalSpecification 3.5.1, ‘‘Emergency CoreCooling Systems—Accumulators,’’ toincrease the allowed outage time for theaccumulators from 1 hour to 24 hours ifan accumulator is inoperable for reasonsother than not meeting its boronconcentration requirements.



The proposed change does not involve asignificant increase in the probability orconsequences of an accident previouslyevaluated. The overall protection systemperformance will remain within the boundsof the accident analyses documented inChapter 15 of the Updated Safety AnalysisReport (USAR), WCAP–10961–P, andWCAP–11883, since no hardware changes areproposed. The impact of the increase in theaccumulator AOT on core damage frequencyfor all the cases evaluated in WCAP–15049is within the acceptance limit of 1.0E–06/yrfor a total plant CDF less than 1.0E–03/yr.The incremental conditional core damageprobabilities calculated in WCAP–15049 forthe accumulator AOT increase meet thecriterion of 5E–07 in Regulatory Guide DG–1065 for all cases except those that are basedon design basis success criteria. As indicatedin WCAP–15049, design basis accumulatorsuccess criteria are not considered necessaryto mitigate large break LOCA events, and wasonly included in the WCAP–15049evaluation as a worst case data point. Inaddition, WCAP–15049 states that the NRChas indicated that an ICCDP greater than 5E–07 does not necessarily mean the change isunacceptable.

The safety injection accumulators arecredited in Section 15.6.5 of the Updated

Safety Analysis Report for large and smallbreak LOCA. There will be no effect on theseanalyses, or any other accident analysis,since the analysis assumptions are unaffectedand remain the same as discussed in Section15.6.5. Design basis accidents are notassumed to occur during allowed outagetimes covered by the TechnicalSpecifications. As such, the ECCS EvaluationModel equipment availability assumptionsmade in Section 15.6.5 remain valid.

The safety injection accumulators willcontinue to function in a manner consistentwith the above analysis assumptions and theplant design basis. As such, there will be nodegradation in the performance of, nor anincrease in the number of challenges to,equipment assumed to function during anaccident situation.

The proposed technical specificationchange does not involve any hardwarechanges nor does it affect the probability ofany event initiators. There will be no changeto normal plant operating parameters,engineered safety feature (ESF) actuationsetpoints, accident mitigation capabilities,accident analysis assumptions or inputs.Therefore, this change will not increase theprobability of an accident or malfunction.

The corresponding increase in CDF due tothe proposed change to increase the AOT ofthe accumulators from one hour to 24 hoursis not significant. Pursuant to the guidance inSection 3.5 of NEI 96–07, Revision 0,‘‘Guidelines for 10 CFR 50.59 SafetyEvaluations,’’ the proposed increase in AOTdoes not ‘‘degrade below the design basis theperformance of a safety system assumed tofunction in the accident analysis,’’ nor doesit ‘‘increase challenges to safety systemsassumed to function in the accident analysissuch that safety system performance isdegraded below the design basis withoutcompensating effects.’’

Therefore, it is concluded that this changedoes not increase the probability ofoccurrence of a malfunction of equipmentimportant to safety.


The proposed change does not create thepossibility of a new or different kind ofaccident from any accident previouslyevaluated. This change does not involve anychange to the installed plant systems or theoverall operating philosophy of WCGS.

No new accident scenarios, transientprecursors, failure mechanisms, or limitingsingle failures are introduced as a result ofthe proposed change. As described in Section9.1 of the WCAP–15049 evaluation, the plantdesign will not be changed with thisproposed Technical Specification AOTincrease. All safety systems still function inthe same manner and there is no additionalreliance on additional systems or procedures.The proposed accumulator AOT increase hasa very small impact on core damagefrequency. The WCAP–15049 evaluationdemonstrates that the small increase in riskdue to increasing the accumulator AOT iswithin the acceptance criteria provided inDraft Regulatory Guide DG–1065. No newaccident or transients can be introduced with


the requested change and the likelihood of anaccident or transient is not impacted.

The malfunction of safety relatedequipment, assumed to be operable in theaccident analyses, would not be caused as aresult of the proposed technical specificationchange. No new failure mode has beencreated and no new equipment performanceburdens are imposed. Therefore, thepossibility of a new or different malfunctionof safety related equipment is not created.


The proposed change does not involve asignificant reduction in a margin of safety.There will be no change to the Departurefrom Nucleate Boiling Ratio (DNBR)Correlation Limit, the design DNBR limits, orthe safety analysis DNBR limits discussed inBases Section 2.1.1.

The basis for the accumulator LCO, asdiscussed in Bases Section 3/4.5.1, is toensure that a sufficient volume of boratedwater will be immediately forced into thecore through each of the cold legs in theevent the RCS pressure falls below thepressure of the accumulators, therebyproviding the initial cooling mechanismduring large RCS pipe ruptures. As describedin Section 9.2 of the WCAP–15049evaluation, the proposed change will allowplant operation in a configuration outside thedesign basis for up to 24 hours, instead of 1hour, before being required to beginshutdown. The impact of this on plant riskwas evaluated and found to be very small.That is, increasing the time the accumulatorswill be unavailable to respond to a largeLOCA event, assuming design basisaccumulator success criteria is necessary tomitigate the event, has a very small impacton plant risk. Since the frequency of a designbasis large LOCA (a large LOCA with loss ofoffsite power) would be significantly lowerthan the large LOCA frequency of the WCAP–15049 evaluation, the impact of increasingthe accumulator AOT from 1 hour to 24hours on plant risk due to a design basis largeLOCA would be significantly less than theplant risk increase presented in the WCAP–15049 evaluation. It is therefore concludedthat the proposed change does not involve asignificant reduction in the margin of safetyas described in Technical Specification BasesSection 3/4.5.1.

As discussed previously, the performanceof the accumulators will remain within theassumptions used in the large and smallbreak LOCA analyses, as presented in USARSection 15.6.5. Also, there will be no effecton the manner in which safety limits orlimiting safety system settings aredetermined nor will there be any effect onthose plant systems necessary to assure theaccomplishment of protection functions.


Local Public Document Roomlocations: Emporia State University,William Allen White Library, 1200Commercial Street, Emporia, Kansas66801 and Washburn University Schoolof Law Library, Topeka, Kansas 66621.

Attorney for licensee: Jay Silberg, Esq.,Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge,2300 N Street, NW, Washington, DC20037.

NRC Project Director: William H.Bateman.

Yankee Atomic Electric Company,Docket No. 50–029, Yankee NuclearPower Station, Franklin County,Massachusetts


Description of amendment request:The licensee proposes to extend theinterval of submission of Effluent andWaste Disposal Reports from semi-annual to annual pursuant to 10 CFR50.36a(a)(2). This action would requirea change to Technical Specification (TS)6.8.2.b, a reporting requirement, andtextual changes in other parts of the TSto make the change consistentthroughout.


The changes to the Yankee Nuclear PowerStation Defueled Technical Specificationsproposed above are administrative in nature.The proposed changes are consistent with therevised 10 CFR 50.36a, ‘‘Technicalspecifications on effluents from nuclearpower reactors,’’ which require the submittalof one Radioactive Effluent Release Reportper year. Furthermore, the NRC has alreadyconcluded in issuing the 10 CFR 50.36a rulechange that implementation of the proposedtechnical specifications changes would notresult in a reduction to the public health andsafety or common defense and security.

As such, the changes:(1) Will not involve a significant increase

in the probability or consequences of anaccident previously evaluated.

The administrative nature of the changesdo not affect the operation of YNPS in thepermanently defueled condition.Furthermore, the changes do not result in achange to the plant design, configuration, oroperating procedures. Because the physicalplant is not affected, and the only change isthe frequency with which reports aresubmitted to the NRC, the probability of anaccident previously evaluated is notincreased and the radiological consequencesof an accident previously evaluated are notincreased.

(2) Will not create the possibility of a newor different kind of accident from anyaccident previously evaluated.

The changes described do not modify thedesign, configuration, or operatingprocedures for any plant systems orcomponents. The accident analyses for thefacility are not affected by the proposedchanges. The changes do not introduce anynew failure mechanisms. Therefore, thechanges do not create the possibility of a newor different kind of accident from anypreviously evaluated.

(3) Will not involve a significant reductionin the margin of safety.

The changes described are administrativein nature. The changes do not modify thedesign, configuration, or operatingprocedures for any plant systems orcomponents. The changes do not affect thefacility’s accident analyses. Radioactiveeffluent release limits remain unchanged.The submittal of reports to the NRC is anadministrative function and is not includedin the bases of any Technical Specificationsto define or establish a margin of safety.Therefore, the proposed changes do notreduce the margin of safety as defined in thebases of any Technical Specifications.


Local Public Document Roomlocation: Greenfield CommunityCollege, 1 College Drive, Greenfield,Massachusetts 01301.

Attorney for licensee: Thomas Dignan,Esquire, Ropes and Gray, OneInternational Place, Boston,Massachusetts 02110–2624.

NRC Project Director: Seymour H.Weiss.

Previously Published Notices ofConsideration of Issuance ofAmendments to Facility OperatingLicenses, Proposed No SignificantHazards Consideration Determination,and Opportunity for a Hearing

The following notices were previouslypublished as separate individualnotices. The notice content was thesame as above. They were published asindividual notices either because timedid not allow the Commission to waitfor this biweekly notice or because theaction involved exigent circumstances.They are repeated here because thebiweekly notice lists all amendmentsissued or proposed to be issuedinvolving no significant hazardsconsideration.

For details, see the individual noticein the Federal Register on the day andpage cited. This notice does not extendthe notice period of the original notice.


Baltimore Gas and Electric Company,Docket No. 50–317, Calvert CliffsNuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, CalvertCounty, Maryland


Description of amendment request:The amendment would changeTechnical Specification (TS) 3.3.1,‘‘Reactor Protective SystemInstrumentation—Operating’’ and TS3.3.2, ‘‘Reactor Protective SystemInstrumentation Shutdown’’ to clarifyan inconsistency between TS wordingand the design basis as described in theTS Bases and the Updated Final SafetyAnalysis Report.

Date of publication of individualnotice in Federal Register: October 27,1998 (63 FR 57320).

Expiration date of individual notice:November 27, 1998.

Local Public Document Roomlocation: Calvert County Library, PrinceFrederick, Maryland 20678.

Notice of Issuance of Amendments toFacility Operating Licenses

During the period since publication ofthe last biweekly notice, theCommission has issued the followingamendments. The Commission hasdetermined for each of theseamendments that the applicationcomplies with the standards andrequirements of the Atomic Energy Actof 1954, as amended (the Act), and theCommission’s rules and regulations.The Commission has made appropriatefindings as required by the Act and theCommission’s rules and regulations in10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth inthe license amendment.

Notice of Consideration of Issuance ofAmendment to Facility OperatingLicense, Proposed No SignificantHazards Consideration Determination,and Opportunity for a Hearing inconnection with these actions waspublished in the Federal Register asindicated.

Unless otherwise indicated, theCommission has determined that theseamendments satisfy the criteria forcategorical exclusion in accordancewith 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuantto 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmentalimpact statement or environmentalassessment need be prepared for theseamendments. If the Commission hasprepared an environmental assessmentunder the special circumstancesprovision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and hasmade a determination based on thatassessment, it is so indicated.

For further details with respect to theaction see (1) the applications foramendment, (2) the amendment, and (3)

the Commission’s related letter, SafetyEvaluation and/or EnvironmentalAssessment as indicated. All of theseitems are available for public inspectionat the Commission’s Public DocumentRoom, the Gelman Building, 2120 LStreet, NW., Washington, DC, and at thelocal public document rooms for theparticular facilities involved.

Carolina Power & Light Company, et al.,Docket Nos. 50–325 and 50–324,Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1and 2, Brunswick County, NorthCarolina

Date of application for amendments:August 17, 1998.

Brief description of amendments: Theamendments revise TechnicalSpecification 5.2.2.f regarding the seniorreactor operator licensing requirementfor the operations manager.

Date of issuance: November 4, 1998.Effective date: November 4, 1998.Amendment Nos.: 204 and 234.Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–

71 and DPR–62: Amendments revise thefacility’s Technical Specifications.

Date of initial notice in FederalRegister: September 9, 1998 (63 FR48258) The Commission’s relatedevaluation of the amendments iscontained in a Safety Evaluation datedNovember 4, 1998.

No significant hazards considerationcomments received: No.

Local Public Document Roomlocation: University of North Carolina atWilmington, William Madison RandallLibrary, 601 S. College Road,Wilmington, North Carolina 28403–3297.

GPU Nuclear, Inc. et al., Docket No. 50–219, Oyster Creek Nuclear GeneratingStation, Ocean County, New Jersey

Date of application for amendment:September 19, 1998.

Brief description of amendment: Thisamendment revises Section 5.4.8 of theOyster Creek Nuclear Generating StationUpdated Final Safety Analysis Report(UFSAR) such that it incorporates theuse of a freeze seal as a temporary partof the reactor coolant pressureboundary.

Date of Issuance: November 4, 1998.Effective date: November 4, 1998.Amendment No. 201.Facility Operating License No. DPR–

16. Amendment revised the UFSAR.Date of initial notice in Federal

Register: September 30, 1998 (63 FR52307).

The Commission’s related evaluationof this amendment is contained in aSafety Evaluation dated November 4,1998. .


Local Public Document Roomlocation: Ocean County Library,Reference Department, 101 WashingtonStreet, Toms River, NJ 08753.

GPU Nuclear, Inc. et al., Docket No. 50–219, Oyster Creek Nuclear GeneratingStation, Ocean County, New Jersey

Date of application for amendment:July 23, 1998, as supplementedSeptember 25, 1998. The September 25,1998, supplement did not change theinitial proposed no significant hazardsconsideration determination.

Brief description of amendment: Theamendment establishes that the existingSafety Limit Minimum Critical PowerRatio in Technical Specification 2.1.A isapplicable for Cycle 17.

Date of Issuance: November 5, 1998.Effective date: November 5, 1998, to

be implemented within 30 days.Amendment No.: 202.Facility Operating License No. DPR–

16: Amendment revised the TechnicalSpecifications.

Date of initial notice in FederalRegister: August 26, 1998 (63 FR45525).

The Commission’s related evaluationof this amendment is contained in aSafety Evaluation dated November 5,1998.


Local Public Document Roomlocation: Ocean County Library,Reference Department, 101 WashingtonStreet, Toms River, NJ 08753.

Northern States Power Company,Docket Nos. 50–282 and 50–306, PrairieIsland Nuclear Generating Plant, Units1 and 2, Goodhue County, Minnesota

Date of application for amendments:January 29, 1997, as supplementedFebruary 11, 12, March 7, 10, 11, 19, 20,April 29, June 30, and July 10,1997,June 20, June 22, July 24, September 15,and October 1, 1998.

Brief description of amendments: Theamendments change the design basis ofthe cooling water system emergencyintake line flow capacity. The changesalso reclassify the intake canal for useduring a seismic event, which would bean additional source of cooling wateravailable during a design-basisearthquake. The amendments alsoreflect the completion of licenseconditions that were implemented aspart of interim amendments 128/120dated March 25, 1997, to reflectcompensatory measures taken byNorthern States Power until aseismically qualified emergency coolingwater source could be provided.

Date of issuance: November 4, 1998.Effective date: November 4, 1998,

with full implementation within 30


days. Implementation of the USARupdate shall be no later than June 1,1999, as stated in License Condition 3.

Amendment Nos.: 140 and 131.Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–

42 and DPR–60. Amendments revisedthe licenses.

Date of initial notice in FederalRegister: October 1, 1998 (63 FR 52772).The October 1, 1998, submittal providedrevised USAR pages reflecting thechange to the cooling water systememergency intake design bases. Thisinformation was within the scope of theOctober 1, 1998, Federal Register noticeand did not change the staff’s initialproposed no significant hazardsconsiderations determination.

The Commission’s related evaluationof the amendments is contained in aSafety Evaluation dated November 4,1998.


Local Public Document Roomlocation: Minneapolis Public Library,Technology and Science Department,300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis,Minnesota 55401.

Southern California Edison Company, etal., Docket Nos. 50–361 and 50–362,San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station,Unit Nos. 2 and 3, San Diego County,California

Date of application for amendments:March 6, 1998.

Brief description of amendments: Theproposed changes modify the technicalspecifications (TS) to eliminatereference to shutdown cooling (SDC)system isolation bypass valve inverters.This allows the licensee to replace theinverters with transfer switches.

Date of issuance: October 26, 1998.Effective date: October 26, 1998, to be

implemented within 30 days from thedate of issuance.

Amendment Nos.: Unit 2—143; Unit3—134.

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–10 and NPF–15: The amendmentsrevised the Technical Specifications.

Date of initial notice in FederalRegister: September 23, 1998 (63 FR50939).

The Commission’s related evaluationof the amendments is contained in aSafety Evaluation dated October 26,1998.


Local Public Document Roomlocation: Main Library, University ofCalifornia, P.O. Box 19557, Irvine,California 92713.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company,Inc., et al., Docket Nos. 50–348 and 50–364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant,Units 1 and 2, Houston County,Alabama

Date of amendments request:December 30, 1997, as supplemented byletter dated April 9, 1998.

Brief Description of amendments: Theamendments change the TechnicalSpecifications to revise the surveillancerequirements for the Auxiliary Buildingand Service Water Building batteries toremove the existing 1.75 volt minimumindividual cell voltage associated withthe ‘‘service test’’ acceptance criterionand replace it with a reference to thebattery load profile specified in theFinal Safety Analysis Report, Section8.3.2.

Date of issuance: November 3, 1998.Effective date: As of the date of

issuance to be implemented within 30days from the date of issuance.

Amendment Nos.: Unit 1—139; Unit2—131.

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–2 and NPF–8: Amendments revise theTechnical Specifications.

Date of initial notice in FederalRegister: April 8, 1998 (63 FR 17234).The April 9, 1998, letter providedclarifying information that did notchange the scope of the December 30,1997, application and the initialproposed no significant hazardsconsideration determination.

The Commission’s related evaluationof the amendments is contained in aSafety Evaluation dated November 3,1998.


Local Public Document Roomlocation: Houston-Love MemorialLibrary, 212 W. Burdeshaw Street, PostOffice Box 1369, Dothan, Alabama.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No.50–390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1,Rhea County, Tennessee

Date of application for amendment:August 6, 1998.

Brief description of amendment:Change Technical Specifications (TS)Surveillance and Bases Sections 3.3.2,‘‘ESFAS Instrumentation,’’ and 3.7.5,‘‘AFW System’’ to clarify the intent ofthe surveillance testing requirements forthe turbine driven auxiliary feedwaterpump, which is consistent with thewording and intent of the WestinghouseImproved TS.

Date of issuance: October 26, 1998.Effective date: October 26, 1998.Amendment No.: 13.Facility Operating License No. NPF–

90: Amendment revises the TechnicalSpecifications.

Date of initial notice in FederalRegister: September 23, 1998 (63 FR50941).

The Commission’s related evaluationof the amendment is contained in aSafety Evaluation dated October 26,1998.

No significant hazards considerationcomments received: None.

Local Public Document Roomlocation: Chattanooga-Hamilton CountyLibrary, 1001 Broad Street, Chattanooga,TN 37402.

Virginia Electric and Power Company, etal., Docket Nos. 50–338 and 50–339,North Anna Power Station, Units No. 1and No. 2, Louisa County, Virginia

Date of application for amendments:November 6, 1996, as supplementedApril 15, July 14, and October 16, 1998.The supplemental submittals containedclarifying information only, and did notchange the initial no significant hazardsconsideration determination.

Brief description of amendments: Theamendments revise the TechnicalSpecifications (TS) Sections 3.4.1.4,4.4.1.4, 3.4.1.5, 3.4.1.6, 4.4.1.6.1,4.4.1.6.2, 4.4.1.6.3, 3/4.4.2 and 3/4.4.3for Unit 1, and 3.4.1.4, 4.4.1.4, 3.4.1.5,3/4.4, 3.4.1.6, 4.4.1.6.1, 4.4.1.6.2, and4.4.1.6.3 for Unit 2, modifying therequirements for isolated loop startup topermit filling of a drained isolated loopvia backfill from the reactor coolantsystem through partially opened loopstop valves.

Date of issuance: October 30, 1998.Effective date: October 30, 1998.Amendment Nos.: 215 and 196.Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–

4 and NPF–7: Amendments revised theTechnical Specifications.

Date of initial notice in FederalRegister: December 4, 1996 (61 FR64396).

The Commission’s related evaluationof the amendments is contained in aSafety Evaluation dated October 30,1998.


Local Public Document Roomlocation: The Alderman Library, SpecialCollections Department, University ofVirginia, Charlottesville, Virginia22903–2498.

Notice of Issuance of Amendments toFacility Operating Licenses and FinalDetermination of No SignificantHazards Consideration andOpportunity for a Hearing (ExigentPublic Announcement or EmergencyCircumstances)

During the period since publication ofthe last biweekly notice, theCommission has issued the following


amendments. The Commission hasdetermined for each of theseamendments that the application for theamendment complies with thestandards and requirements of theAtomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended(the Act), and the Commission’s rulesand regulations. The Commission hasmade appropriate findings as requiredby the Act and the Commission’s rulesand regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I,which are set forth in the licenseamendment.

Because of exigent or emergencycircumstances associated with the datethe amendment was needed, there wasnot time for the Commission to publish,for public comment before issuance, itsusual 30-day Notice of Consideration ofIssuance of Amendment, Proposed NoSignificant Hazards ConsiderationDetermination, and Opportunity for aHearing.

For exigent circumstances, theCommission has either issued a FederalRegister notice providing opportunityfor public comment or has used localmedia to provide notice to the public inthe area surrounding a licensee’s facilityof the licensee’s application and of theCommission’s proposed determinationof no significant hazards consideration.The Commission has provided areasonable opportunity for the public tocomment, using its best efforts to makeavailable to the public means ofcommunication for the public torespond quickly, and in the case oftelephone comments, the commentshave been recorded or transcribed asappropriate and the licensee has beeninformed of the public comments.

In circumstances where failure to actin a timely way would have resulted, forexample, in derating or shutdown of anuclear power plant or in prevention ofeither resumption of operation or ofincrease in power output up to theplant’s licensed power level, theCommission may not have had anopportunity to provide for publiccomment on its no significant hazardsconsideration determination. In suchcase, the license amendment has beenissued without opportunity forcomment. If there has been some timefor public comment but less than 30days, the Commission may provide anopportunity for public comment. Ifcomments have been requested, it is sostated. In either event, the State hasbeen consulted by telephone wheneverpossible.

Under its regulations, the Commissionmay issue and make an amendmentimmediately effective, notwithstandingthe pendency before it of a request fora hearing from any person, in advanceof the holding and completion of any

required hearing, where it hasdetermined that no significant hazardsconsideration is involved.

The Commission has applied thestandards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has madea final determination that theamendment involves no significanthazards consideration. The basis for thisdetermination is contained in thedocuments related to this action.Accordingly, the amendments havebeen issued and made effective asindicated.

Unless otherwise indicated, theCommission has determined that theseamendments satisfy the criteria forcategorical exclusion in accordancewith 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuantto 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmentalimpact statement or environmentalassessment need be prepared for theseamendments. If the Commission hasprepared an environmental assessmentunder the special circumstancesprovision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and hasmade a determination based on thatassessment, it is so indicated.

For further details with respect to theaction see (1) the application foramendment, (2) the amendment toFacility Operating License, and (3) theCommission’s related letter, SafetyEvaluation and/or EnvironmentalAssessment, as indicated. All of theseitems are available for public inspectionat the Commission’s Public DocumentRoom, the Gelman Building, 2120 LStreet, NW., Washington, DC, and at thelocal public document room for theparticular facility involved.

The Commission is also offering anopportunity for a hearing with respect tothe issuance of the amendment. ByDecember 18, 1998, 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 for the particularfacility involved. If a request for ahearing or petition for leave to interveneis filed by the above date, theCommission or an Atomic Safety andLicensing Board, designated by the

Commission or by the Chairman of theAtomic Safety and Licensing BoardPanel, will rule on the request and/orpetition; and the Secretary or thedesignated Atomic Safety and LicensingBoard will issue a notice of a hearing oran appropriate order.

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 thepetitioner’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 these


requirements 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. Since the Commission hasmade a final determination that theamendment involves no significanthazards consideration, if a hearing isrequested, it will not stay theeffectiveness of the amendment. Anyhearing held would take place while theamendment is in effect.

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:Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff ormay be delivered to the Commission’sPublic Document Room, the GelmanBuilding, 2120 L Street, NW.,Washington, DC, by the above date. Acopy of the petition should also be sentto the Office of the General Counsel,U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,Washington, DC 20555–0001, and to theattorney for the licensee.

Nontimely filings of petitions forleave to intervene, amended petitions,supplemental petitions and/or requestsfor a hearing will not be entertainedabsent a determination by theCommission, the presiding officer or theAtomic Safety and Licensing Board thatthe petition and/or request should begranted based upon a balancing of thefactors specified in 10 CFR2.714(a)(1)(i)–(v) and 2.714(d).

Northern States Power Company,Docket Nos. 50–282 and 50–306, PrairieIsland Nuclear Generating Plant, Units1 and 2, Goodhue County, Minnesota

Date of application for amendments:October 23, 1998, as supplementedOctober 26, 1998.

Brief description of amendments: Theamendments clarify the conditions thatconstitute operable Individual RodPosition Indication (IRPI) systemchannels, provide for an allowed out ofservice time for inoperable IRPIindicator channels, and providecompensatory measures to be takenwhen any channel is determined to beinoperable.

Date of issuance: October 30, 1998.Effective date: October 30, 1998.Amendment Nos.: 139 and 130.Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–

42 and DPR–60. Amendments revisedthe Technical Specifications.

Public comments requested as toproposed no significant hazardsconsideration: No.

The Commission’s related evaluationof the amendments, finding ofemergency circumstances, and finaldetermination of no significant hazardsconsideration are contained in a SafetyEvaluation dated October 30, 1998.

Attorney for licensee: J.E. Silberg,Esquire, Shaw, Pittman, Potts, andTrowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW,Washington, DC 20037.

Local Public Document Roomlocation: Minneapolis Public Library,Technology and Science Department,300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis,Minnesota 55401.

NRC Project Director: Cynthia A.Carpenter.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th dayof November 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.William H. Bateman,Acting Director, Division of Reactor Projects—III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.[FR Doc. 98–30691 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 7590–01–P


Supplemental Information on theImplementation of the Final Rule onRadiological Criteria for LicenseTermination

SUMMARY: This notice providessupplemental information regardingimplementation of the NuclearRegulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) FinalRule on Radiological Criteria for LicenseTermination (License Termination Rule,LTR) which was issued on July 21, 1997(62 FR 39058). The informationprovided in this notice pertains to: (1)The end of the ‘‘grandfathering period’’on August 20, 1998; (2) issuance of thedraft regulatory guide on the LTR forinterim use; (3) availability of the NRC’sscreening computer code (DandD,Version 1) for calculating screeningvalues to demonstrate compliance withthe dose limits in the LTR; (4) screeningvalues for building surfacecontamination for beta/gamma radiationemitters; (5) NRC plans to hold publicworkshops to discuss issues related tothe draft guidance and implementationof the LTR; (6) staff plans to develop astandard review plan (SRP) fordecommissioning; and (7) status of NRCdecommissioning guidance documents.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. End of the Grandfathering PeriodSubpart E to 10 CFR Part 20 contains

a provision, 20.1401(b)(3), that the

criteria in the LTR do not apply to sitesthat submit a sufficientdecommissioning plan (DP) or licensetermination plan (LTP) before August20, 1998, provided the NRC approvesthe DP or the LTP before August 20,1999, and the plan is in accordance withthe criteria identified in the SiteDecommissioning Management Plan(SDMP) Action Plan (57 FR 13389; April16, 1992). The period from the effectivedate of the LTR, August 20, 1997through August 20, 1998, is referred toas the ‘‘grandfathering period,’’ duringwhich the criteria in the SDMP ActionPlan could continue to be proposed.This notice reminds licensees that thegrandfathering period has ended, andthat all future requests to terminate alicense must be in accordance with theprovisions in Part 20, Subpart E. Notethat the NRC review of the licenseeplans submitted in accordance with 10CFR 20.1401(b)(3), incorporating theSDMP Action Plan criteria, willcontinue through August 20, 1999.

2. Draft Regulatory GuideThe NRC has issued Draft Regulatory

Guide DG–4006, ‘‘DemonstratingCompliance with the RadiologicalCriteria For License Termination,’’ for atwo-year interim use period (i.e., July 8,1998 through July 7, 2000). NRC hasalso issued draft NUREG reports insupport of DG–4006 (the applicabledraft NUREG reports are referenced inDG–4006). A notice of availability of theDraft Regulatory Guide was publishedin the Federal Register on August 4,1998 (63 FR 41604).

3. Availability of NRC DandD ScreeningCode

On August 20, 1998, NRC issued ascreening computer code DandD,Version 1. The DandD code, when usedwith default parameters, is anacceptable method for licensees tocalculate screening values todemonstrate compliance with theunrestricted use dose limit in the LTR.The DandD code can be installed bydownloading the self-extracting programfile, setup.exe, accessed through theweb site: ‘‘http:/techconf.llnl.gov/radcri/java.html,’’ clicking on ‘‘doseassessment,’’ and then on‘‘decontamination anddecommissioning software.’’ Theinstallation instruction file ‘‘readme.txt’’can also be downloaded, using theabove web site, to help users installingthe code. Important support documents(e.g., NUREG–1549, ‘‘Decision Methodsfor Dose Assessment to Comply WithRadiological Criteria for LicenseTermination’’ and NUREG/CR–5512,Vol. #3, ‘‘Residual Radioactive


Contamination From Decommissioning,Parameter Analysis) can also beaccessed through the above web site. Asdiscussed in DG–4006, use of DandDwith the default parameters is intendedfor screening calculations only. Ifscreening results indicate thatremediation might be needed, a site-specific dose assessment isrecommended before deciding onremedial actions. NRC expects pathwayanalysis/dose assessment codes otherthan DandD to be more appropriate forsome conditions. Regulatory Guide DG–4006 contains guidance regarding theinformation required to support the useof other codes and models. In theinterim period, NRC will review all doseassessment results on a case-by-casebasis.

The DandD code, when used with thedefault parameter set, provides amethod for calculating screeningconcentrations for radionuclides in soil,and screening levels for surfacecontamination on building surfaces. Itshould be noted that the screeningvalues, based on DandD, differ from thecriteria listed in the SDMP Action Plan.In most cases, the screening values forbeta/gamma emitters are higher than theSDMP Action Plan criteria, while thevalues for alpha emitters are muchlower.

During the two-year interim useperiod for the draft guidance (DG–4006),NRC plans to continue to refine thescreening approach and to evaluate theextent of conservatism of the results ofthe DandD code. It may be moreappropriate to develop a differentscreening method or approach for alphaemitters. NRC will assess the results ofthe DandD screening method,particularly the low screening values foralpha emitters, during the workshops tobe held on the LTR guidancedevelopment. Note that DG–4006 clearlyencourages the use of site-specific doseassessments, whenever needed, andrecognizes that the screening values willnot be appropriate in all cases.

4. Screening Values for BuildingSurface Contamination

The staff has developed, as a tool tofacilitate the efficient implementation ofthe LTR, a screening table (Table 1) ofunrestricted release values for buildingsurface contamination of common beta/gamma emitting radionuclides. Thescreening table was derived using theDandD screening code, Version 1, andits default input parameters. Table 1provides criteria which permit licenseesto demonstrate compliance with theunrestricted release dose criterion in theLTR. The values in Table 1 correspondto surface concentrations of

radionuclides contamination that wouldbe deemed in compliance with theunrestricted use dose limit in 10 CFR20.1402 (i.e., 0.25 mSv/yr, (25 mrem/yr)). The values correspond to screening‘‘derived concentration guidelines’’(DCGL) for each specific radionuclidebased on the methodology described inDG–4006. Sites with building surfacecontamination levels below those listedin Table 1 would be deemed acceptablefor release for unrestricted use inaccordance with the dose criteria in 10CFR 20.1402, provided that residualradioactivity has been reduced to ‘‘aslow as reasonably achievable’’ (ALARA)levels. The table is intended for use ascriteria to facilitate license terminationfor many simple routinedecommissioning cases without a site-specific dose assessment. For facilitieswith contamination levels above thosein Table 1, additional site-specific doseassessments may be necessary, andlicensees should refer to DG–4006regarding acceptable methods forconducting the appropriate doseassessment.

Table 1 does not include screeningvalues for radionuclides that emit alphaparticles, or for soil contamination. TheNRC staff is assessing current screeningapproaches for sites with alpha emittersand for soil contamination. For suchsites, licensees are encouraged to use, inthe interim period, site-specific doseassessments based on actual siteconditions.

5. Future Public WorkshopsNRC will hold a series of public

workshops over the two-year interimperiod to describe the status of theongoing development of both DG–4006and the SRP, to provide industry andother interested parties an opportunityto provide comments, and to discussusers’ experiences with implementingthe guidance. The future dates for theworkshops are: December 1–2, 1998;January 21–22, 1999; March 18–19,1999; June 16–17, 1999; August 18–19,1999; and October 20–21, 1999. Allworkshops will be conducted in theAuditorium located at NRC’sHeadquarters (Two White Flint NorthBuilding, 11545 Rockville Pike,Rockville, MD 20852–2738). For furtherdetails on workshops, see the FederalRegister notice published on October21, 1998 (63 FR 56237).

6. Standard Review PlanThe NRC staff is developing an SRP

for the evaluation of licensee submittalsrelated to compliance with theradiological criteria in the LTR. The goalof the SRP is to enable NRC staff toevaluate information submitted by

licensees in a timely, efficient, andconsistent manner, and to determine ifthe decommissioning will be conductedsuch that the public health and safety isprotected and the facility can bereleased in accordance with NRC’srequirements. The development of theSRP will be coordinated with the effortto revise and finalize DG–4006. The website ‘‘http://techconf.llnl.gov/cgi-bin/topics’’ provides updated informationon the status of the guidance and theSRP, and a mechanism for the public toprovide comments on the draftguidance.

7. Status of Decommissioning GuidanceDocuments

Guidance material in DG–4006 andthe SRP will incorporate or supersedemost existing NRC decommissioningguidance documents. Guidancedocuments will be revised to beconsistent with the LTR, or they will bephased out. Table 2 lists the status ofexisting NRC guidance documentsaffected by the LTR and associated newguidance.

Under the SDMP Action Plan criteria,the tables of surface contaminationvalues contained in Regulatory Guide1.86, ‘‘Termination of OperatingLicenses for Nuclear Reactors,’’ andPolicy and Guidance Directive FC 83–23, ‘‘Guidelines for Decontamination ofFacilities and Equipment Prior toRelease for Unrestricted Use orTermination of Byproduct, Source, orSpecial Nuclear Material Licenses,’’were used as the decommissioningcriteria for building surfaces. The valuesin Table 1 are intended to replace thetables in the above two documents forlicense termination purposes.

The surface contamination criteria inRegulatory Guide 1.86 have beenapplied by reactor licensees for licensetermination only. However, formaterials licenses (under 10 CFR Parts30, 40, and 70), the guidelines in Policyand Guidance Directive FC 83–23 havebeen used by licensees for twopurposes: (a) As criteria for licensetermination, and (b) as criteria forunrestricted release of equipment andother materials during operations. OnJune 30, 1998, the Commission directedthe NRC staff to develop a dose-basedregulation for clearance of equipmentand materials having residualradioactivity. The criteria thateventually emerge from this rulemakingeffort are intended to replace the surfacecontamination values in Policy andGuidance Directive FC 83–23. Until thattime, licensees may continue to use thecriteria in Policy and GuidanceDirective FC 83–23 for unrestricted


release of equipment and material, tothe extent authorized by their licenses.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.David N. Fauver, Low-Level Waste andDecommissioning Projects Branch, at(301) 415–6625, or Dr. Rateb (Boby) AbuEid, Performance Assessment and High-Level Waste Integration Branch, at (301)415–5811, both of the Division of WasteManagement, Office of Nuclear MaterialSafety and Safeguards, U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, Washington,DC 20555–0001.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th dayof November 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John W.N. Hickey,Chief, Low-Level Waste and DecommissioningProjects Branch, Division of WasteManagement, Office of Nuclear MaterialSafety and Safeguards.

TABLE 1—ACCEPTABLE LICENSE TER-MINATION SCREENING VALUES OFCOMMON RADIONUCLIDES FORBUILDING SURFACE CONTAMINATION

Radionuclide Sym-bol

Acceptablescreening levels 1

for unrestrictedrelease (dpm/100

cm2) 2

Hydrogen-3 (Trit-ium).

3H 1.2E+08

Carbon-14 ......... 14C 3.7E+06Sodium-22 ......... 22Na 9.5E+03Sulfur-35 ............ 35S 1.3E+07Chlorine-36 ........ 36Cl 5.0E+05Manganese-54 .. 54Mn 3.2E+04Iron-55 ............... 55Fe 4.5E+06Cobalt-60 ........... 60Co 7.1E+03Nickel-63 ........... 63Ni 1.8E+06Strontium-90 ...... 90Sr 8.7E+03Technetium-99 .. 99Tc 1.3E+06Iodine-129 ......... 129I 3.5E+04Cesium-137 ....... 137Cs 2.8E+04

TABLE 1—ACCEPTABLE LICENSE TER-MINATION SCREENING VALUES OFCOMMON RADIONUCLIDES FORBUILDING SURFACECONTAMINATION—Continued

Radionuclide Sym-bol

Acceptablescreening levels 1

for unrestrictedrelease (dpm/100

cm2) 2

Iridium-192 ........ 192Ir 7.4E+04

1 Screening levels are based on the as-sumption that the fraction of removable sur-face contamination is equal to 0.1. For caseswhen the fraction of removable contaminationis undetermined or higher than 0.1, users mayassume, for screening purposes, that 100% ofsurface contamination is removable, andtherefore the screening levels should be de-creased by a factor of 10. Alternatively, usershaving site-specific data on the fraction of re-movable contamination (e.g., within the 10%to 100% range) may calculate site-specificscreening levels using DandD Version 1.

2 Units are disintegrations per minute per100 square centimeters (dpm/100 cm2). 1 dpmis equivalent to 0.0167 becquerel (Bq). Thescreening values represent surface concentra-tions of individual radionuclides that would bedeemed in compliance with the 0.25 mSv/yr(25 mrem/yr) unrestricted release dose limit in10 CFR 20.1402. For radionuclides in a mix-ture, the ‘‘sum of fractions’’ rule applies; see10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Note 4. Refer toNRC Draft Guidance DG–4006 for further in-formation on application of the values in thistable.

TABLE 2—EXISTING GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS APPLICABLE TO DECOMMISSIONING THAT WILL REQUIRE REVISION ORDISCONTINUATION IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT THE LICENSE TERMINATION RULE (LTR)

Decommissioning guidance document Status with respect to LTR

Decommissioning Criteria in Action Plan to Ensure Timely Cleanup ofSite Decommissioning Management Plan Sites (SDMP Action Plan)(57 FR 13389).

Superseded by LTR and DG–4006 (Note: Still applicable to sites‘‘grandfathered’’ in accordance with 10 CFR 20.1401(b)).

Policy and Guidance Directive FC 83–23, ‘‘Guidelines for the Decon-tamination of Facilities and Equipment Prior to Release for Unre-stricted Use or Termination of Byproduct, Source, or Special NuclearMaterial Licenses’’.

Superseded by DG–4006 for License Termination (Note: This docu-ment may continue to be used as criteria for unrestricted release ofequipment and material from licensed material facilities during oper-ational activities prior to license termination, to the extent authorizedby the licensees).

Draft Branch Technical Position on ‘‘Screening Methodology for As-sessing Prior Land Burials of Radioactive Wastes Authorized UnderFormer 10 CFR 20.304 and 20.302’’ (96 FR 28223).

Superseded by LTR and DG–4006.

‘‘Preliminary Hazards Analysis for Contaminated Buildings at FormerlyLicensed Sites’’.

Superseded by DG–4006.

NUREG/BR–0241, ‘‘NMSS Handbook for Decommissioning Fuel Cycleand Materials Licensees’’.

References to decommissioning criteria are superseded by the LTRand DG–4006. The Handbook will be updated as appropriate to beconsistent with the LTR and current guidelines.

Regulatory Guide 1.86, ‘‘Termination of Operating Licenses for NuclearReactors’’.

Superseded by DG–4006

Draft NUREG/CR–5849, ‘‘Manual for Conducting Radiological Surveysin Support of License Termination’’.

Superseded by DG–4006.

[FR Doc. 98–30867 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]


RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD

Sunshine Act Meeting

The meeting of the RailroadRetirement Board which was to be heldon November 18, 1998, 9:00 a.m., at theBoard’s meeting room on the 8th floorof its headquarters building, 844 North

Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611, hasbeen canceled.

The person to contact for moreinformation is Beatrice Ezerski,Secretary to the Board. Phone No. 312–751–4920.


1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).2 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40445

(September 16, 1998), 63 FR 50950.3 Infra note 6.4 All deliveries of securities into or out of DBC’s

omnibus account at DTC are on a free of paymentbasis.

5 All deliveries of securities into or out of DTC’somnibus account at DBC are on a free of paymentbasis.

6 Letters from P. Howard Edelstein, President,Electronic Settlements Group, Thomson FinancialServices (‘‘Thomson’’) (October 14, 1998); Joseph D.Fashano, Director, Credit Suisse First BostonCorporation (October 20, 1998); Thomas L.Montrone, President, The Securities TransferAssociation, Inc. (‘‘STA’’) (October 21, 1998);Simon M. Lorne, Managing Director, SalomonSmith Barney (October 23, 1998); J. Michael Schell,Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP(‘‘Skadden Arps’’) (October 23, 1998); JurgenRebouillon, Senior Vice President, and ThomasKlee, First Vice President, Deutsche Bank AG(‘‘Deutsche Bank’’) (October 23, 1998); Joseph M.Velli, Senior Executive Vice President, The Bank ofNew York (‘‘BONY’’) (October 23, 1998).

7 The comment letters submitted by SkaddenArps, Deutsche Bank, and BONY addressed the rulechange with reference to the merger of Daimler-Benz Aktiengesellschaft and Chrysler Corporationinto DaimlerChrysler AG. Skadden Arps is counselto Daimler-Benz, and BONY and Deutsche Bankwill serve as cotransfer agents for DaimlerChryslerordinary shares.

8 Specifically, Thomson referenced NationalAssociation of Securities Dealers Rule 11860, NewYork Stock Exchange (‘‘NYSE’’) Rule 387(a)(5),Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board Rule G–15(d)(ii), American Stock Exchange Rule 423(5),Chicago Stock Exchange Article XV, Rule 5, PacificExchange Rule 9.12(a)(5), and Philadelphia StockExchange Rule 274(b). Those rules require that forcertain securities transactions the facilities of asecurities depository be used for the confirmation,acknowledgment, and book entry settlement of thetransactions. However, those rules also state thatthey are not applicable to transactions that are tobe settled outside the United States. See, e.g., NYSERule 387(a)(5), Interpretation .10.

9 15 U.S.C. 78q–1(b)(3)(F).

Dated: November 13, 1998.Beatrice Ezerski,Secretary to the Board.[FR Doc. 98–31008 Filed 11–16–98; 3:53 pm]BILLING CODE 7905–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGECOMMISSION

[Release No. 34–40660; International SeriesRelease No. 1170; File No. SR–DTC–98–19]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; TheDepository Trust Company; OrderApproving a Proposed Rule ChangeRelating to Enhancement of theCurrent Link With Deutsche BorseClearing AG

November 10, 1998.On September 15, 1998, The

Depository Trust Company (‘‘DTC’’)Filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission (‘‘Commission’’) aproposed rule change (File No. SR–DTC–98–19) pursuant to Section10(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934 (‘‘Act’’).1 Notice of the proposalwas published in the Federal Registeron September 23, 1998.2 TheCommission received seven commentletters in response to the filing.3 For thereasons discussed below, theCommission is approving the proposedrule change.

I. Description

Under the rule change, DTC will openan omnibus account at Deutsche BorseClearing AG (‘‘DBC’’) in order to createa two-way interface between DTC andDBC. Presently, DBC has an omnibusaccount at DTC which enables DBC andits participants to effect book-entrydeliveries at DTC to DTC participants.The current link between DTC and DBCallows DBC and its participants to usethe custody, book-entry, and deliveryservices of DTC for transactionsinvolving securities that are eligible inboth systems. The current link permitsa DTC participant to settle a cross-border transaction with a DBCcounterparty by making a book-entrydelivery, on a free of payment basis,from its participant account at DTC tothe DBC omnibus account at DTC andby identifying the DBC participantaccount to which the deliveredsecurities should be credited.4 Cash

settlement of the transaction will takeplace outside of DTC.

However, under the current link aDBC participant cannot make a book-entry delivery of securities held in itsaccount at DBC to a DTC participant’saccount at DTC. In order for a DBCparticipant to make a delivery ofsecurities to a DTC counterparty’saccount at DTC, the DBC participantmust deliver the physical securities toDTC.

The rule change will permit book-entry movements of securities from aDBC participant’s account at DBC to aDTC counterparty’s account at DTC.Thus, a DBC participant will be able tosettle a cross-border transaction with aDTC counterparty by making a book-entry delivery, on a free of paymentbasis, from its participant account atDBC to the DTC omnibus account atDBC and by identifying the DTCparticipant account to which thedelivered shares should be credited.5The receiving DTC participant can thenredeliver the securities within DTCthrough a book-entry movement oneither a free of payment or againstpayment basis.

If required, DBC will providesubcustody services such as incomecollection, maturity presentments, andreorganization processing on securitiesheld in DTC’s omnibus account at DBCin accordance with DBC procedures.Currently, DTC provides such servicesfor securities held by DTC on behalf ofDBC.

II. Comment Letters

The Commission received sevencomment letters in response to thenotice of the proposed rule change.6Five commenters, Credit Suisse FirstBoston Corporation, Salomon SmithBarney, Skadden Arps, Deutsche Bank,and BONY, expressed support for theproposed rule change. These commentsstated generally that the proposed rulechange would facilitate the efficientprocessing of cross-border securities

transactions and would reduce risks andcosts to participants of DTC and DBC.7

The STA expressed concern thatunder the proposed rule change someU.S. investors may receive transferservices from transfer agents that are notfully subject to U.S. regulation. Inresponse to the STA’s letter, SkaddenArps noted that the transfer agents forDaimlerChrysler ordinary shares, BONYand Deutsche Bank, are registered underSection 17A of the Act. Skadden Arpsalso stated that it believed that it is notnecessary to subject all cross-borderexchange links to Section 17Aregistration.

Thomson expressed concern that theproposed rule change might result in anexpansion of the scope of certain self-regulatory organization rules governingthe confirmation and affirmation ofinstitutional securities trades. Thomsonrequested that the Commission clarifythat the proposed rule change would notaffect the exemption in those rules fortrades that settle outside the UnitedStates.8

III. DiscussionSection 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act 9

requires, among other things, that therules of a clearing agency be designed topromote the prompt and accurateclearance and settlement of securitiestransactions and to assure thesafeguarding of securities and funds thatare in its custody or control or for whichit is responsible. The Commissionbelieves that the proposed rule changeis consistent with DTC’s obligationsunder Section 17A(b)(3)(F).

The Commission believes that the rulechange should increase efficiency in themovement of securities positions and inthe settlement of securities transactionsamong participants of DTC and DBC byreducing the need for the movement ofphysical securities. The link should not


10 In addition, DTC has obtained an opinion ofcounsel concerning German law and DTC’sparticipation in DBC.

11 The Commission notes that the entities thatwill perform transfer functions for shares inDaimlerChrysler are registered transfer agents.

12 15 U.S.C. 78q–1.13 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).14 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.

3 Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 40542 (October9, 1998), 63 FR 55909 (October 19, 1998).

4 Letters from Roland Beaulieu, President,Thomason Trading Services, Inc. (‘‘Autex’’), toJonathan G. Katz, Secretary, SEC, dated October 22,1998 and from Mari-Anne Pisarri, Pickard andDjinis LLP, to Katherine A. England, AssistantDirector, Division of Market Regulation, SEC, datedOctober 13, 1998.

5 Letter from Robert E. Aber, Senior VicePresident and General Counsel, The Nasdaq StockMarket, Inc., to Katherine A. England, AssistantDirector, Division of Market Regulation, SEC, datedNovember 4, 1998.

6 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.3 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40500

(September 29, 1998), 63 FR 53740 (October 6,1998) (File No. SR–NASD–98–69).

only reduce the time and expenseassociated with physical movements ofsecurities positions but should alsoreduce the risk of loss and erroneousprocessing that always exists withphysical movements. The Commissionalso believes that the procedures for thelink between DTC and DBC areconsistent with DTC’s safeguardingobligation in that all movements into orout of DTC’s omnibus account at DBCand into or out of DBC’s omnibusaccount at DTC will be on a free ofpayment basis.10

The Commission has taken account ofthe comment letters that it received inresponse to the proposed rule change.The Commission believes that the rulechange should not affect the obligationof any entity to register as a transferagent pursuant to Section 17A of theAct.11 In addition, the Commissionbelieves that the rule change should nothave any effect on the rules of any self-regulatory organization other than DTC.

IV. Conclusion

On the basis of the foregoing, theCommission finds that the proposal isconsistent with the requirements of theAct and in particular with therequirements of Section 17A of theAct 12 and the rules and regulationsthereunder.

It is therefore ordered, pursuant toSection 19(b)(2) of the Act,13 that theproposed rule change (File No. SR–DTC–98–19) be, and hereby is,approved.

For the Commission by the Division ofMarket Regulation, pursuant to delegatedauthority.14

Margaret H. McFarland,Deputy Secretary.[FR Doc. 98–30826 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]



[Release No. 34–40658; File No. SR–NASD–98–71]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Noticeof Withdrawal of Proposed RuleChange by the National Association ofSecurities Dealers, Inc. Relating toEstablishment of a Pilot Program ToProvide Proprietary Trading Data viaNasdaqTrader.com

November 10, 1998.

On September 29, 1998, the NationalAssociation of Securities Dealers, Inc.(‘‘NASD’’ or ‘‘Association’’) through itswholly-owned subsidiary, the NasdaqStock Market, Inc. (‘‘Nasdaq’’) filed withthe Securities and ExchangeCommission (‘‘Commission’’ or ‘‘SEC’’)a proposed rule change, pursuant toSection 19(b)(1) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Act’’),1 andRule 19b–4 thereunder,2 to amend Rule7010 of the Rules of the NASD, toestablish a pilot program to provideproprietary trading data via Nasdaq’sNasdaqTrader.com web site.

Notice of the proposed rule changewas published on October 9, 1998 tosolicit comment from interestedpersons.3 The Commission received twocomment letters concerning theproposed rule change.4 On November 5,1998, the NASD withdrew the proposalrule change.5

For the Commission, by the Division ofMarket Regulation, pursuant to delegatedauthority.6

Margaret H. McFarland,Deputy Secretary.[FR Doc. 98–30824 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]



[Release No. 34–40659; File No. SR–NASD–98–69]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; OrderApproving Proposed Rule Change bythe National Association of SecuritiesDealers, Inc. Relating to Mutual FundBreakpoint Sales

November 10, 1998.On September 10, 1998, the National

Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.(‘‘NASD’’), through its regulatorysubsidiary, NASD Regulation, Inc.(‘‘NASD Regulation’’) filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission(‘‘SEC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) a proposedrule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934(‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder.2In its filing, NASD Regulation proposedto amend Interpretive Memorandum2830–1 (‘‘IM 2830–1’’) to clarify theapplication of the mutual fundbreakpoint sales rule to modernportfolio investment strategies. Notice ofthe proposal was published in theFederal Register on October 6, 1998(‘‘Notice’’).3 No comments werereceived on the proposal.

I. Description of the Proposal

Volume purchasers of mutual fundshares often enjoy lower sales chargeswhen purchases reach certain levels(e.g., $10,000, $25,000, $50,000, and soforth). Although funds do not have tooffer such discounts under SEC orNASD rules, many funds use reducedfee schedules as a marketing tool toattract large investors. The term‘‘breakpoint’’ refers to the amount ofmutual fund shares that must bepurchased before the volume salescharges are reduced. IM–2830–1prohibits sales of mutual fund shares inamounts below breakpoints, if suchsales are made to avoid the reducedvolume sales charges. When theAssociation reviews a suspectedviolation, it looks at the facts andcircumstances of a particular below-breakpoint sale to determine whetherthere is a bona fide reason for the sale.

NASD Regulation recognizes that thecustomers of NASD members, to meettheir diversification needs andinvestment goals, may wish to allocatetheir portfolios among different assets,in a way that does not allow them to getthe benefit of volume sales charge


4 15 U.S.C. 78o–3.5 15 U.S.C. 78s(b).6 15 U.S.C. 78o–3.

7 15 U.S.C. 78o–3(b)(6).8 15 U.S.C. 78o–3.9 15 U.S.C. 78(c)f.

10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).11 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

reductions. Thus, NASD Regulationbelieves that, under most circumstances,below-breakpoint sales made pursuantto a bona fide asset allocation programdo not constitute a breakpoint violation.Moreover, NASD Regulation does notwant to discourage its members fromsuggesting asset allocation investmentoptions to those customers who wouldbenefit from such strategies.

To aid in distinguishing between bonafide and improper below-breakpointsales, NASD Regulation proposesamendment of IM–2830–1 to moreprecisely identify the facts andcircumstances the staff will considerwhen reviewing a particular below-breakpoint sale. Specifically, IM–2830–1 will be amended to provide thatNASD Regulation examination staff, inreviewing a below-breakpoint sale willconsider, among other things, (1)whether a member has retained recordsdemonstrating that the transaction wasexecuted in accordance with a bona fideasset allocation program and (2)whether the particular customerinvolved was informed that volumesales reductions would not be availablefor the particular sale due to theallocation of the total purchase among avariety of funds.

II. Discussion

The Commission has determined toapprove the Association’s proposal toamend IM 2830–1. The standard bywhich the Commission must evaluate aproposed rule change is set forth inSection 19(b) of the Act. TheCommission must approve a proposedNASD rule change if it finds that theproposal is consistent with therequirements of Section 15A of the Act 4

and the rules and regulationsthereunder that govern the NASD.5 Inevaluating a given proposal, theCommission examines the record beforeit. In addition, Section 15A of the Actestablishes specific standards for NASDrules against which the Commissionmust measure the proposal.6

The Commission believes that theproposal to amend IM–2830–1 to clarifythe application of the mutual fundbreakpoint sales rule to modernportfolio investment strategies such as abona fide asset allocation plan isconsistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of theAct in that it is designed, among otherthings, to prevent fraudulent andmanipulative acts and practices, topromote just and equitable principles of

trade, and, in general, to protectinvestors and the public interest.7

The Commission agrees with NASDRegulation that the proposal promotesjust and equitable principles of trade byproviding enhanced guidance to bothNASD members and the NASDRegulation examination staff regardingthe application of the Association’sbreakpoint sales rule. The Commissionfurther believes that the proposal, bydrawing attention to the importance of(a) maintaining records describing thereasons for a particular asset allocationplan, and (b) disclosing breakpoint salespractices and discounts to customers,the rule should help to deter fraudulentand manipulative acts and practices byNASD members.

III. Conclusion

The Commission believes that theproposed rule change is consistent withthe Act, and, particularly, with Section15A thereof.8 In approving the proposal,the Commission has considered itsimpact on efficiency, competition, andcapital formation.9

It is therefore ordered, pursuant toSection 19(b)(2) of the Act,10 that theproposed rule change (SR–NASD–98–69) is approved.

For the Commission, by the Division ofMarket Regulation, pursuant to delegatedauthority.11

Margaret H. McFarland,Deputy Secretary.[FR Doc. 98–30825 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Demonstration to Improve Enrollmentin State Buy-in to Medicare for Low-Income Medicare Beneficiaries

AGENCY: Social Security Administration.ACTION: Notice, request for commentsand solicitation for demonstrationparticipation by States.

SUMMARY: Title IV of Division A, SocialSecurity Administration, of theOmnibus Consolidated and EmergencySupplemental Appropriations Act,1999, Public Law 105–277, directs theCommissioner of Social Security toexpend $6,000,000 for Federal-Statepartnerships which will evaluate meansto promote the Medicare buy-inprograms targeted to elderly anddisabled individuals under titles XVIII

and XIX of the Social Security Act (theAct). Administration of the Medicarebuy-in programs described in titlesXVIII and XIX of the Act is theresponsibility of the Administrator ofthe Health Care FinancingAdministration (HCFA) in theDepartment of Health and HumanServices. The Commissioner of SocialSecurity is responsible for the SocialSecurity and Supplemental SecurityIncome (SSI) programs described intitles II and XVI of the Act.

The Medicare and Medicaid programsare statutorily linked to the programsadministered by the Social SecurityAdministration (SSA). Because of thislinkage, SSA provides certain Medicare-and Medicaid-related services to HCFA,the States and to SSA’s beneficiaries.Among these services are public serviceinformation activities about theMedicare and Medicaid programs,categorically needy Medicaid eligibilitydeterminations in most States andreferral activities for certain Medicaidbenefits in all States. The scope of SSA’sinvolvement in the Medicare andMedicaid programs is defined in the Actand in agreements between SSA andHCFA and between SSA and the States.

The demonstration project specifiedin Public Law 105–277 will assist SSA’slow-income disabled beneficiaries andbeneficiaries age 65 and over who are orcould be eligible for Medicaid benefitsto help pay their Medicare costs. SSAintends to work with HCFA to identifyand investigate barriers and to fosterenrollment of those beneficiaries in theMedicare buy-in programs. SSA isrequesting public comment about theseplans and soliciting States to expresstheir interest in participating in thisdemonstration.

DATES: Interested persons are invited tosubmit comments on or beforeDecember 18, 1998. States interested inparticipating in this demonstrationshould submit expressions of interest onor before December 18, 1998 to theaddress below.

ADDRESSES: Written comments andexpressions of State interest inparticipation should be addressed toCraig A. Streett, Office of ProgramBenefits, Social SecurityAdministration, 6401 SecurityBoulevard, Room 3–M–1 OperationsBuilding, Baltimore, MD 21235, orshould be electronically mailed to theinternet address [email protected],or should be faxed to 410–966–0980. Allcomments and expressions of Stateinterest in participation received at theinternet address will be acknowledgedby electronic mail to confirm receipt.


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Craig A. Streett, (410) 965–9793.Individuals who use atelecommunications device for the deaf(TDD) may call 1–410–966–5609between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, EasternTime, Monday through Friday.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section226 of the Act [42 U.S.C. 426] describesthe rules for entitlement to MedicareHospital Insurance (HI) benefits, alsoknown as Medicare Part A. Generally,Social Security beneficiaries who haveattained age 65 are entitled to MedicarePart A benefits without filing anapplication or other request for thosebenefits, as are disabled beneficiarieswho have received 24 consecutivemonths of Social Security benefits.Under section 226A of the Act [42U.S.C. 426–1], certain individuals whosuffer from end stage renal disease canalso become entitled to Medicare HIbenefits. Some individuals may also beentitled to Medicare HI benefits throughpurchase under the rules in sections1818 and 1818A of the Act [42 U.S.C.1395i–2 and 1395i–2a].

Section 1840 of the Act [42 U.S.C.1395s] describes the rules for purchaseof Medicare Supplementary MedicalInsurance (SMI) benefits, also known asMedicare Part B. Generally, MedicarePart B benefits will begin whenMedicare Part A benefits begin unlessthe beneficiary declines the Part Bbenefits. Usually the beneficiary isresponsible for the payment of amonthly premium for Medicare Part Bbenefits. Section 1843 of the Act [42U.S.C. 1395v] describes the agreementsStates may enter into to purchase SMIbenefits for some individuals. Thepurchase of SMI benefits by a State foran individual is referred to as ‘‘MedicarePart B buy-in.’’

Section 1902(a)(10)(E) of the Act [42U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)(E)] requires eachState’s plan for medical assistance toprovide for Medicare cost-sharing(including Medicare Part B buy-in) forcertain groups of low-incomeindividuals. Some of the groups of low-income individuals are:

1. Qualified Medicare beneficiaries(QMBs). QMBs are individuals who areeligible for Medicaid payment of theirMedicare premiums, deductibles andcoinsurance. QMBs must be entitled toMedicare HI benefits (through their ownentitlement or by purchase). QMBs mustalso have income that does not exceedthe Federal poverty level (FPL) afterapplication of the SSI incomeexclusions, and have resources withvalues that do not exceed twice the SSIstandards after application of the SSIresources exclusions.

2. Specified low-income Medicarebeneficiaries (SLMBs). SLMBs areMedicare beneficiaries who would beQMBs but for income which exceeds theFPL but is less than 120 percent of theFPL after application of the SSI incomeexclusions. SLMBs are eligible forMedicare Part B buy-in.

3. Qualified individuals—1 (QI–1s).Subject to the availability of funding,QI–1s are Medicare beneficiaries whowould be QMBs or SLMBs but forincome which exceeds the allowablelimit but is less than 135 percent of theFPL after application of the SSI incomeexclusions. QI–1s are eligible forMedicare Part B buy-in.

For most Medicare beneficiaries,Medicare entitlement is an automaticresult of Social Security entitlementwhen other statutory factors of Medicareeligibility are met. Thus, most Medicarebeneficiaries also are beneficiaries of theSocial Security program administeredby SSA. Because of the linkage betweenMedicare entitlement and SocialSecurity entitlement in title II of the Actand the duties of the Commissioner ofSSA in title VII of the Act, both SSA andHCFA have Medicare entitlementresponsibilities. In addition, SSAperforms additional enrollment andother Medicare-related activities underthe auspices of agreements betweenHCFA and SSA.

Many States have entered intoagreements with SSA for SSA to makecategorically needy Medicaid eligibilitydeterminations for the State’s SSIbeneficiaries under the authority insection 1634 of the Act [42 U.S.C.1383c]. Acting on behalf of States withsuch agreements, SSA processesMedicare Part B buy-in for SSIbeneficiaries who are eligible for thisassistance under the rules in section1843 of the Act.

Although Medicare entitlementusually is a product of the SocialSecurity entitlement process, MedicarePart B buy-in eligibility determinationsare a Medicaid process. Under title XIXof the Act, Medicaid is State-administered under the terms of Stateplans approved by HCFA. SSA playsonly a limited role in qualifyingindividuals for Medicare Part B buy-in.SSA does make some buy-in decisionsin certain States, but only for SSIbeneficiaries. SSA also publicizes theavailability of the Medicare Part B buy-in programs in its field offices andthrough the SSA toll-free number, 1–800–SSA–1213.

A lack of awareness about theMedicare Part B buy-in programsappears to be one of the major obstaclesto enrollments. Other obstacles toenrollments have also been suggested,

including the confusion of potentialeligibles as to how to apply for theseprograms and a preference for dealingwith SSA field offices rather than withlocal welfare offices.

Because of the low enrollments in theMedicare Part B buy-in programs, SSAwill conduct a Medicare Part B buy-indemonstration to assist ourbeneficiaries. The two-partdemonstration will be designed toidentify and overcome the obstacles toMedicare Part B buy-in enrollments forQMBs, SLMBs and QI–1s. Conferringwith HCFA, SSA intends to implementboth internal and external componentsof the demonstration, and SSA invitesStates to form Federal-Statepartnerships with SSA to participate inthis demonstration.

As currently envisioned, the internalcomponent of the demonstration wouldinvolve increased Medicare Part B buy-in referral activities by SSA employeeswhen contacted by Medicare-entitledbeneficiaries. An example of this type ofincreased referral activities may beeligibility screening and subsequentdirect notification of Medicaid Stateagencies when a Social Securitybeneficiary appears to be potentiallyeligible for Medicare Part B buy-in.Currently, SSA suggests thatbeneficiaries get in touch with theMedicaid State agency to discusseligibility for Medicare Part B buy-inwithout identifying those beneficiariesto the State.

Medicare-entitled Social Securitybeneficiaries routinely contact SSA for anumber of reasons, such as reports ofthe death of a spouse. When informedof a spouse’s death, SSA recomputes thewidow(er)’s benefit to determine if thewidow(er) might be entitled to a largermonthly benefit. In all States, SSAcould use these contacts to screencarefully for potential Part B buy-ineligibility and both refer the caller to theMedicaid State agency and provideidentifying information about potentialMedicare Part B buy-in eligibility to theMedicaid State agency for State-initiatedfollowup.

The external component of thedemonstration would involve Federal-State partnerships. State partners thatwish to participate in the demonstrationwould provide ZIP code informationthat relates to areas within each Statewith a high proportion of low-incomeaged and disabled Medicarebeneficiaries who could be eligible butare not participating in the MedicarePart B buy-in programs. Stateparticipants would join with SSA inpublicizing this demonstration in thetargeted communities. Some Statepartners also would be involved in


educating SSA employees about theState welfare Medicare buy-inapplication process, and/or providingwelfare workers who would be assignedto take applications in SSA field officesat certain mutually agreeable, fixedtimes during the demonstration.

SSA expects to implement theexternal part of this demonstration in nomore than 15 communities. That is, SSAand its State partners would identifythree sets of up to five comparablecommunities in several States. Each setof five comparable communities wouldbe selected to participate in each of thefollowing three models:

1. Screening—Publicity would directMedicare beneficiaries who may bepotentially eligible for Medicare Part Bbuy-in to contact a toll-free telephonenumber staffed by SSA employees. SSAstaff would perform an in-depthMedicare Part B buy-in eligibilityscreening if at all possible while thecaller is on the telephone. Potentialeligibles would then be referred to thelocal welfare office to file applicationsfor benefits, and SSA would track theprogress of those applications with theState partner.

2. Co-location—In addition to thepublicity and screening efforts cited inthe preceding model, potential MedicarePart B buy-in eligibles also would beinvited to file an application for benefitswith a State welfare worker stationed(for at least some fixed part of the week)at the local SSA office.

3. Application—In addition to thepublicity and screening efforts cited inthe preceding two models, potentialMedicare Part B buy-in eligibles wouldbe invited to file an application forthose benefits, completing theappropriate forms with an SSAemployee at the local SSA office.

SSA does not envision all three ofthese models starting at exactly thesame time. Federal informationcollection clearance procedures,training, logistical details and mutualconvenience for both the Federal andState partners will dictate starting dates.SSA expects these models to end withinnine months after implementation.

SSA intends to employ anindependent contractor to consult onthe design of the demonstration and toconduct an evaluation of the netoutcomes (e.g., increased applications toand enrollments in the buy-in programs)of the demonstrations. The role of thecontractor in the design phase of thedemonstration will be to advise SSA onhow to implement the three modelsdescribed above. SSA will beresponsible for collecting data, and SSAwill develop a management informationsystem. The contractor will assist SSA

and the States in specifying key dataelements to enhance data comparabilityacross sites. This system may includeexisting SSA administrative data as wellas data collected through thedemonstration. Designs that thecontractor will consider include bothexperimental and nonexperimentalapproaches. An experimental designmight involve a random assignment ofcases to treatment and control groups,while a nonexperimental design couldinclude the collection of analogous datafrom comparison sites. Each hasimportant implications for theimplementation of the three models andfor the development of the managementinformation system. State partners willbe expected to cooperate with thecontractor at key points of the designand evaluation activities. The contractorwill be expected to consult with HCFAon its activities. Both the internal andexternal components of thisdemonstration will be designed to avoidduplicating any other Federal efforts.

The evaluation component willinclude analyses of the relativeeffectiveness of the three models interms of increasing Medicare Part B buy-in applications from the eligiblepopulation and increasing enrollmentsin the buy-in programs. The evaluationalso will include a comparison of buy-in program applications andenrollments under the SSAinterventions versus HCFA publicityefforts. An appropriate design is criticalto proper measurement of increases inMedicare Part B buy-in enrollments.

SSA invites the public to comment onits proposed demonstration design. SSAalso invites States to express interest inparticipating in this demonstration.State partners in the demonstration maybe asked to implement any or all of themodels described above; however, if aState that wishes to participate wouldprefer participation in less than all threemodels, those preferences will behonored to the extent possible.

Authority: Division A, Title IV of PublicLaw 105–277.


Kenneth S. Apfel,Commissioner of Social Security.[FR Doc. 98–30873 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]


DEPARTMENT OF STATE


[Public Notice No. 2932]

Nigeria; Determination UnderPresidential Proclamation

I hereby make the determinationprovided for in section 6 of PresidentialProclamation No. 6636, of December 10,1993, that the suspension of entry intothe United States as immigrants andnonimmigrants of persons whoformulate, implement or benefit frompolicies that impede Nigeria’s transitionto democracy is no longer necessary.Restrictions imposed in saidproclamation, pursuant to Section 212(f)of the Immigration and Nationality Actof 1952 as amended (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)),shall therefore lapse, and saidproclamation shall terminate effectiveimmediately.

This determination will be reported toCongress and published in the FederalRegister.

Dated: October 26, 1998.Madeleine K. Albright,Secretary of State.[FR Doc. 98–30760 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4710–10–M

DEPARTMENT OF STATE


[Public Notice: 2924]

Extension of the Restriction on the Useof United States Passports for Travelto, in, or Through Libya

On December 11, 1981, pursuant tothe authority of 22 U.S.C. 211a andExecutive Order 11295 (31 FR 10603),and in accordance with 22 CFR51.73(a)(3), all United States passportswere declared invalid for travel to, in,or through Libya unless specificallyvalidated for such travel. Thisrestriction has been renewed yearlybecause of the unsettled relationsbetween the United States and theGovernment of Libya and the possibilityof hostile acts against Americans inLibya.

The Government of Libya stillmaintains a decidedly anti-Americanstance and continues to emphasize itswillingness to direct hostile acts againstthe United States and its nationals. TheAmerican Embassy in Tripoli remainsclosed, thus preventing the UnitedStates from providing routinediplomatic protection or consularassistance to Americans who may travelto Libya.


In light of these events andcircumstances, I have determined thatLibya continues to be an area‘‘. . . where there is imminent dangerto the public health or physical safety ofUnited States travelers’’ within themeaning of 22 U.S.C. 221a and 22 C.F.R.51.73(a)(3).

Accordingly, all United Statespassports shall remain invalid for travelto, in, or through Libya unlessspecifically validated for such travelunder the authority of the Secretary ofState.

The Public Notice shall be effectiveupon publication in the FederalRegister and shall expire at midnightNovember 24, 1999, unless extended orsooner revoked by Public Notice.

Dated: November 9, 1998.Madeleine K. Albright,Secretary of State.[FR Doc. 98–30759 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4710–06–U



RTCA Special Committee 186;Automatic Dependent Surveillance—Broadcast (ADS–B)

Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of theFederal Advisory Committee Act (Pub.L. 92–463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), noticeis hereby given for Special Committee(SC)–186 meeting to be held December3, 1998, starting at 9:00 a.m. Themeeting will be held at RTCA in theMacIntosh–NBAA Conference Room,1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Suite1020, Washington, DC 20036.

The agenda will include: (1)Chairman’s Introductory Remarks/Review of Meeting Agenda; (2) Reviewand Approval of Minutes of thePrevious Meeting; (3) Review of SC–186Work Plan, Organization, andObjectives; (4) Working Group (WG)Reports: a. WG–1 (Operations andImplementation); b. WG–2 (SeparationAssurance); c. WG–3 (1090 MHzMinimum Operational PerformanceStandards (MOPS)); d. WG–4(Application Technical Requirements);(5) Progress of SC–186/WG–51 JointWorking Relationship; (6) RTCA Policyon Intellectual Property/ProprietaryData Rights in RTCA–Sponsored/Supported Activities and Standards; (7)Overview of 1090 MHz ADS–B MOPS;(8) Other Business; (9) Date and Place ofNext Meeting.

Attendance is open to the interestedpublic but limited to space availability.With the approval of the chairman,members of the public may present oral

statements 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 November12, 1998.Janice L. Peters,Designated Official.[FR Doc. 98–30791 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–13–M



Notice of Intent To Rule on ApplicationTo Impose and Use the Revenue Froma Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) atAlexandria International Airport,Alexandria, Louisiana

AGENCY: Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), DOT.ACTION: Notice of intent to rule onapplication.

SUMMARY: The FAA proposed to ruleand invites public comment on theapplication to impose and use therevenue from a PFC at AlexandriaInternational Airport under theprovisions of the Aviation Safety andCapacity Expansion Act of 1990 (TitleIX of the Omnibus BudgetReconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L.101–508) and Part 158 of the FederalAviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 158).DATES: Comments must be received onor before December 18, 1998.ADDRESSES: Comments on thisapplication may be mailed or deliveredin triplicate copies to the FAA at thefollowing address: Mr. Ben Guttery,Federal Aviation Administration,Southwest Region, Airports Division,Planning and Programming Branch,ASW–610D, Fort Worth, Texas 76193–0610, (817) 222–5614.

In addition, one copy of anycomments submitted to the FAA mustbe mailed or delivered to Mr. ScottGammel, Manager of AlexandriaInternational Airport at the followingaddress: Mr. Scott Gammel, AirportManager, England Economic &Industrial Development District, 1611Arnold Drive, Alexandria, LA 71303.

Air carriers and foreign air carriersmay submit copies of the writtencomments previously provided to theAirport under Section 158.23 of Part158.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Mr. Ben Guttery, Federal AviationAdministration, Southwest Region,Airports Division, Planning andProgramming Branch, ASW–610D, FortWorth, Texas 76193–0610, (817) 222–5614.

The application may be reviewed inperson at this same location.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAAproposes to rule and invites publiccomment on the application to imposeand use the revenue from a PFC atAlexandria International Airport underthe provisions of the Aviation Safetyand Capacity Expansion Act of 1990(Title IX of the Omnibus BudgetReconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L.101–508) and Part 158 of the FederalAviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 158).

On November 3, 1998, the FAAdetermined that the application toimpose and use the revenue from a PFCsubmitted by the Airport wassubstantially complete within therequirements of Section 158.25 of Part158. The FAA will approve ordisapprove the application, in whole orin part, no later than February 11, 1999.

The following is a brief overview ofthe application.

Level of the proposed PFC: $3.00.Proposed charge effective date: May 1,

1999.Proposed charge expiration date:

November 1, 2020.Total estimated PFC revenue:

$5,378,352.00PFC application number: 99–01–C–

00–AEX.Brief description of proposed

project(s):

Projects to Impose and Use PFC’s

ARFF Vehicle, New TerminalBuilding, and PFC Application Fees.

Proposed class of air carriers to beexempted from collecting PFC’s: None.

Any person may inspect theapplication in person at the FAA officelisted above under FOR FURTHERINFORMATION CONTACT and at the FAAregional Airports office located at:Federal Aviation Administration,Southwest Region, Airports DivisionPlanning and Programming Branch,ASW–610D, 2601 Meacham Blvd., FortWorth, Texas 76137–4298.

In addition, any person may, uponrequest, inspect the application, noticeand other documents germane to theapplication in person at AlexandriaInternational Airport.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on November3, 1998.Naomi L. Saunders,Manager, Airports Division.[FR Doc. 98–30793 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–13–M


1 See Ontario Central Railroad Corporation—Operations—Between Shortsville and Victor, NY,Finance Docket No. 29761 (ICC served Nov. 3, 1981)(Modified Rail Certificate), and Certificate ofDesignated Operator-Ontario Central RailroadCorp., D–OP 33 (U.S.R.A. Line No. 98/1022),Cancellation of Certificate of Designate Operation—Consolidated Rail Corporation, D–OP 6 (U.S.R.A.Line No. 98/1022) (ICC served Sept. 28, 1979).

2 See Livonia, Avon & Lakeville Railroad Corp.—Acquisition and Operation Exemption—SteubenCounty Industrial Development Agency, STBFinance Docket No. 32941 (STB served May 22,1996).


Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 33674]

Livonia, Avon & Lakeville RailroadCorporation—Acquisition of ControlExemption—Ontario Central RailroadCorporation

Livonia, Avon & Lakeville RailroadCorporation (LAL), a Class III railcarrier, has filed a verified notice ofexemption to acquire a controllinginterest, through stock purchase, ofOntario Central Railroad Corporation(ONCT), a Class III rail carrier, whichoperates 14 miles of rail line betweenWest Victor and Shortsville, NY.1

LAL owns and operatesapproximately 30 miles of rail linebetween Genessee Junction yard inChili, NY, immediately south ofRochester, and Lakeville, NY. LAL alsoseparately operates approximately 35miles of track between Hammondsport,Bath and Wayland, NY, which is ownedby the Steuben County IndustrialDevelopment Authority. 2

Under the terms of an agreement withONCT, LAL will acquire 3,000 shares ofONCT’s treasury stock and 8,900 sharesof ONCT’s stock, which is currentlyauthorized but unissued.

The earliest the transaction could beconsummated was October 30, 1998, theeffective date of the exemption (7 daysafter the exemption was filed).

LAL states that: (i) the railroads donot connect with each other; (ii) thetransaction is not part of a series ofanticipated transactions that wouldconnect the railroads with each other;and (iii) the transaction does not involvea Class I carrier. Therefore, thetransaction is exempt from the priorapproval requirements of 49 U.S.C.11323. See 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(2).

Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), the Boardmay not use its exemption authority torelieve a rail carrier of its statutoryobligation to protect the interests of itsemployees. Section 11326(c), however,does not provide for labor protection fortransactions under sections 11324 and11325 that involve only Class III rail

carriers. Because this transactioninvolves Class III rail carriers only, theBoard, under the statute, may notimpose labor protective conditions forthis transaction.

If the notice contains false ormisleading information, the exemptionis void ab initio. Petitions to revoke theexemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d)may be filed at any time. The filing ofa petition to revoke will notautomatically stay the transaction.

An original and 10 copies of allpleadings, referring to STB FinanceDocket No. 33674, must be filed withthe Office of the Secretary, Case ControlUnit, Surface Transportation Board,1925 K Street, N.W., Washington, DC20423–0001. In addition, a copy of allpleadings must be served on Kevin M.Sheys, Oppenheimer Wolff Donnelly &Bayh LLP, 1350 Eye St., N.W., Suite200, Washington, DC 20005.

Board decisions and notices areavailable on our website at‘‘WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.’’

Decided: November 10, 1998.By the Board, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.Vernon A. Williams,Secretary.[FR Doc. 98–30652 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4915–00–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

Privacy Act of 1974, as Amended;System of Records

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service,Department of the Treasury.ACTION: Notice of proposed new systemof records.

SUMMARY: In accordance with therequirements of the Privacy Act of 1974,as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a, theDepartment of the Treasury gives noticeof a new proposed system of records,the IRS Audit Trail Lead AnalysisSystem (ATLAS).DATES: Comments must be received nolater than 30 days after the proposedsystem is published in the FederalRegister (December 18, 1998). Theproposed system of records will beeffective 40 days after the proposedsystem is published in the FederalRegister (December 28, 1998) unless theService receives comments that wouldresult in a contrary determination.ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent toOffice of Governmental Liaison andDisclosure, Internal Revenue Service,1111 Constitution Ave., NW,

Washington, DC. 20220. Personswishing to review the comments shouldcall 202–622–6240 to make anappointment with the Office ofGovernmental Liaison and Disclosure.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Michael Sincavage, Director, 6103/Privacy Operations, GovernmentalLiaison and Disclosure, InternalRevenue Service at 202–622–6240.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Thisreport is to give notice of a proposednew Internal Revenue Service (IRS)system of records entitled ‘‘IRS AuditTrail Lead Analysis System (ATLAS),’’which is subject to the Privacy Act of1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, as amended. TheService is establishing ATLAS to detectand counter unauthorized access, use,fraud and abuse of tax returninformation. This system providesprotection by monitoring and tracking,through analysis of audit logs, accessesto and use of IRS electronic records.Outside of IRS Information Systems, theOffice of the Chief Inspector/TreasuryOffice of Inspector General for TaxAdministration will be the principaluser of data contained in this system ofrecords. The Office of the ChiefInspector will analyze the datacontained in the system of records aspart of its mission to detect and deterfraud, waste, and abuse. The IntegratedData Retrieval System Security Files,Treasury/IRS 34.018, will beincorporated into the proposed IRSATLAS system of records. In accordancewith the Office of Management andBudget Circular A–130, the noticecovering Treasury/IRS 34.018 will bedeleted from the IRS’s inventory ofsystems of records on the date Treasury/IRS 34.020 becomes effective. Theproposed system of records is publishedin its entirety below.

Dated: November 10, 1998.Shelia Y. McCann,Deputy Assistant Secretary (Administration).

Treasury/IRS 34.020

SYSTEM NAME:IRS Audit Trail Lead Analysis System

(ATLAS)-Treasury/IRS.

SYSTEM LOCATION:The ATLAS is located in an IRS

facility in West Virginia. The users ofthe system are located in a facility inOhio.

CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THESYSTEM:

(1) IRS employees and contractorswho have accessed, by any means, taxreturn or other IRS informationcontained within an IRS informationsystem (i.e., its operating system,


network, or data base) which processestaxpayer information. (2) Individualtaxpayers upon whom the IRS maintainspaper or electronic records and whoserecords have been accessed. (3)Individuals who have illegally accessed,by any means, tax return or other IRSinformation contained within an IRSinformation system (i.e., its operatingsystem, network, or data base) whichprocesses taxpayer information.

CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:

The IRS information systems createaudit logs of IRS employees orcontractors who have accessed or otherindividuals who have illegally accessedtaxpayer records. The audit logs arethen processed by ATLAS to determinewhether the accesses are consistent withthe IRS policy, standards and practicesregarding tax administration, and theconfidentiality statutes within the U.S.Code.

AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:

5 U.S.C. 301; 26 U.S.C. 6103, 7213,7213A, 7214, 7608, 7801, 7802, and 18U.S.C. 1030(a)(2)(B).

PURPOSE(S):

To enable the IRS to enhanceprotection of sensitive tax returninformation by assuring the public thatits tax information is being protected inan ethical and legal manner, therebypromoting voluntary taxpayercompliance. The system is to detect andcounter unauthorized access, use, fraudand abuse of tax return information. Thesystem provides protection bymonitoring and tracking, throughanalysis of audit logs, accesses to anduse of IRS electronic records.

ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THESYSTEM INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS ANDTHE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:

Disclosure of tax returns and taxreturn information may be made only asprovided by 26 U.S.C. 6103. Recordsother than returns and returninformation may be used to:

(1) Disclose pertinent information toappropriate Federal, State, local, orforeign agencies responsible forinvestigating or prosecuting theviolations of, or for enforcing orimplementing a statute, rule, regulation,order, or license, where the disclosingagency becomes aware of an indicationof a violation or potential violation ofcivil or criminal law or regulations;

(2) Disclose information in aproceeding before a court, adjudicativebody, or other administrative body

before which the agency is authorized toappear when: (a) The agency, or (b) anyemployee of the agency in his or herofficial capacity, or (c) any employee ofthe agency in his or her individualcapacity where the Department ofJustice or the agency has agreed torepresent the employee, or (d) theUnited States, when the agencydetermines that litigation is likely toaffect the agency, is a party to litigationor has an interest in such litigation, andthe use of such records by the agency isdeemed to be relevant and necessary tothe litigation or administrativeproceeding and not otherwiseprivileged;

(3) Provide information to acongressional office in response to aninquiry made at the request of theindividual to whom the record pertains;

(4) Provide information to thirdparties during the course of aninvestigation to the extent necessary toobtain information pertinent to theinvestigation;

(5) Provide information to unionsrecognized as exclusive bargainingrepresentatives under the Civil ServiceReform Act of 1978, 5 U.S.C. 7111 and7114, the Merit Systems ProtectionBoard, arbitrators, the Federal LaborRelations Authority, and other partiesresponsible for the administration ofFederal labor actions or grievances orconducting administrative hearings orappeals or if needed in the performanceof other authorized duties;

(6) Disclose information to theDepartment of Justice for the purpose oflitigating an action or seeking legaladvice; and

(7) Disclose information to thedefendant in a criminal prosecution, theDepartment of Justice, or a court ofcompetent jurisdiction where requiredin criminal discovery or by the DueProcess Clause of the Constitution.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING,RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, ANDDISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:

STORAGE:

Electronic storage, either by magneticor optical media, and paper copy.

RETRIEVABILITY:

(1) Indexed by name, social securitynumber (SSN) or other unique identifierassigned to an IRS employee orcontractor who has been granted accessto an IRS computer system, or otherindividuals who have illegally accessedan application which processes taxpayerinformation.

(2) Indexed by name, SSN, or otherunique identifier assigned to an IRSemployee or contractor who has beengranted access to paper records.

(3) Retrieved by the TaxpayerIdentification Number (SSN, EIN, orITIN).

SAFEGUARDS:

Access controls will not be less thanthose described in TD P 71–10,Department of Treasury SecurityManual, IRM 2.1.10 Internal RevenueManual— Information Systems Security,and IRM 1(16)12 Internal RevenueManual—Managers Security Handbook.

RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:

Records are maintained in accordancewith record disposition handbooks, IRM1(15)59.

SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS:

Chief, Security Program Section,Telecommunication and OperationsDivision, Information Systems, InternalRevenue Service, Department of theTreasury, 1111 Constitution Ave., NW,Washington, DC 20220.

NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE:

This system of records is exempt fromcertain provisions of the Privacy Act.

RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES:

This system of records is exempt fromcertain provisions of the Privacy Actand may not be accessed for the purposeof determining if the system contains arecord pertaining to a particularindividual.

CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES:

This system of records is exempt andmay not be accessed for purposes ofinspection or contest of record contents.Also, 26 U.S.C. 7852(e) prohibitsPrivacy Act amendment of tax records.

RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:

This system of records is exempt fromthe Privacy Act provision whichrequires that record source categories bereported. (See ‘‘Exemptions Claimed forthe System,’’ below.)

EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM:

This system is exempt from 5 U.S.C.552a(c)(3), (d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3), (d)(4),(e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (H) and (I), and (f) of thePrivacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C.552a(k)(2). (see 31 CFR 1.36)






Draft ‘‘Guidance for Industry: Contentand Format of Chemistry,Manufacturing and ControlsInformation and EstablishmentDescription Information for aBiological In Vitro DiagnosticProduct;’’ Availability

Correction

In notice document 98–30094,beginning on page 63067, in the issue of

Tuesday, November 10, 1998, make thefollowing correction:

On page 63067, in the second column,in the DATES: section, in the fourth line,‘‘1998’’ should read ‘‘1999’’.BILLING CODE 1505-01-D

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTERcontains editorial corrections of previouslypublished Presidential, Rule, Proposed Rule,and Notice documents. These corrections areprepared by the Office of the FederalRegister. Agency prepared corrections areissued as signed documents and appear inthe appropriate document categorieselsewhere in the issue.

Corrections Federal Register

64144

Vol. 63, No. 222



Centers for Disease Control andPrevention

Implementation of the Fertility ClinicSuccess Rate and Certification Act of1992; Proposed Model Program for theCertification of Embryo Laboratories

CorrectionIn notice document 98–29374,

beginning on page 60178, in the issue of

Friday, November 6, 1998, make thefollowing corrections:

1. On page 60178, in the secondcolumn, in the third full paragraph, inthe second line, ‘‘received’’ should read‘‘receive’’.

2. On the same page, in the thirdcolumn, in the second full paragraph, inthe fifth line, ‘‘determines’’ should read‘‘determine’’.

3. On the same page, in the samecolumn, in the third full paragraph, inthe first line, ‘‘is’’ should read ‘‘in’’.

4. On page 60179, in the first column,in the second full paragraph, in thetwelfth line from the bottom, ‘‘Egister’’should read ‘‘Register’’.

5. On page 60181, in the secondcolumn, in the definition for ‘‘Sperm’’,in the first line, ‘‘reproduction’’ shouldread ‘‘reproductive’’.

6. On the same page, in the thirdcolumn, in the first paragraph, in thefifth line, ‘‘of’’ should read ‘‘or’’.

7. On page 60183, in the secondcolumn, in paragraph iii., in the thirdline, ‘‘to determine if the accreditationorganization’’ should be added after‘‘organization’’.

8. On the same page, in the thirdcolumn, in the third line from thebottom, ‘‘following.’’ should read‘‘following:’’.

9. On page 60184, in the first column,in the third line, ‘‘induce’’ should read‘‘include’’.

10. On the same page, in the samecolumn, in paragraph i., in the fifth line,‘‘induce’’ should read ‘‘include’’.

11. On page 60186, in the firstcolumn, under C. Quality Management,in paragraph a., in the first line, ‘‘must’’should be added after ‘‘manual’’.BILLING CODE 1505-01-D

fede

ral r

egiste

r

64145


Part II

Department ofTransportationFederal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 36Noise Certification Standards forPropeller-Driven Small Airplanes;Proposed Rule




14 CFR Part 36

[Docket No. FAA–1998–4731; Notice No. 98–16]

RIN 2120–AG65

Noise Certification Standards forPropeller-Driven Small Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal AviationAdministration, DOT.ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking(NPRM).

SUMMARY: The FAA is proposingchanges to the noise certificationstandards for propeller-driven smallairplanes. These proposals are based onthe joint effort of the Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), the EuropeanJoint Aviation Authorities (JAA), andAviation Rulemaking AdvisoryCommittee (ARAC), to harmonize theU.S. noise certification regulations andthe European Joint AviationRequirements (JAR) for propeller-drivensmall airplanes. These proposedchanges would provide uniform noisecertification standards for airplanescertificated in the United States and inthe JAA countries. The harmonization ofthe noise certification standards wouldsimplify airworthiness approvals forimport and export purposes.DATES: Comments must be received onor before January 19, 1999.ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposedrulemaking should be mailed ordelivered, in duplicate, to: U.S.Department of Transportation Dockets,Docket No. FAA–1998–4731, 400Seventh Street, SW., Room Plaza 401,Washington, DC 20590. Comments mayalso be sent electronically to thefollowing Internet address: [email protected]. Comments may befiled and/or examined in Room Plaza401 between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m.weekdays except Federal holidays.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Mehmet Marsan, Office of Environmentand Energy (AEE), Federal AviationAdministration, 800 IndependenceAvenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;telephone (202) 267–7703.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited toparticipate in the making of theproposed rule by submitting suchwritten data, views, or arguments asthey may desire. Comments relating tothe environmental, energy, federalism,or economic impact that might result

from adopting the proposals in thisnotice are also invited. Substantivecomments should be accompanied bycost estimates. Comments must identifythe regulatory docket or notice numberand be submitted in triplicate to theRules Docket address specified above.

All comments received, as well as areport summarizing each substantivepublic contact with FAA personnel onthis rulemaking, will be filed in thedocket. The docket is available forpublic inspection before and after thecomment closing date.

All comments received on or beforethe closing date will be considered bythe Administrator before taking actionon this proposed rulemaking. Late-filedcomments will be considered to theextent practicable. The proposalscontained in this notice may be changedin light of the comments received.Commenters wishing the FAA toacknowledge receipt of their commentssubmitted in response to this noticemust include a pre-addressed, stampedpostcard with those comments on whichthe following statement is made:‘‘Comments to Docket No. FAA–1998–4731.’’ The postcard will be datestamped and mailed to the commenter.

Availability of the NPRMAn electronic copy of this document

can be downloaded using a modem andsuitable communications software fromthe FAA regulations section of theFedworld electronic bulletin boardservice (telephone: 703–321–3339), theGovernment Printing Office’s electronicbulletin board service (telephone: 202–512–1661).

Internet users may reach the FAA’sweb page at http://www.faa.gov or theGovernment Printing Office’s webpageat http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara foraccess to recently published rulemakingdocuments.

Any person may obtain a copy of thisNPRM by mail by submitting a requestto the Federal Aviation Administration,Office of Rulemaking, 800Independence Avenue, SW.,Washington, DC 20591, or by calling(202) 267–9677. Communications mustidentify the notice number of thisNPRM.

Persons interested in being placed onthe mailing list for future NPRM’sshould request from the FAA’s Office ofRulemaking a copy of Advisory CircularNo. 11–2A, Notice of ProposedRulemaking Distribution System, thatdescribes the application procedure.

Background

Current RegulationsUnder 49 U.S.C. 44715, the

Administrator of the Federal Aviation

Administration is directed to prescribe‘‘standards to measure aircraft noise andsonic boom; * * * and regulations tocontrol and abate aircraft noise andsonic boom.’’ Part 36 of Title 14 of theCode of Federal Regulations containsthe FAA’s noise standards andregulations that apply to the issuance oftype certificates for all types of aircraft.The standards and requirements thatapply to propeller-driven smallairplanes and propeller-drivencommuter category airplanes are foundin § 36.501 and Appendix G of Part 36.Appendix G addresses Takeoff NoiseRequirements for propeller-driven smallairplane and propeller-driven commutercategory airplane Certification Tests onor after December 22, 1988. Thisappendix was added to part 36 in 1988to require actual takeoff noise testsinstead of the level flyover test that wasformerly required under Appendix F,for airplanes for which certification testswere completed before December 22,1988.

Appendix G specifies the testconditions, procedures, and noise levelsnecessary to demonstrate compliancewith certification requirements forpropeller driven small airplanes andpropeller-driven, commuter categoryairplanes.

Government and Industry CooperationIn June 1990 there was a meeting of

the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA)Council, which consists of JAAmembers from European countries, andthe FAA. The FAA Administratorcommitted FAA to support theharmonization of the FAA regulationswith the Joint Aviation Regulations(JAR). The Joint Aviation Regulationsare being developed for use by theEuropean authorities that are membercountries of the JAA.

In January 1991, the FAA establishedthe Aviation Rulemaking AdvisoryCommittee to serve as a forum for theFAA to obtain input from outside theGovernment on major regulatory issuesfacing the agency. The FAA announcedthe renewal of ARAC on February 19,1993 (58 FR 9230) and on March 1, 1995(60 FR 11165). One area that ARACdeals with is noise certification issues.These issues involve the harmonizationof 14 CFR part 36 (part 36) with JARpart 36, the associated guidancematerial including equivalentprocedures, and the interpretation of theregulations. On May 3, 1994, the ARACestablished the FAR/JAR HarmonizationWorking Group for Propeller-DrivenSmall Airplanes (59 FR 22885). TheWorking Group was tasked withreviewing the applicable provisions ofsubparts A and F, and appendices F and


G of part 36, and harmonizing themwith the corresponding applicableprovisions of JAR 36. The WorkingGroup was asked to consider the currentinternational standards andrecommended practices, as issued underInternational Civil AviationOrganization (ICAO), Annex 16, Volume1, and its associated Technical Manual,as the basis for development of theseharmonization proposals. The WorkingGroup was also asked to recommend aprocess whereby subsequent ICAOAnnex 16 changes could be properlyincorporated into JAR 36 and part 36.

The Working Group reviewed 16items related to noise limits andmeasurement procedures in theregulations. For six of these items, theWorking Group recommended that part36 be amended to harmonize theregulations with JAR 36. For four ofthese items, the Working Grouprecommended that JAR 36 be amendedto harmonize those regulations with part36. For the six remaining items, theWorking Group found that noharmonization is necessary. TheWorking Group also recommendedchanges to harmonize FAA and JAAinterpretive and advisory materialrelating to noise limits for propeller-driven small airplanes. This NPRMreflects the six recommendations thataddress changes to part 36.

Discussion of ProposalsThe proposed changes to appendix G

would affect the provisions thatestablish noise measurement procedures(sec. G36.107), corrections to test results(sec. G36.201) and specific aircraft noiselimits that are tied to aircraft weight(sec. G36.301).

Section G36.107 Noise MeasurementProcedures

Currently, section G36.107 prescribesspecific procedures for the placement ofmicrophones, system calibration andconsideration of ambient noise. Theproposed changes would affect themicrophone requirements of paragraph(a). Currently, microphones are requiredto be oriented in a known direction sothat the maximum sound receivedarrives as nearly as possible in thedirection for which the microphones arecalibrated, and the microphone sensingelements must be placed four feet (1.2m) above ground level.

The proposed change to sectionG36.107(a) would require themicrophone to be a pressure-typemicrophone with a protective grid thatis 12.7 mm in diameter. Themicrophone would have to be mountedin an inverted position so that thediaphragm is 0.7 mm above and parallel

to a white-painted metal circular plate.The plate would have to be 40 cm indiameter and at least 2.5 mm thick. Theplate would have to be placedhorizontally and flush with thesurrounding ground surface with nocavities below the plate. Themicrophone would have to be locatedthree-quarters of the distance from thecenter to the edge of the plate along aradius normal to the line of flight of thetest airplane.

The proposed changes, which wouldmake the U.S. regulations consistentwith the JAR, are supported bynumerous studies, technical papers, anddiscussions with interested groups. Thetechnical data indicate that an invertedmicrophone that measures reflectednoise from a metal plate at ground levelproduces more consistent and reliabledata. A microphone that is four feetabove the ground is much more likelyto be affected by variable groundreflections that can interact with thenoise produced by the aircraft beingmeasured. The microphone heightreduction and the metal platesubstantially eliminate these variations.

However, studies also show thatmeasurements using the invertedmicrophone and metal plate techniqueproduce consistently higher noise levelsthan those produced under the currentprocedure, with the difference beingabout 3 dB(A). Therefore, to maintainthe present level of noise stringency, acorresponding change to sectionG36.301(b) is necessary as discussedbelow.

Section G36.201 Corrections to TestResults

Current section G36.201 prescribescorrections to be made to test results toaccount for the effects of differencesbetween the conditions referenced inthe prescribed procedures and existingconditions during an actual test.

Current section G36.201(b) requiresatmospheric absorption correction fornoise data obtained when the testconditions are outside those specified inappendix G, figure G1. Noise datacollected outside the prescribed range offigure G1 are required to be corrected to77 degrees F and 70 percent relativehumidity by an FAA approved method.The FAA is proposing to change the 77degrees F reference temperature to 59degrees F, to be consistent with theambient temperature requirement incurrent section G36.111(b)(2) that isused for performance calculations. Bymaking the reference temperaturesconsistent for absorption andperformance, delays and confusion thathave been caused by the inconsistencyin the current rule would be eliminated.

The change would bring part 36 in linewith Annex 16.

Current section G36.201(c) requiresthat helical tip Mach number and powercorrections must be made if thepropeller is a variable pitch type or ifthe propeller is a fixed pitch type andthe test power is not within five percentof the reference power. The proposedchange would provide an additionalexception by stating that a correction isnot necessary if the helical tip Machnumber meets one of the following:

1. The number is at or below 0.70 andthe test helical tip Mach number iswithin 0.014 of the reference helical tipMach number.

2. The number is above 0.70 and at orbelow 0.80 and the test helical tip Machnumber is within 0.007 of the referencehelical tip Mach number.

3. The number is above 0.80 and thetest helical tip Mach number is within0.005 of the reference helical tip Machnumber. For mechanical tachometers, ifthe helical tip Mach number is above0.8 and the test helical tip Mach numberis within 0.008 of the reference helicaltip Mach number.

These additional proposed exceptionsare based on an analysis of noise datafrom nine U.S.-manufactured aircraft.This analysis indicated that theproposed values are well within theType 1 sound level meter as defined inInternational ElectrotechnicalCommission (IEC) Publication No. 651,which has been incorporated byreference in part 36. Adding thisexemption would simplify some testswithout degrading the results.

Current section G36.201(d)(1) requiresthat the measured sound levels must becorrected from the test daymeteorological conditions by adding anincrement equal to the result gainedfrom the following equation:

Delta (M)=(α¥0.7) HT/1000.In this equation, HT is the height in

feet of the test aircraft when directlyover the noise measurement point, andα is the rate of absorption for the testday conditions at 500 Hz as referencedin Society of Automotive Engineers(SAE) Publication AerospaceRecommended Practice (ARP) 866Awhich has been incorporated byreference in part 36.

The equation in section G36.201(d)(1)is an approximation. The accuracy ofthe calculations can be improved byadopting the exact form of the equation.Therefore, the FAA proposes to changethe equation to the exact form whichreads as follows:

Delta (M)=(HTα¥0.7 HR)/1000.In this equation HT is the height in

feet under test conditions, HR is theheight in feet under reference


conditions when the aircraft is directlyover the noise measurement point, andα is the same as in the current rule, thatis, the rate of absorption for the test dayconditions at 500 Hz as specified in SAEARP 866A.

The proposed equation would bringappendix G absorption calculations inline with the rest of part 36 absorptioncalculations and Annex 16.

Current section G36.201(d)(4) requiresthat the measured sound levels indecibels must be corrected for enginepower by algebraically adding anincrement equal to:

Delta (3)=17 log (PR/PT)where PT and PR are the test andreference engine powers respectively.

The FAA proposes that the algebraiccorrection for engine power be changedto:

Delta (3)=K3 log (PR/PT)where PR and PT are the test andreference engine powers respectivelyobtained from the manifold pressure/torque gauges and engine rpm. Underthis proposal, the value of K3 would bedetermined from approved data fromthe test airplane. In the absence of flighttest data and at the discretion of theAdministrator a value of K3 = 17 couldstill be used as under the current rule.

The only difference between thecurrent formula and the proposedformula is the power correctionconstant. The current regulationrequires the use of 17 for this constant.The K3=17 value is an average value thatwas derived from FAA tests on sevenaircraft where the variation was from 1.5to 39.3. Although the use of an averagevalue simplifies the test plan, it couldpenalize an applicant who can provelower values of K3 by test data.Therefore, the FAA proposes a formulathat allows the applicant to use a lowervalue for K3 when it has test data tosupport that value, or to continue to usea value of 17 with the Administrator’sapproval when test data is not available.The proposed formula is also consistentwith the JAR.

Section G36.301 Aircraft Noise Limits

Current section G36.301(b) states thatthe noise level must not exceed 73dB(A) up to and including aircraftweights of 1,320 pounds (600 kg.), andthat for weights greater than 1,320pounds the noise limit increases at therate of 1 dB/165 pounds up to 85 dB(A)at 3,300 pounds, after which it isconstant at 85 dB(A) up to andincluding 19,000 pounds.

As previously discussed,considerations of microphone location,configuration, and resulting noise limitsare interrelated. Since the proposedchanges to the noise measurement

procedures of section G36.107(a) wouldresult in increases in the measurednoise levels of about 3 dB(A), the FAAproposes to increase the limits insection 36.301(b) from 73 dB(A) to 76dB(A) and from 85 dB(A) to 88 dB(A).This change would account for therevised microphone height andconfiguration requirements. Theincreased limit is not expected to resultin any increase or decrease in the noisestringency requirements of the currentrule.

In addition to the dB(A) changesdiscussed, the FAA is proposing achange to the interpolation requirementof section G36.301(b). For weightsgreater than 1,320 pounds, the allowabledB(A) would increase ‘‘with thelogarithm of airplane weight at the rateof 9.83 dB(A) per doubling of weightuntil the limit of 88 dB(A) is reached* * *,’’ rather than at the rate of 1 dB/165 pounds up to 85 dB(A) at 3,300pounds, as under the current rule. Thischange would harmonize interpolationunder the FAA regulation with thecomparable JAA regulation withoutchange in noise stringency of thepresent Appendix G.

Paperwork Reduction ActThere are no requirements for

information collection associated withthis proposed rule that would requireapproval under the PaperworkReduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.)

International CompatibilityIn keeping with U.S. obligations

under the Convention on InternationalCivil Aviation, it is FAA’s policy tocomply with ICAO Standards andRecommended Practices to themaximum extent practicable. For thisNPRM, the FAA has reviewed part 36Appendix G and ICAO Annex 16Volume I, Chapter 10. The reviewshowed that the following two itemswere left unharmonized: (1) For fixedpitch type propellers, part 36 sectionG36.201 specifies a simplified datacorrection procedure if the engine testpower is within 5% of the referencepower. The Annex 16 does not have acorresponding simplification and, (2)The part 36 section G36.111 allows theuse of maximum continuous installedpower during the second segment of theflight path. The power definition inAnnex 16 for the second segment isdefined as maximum power in Chapter10 section 10.5.2. The maximuminstalled power is typically lower thanthe maximum power and applicableonly to older engines. The above twounharmonized items only effect a smallpercentage of the airplanes in the fleet

and therefore are not significant enoughto be considered as harmonizationissues.

Regulatory Evaluation SummaryFour principal requirements pertain

to the economic impacts of changes tothe Federal Regulations. First, ExecutiveOrder 12866 directs Federal agencies topromulgate new regulations or modifyexisting regulations after considerationof the expected benefits to society andthe expected costs. Second, theRegulatory Flexibility Act of 1980requires agencies to analyze theeconomic impact of regulatory changeson small entities. Third, the Office ofManagement and Budget directsagencies to assess the effect ofregulatory changes on internationaltrade. Finally, Public Law 104–4requires federal agencies to assess theimpact of any federal mandates on state,local, tribal government, and the privatesector. In conducting these analyses, theFAA has determined that this rule: (1)would generate cost savings that wouldexceed any costs; (2) is not ‘‘significant’’as defined under section 3(f) ofExecutive Order 12866 and Departmentof Transportation’s (DOT) policies andprocedures (44 FR 11034, February 26,1979); (3) would not have a significantimpact on a substantial number of smallentities; and (4) would not imposerestraints on international trade. Finally,the FAA has determined that theproposal would not impose a federalmandate on state, local, or tribalgovernments, or the private sector of$100 million per year. These analyses,available in the docket, are summarizedbelow.

The benefit of the proposed rule isthat it would harmonize the U.S. noisecertification regulations with theEuropean Joint Aviation Requirementsfor propeller-driven small airplanes.The proposed changes would providenearly uniform noise certificationstandards for airplanes certificated inthe United States and by the EuropeanJoint Aviation Authorities (JAA). This isexpected to reduce the number of noisetests that need to be conducted. Thecosts to implement the proposal arenegligible, if any. There are noadditional costs imposed by thisproposal.

Regulatory Flexibility DeterminationThe Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

(RFA) was enacted by Congress toensure that small entities are notunnecessarily and disproportionatelyburdened by government regulations.The RFA requires a RegulatoryFlexibility Analysis if a rule would havea significant economic impact on a


substantial number of small entities.Because the costs imposed by this rulewould be negligible, the Agencyconcludes that the proposed rule wouldnot have a significant economic impacton a substantial number of smallentities.

International Trade Impact Statement

The FAA has determined that theproposed rule would promote the sale offoreign products and services in theUnited States and the sale of U.S.products and services in foreigncountries. This determination is basedon the FAA’s determination that therule would align U.S. standards andJAA member standards for noisecertification for propeller-driven smallairplanes.

Environmental Analysis

FAA Order 1050.1D defines FAAactions that may be categoricallyexcluded from preparation of a NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA)environmental assessment (EA) orenvironmental impact statement (EIS).In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D,appendix 4, paragraph 4(j), regulations,standards, and exemptions (excludingthose, which if implemented may causea significant impact on the humanenvironment) qualify for a categoricalexclusion. The FAA proposes that thisrule qualifies for a categorical exclusionbecause no significant impacts to theenvironment are expected to result fromits finalization or implementation. Inaccordance with FAA Order 1050.1D,paragraph 32, the FAA proposes thatthere are no extraordinarycircumstances warranting preparation ofan environmental assessment for thisproposed rule.

Federalism Implications

The proposed regulations would nothave substantial direct effects on thestates, on the relationship betweennational government and the states, oron the distribution of power andresponsibilities among various levels ofgovernment. Thus, in accordance withExecutive Order 12612, it is determinedthat such a regulation would not have

federalism implications warranting thepreparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Unfunded Mandates

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 by State, local, and tribalgovernments, in the aggregate, or by theprivate sector, of $100 million or more(adjusted annually for inflation) in anyone year. Section 204(a) of the Act, 2U.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 anenforceable duty upon State, local, andtribal governments, in the aggregate, of$100 million (adjusted annually forinflation) in any one year. Section 203of the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1533, whichsupplements section 204(a), providesthat before establishing any regulatoryrequirements that might significantly oruniquely affect small governments, theagency shall have developed a plan that,among other things, provides for noticeto potentially affected smallgovernments, if any, and for ameaningful and timely opportunity toprovide input in the development ofregulatory proposals.

This rule does not contain a Federalintergovernmental or private sectormandate that exceeds $100 million ayear, therefore the requirements of theAct do not apply.


Agriculture, Aircraft, Noise control.

The Proposed Amendments

In consideration of the foregoing, theFederal Aviation Administration

proposes to amend 14 CFR part 36 asfollows:

PART 36—NOISE STANDARDS:AIRCRAFT TYPE ANDAIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATION


Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; 49 U.S.C.106(g), 40113, 44701–44702, 44704, 44715;sec. 305, Pub. L. 96–193, 94 Stat. 50, 57; E.O.11514, 35 FR 4247, 3 CFR, 1966–1970 Comp.,p. 902.

2. Appendix G of part 36 is amendedby revising sections G36.107(a),G36.201(b), including Figure G1,G36.201(c), G36.201(d)(1),G36.201(d)(4), and G36.301(b),including Figure G2, to read as follows:

Appendix G to Part 36—Takeoff NoiseRequirements for Propeller-DrivenSmall Airplane and Propeller-DrivenCommuter Category AirplaneCertification Tests on or AfterDecember 22, 1988

* * * * *

Sec. G36.107 Noise MeasurementProcedures.

(a) The microphone must be a pressuretype, 12.7 mm in diameter, with a protectivegrid, mounted in an inverted position suchthat the microphone diaphragm is 0.7 mmabove and parallel to a white-painted metalcircular plate. This white-painted metal plateshall be 40 cm in diameter and at least 2.5mm thick. The plate shall be placedhorizontally and flush with the surroundingground surface with no cavities below theplate. The microphone must be located three-quarters of the distance from the center to theback edge of the plate along a radius normalto the line of flight of the test airplane.

* * * * *

Sec. G36.201 Corrections to Test Results.

* * * * *(b) Atmospheric absorption correction is

required for noise data obtained when thetest conditions are outside those specified inFigure G1. Noise data outside the applicablerange must be corrected to 59 F and 70percent relative humidity by an FAAapproved method.


BILLING CODE 4910–13–C

(c) Helical tip Mach number and powercorrections must be made as follows:

(1) Corrections for helical tip Mach numberand power corrections must be made if—

(i) The propeller is a variable pitch type;or

(ii) The propeller is a fixed pitch type andthe test power is not within 5 percent of thereference power.

(2) No corrections for helical tip Machnumber variation need to be made if thepropeller helical tip Mach number is:

(i) At or below 0.70 and the test helical tipMach number is within 0.014 of the referencehelical tip Mach number.

(ii) Above 0.70 and at or below 0.80 andthe test helical tip Mach number is within0.007 of the reference helical tip Machnumber.

(iii) Above 0.80 and the test helical tipMach number is within 0.005 of the referencehelical tip Mach number. For mechanicaltachometers, if the helical tip Mach numberis above 0.8 and the test helical tip Mach

number is within 0.008 of the referencehelical tip Mach number.

(d) * * *(1) Measured sound levels must be

corrected from test day meteorologicalconditions to reference conditions by addingan increment equal to—Delta (M) = (HΤ α – 0.7 HR)/1000where HΤ is the height in feet under testconditions, HR is the height in feet underreference conditions when the aircraft isdirectly over the noise measurement pointand α is the rate of absorption for the test dayconditions at 500 Hz as specified in SAE ARP866A, entitled ‘‘Standard Values ofAtmospheric Absorption as a function ofTemperature and Humidity for use inEvaluating Aircraft Flyover Noise’’ asincorporated by reference under § 36.6.

* * * * *(4) Measured sound levels in decibels must

be corrected for engine power byalgebraically adding an increment equal to—Delta(3) = K3 log (PR/PΤ)

where PR and PΤ are the test and referenceengine powers respectively obtained from themanifold pressure/torque gauges and enginerpm. The value of K3 shall be determinedfrom approved data from the test airplane. Inthe absence of flight test data and at thediscretion of the Administrator, a value ofK3 = 17 may be used.

* * * * *

Sec. G36.301 Aircraft Noise Limits.

* * * * *(b) The noise level must not exceed 76 dB

(A) up to and including aircraft weights of1,320 pounds (600 kg). For aircraft weightsgreater than 1,320 pounds, the limit increasesfrom that point with the logarithm of airplaneweight at the rate of 9.83 dB (A) per doublingof weight, until the limit of 88 dB (A) isreached, after which the limit is constant upto and including 19,000 pounds (8,618 kg).Figure G2 shows noise level limits vsairplane weight.



BILLING CODE 4910–13–C Issued in Washington, DC, on November 9,1998.James D. Erickson,Director of Office of Environment and Energy.[FR Doc. 98–30578 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

fede

ral r

egiste

r

64153


Part III

Department of theInteriorBureau of Reclamation

43 CFR Part 428Information Requirements for CertainFarm Operations In Excess of 960 Acresand the Eligibility of Certain FormerlyExcess Land; Proposed Rule



Bureau of Reclamation

43 CFR Part 428

RIN 1006–AA38

Information Requirements for CertainFarm Operations In Excess of 960Acres and the Eligibility of CertainFormerly Excess Land

AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation,Interior.ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would adda new part to the Bureau ofReclamation’s (Reclamation) regulationsto supplement the Acreage LimitationRules and Regulations in 43 CFR part426 that implement the ReclamationReform Act of 1982 (RRA). Theproposed rule would require certainfarm operators to submit RRA forms thatdescribe the services they perform andthe land they service. The rule wouldalso address the eligibility of certainformerly excess land held in trusts or bylegal entities to receive nonfull-costReclamation irrigation water.DATES: Reclamation must receivewritten comments on this proposed ruleby January 19, 1999. We will notnecessarily consider comments receivedafter the above date during our reviewof the proposed rule.ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment,you may submit your comments by anyone of several methods. You may mailcomments to: Administrative Record,Commissioner’s Office, Bureau ofReclamation, 1849 C Street N.W.,Washington, D.C. 20240. You may alsocomment via the Internet [email protected] (see PublicComment Procedures underSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). Inaddition, you may hand-delivercomments to Commissioner’s Office,Bureau of Reclamation, 1849 C StreetN.W., Washington, D.C. 20240.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Erica Petacchi, (202) 208–3368, orRichard Rizzi, (303) 445–2900.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Thissection provides the followinginformation:I. Public Comment ProceduresII. IntroductionIII. Summary of Proposed ChangesIV. BackgroundV. Public InvolvementVI. Public Comments and Responses on

Advance Notice of Proposed RulemakingVII. Detailed Analysis of Proposed 43 CFR

Part 428VIII. Procedural MattersIX. List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 428

I. Public Comment Procedures

Written comments on the proposedrule should be specific, should beconfined to issues pertinent to theproposed rule, and should explain thereason for any recommended change.Where possible, comments shouldreference the specific section orparagraph of the proposal which thecommenter is addressing. We may notnecessarily consider or include in theAdministrative Record for the final rulecomments which we receive after theclose of the comment period (see DATES)or comments delivered to an addressother than those listed above (seeADDRESSES). We will not consideranonymous comments.

If you submit your comments via theInternet, please submit as an ASCII fileavoiding the use of special charactersand any form of encryption. Pleaseinclude in the subject line ‘‘AA38’’ andinclude your name and return addressin the body of your Internet message. Ifyou do not receive a confirmation thatwe have received your Internet message,contact us directly at (202) 208–3368.

The administrative record and allcomments, including names and homeaddresses of respondents, will beavailable for public review at theaddress listed above (see ADDRESSES),during the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 4:00p.m., Monday through Friday, exceptholidays. Individual respondents mayrequest that we withhold their homeaddress from the rulemaking record,which we will honor to the extentallowable by law. There also may becircumstances in which we wouldwithhold from the rulemaking record arespondent’s identity, as allowable bylaw. If you wish us to withhold yourname and/or address, you must statethis prominently at the beginning ofyour comment. We will make allsubmissions from organizations orbusinesses, and from individualsidentifying themselves asrepresentatives or officials oforganizations or businesses, availablefor public inspection in their entirety.

II. Introduction

This proposed rule would supplementthe Acreage Limitation Rules andRegulations, 43 CFR part 426, thatgovern implementation andadministration of the RRA. Theproposed rule would create a separateCFR part, 43 CFR part 428, addressinginformation requirements for certainfarm operators, and the eligibility ofcertain formerly excess land that isoperated by a farm operator who wasthe landowner of that land when it was

ineligible excess land or land placedunder recordable contract.

We are proposing this rule to addresscomments raised in both the rulemakingconcluded on December 18, 1996 (theAcreage Limitation Rules andRegulations) and in the Advance Noticeof Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR)published in the Federal Register (61FR 66827, Dec. 18, 1996). Among otherthings, the comments stated thatalthough we collect information fromlandholders to verify compliance withthe RRA, we do not collect thisinformation from farm operators.Commenters pointed out that we,consequently, may not have adequateinformation to determine if theprovisions of a farm operatingarrangement constitute a ‘‘lease’’ underthe acreage limitation provisions andthus require application of the nonfull-cost entitlements of the RRA. Othercomments stated that we should analyzeall farm operations in excess of 960acres to determine compliance with theacreage limitation provisions of Federalreclamation law. Public comments fromthe ANPR are addressed below.

We believe that this rule balances theinterests in enforcing the law with theinterests of limiting paperwork burdenson the public. By limiting theapplicability of the proposed rule asdescribed below, we hope to target ourresources to achieve compliance withthe acreage limitation provisions ofFederal reclamation law in an efficientmanner. We seek comments on whetherthis rule will meet that goal.

III. Summary of Proposed Changes

The proposed rule would extend RRAcertification and reporting formsrequirements to farm operators who:

(1) Provide services to more than 960acres held (directly or indirectly ownedor leased) by one trust or legal entity, or

(2) Provide services to the holdings ofany combination of trusts and legalentities that exceed 960 acres.

In addition, this part applies to theeligibility of formerly excess land heldin trusts or by legal entities, that isoperated by a farm operator who wasthe landowner of that land when it wasineligible excess land or land placedunder recordable contract. Theprovisions of 43 CFR part 426 notspecifically addressed in this rule areunchanged.

This section summarizes thedifferences between the existingregulations and the proposed rule. Adetailed analysis can be found later inthis preamble.


Certification and ReportingRequirements

Under 43 CFR part 426, landholders(direct or indirect landowners orlessees) whose total westwidelandholdings exceed the RRA formssubmittal thresholds must submit RRAforms. Farm operators do not now haveto submit RRA forms. The new 43 CFRpart 428 would extend certification andreporting requirements to farm operatorswho (1) provide services to more than960 acres held by one trust or legalentity, or (2) provide services to theholdings of any combination of trustsand legal entities that exceed 960 acres.By extending the certification andreporting requirements to these farmoperators, we can get information thatwe need to determine the following :

(1) Who has use or possession of theland being farmed under a farmoperating arrangement; and

(2) Who is responsible for payment ofoperating expenses, and who is entitledto receive the profits from the farmingoperation as indicators of economic risk.

We need this information because theacreage limitation provisions apply toall owned or leased land. Use orpossession of the land and who has allor a portion of the economic riskassociated with the farming enterprisesare the factors we use to determine if afarm operating arrangement is in fact alease. If we determine that a farmoperating arrangement is a lease, thenthe farm operator leasing the land willbe subject to the acreage limitationprovisions.

Excess Land Provisions

Part 426 provides that a seller ofexcess land may not receiveReclamation irrigation water if he or sheagain becomes the landholder of thatland either voluntarily or involuntarily,with certain exceptions. This proposedrule would apply similar restrictions tofarm operators who sold their excessland at an approved price, and provideservices to that land if it is held in trustor by a legal entity. The only exceptionswould be if the formerly excess landbecame exempt from application of theacreage limitation provisions or the full-cost rate was paid for deliveries ofReclamation irrigation water to theformerly excess land. This provisionwill not be effective until January 1,2000, at which time all farm operatingarrangements between farm operatorsand trusts or legal entities that meet thecriteria will be affected. This includesfarm operating arrangements that werein existence prior to January 1, 2000, aswell as any farm operating arrangementinitiated on or after that date. We

believe this provision is consistent withthe intent of the RRA excess landprovisions, and that it parallels excessland provisions that apply tolandholders.

The following example illustrates thesituation this provision would address:Landowner A, a qualified recipient,owns 5,000 acres subject to the acreagelimitation provisions, which is 4,040acres more than his 960-acre ownershipentitlement. Landowner A sells hisexcess land at a price that Reclamationapproved to a trust benefitting 10individuals who are each subject to thediscretionary provisions; none of thebeneficiaries’ landholdings exceed theiracreage limitation entitlements. Thetrustee of the trust then hiresLandowner A to operate the land ownedby the trust. Consequently, LandownerA continues to farm the entire 5,000acres as a farm operator, and the landcontinues to receive Reclamationirrigation water at the nonfull-cost rate.

We do not believe the intent of theexcess land provisions of Federalreclamation law has been met in thepreceding example. As part of therulemaking that was completed onDecember 18, 1996, we included as§ 426.12(g) a provision that addressesthis issue with regard to landholders. Itprovides that a district may not makeReclamation irrigation water available atthe nonfull-cost rate to excess landdisposed of by a landholder at a priceReclamation approved, whether or notunder recordable contract, if thelandholder later becomes a direct orindirect landholder of that land througheither a voluntary or involuntary action.Section 426.12(g) provides specificexceptions to this provision.

We believe that, starting on January 1,2000, this same concept should apply tofarm operators who provide services toland held in trusts or by legal entities orany combination thereof that the farmoperator formerly owned as excess andsold at an approved price. We areseeking comments on the followingissues related to formerly excess landand farm operators:

• Should we apply this excess landprovision more broadly or should weinclude other exceptions to theproposed provision?

• Should we not include either of thetwo exceptions provided in theproposed rule (the land is no longersubject to the acreage limitationprovisions and payment of the full-costrate for deliveries of Reclamationirrigation water to the land in question)or should we otherwise alter them insome manner?

• Is the effective date of January 1,2000, reasonable for this excess land

provision or should we apply someother date?

IV. BackgroundThe RRA modernized Federal

reclamation law, while retaining theprinciple of limiting the benefits ofreceiving Federally subsidized water tofarmers with relatively smalllandholdings. The RRA adjusted theacreage limitations for farms eligible toreceive nonfull-cost water. This changewas intended to facilitate modernfarming practices and to limit nonfull-cost water deliveries generally tolandholdings of 960 acres or less, ratherthan the 160 acres established by theReclamation Act of 1902. However, notonly does the RRA provide a number ofexceptions to the 960-acre limitation,such as those associated with certaininvoluntary acquisitions, it alsoprovides for much lower entitlementlevels for legal entities that benefit morethan 25 natural persons. In addition, theRRA and the part 426 regulationsinclude provisions that exempt trusteesacting in a fiduciary capacity fromapplication of the acreage limitationprovisions if certain criteria are met.

The RRA does not force districts orlandholders to conform to the newacreage limitation provisions; thus, theprior law provisions still apply to somedistricts and landholders. Any ownedland subject to acreage limitations thatexceeds a landholder’s ownershipentitlement is considered excess land,and must be sold to an eligible buyer ata price that Reclamation approves inorder for that excess land to be eligibleto receive Reclamation irrigation waterat any price. Any owned or leased landsubject to acreage limitations thatexceeds a landholder’s nonfull-costentitlement is considered full-cost landand the landholder must pay the full-cost rate for any Reclamation irrigationwater delivered to that land.

The part 426 regulations implementcertain provisions of the RRA. Theyaddress the ownership and leasing ofland on Federal Reclamation irrigationprojects, the pricing of Reclamationirrigation water, and certain terms andconditions for delivery of Reclamationirrigation water. Under part 426, werequire all landholders (individuals orlegal entities that directly or indirectlyown or lease land that is subject toacreage limitation provisions of Federalreclamation law) whose landholdingsexceed established RRA forms submittalthresholds to file RRA forms.Landholders must provide informationon RRA forms about the land they hold,and certify that they are in compliancewith the acreage limitation provisions ofFederal reclamation law. The


regulations also provide that a districtmay not make available Reclamationirrigation water to excess land disposedof by a landholder at a priceReclamation approved, whether or notunder recordable contract, if thelandholder subsequently becomes adirect or indirect landholder of that landthrough either a voluntary orinvoluntary action.

On December 11, 1996, the NaturalResources Defense Council (NRDC) andthe Departments of Interior and Justiceentered into an amended settlementcontract in the case of NRDC v.Underwood, No. Civ. S–88–375–LKK (afull description of this litigation may befound in the preamble to the final rulefor the Acreage Limitation Rules andRegulations (61 FR 66757, Dec. 18,1996)). As a result, the Department ofthe Interior (Interior) published theANPR and invited comments andsuggestions on the following:

• Whether to limit nonfull-cost waterdeliveries to large trusts withlandholdings in excess of 960 acres (orother applicable acreage thresholdsunder the RRA);

• The criteria used to determinewhether landholdings in excess of 960acres, operated under a trust agreement,should be eligible to receive nonfull-cost water deliveries;

• Whether nonfull-cost waterdeliveries to such landholdings areconsistent with the principles of Federalreclamation law and sound publicpolicy and, if not, how to implement alimit on such deliveries;

• What procedures might ensurefairness in transition to new regulationsthat would limit large trusts to 960 acresfor nonfull-cost water, and whatsafeguards are necessary to avoid suchtrusts from adopting some other, as yetunregulated form, to escape acreagelimitations; and

• The extent of Interior’s statutoryauthority to address these issues,including the extent of Interior’s legalauthority to regulate: future trusts, trustsestablished from 1982 to the present,and trusts established before 1982.

Need for Applying Excess LandProvisions to Certain Farm Operators

In considering potential abuses ofexisting rules concerning trusts, wehave focused on trusts that hold morethan 960 acres westwide. In severalinstances, these large trusts were createdby owners of excess lands who wererequired by Section 209 of the RRA todispose of their interests in excess landsor face the permanent ineligibility of thelands for receipt of Reclamationirrigation water. By requiring thedisposal of excess lands, the Congress

was attempting to assure that thebenefits of Federal irrigation waterwould be more widely distributed.

In some instances owners of excesslands sold or transferred their excesslands to large trusts. Then, some ofthese trusts, which are subject to moreliberal acreage limitation provisions,entered into farm operating agreementswith the former owners of such land,creating a situation where substantiallythe same enterprise continued to farmthe same large acreage.

The foregoing practice has in factoccurred on a limited basis in theCentral Valley Project in California, andwe are further concerned that thepractice may occur elsewhere in thefuture as recordable contracts underwhich excess lands have beentemporarily made eligible to receiveReclamation irrigation water expire orother excess lands are sold.

While the foregoing arrangements arein literal conformance with existingregulations, we believe that they do notmeet the intent of the law. To addressthis issue, we are proposing a change inhow Section 209 is administered toattribute to former owners of excesslands any formerly excess land held intrusts and operated by the former ownerof the excess lands. Essentially, wepropose to treat the contractualrelationship between the trust and theformer owner of excess lands as acontinuing financial interest in suchlands by the former landowner, aninterest that we can regulate in ourrulemaking power granted by theCongress in Section 224 of the RRA.This change would eliminate anyincentive for former owners of excesslands to use the large trust vehicle tomaintain a continuing farmingenterprise and would curb any abuse ofcongressional intent inherent in sucharrangements.

We propose to apply this concept alsoto legal entities that hold formerlyexcess land and hire the former ownerof such land under a farm operatingarrangement. We do not believe thereare many instances where legal entitieshave bought formerly excess land andthen arranged for the former owner tofarm the land as a farm operator.However, we are concerned thatapplication of this concept only to trustsdoes not cover the full scope of possiblearrangements and may result in atransfer of land ownership to variouslegal entities that will continue toarrange to have the land farmed in thesame manner as the trust. We want topreclude such actions.

To ensure a transition and publiceducation period, we will notimplement this provision until January

1, 2000. This provides an opportunityfor all trusts and legal entities thatwould be affected by the excess landprovision (because their landholdingsinclude formerly excess land and theyhave hired the former landholder toprovide services to such land as a farmoperator) to make other farmingarrangements. In doing so, affectedtrusts and legal entities can avoidhaving to pay the full-cost rate for thedelivery of Reclamation irrigation waterto the formerly excess land, or even theineligibility of such land, if they takeaction before January 1, 2000. Of course,affected trusts and legal entities couldlimit the consequences of the excessland provision at any time after January1, 2000, by making alternativearrangements in how the formerlyexcess land is farmed. In addition, thisproposed change will not affect theunderlying trust itself. Trusts are stillsubject to the requirements of Section214 of the RRA, and as such, the acreagelimitation entitlements of thelandholder(s) to whom the land held intrust is attributed will determine if theland is eligible to receive Reclamationirrigation water in the holdings of thetrust.

Need for Certification and ReportingFrom Certain Farm Operators

In December 1987, the Congressamended the RRA by passing the auditprovisions of the Omnibus BudgetReconciliation Act of 1987 (section224[g] of the RRA as amended). Section224[g] directed the Secretary of theInterior (Secretary), or his designee, toundertake audits of ‘‘those legal entitiesand individuals whose landholdings oroperations exceed 960 acres. * * *’’ Tocomply with this mandate, weconsidered requiring all farm operatorsto submit RRA forms. However, by thetime a proposed rule was published inthe Federal Register (53 FR 21857, Jun.10, 1988) we did not include thatconcept. Instead, we altered the generalinformation requirements of the AcreageLimitation Rules and Regulations tomake it clear that natural persons orlegal entities operating land wererequired to provide records andinformation upon our request. Thisdecision was confirmed in the finalrules, which were effective on January17, 1989 (53 FR 50530, Dec. 16, 1988).We then revised the RRA forms torequire landholders to provideadditional information concerning theirfarm operators.

Since 1989, we have learned thatother approaches could be moreeffective and that this procedure placesa greater burden on both the districtsand us than if certain farm operators


were required to submit RRA forms. Thecurrent approach also greatly increasesthe likelihood that all farm operatorsproviding services to more than 960acres westwide will not be identified.

In order for the current system towork, information concerning farmoperators must be gathered from all RRAforms landholders submit annually.That information then must be collatedon a westwide basis to determine if anyfarm operator is providing services tomore than 960 acres. The collation isrequired because any landholder, otherthan a trust, whose landholding exceeds960 acres is either (a) not receivingReclamation irrigation water on suchland or (b) paying the full-cost rate forReclamation irrigation water receivedon such land. In the case of the former,we have little interest in activities farmoperators may have on land that is notreceiving Reclamation irrigation water.In the case of the latter, determining thata farm operator is a lessee will havelittle effect on the eligibility of the landin question or the rate associated withthe water deliveries to that land, sincethe full-cost rate is already beingapplied. What we need to identify arethose farm operators providing servicesto multiple landholdings, the total ofwhich exceed 960 acres. Then we mustdetermine if the arrangements underwhich the services are being providedare leases for acreage limitationpurposes.

We knew in 1988 that if only thename and address of farm operatorswere provided by landholders, it wouldbe difficult to collate the data. This isdue to the fact that operators may beproviding services under different entitynames and, if the operator is anindividual, landholders may know theoperator by different names (e.g., J.Smith, John Smith, Johnny Smith, JackSmith, Smith Enterprises, etc.). Inaddition, there may be multiple farmoperators that have the same name. Ifwe relied only on addresses, we may befaced with multiple addresses for onefarm operator which we would not beable to easily determine was the sameperson or entity (e.g., post office boxes,business address, residential address,etc.). Thus, we tried to use telephonenumbers as the unique identifier, butthis effort depends on the landholderproviding such on their RRA forms.Regardless, we have determined that thecurrent process does not ensureconsistent application of the regulationsand is inefficient. In addition, it isextremely difficult for us to verify thata landholder has or has not provided therequired farm operator information,since there are few, if any, independent

sources of information concerning farmoperators to cross-check information.

We have considered requiringlandholders to provide moreinformation, such as taxpayeridentification numbers, for their farmoperators who are legal entities. But thiswould require the landholders to havesuch knowledge, resulting in a newburden on landholders. In addition, thisapproach would still result in therequirement for districts to gather thedata and us to collate it, therebyincreasing the associated burdens to allparties involved.

Conversely, if certain farm operatorswere required to submit RRA forms,then many of the difficulties inadministration we experience on thisissue would be resolved. For example,an operator would be required toinclude all land on which the operatorwas providing services westwide; thus,no data gathering by the districts orcollation by us would be required. Infact, the districts would only berequired to complete a new tabulationsheet concerning farm operators andinclude that sheet with their annualsummary forms submittal. In addition,with RRA forms being submitted byfarm operators, we would have a sourceof verification; specifically, the RRAforms submitted by landholders towhom the farm operator is providingservices.

Impacts of the Proposed RuleWe believe that the proposed rule

would help to ensure that the recipientsof Reclamation irrigation water complywith the laws and regulations governingFederal Reclamation irrigation projects.It is difficult to determine exactly howmany entities may be affected by theproposed changes, but, for the followingreasons, we do not believe that the ruleswill be burdensome.

If the changes proposed today wereadopted as final, it is possible thatcertain farm operators would need tosubmit RRA forms starting on January 1,2000, and, after we reviewed theassociated farm operating arrangement,the pricing and availability ofReclamation irrigation water could beaffected for some farms. For landholdersthat on January 1, 2000, have a farmoperator providing services to land thefarm operator formerly owned asineligible excess land or land placedunder recordable contract, we wouldrequire those landholders or farmoperators to pay full cost for anyReclamation irrigation water receivedon now eligible land.

We published a report in 1991 (TheReclamation Reform Act of 1982 AnnualReport to the Congress, February 1991)

that indicated there were approximately80 farm operators who were providingservices to more than 960 acreswestwide. Also in that 1991 report, wedisclosed that there were 35 trusts as ofthe end of 1990 that held more than 960acres. Another large trust was foundshortly thereafter for a total of 36.Recently we reviewed RRA formssubmitted by districts for the 1997 wateryear and found 75 trusts that exceed 960acres; this represents an 108 percentincrease. We have no reason to believethere has been a larger increase in thenumber of farm operators providingservices to more than 960 acres.Therefore, starting with the 1991 figureof 80 large operators, there may beapproximately 165 such operatorstoday. When the focus is narrowed tothose farm operators who provideservices to more than 960 acres held intrusts or by legal entities, the number offarm operators who may be affected bythe proposed rule should declinetowards 100. Those farm operatorsproviding services to land they formerlyowned as excess and sold at anapproved price should be an evensmaller number. But even these farmoperators would not be immediatelyaffected by the proposed excess landprovisions and would only be impactedif they continued, on or after January 1,2000, to have an arrangement to provideservices to land they formerly owned asineligible excess land or land placedunder recordable contract.

Without the expanded informationrequirements in this rule, we simply donot have data readily available as toexactly how many farm operators wouldbe affected by these provisions. Theonly way we will be sure in the nearterm about how many farm operators areproviding services to more than 960acres held in trusts or by legal entitiesis through the expansion of the RRAforms submittal requirements to farmoperators.

Once implemented on January 1,2000, the only impact for all of thesefarm operators would be that theywould have to submit RRA forms. If afarm was affected by the excess landprovision in the future, there is noreason the farm has to employ as a farmoperator the individual or legal entitywho formerly owned the land inquestion as excess. Therefore, anaffected farm could hire a different farmoperator and continue to receiveReclamation irrigation water at thenonfull-cost rate.

Authority for the Proposed RuleSection 224(c) of the RRA gives the

Secretary the authority to publishregulations to carry out the provisions of


the RRA and other provisions of Federalreclamation law. Our authority for theproposed application of the RRA formsrequirements to certain farm operators isalso section 224(c), which directs theSecretary to collect all data necessary tocarry out the provisions of the RRA andother provisions of Federal reclamationlaw.

Section 224(g) provides that theSecretary must thoroughly auditcompliance with the reclamation law ofthe United States, including with theRRA, by legal entities and individualssubject to the law. This sectionspecifically directs the Secretary toaudit legal entities and individualswhose landholdings or operationsexceed 960 acres.

One of the primary purposes of theacreage limitation provisions of Federalreclamation law is to encourage thecreation and preservation of smallfamily farms, and this is accomplishedby limiting the number of acres that anyone landholder may own and receiveReclamation irrigation water on at anyprice. Allowing the former owner ofineligible excess land (ineligible excessland is not eligible to receiveReclamation irrigation water at anyprice) or land placed under recordablecontract to receive Reclamationirrigation water as a farm operatorcircumvents one of the basic principlesof Federal reclamation law.

V. Public InvolvementAs part of the ANPR effort, on March

14, 1997, we held a public meeting inSacramento, California concerning theANPR. We also received 53 lettersduring the public comment period onthe ANPR that was open from December18, 1996, through April 17, 1997.

VI. Public Comments and Responses onAdvance Notice of ProposedRulemaking

The following section presentsgeneral public comments on the ANPR.These include comments on authority,process, relationship with otherdocuments, relationship with other lawsand mandates, water rights andcontracts, westwide action, and othergeneral comments that were notspecifically directed toward the new 43CFR part 428.

Comment 1. The manager of anirrigation district indicated thatReclamation should be prioritizingirrevocable trust reviews to speed up theprocess of compliance determinationswhich will assist the district in itsmonitoring responsibilities.

Response. We initially had a largebacklog of trusts to review as well asother acreage limitation implementation

actions to take. We have addressed mostof this backlog. Regardless, trusts areconsidered to be conditionally approvedwhen submitted to us to assist trusteesand districts while a trust is beingreviewed.

Comment 2. The same commenterraised concerns about reviewing onlyone part of the RRA regulations, withoutrevisiting other parts.

Response. We throughly reviewed allaspects of the RRA during therulemaking process that was completedon December 18, 1996. It wasdetermined at that time the only issuesthat needed further review were thoserelating to trusts holding more than 960acres westwide and how such land isfarmed. In addition, we recognized thatif action was to be taken with regard tolarge landholdings held in trust, weneeded to ensure the land in questionwas not just transferred to some othertype of landholding arrangement andcontinued to be farmed in the samemanner.

Comment 3. Another commenterindicated that Reclamation mustrecognize its obligations to mitigate,conserve, and protect the interest of thepeople as well as the purpose and intentof the RRA. Reclamation must clarifypolicy with reference to protection oftrust resources, uses, and values to beco-equal with water development anddelivery.

Response. While we recognize ourvarious responsibilities, the purpose ofthis rulemaking is specific to collectinginformation from farm operatorsproviding services to more than 960acres westwide held in trusts or by legalentities to determine if such farmingarrangements are in fact leases foracreage limitation purposes. In addition,this proposed rule helps ensure theintent of the excess land provisions ofFederal reclamation law will be met.

Comment 4. The same commentersuggests further that the proposed rulemust include 6 concerns: 1. Mustcontinue to focus on family farms. 2.The 960-acre limit must apply tooperations, as well as farms. 3. Allowingsubsidies to more than 960 acres is aviolation of the intent of law. 4. Theremust be penalties for violation of theacreage limitation. 5. Limit the watersubsidy to forcefully encourage waterconservation measures. 6. The taxpayershould not subsidize any farmingoperation or corporation.

Response. We concur that one of theprimary purposes of acreage limitationis to encourage and foster small familyfarms. The proposed rule is intended tofacilitate the gathering of information toensure operators providing services tomore than 960 acres held in trusts or by

legal entities are meeting therequirements of the RRA. In addition,we are proposing that steps be taken toensure certain farm operators do notcircumvent the intent of the excess landprovisions of Federal reclamation law.

We have been advised in the past bythe Office of the Solicitor that legislativeaction would be required to assesspenalties for violation of the acreagelimitation provisions. In addition, theRRA is specific as to the number ofacres on which legal entities mayreceive nonfull-cost Reclamationirrigation water.

Comment 5. A beneficiary of a trust,writing on behalf of the beneficiaries ofthe trust, stated that proposed newregulations are not in accordance withlaw and are contrary to the legislativehistory of RRA.

Response. Since no new regulationswere included as part of the ANPRissued on December 18, 1996, we urgeeveryone to examine the proposedregulations published with thisPreamble. We believe section 224(c) ofthe RRA provides the authoritynecessary to promulgate these proposedregulations as follows:

The Secretary may prescribe regulationsand shall collect all data necessary to carryout the provisions of this title and otherprovisions of Federal reclamation law.

Comment 6. The same commenterstated that the Federal program benefitswere intended to be limited by theconcept of beneficial ownership, not bythe concept of farm size. In 1979 theCongress included a farm size limitationin an earlier version of RRA, but deletedsuch limitation in all subsequentreviews of Reclamation regulations.

Response. We agree that the Congresshas not limited farm size. However, theCongress did address and limit howmuch land could be owned or leased byan individual or entity and be eligibleto receive Reclamation irrigation waterat the nonfull-cost rate. The collectionof RRA forms from certain farmoperators will help ensure thisprovision is being enforced by providingus with sufficient information todetermine if a farm operatingarrangement is in fact a lease for acreagelimitation purposes. The Congress alsohas made it clear that the excess landprovisions are to preclude the accrual ofspeculative gain in the disposition ofexcess land, assist in fostering the widedistribution of benefits associated withthe Reclamation program, andencourage the creation of family farms.

Comment 7. The same commenterstated that the proposed new regulationsare a dangerous misuse ofadministrative power.


Response. We disagree. In fact, in1987 (Public Law 100–203, section5302[a]) the Congress directed Interiorto use its administrative tools to ensurecompliance with the acreage limitationprovisions of the RRA. Section 224(c) ofthe RRA requires the Secretary to collectall data necessary to carry out theacreage limitation program and toprescribe regulations needed to carryout those provisions.

Comment 8. Eighteen members of theCongressional Western Water Caucusexpressed concerns about the ANPRstating their belief that a rulemaking fortrusts is unnecessary, because Interioralready has the tools through audits andother investigation techniques to ensurecompliance with the acreage limitationprovisions enacted by the Congress andthe existing regulations.

Response. We do not have sufficientinformation with regard to farmoperators providing services to morethan 960 acres held in trusts or by legalentities to determine if the operatingarrangements are in fact leases foracreage limitation purposes. In addition,we believe that these proposedregulations will help ensure the intentof the excess land provisions is notbeing circumvented by farm operatorsfarming the land they previously ownedas ineligible excess land or underrecordable contract.

Comment 9. The general manager of aCalifornia municipal utility districtstated that he and his district wereconcerned about again reopening therules and regulations. They feel that itis not appropriate or necessary toproceed with rulemaking at this time. Ifthere is a perceived problem with largertrusts, Reclamation should step up theenforcement and audit procedures ofsuch trusts to ensure they are complyingwith the law, rather than reopening theprocess once again.

Response. We agree that it isunnecessary to reopen 43 CFR part 426to ensure compliance with the RRA bycertain farm operators providingservices to more than 960 acreswestwide held in trusts or by legalentities. By creating 43 CFR part 428, wehope to provide certainty to the vastmajority of landholders that receiveReclamation irrigation water, whiletaking the necessary steps to ensurecompliance with the RRA by those farmoperators.

Comment 10. A representative of anational conservation group urgedReclamation to adopt policies thatwould ensure compliance with theintent of the RRA. Reclamation shouldlimit irrigation subsidies to 960 acres,which will strengthen family farms,reduce the Federal deficit, and help

protect the environment. Commenterurged that the current loopholes beclosed and bring fairness to Federalirrigation programs.

Response. We are proposing theseadditional regulatory provisions toensure compliance with the RRA byfarm operators providing services tomore than 960 acres westwide held intrusts or by legal entities. The proposedrule is intended to better ensurecompliance by requiring certain farmoperators to submit RRA forms. Inaddition, a perceived loopholeassociated with the excess landprovisions would be closed.

Comment 11. The representative of anational taxpayers group stated supportfor strong reforms in the Federal watersubsidy program. The concern is thateach farming operation is only entitledto receive subsidized water on 960acres, regardless of how manyindividuals benefit from the operation.In addition, they are urgingencouragement of efficient use of water.

Response. We cannot change the law,but must enforce the acreage limitationprovisions of the RRA. Part of this effortis to ensure farm operators providingservices to more than 960 acres held intrusts or by legal entities are not lesseesfor acreage limitation purposes.

Comment 12. The representative of abrewery in San Francisco, Californiastated that he does not see why thetaxpayers should subsidize largecorporate farmers. He also has a concernabout the impacts upon theenvironment in the Delta and the SanFrancisco Bay. Reclamation shouldadopt the concept of transparency to seethrough some of the fancy legal stuffthat lets folks get around the spirit of thelaw.

Response. We cannot change thestatute, but can take the proposedadditional actions to obtain informationneeded to ensure compliance with theRRA by farm operators providingservices to more than 960 acreswestwide held in trusts or by legalentities.

Comment 13. A commenter from SanCarlos, California stated that Federalwater subsidies should be limited toonly farming operations which meet the960-acre limit. Rulemaking must correctthe trust arrangements. Reclamationshould enforce the acreage limits bydetermining when land owned bydifferent parties is actually being farmedas one operation.

Response. We are taking additionalsteps to obtain information needed toensure compliance with the acreagelimitation provisions of Federalreclamation law by farm operatorsproviding services to more than 960

acres westwide held in trusts or by legalentities.

Comment 14. The same commenterstated that Reclamation should penalizethose who do not abide by the acreagelimits. Improper water subsidies onlyaggravate our water shortages andencourage the inefficient use ofresources.

Response. We vigorously enforce theacreage limitation provisions as definedby the Congress. However, we have beenadvised in the past by the Office of theSolicitor that legislative action would berequired to assess penalties forviolations of the acreage limitationprovisions.

Comment 15. A commenterrepresenting a water conservation groupurged a strong stand in implementingthe acreage limitation provisions of theRRA. Reclamation should writeregulations that minimize theexceptions to the 960-acre limit onsubsidized project water.

Response. We agree and the currentAcreage Limitation Rules andRegulations (43 CFR part 426) onlyallow those exceptions to the 960-acrelimit provided by statute.

Comment 16. The same commenterstated that Reclamation must take actionto limit corporate welfare and reduceenvironmental impacts.

Response. Our proposed rule will notchange the law, but it should help toensure compliance with the RRA bythose farm operators who provideservices to more than 960 acreswestwide held in trusts or by legalentities.

Comment 17. A commenterrepresenting two irrigation districts incentral Arizona stated that farmers ofboth districts thought that all RRAmatters were laid to rest with theissuance of the revised regulations.

Response. Because of the concernover trusts holding more than 960 acreswestwide, we chose to create a new 43CFR part 428 to gather information fromfarm operators providing services tosuch trusts or legal entities orcombination thereof. We are alsoconcerned about whether the intent ofthe excess land provisions is being metin association with the practices ofcertain farm operators to provideservices to the land the farm operatorformerly owned as ineligible excessland or under recordable contract.Therefore, we have proposed in 43 CFRpart 428 that action is taken to ensuresuch farm operators are in compliancewith the intent of the excess landprovisions.

Comment 18. The same commenterstated that the key question is whetherInterior has the authority to regulate


trusts. It would take an act of theCongress to change section 214 of theRRA. Changing the application to trustswould undermine what farmers inArizona have relied upon for more than10 years. To now change the lawthrough regulation is not consistentwith sound public policy.

Response. We are seeking to enforcethe RRA, including section 214, byadding a new 43 CFR part 428 to extendthe information requirements to farmoperators providing services to morethan 960 acres westwide held in trustsor by legal entities. We also want toensure the intent of the excess landprovisions is being met. No newprovisions directly regulating trusts arebeing proposed.

Comment 19. The president of a waterdistrict in California stated that the lawshould be left alone, as the regulationswork well and no change is necessary.This is important so that those workingunder the law can operate with somedegree of certainty.

Response. We agree that certainty isimportant and so we have chosen tocreate a new 43 CFR part 428 to extendthe information requirements to certainfarm operators and to address an excessland issue, which will provide greatercertainty for all water users.

Comment 20. A member of theCongress from California expressedconcern that Reclamation use all itspower to revise regulations so as toapply the 960-acre limit to all farms,including farms managed or operatedthrough trusts, leases, creativemanagement agreements, limitedpartnerships, or other devices used toevade the subsidy limit.

Response. We agree that theregulations must be equitably appliedand, accordingly, have proposedprovisions to obtain informationconcerning farm operators providingservices to more than 960 acreswestwide held in trusts or by legalentities. In addition, we want to ensurethat the intent of the excess landprovisions is met by those farmoperators.

Comment 21. The manager of anirrigation district indicated that he wasconcerned about reopening the rulesand regulations. Trusts are not aproblem in his district, but he seesReclamation being able to step upenforcement and audit proceduresregarding trusts to solve any problemsand does not need to issue newregulations.

Response. We agree that enforcementis a key element in ensuring compliancewith the RRA by certain farm operators.We intend the proposed rule to provideus with additional information needed

for our enforcement activities and toaddress certain excess land concernswithout disturbing the provisions of 43CFR part 426.

Comment 22. A commenterrepresenting a community alliance ofsmall farmers expressed concerns thatno farm operation should receivesubsidized water for more than 960acres.

Response. A key to any application ofthe acreage limitation provisions is inhow certain terms are defined. The RRAdefines landholding to include directlyor indirectly owned or leased land. Anyfarm operator that is determined to bea landholder is subject to application ofthe acreage limitation provisions.

Comment 23. The same commenterstated that providing Federal water atless than full cost to large farmoperations results in degradation of thecommunities and the well-being of farmworkers.

Response. The Congress recognizedthe need to preserve small family farmswhen they limited the availability ofnonfull-cost water.

Comment 24. Legal counsel for a trustin California commented that anyattempt by Interior to: classify a trust asa ‘‘legal entity’’ under RRA; treattrustees as the owner of real propertyheld in trust; or exempt only trusteesfrom ownership/pricing limitations,would be inconsistent with commonlaw of trusts and RRA.

Response. The proposed rule does notattempt to: classify a trust as a ‘‘legalentity’’ under RRA; treat trustees as theowner of real property held in trust; orexempt only trustees from ownershipand pricing limitations.

Comment 25. The same commenterstated that Reclamation should stick tothe following interpretation of RRA: thatno one person can receive nonfull-costwater on more than 960 acres, no matterwhether the land is owned, leased,involved in a trust or other entity.

Response. We have not altered thatinterpretation of the RRA; with theunderstanding that the acreagelimitation provisions apply to legalentities as well as to individuals.Sections 214 of the RRA and 426.7 ofthe Acreage Limitation Rules andRegulations include provisions thatexempt trustees acting in a fiduciarycapacity from application of the acreagelimitation provisions if certain criteriaare met. These proposed rules have noimpact on those provisions.

Comment 26. The same commenterstated that Reclamation has adequatetools to ensure compliance, and should‘‘follow the money’’ to determinerecipient of benefit of the nonfull-costwater.

Response. We generally do haveadequate tools to ensure compliance.However, we believe we need additionalinformation regarding farm operatorsinvolved in farming more than 960 acreswestwide held in trusts or by legalentities. We also need additionalinformation to determine if farmoperators for trusts or legal entitiesformerly owned the land they areproviding service to as ineligible excessland or under recordable contract. Thenew RRA forms requirements for farmoperators are intended to address theseissues.

Comment 27. The same commenterstated that nonfull-cost water to trustsshould not be limited in any manner,and that Reclamation has no statutoryauthority to restrict the exemption ontrusts in RRA section 214.

Response. We are required by statuteto limit nonfull-cost water deliveries toland held in trust if the individuals orentities to whom the land held in trustis attributed exceed their acreagelimitation entitlements. Thisrequirement is addressed in 43 CFR part426. The proposed rule would also limitsuch deliveries starting on January 1,2000, if the land held in trust is beingfarmed by a farm operator and that farmoperator formerly owned the land asineligible excess or under recordablecontract.

Comment 28. A national conservationgroup stated that no matter how manyindividuals benefit from a farmingoperation, the operation is only entitledto receive subsidized water on 960acres. The limit applies both to the farm,and to each individual.

Response. The acreage limitationprovisions are fully applied to any farmoperation that is determined to be alandholder. The proposed rule doesseek to ensure congressional intentassociated with excess land is met byfarm operators providing services totrusts or legal entities.

Comment 29. The same commenterstated that the proposed rule mustaddress all large farming operations, notjust trusts, because if Reclamation onlyregulates trusts, the trusts will findsome other way to escape acreage limits.

Response. We recognize thispossibility and included farm operatorsproviding services to legal entities inboth the proposed informationrequirements and the excess landprovisions.

Comment 30. The same commenterstated that trusts are a ‘‘glaringloophole’’ in RRA’s acreage limitations,and Reclamation must ‘‘close theloophole’’ in order to preserve thepurpose of RRA. Reclamation shouldtreat trusts like any other legal entity,


limiting them to subsidized water on nomore than 960 acres for qualifiedrecipients. The trusts provision of theRRA was intended to protect banks orother institutions acting in a purelyfiduciary capacity.

Response. We are limiting thisproposed rule to extending theinformation requirements to farmoperators providing services to morethan 960 acres westwide held in trustsor by legal entities. In addition, anexcess land provision involving farmoperators is included.

Comment 31. The same commenterstated that established precedentrequires Reclamation to interpret theRRA trust exception narrowly topreserve the central purpose of the RRA.The regulations should read:

An individual or corporate trustee holdingland in a fiduciary capacity is not subject tothe ownership or pricing limitation imposedby title II nor any other provisions ofReclamation law. However, the interest ofeach beneficiary (qualified or limitedrecipients) in trust land in combination withother land he/she may own shall not exceedthe ownership limitation of title II. Moreover,the quantity of land in a trust receivingirrigation water cannot exceed the ownershipentitlement of title II.

Response. 43 CFR part 426 alreadyaddresses attribution of land held intrust to, generally, beneficiaries, andunder certain circumstances to grantorsor trustees. Acreage limitations clearlyare applicable under those attributionrequirements. There is no evidence thatthere have been any problemsassociated with those provisions andfurther clarification is not needed aspart of this rulemaking.

Comment 32. The same commenterurged that the regulations mustspecifically address situations where thetrustee serves as the farm operator of thetrust property, clearly applying acreagelimitations to the trustee as well as thetrust.

Response. By requiring farm operatorsproviding services to more than 960acres westwide held in trusts or by legalentities to submit RRA forms annually,we will be better able to determine if atrustee who is also acting as a farmoperator for the land held in trust is infact a lessee of the land.

Comment 33. The same commenterstated that Reclamation should revisethe rules governing ‘‘leases’’ to usecriteria or indicators to determinewhether a landholding is actually partof a larger farming operation. Thecommenter suggests that Reclamationuse indicators similar to those suggestedby the General Accounting Office(GAO).

Response. We already use theindicators suggested by the GAO in their1989 report as indicators of economicrisk, use, or possession, which are thenused to determine if an operatingarrangement is in fact a lease.

Comment 34. The same commenterstated that there are many reasons whylimiting subsidies to large corporatefarms is sound public policy, consistentwith Federal reclamation law,including: (1) The purpose of thesubsidy is to assist small family farms,not individual shareholders in largecorporate farms or investors in a largebusiness trust; (2) Limiting subsidiescan benefit the environment, somethingReclamation is required to do under avariety of statutes and treaties; and (3)Irrigation subsidies create economicinefficiencies and poor allocation ofnatural resources.

Response. The Congress was veryclear as to how acreage limitations areto be applied to ‘‘large corporate farms.’’Specifically, under the discretionaryprovisions corporations that benefitmore than 25 natural persons are to belimited recipients with a 640-acreownership entitlement and a 320-acrenonfull-cost entitlement, if thecorporation received Reclamationirrigation water on or before October 1,1981. If the corporation first receivedsuch water after that date, they are topay the full-cost rate for anyReclamation irrigation water received.For those ‘‘large corporate farms’’ thatremain under prior law, they continueto have 160-acre ownership and nonfull-cost entitlements. We have no authorityto further limit subsidies to suchentities.

VII. Detailed Analysis of Proposed 43CFR Part 428

Section 428.1This section provides a statement of

the purpose of these regulations.

Section 428.2This section includes a statement of

applicability. Rather than repeatingprovisions found in 43 CFR part 426,paragraph (b) of this section specifiesthat 43 CFR part 428 supplements part426.

Section 428.3This section defines the terms

‘‘Custom operator,’’ ‘‘Farm operator,’’‘‘we or us,’’ and ‘‘you’’ for purposes ofpart 428.

Section 428.4This section expands the RRA forms

requirements to farm operators whoprovide services to more than 960nonexempt acres westwide held by a

single trust or legal entity, or anycombination of trusts and legal entities.These requirements also apply to anyindirect owner of a legal entity that isa farm operator that must submit RRAforms. Exemptions to this requirementare provided in § 426.18(g)(2) and (3) ofthis chapter.

Section 428.5

This section establishes how theinformation collection will occur.Paragraph (a) of this section specifiesthat we will determine what forms willbe used.

Paragraph (b) of this sectionestablishes that information must beprovided by the farm operator for allnonexempt land to which the farmoperator provides services westwide.

This section provides in paragraph (c)the types of information we wouldrequire to be submitted by each farmoperator.

Section 428.6

This section specifies that farmoperators required to submit forms mustsubmit them to each district westwidethat is subject to the acreage limitationprovisions, and in which the farmoperator provides services.

Section 428.7

This section describes what willhappen if a farm operator fails to meetthe RRA forms requirements. Paragraph(a) of this section provides that thedistrict is not to deliver water to theland in question until the farm operatorsubmits the required forms for thatwater year. In addition, the farmoperator, landholder, or trustee of theland in question must not acceptdelivery of such water.

Paragraph (b) provides that after thefarm operator submits the forms, wewould restore eligibility for the land.

Paragraph (c) specifies that we willassess administrative costs as describedin § 426.20(e) of this chapter ifReclamation irrigation water isdelivered to land that is ineligiblebecause the farm operator failed tosubmit required forms.

Section 428.8

This section provides that we couldprosecute a farm operator for submittingfalse information on the required forms,and suspend the farm operator’seligibility to receive Reclamationirrigation water.

Section 428.9

This section addresses the eligibilityof formerly excess land being farmed bycertain farm operators. Paragraph (a) ofthis section provides (1) if a landholder


disposed of excess land at a priceReclamation approved, (2) the land isheld in trust or by a legal entity, and (3)that former landholder is the direct orindirect farm operator of that land, thenthe farm operator and landholder maynot receive water on such land.

Paragraph (b) of this section includesthe following exceptions to theprovisions included in paragraph (a) ofthis section: (1) The land becomesexempt from the acreage limitationprovisions of Federal reclamation law or(2) the landholder or farm operator paysthe full-cost rate for any Reclamationirrigation water delivered to the land inquestion, assuming the formerly excessland is otherwise eligible to receiveReclamation irrigation water. If a partowner of a legal entity that is the farmoperator is the party that held the landas ineligible excess or under recordablecontract and the full-cost rate is to bepaid, then application of that rate willbe based on the proportional share thepart owner has in the legal entity.

Section 428.10

This section specifies that districtsmust not make water available toformerly excess land to which theformer owner who sold it at anapproved price is now providingservices as a farm operator. Reference ismade to the exceptions provided in§ 428.9(b).

Section 428.11

This section establishes an effectivedate of January 1, 2000, for 43 CFR part428. This section also specifies that onJanuary 1, 2000, the excess landprovisions found in § 428.9 will applyto any farm operating arrangementsbetween farm operators and trusts orlegal entities then in place and anyfuture farm operating arrangements.

VIII. Procedural Matters

National Environmental Policy Act

We have analyzed this rule inaccordance with the criteria of theNational Environmental Policy Act of1969 (NEPA) and Departmental Manual516 DM. This rule does not constitute amajor Federal action significantlyaffecting the quality of the humanenvironment. A detailed statementunder NEPA is not required. The rule iscategorically excluded from NEPAreview under 40 CFR 1508.4,Departmental Manual 516 DM 2,Appendix 1, paragraph 1.6, and 516 DM6, Appendix 9, paragraph 9.4A.1. Inaddition, the proposed rule does notmeet any of the 10 criteria forexceptions to categorical exclusionslisted in 516 DM 2, Appendix 2.

As provided in 516 DM 2, Appendix1, paragraph 1.6, an action is excludedfrom review if it is a ‘‘Non-destructivedata collection, inventory (includingfield, aerial and satellite surveying andmapping), study, research andmonitoring activities.’’ This rulerequires an information collection, andwould not have a significant effect onthe human environment. As provided in516 DM 6, Appendix 9, paragraph9.4A.1, the following is excluded fromreview: ‘‘Changes in regulations orpolicy directives and legislativeproposals where the impacts are limitedto economic and/or social effects.’’ Theonly impacts associated with the excessland provisions would be that certainfarm operators that meet the criteria inthe proposed regulations or theassociated landholders would have topay full cost for Reclamation irrigationwater delivered to land to which thefarm operator is providing services, thelandholder would have to hire adifferent farm operator to provide theservices, or the landholder and farmoperator could not receive Reclamationirrigation water on that land. Thisprovision will not be effective untilJanuary 1, 2000.

Executive Order 12866, RegulatoryPlanning and Review

Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866,(58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), an agencymust determine whether a regulatoryaction is significant and thereforesubject to Office of Management andBudget (OMB) review and therequirements of the Executive Order.E.O. 12866 defines a ‘‘significantregulatory action’’ as a regulatory actionmeeting any one of four criteriaspecified in the Executive Order. Thisrulemaking is considered a significantregulatory action under criterionnumber 4, because it raises novel legalor policy issues arising out of legalmandates, the President’s priorities, orthe principles set forth in the ExecutiveOrder. We have therefore submitted theproposed rule to the OMB for review.

Regulatory Flexibility ActThe Department of the Interior

certifies that this document will nothave a significant economic effect on asubstantial number of small entitiesunder the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5U.S.C. 601 et seq.). We provide some140,000 Western farmers with irrigationwater. We estimate that out of thisnumber, fewer than 200 entities, notnecessarily small entities, could beaffected by the rule. The effect on mostof these entities starting on January 1,2000, would be limited to the annualcompletion of RRA forms. For some of

these entities, the farm operator wasalso the owner of the land in questionwhen the land was ineligible excess orunder recordable contract. In caseswhere such a farm operatingarrangement is still in place on January1, 2000, or is implemented on or afterthat date, the full-cost rate would beapplicable to all deliveries ofReclamation irrigation water to suchland. However, the landholder inquestion could avoid paying the full-cost rate by hiring a different farmoperator who did not formerly own theland in question as excess. Therefore,we have determined that the proposedrule will not have a significanteconomic effect on a substantial numberof small entities.

Small Business Regulatory EnforcementFairness Act (SBREFA)

This rule is not a major rule under 5U.S.C. 804(2), the Small BusinessRegulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.This rule:

(1) Will not have an annual effect onthe economy of $100 million or more.The rule could affect up to an estimated200 farms, but the effects would notapproach $100 million or more.

(2) Will not cause a major increase incosts or prices for consumers,individual industries, Federal, State, orlocal government agencies, orgeographic regions. There could be aneconomic effect on fewer than anestimated 200 farms, but we do notanticipate that this will cause anynoticeable increase in costs or prices.

(3) Will not have significant adverseeffects on competition, employment,investment, productivity, innovation, orthe ability of U.S.-based enterprises tocompete with foreign-based enterprises.The rule would only affect at most asmall sector of the farming industry, andwould not have significant adverseeffects on competition, employment,investment, productivity, innovation, orthe ability of U.S.-based enterprises tocompete with foreign-based enterprises.

Paperwork Reduction ActThis regulation requires an

information collection from 10 or moreparties and a submission under thePaperwork Reduction Act is required.This information collection is describedbelow.

Existing Information Collection Underthe Acreage Limitation Rules andRegulations

Sections 206, 224(c), and 228 of theRRA (43 U.S.C. 390ff, 390ww(c), and390zz) require, among other things, that(1) as a condition to the receipt ofReclamation irrigation water, each


landholder must annually certify, in aform suitable to the Secretary, that theyare in compliance with the provisions ofthe RRA, and (2) districts must annuallysubmit to us, in a form suitable to theSecretary, records and informationnecessary to implement the RRA. Thesemandatory requirements are addressedin 43 CFR 426.18. To comply with theserequirements, we provide forms for thelandholders’ and districts’ use. Thelandholder forms have been approvedby OMB under control number 1006–0005. The district summary forms havebeen approved under control number1006–0006. Both clearances expire onDecember 31, 1999.

Information Collection Under theProposed Rule

The proposed rule contains a changethat would increase the reportingburden by requiring certain farmoperators to submit RRA forms startingon January 1, 2000. We estimate that thereporting burden would be increased byless than 200 hours as a result of thischange. The primary purpose ofrequiring those farm operators whoprovide services to more than 960 acreswestwide held in trusts or by legalentities to complete and submit RRAforms would be to provide us withsufficient information to determine ifthe farm operating arrangement is alease as defined in section 426.2 of thischapter.

As with all acreage limitationinformation collections, we wouldrequire farm operators to provideidentifier information; such as name,address, telephone number, etc., and ifthe farm operator is an entity,information concerning the entity’sorganizational structure and partowners. In addition, farm operatorswould be required to provideinformation concerning the land towhich they are providing services; suchas legal descriptions, number of acres,etc. We would also require farmoperators to provide informationconcerning the specific services they areproviding, who decides when suchservices are needed, how the farmoperator is compensated for theservices, the control the farm operatorhas over the daily operation of the landin question, etc. If different services areprovided to different land parcels, suchdistinctions would need to be specified.

In order to effectively administer andenforce the proposed excess landprovisions, we would require farmoperators to provide information as towhether the land to which services arebeing provided was formerly owned bythe farm operator as ineligible excessland or under recordable contract.

At this time, we would like commentson the planned RRA forms requirementsfor farm operators. Comments areinvited on: (a) whether the proposedcollection of information is necessaryfor the proper performance of ourfunctions, including whether theinformation will have practical utility;(b) the accuracy of our burden estimatefor the proposed collection ofinformation; (c) ways to enhance thequality, utility, and clarity of theinformation to be collected; and (d)ways to minimize the burden of thecollection of information on those whoare to respond, including through theuse of automated collection techniquesor other forms of informationtechnology. In addition, we would likecomments on specific issues related tothe proposed information collectionincluding:

• Should the RRA forms submittalthreshold for farm operators be 960acres westwide held in trusts or by legalentities as provided in the proposedrules or some other figure (e.g., 40 acres,240 acres, etc.)?

• Is the proposed definition of ‘‘farmoperator’’ sufficient or should it bealtered? For example, is there a way todefine ‘‘farm operator’’ that reduces howmany additional RRA forms would needto be submitted, other than throughapplication of the forms submittalthreshold.

• Is the definition of and exemptionfor ‘‘custom operator’’ included in theproposed rule sufficient?

• Should certain specific questions beasked of farm operators on the RRAforms? Examples of such include:Whether the farm operator is authorizedto use his agreements with a landholderas collateral in any loan; whether thefarm operator can sue or be sued in thename of the landholding; and whetherthe farm operator is authorized to applyfor any Federal assistance from theUnited States Department of Agriculturein the name of the landholding.

In considering the issues associatedwith certain farm operators beingrequired to submit RRA forms, wewould also like comments as to whethercurrent RRA forms should be modifiedto accommodate the additionalinformation requirements applicable tofarm operators, or if an entirely newform only to be completed by farmoperators providing services to morethan 960 acres westwide held in trustsor by legal entities should be developed.

Submit comments on the RRAinformation collection changes to usalong with written comments on theproposed rule, or separately (see DATES,ADDRESSES, and Public Comment

Procedures under SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION, above).

Executive Order 12612, FederalismIn accordance with Executive Order

12612, the rule does not have sufficientfederalism implications to warrant thepreparation of a Federalism Assessment.A Federalism Assessment is notrequired. This proposed rule wouldsupplement existing provisions foradministering the RRA. The regulationwould not significantly change therelationship or relative roles of theFederal and State Government. It wouldnot lead to Federal control overtraditional State responsibilities, ordecrease the ability of the States to makepolicy decisions with respect to theirown functions. This regulation wouldnot affect the distribution of power andresponsibilities among the variouslevels of government and does notpreempt State law. In summary, thisregulation would not have a significantimpact on Federalism as described byE.O. 12612.

Executive Order 12630, TakingsIn accordance with Executive Order

12630, the rule does not have significanttakings implications. A takingsimplication assessment is not required.This proposed rule would not result inimposition of undue additional fiscalburdens on the public. The rule wouldnot result in physical invasion oroccupancy of private property orsubstantially affect its value or use.Specifically, the rule would not result inthe taking of contractual rights tostorage water in Reclamation reservoirsor water rights established under Statelaw.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995This rule does not impose an

unfunded mandate on State, local, ortribal governments or the private sectorof more than $100 million per year. Therule does not have a significant orunique effect on State, local, or tribalgovernments or the private sector. Astatement containing the informationrequired by the Unfunded MandatesReform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is notrequired. The rule would require certainfarm operators, which are not smallgovernments, to submit RRA forms. Theexcess land provision of the rule willnot affect small governments. Thesepotential effects would not amount tocosts of more than $100 million peryear.

Executive Order 12988, Civil JusticeReform

In accordance with Executive Order12988, the Office of the Solicitor has


determined that this rule does notunduly burden the judicial system andmeets the requirements of sections 3(a)and 3(b)(2) of the Order.

Clarity of This Regulation

Executive Order 12866 requires eachagency to write regulations that are easyto understand. We invite yourcomments on how to make this ruleeasier to understand, including answersto questions such as the following:

(1) Are the requirements in the ruleclearly stated?

(2) Does the rule contain technicallanguage or jargon that interferes withits clarity?

(3) Does the format of the rule(grouping and order of sections, use ofheadings, paragraphing, etc.) aid orreduce its clarity?

(4) Would the rule be easier tounderstand if it were divided into more(but shorter) sections? (A ‘‘section’’appears in bold type and is preceded bythe symbol ‘‘§ ’’ and a numberedheading; for example, § 428.4 Who mustsubmit forms under this part.)

(5) Is the description of the rule in the‘‘Supplementary Information’’ section ofthe preamble helpful in understandingthe proposed rule? What else could wedo to make the rule easier tounderstand?

Send a copy of any comments thatconcern how we could make this ruleeasier to understand to: Office ofRegulatory Affairs, Department of theInterior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street NW,Washington, DC 20240. You may also e-mail the comments to this address:[email protected]

IX. List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 428

Agriculture, Irrigation, Reclamation,Reporting and recordkeepingrequirements, Water resources.

Dated: November 10, 1998.Patricia J. Beneke,Assistant Secretary—Water and Science.

For the reasons stated in thepreamble, the Bureau of Reclamationproposes to add a new part 428 to title43 of the Code of Federal Regulations asfollows:

PART 428—INFORMATIONREQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN FARMOPERATIONS IN EXCESS OF 960ACRES AND THE ELIGIBILITY OFCERTAIN FORMERLY EXCESS LAND

Sec.428.1 Purpose of this part.428.2 Applicability of this part.428.3 Definitions used in this part.428.4 Who must submit forms under this

part.428.5 Required information.

428.6 Where to submit required forms andinformation.

428.7 What happens if a farm operator doesnot submit required forms.

428.8 What can happen if a farm operatormakes false statements on the requiredforms.

428.9 Farm operators who are formerowners of excess land.

428.10 Districts’ responsibilities concerningcertain formerly excess land.

428.11 Effective date.Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 5 U.S.C. 553; 16

U.S.C. 590z-11; 31 U.S.C. 9701; and 32 Stat.388 and all acts amendatory thereof orsupplementary thereto including, but notlimited to, 43 U.S.C. 390aa to 390zz-1, 43U.S.C. 418, 43 U.S.C. 423 to 425b, 43 U.S.C.431, 434, 440, 43 U.S.C. 451 to 451k, 43U.S.C. 462, 43 U.S.C. 485 to 485k, 43 U.S.C.491 to 505, 43 U.S.C. 511 to 513, and 43U.S.C. 544.

§ 428.1 Purpose of this part.This part addresses Reclamation

Reform Act of 1982 (RRA) formsrequirements for certain farm operatorsand the eligibility of formerly excessland that is operated by a farm operatorwho was the landowner of that landwhen it was excess.

§ 428.2 Applicability of this part.(a) This part applies to farm operators

who provide services to:(1) More than 960 acres held (directly

or indirectly owned or leased) by onetrust or legal entity; or

(2) The holdings of any combinationof trusts and legal entities that exceed960 acres.

(b) This part also applies to farmoperators who provide services toformerly excess land held in trusts or bylegal entities if the farm operatorpreviously owned that land when theland was ineligible excess or underrecordable contract.

(c) This part supplements theregulations in part 426 of this chapter.

§ 428.3 Definitions used in this part.Custom operator means an individual

or legal entity that provides aspecialized, farm-related service that afarm owner, lessee, sublessee, or farmoperator employs for agreed-uponpayments. This includes, for example,crop dusters, custom harvesters, grainhaulers, and any other such services.

Farm operator means an individual orlegal entity other than the owner, lessee,or sublessee that performs any portionof the farming operation. This includesfarm managers, but does not includespouses, minor children, employees forwhom the employer pays social securitytaxes, or custom operators.

We or us means the Bureau ofReclamation.

You means a farm operator.

§ 428.4 Who must submit forms under thispart.

(a) You must submit RRA forms to usannually if:

(1) You provide services to more than960 nonexempt acres westwide, held bya single trust or legal entity or anycombination of trusts and legal entities;and

(2) You are not covered by theexceptions found in § 426.18(g)(2) and(3).

(b) Anyone who is the indirect ownerof a legal entity that is a farm operatormeeting the criteria of paragraph (a) ofthis section must submit forms to usannually.

§ 428.5 Required information.(a) We will determine which forms

you must use to submit the informationrequired by this section.

(b) You must declare all nonexemptland to which you provide serviceswestwide.

(c) You must give us otherinformation about your compliance withFederal reclamation law, including butnot limited to:

(1) Identifier information, such asyour name, address, telephone number;

(2) If you are a legal entity,information concerning yourorganizational structure and partowners;

(3) Information about the land towhich you provide services, such as alegal description, and the number ofacres;

(4) Information about whether youformerly owned, as ineligible excessland or under recordable contract, theland to which you are providingservices;

(5) Information about the services youprovide, such as what they are, whodecides when they are needed, and howmuch control you have over the dailyoperation of the land;

(6) If you provide different services todifferent land parcels, a list of servicesthat you provide to each parcel;

(7) Whether you can use youragreement with a landholder ascollateral in any loan;

(8) Whether you can sue or be sued inthe name of the landholding; and

(9) Whether you are authorized toapply for any Federal assistance fromthe United States Department ofAgriculture in the name of thelandholding.

§ 428.6 Where to submit required formsand information.

You must submit the appropriatecompleted RRA form(s) to each districtwestwide that is subject to the acreagelimitation provisions and in which youprovide services.


§ 428.7 What happens if a farm operatordoes not submit required forms.

(a) If you do not submit required RRAform(s) in any water year, then:

(1) The district must not deliverirrigation water before you submit therequired RRA form(s); and

(2) You, the trustee, or thelandholder(s) who holds the land(including to whom the land held intrust is attributed) must not acceptdelivery of irrigation water before yousubmit the required RRA form(s).

(b) After you submit all required RRAforms to the district, we will restoreeligibility.

(c) If a district delivers irrigationwater to land that is ineligible becauseyou did not submit RRA forms asrequired by this part, we will assessadministrative costs against the districtas specified in § 426.20(e). We willdetermine these costs under§ 426.20(a)(1) through (3).

§ 428.8 What can happen if a farm operatormakes false statements on the requiredforms.

If you make a false statement on therequired RRA form(s), Reclamation canprosecute you under the followingstatement:

Under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 1001, itis a crime punishable by 5 yearsimprisonment or a fine of up to $10,000, orboth, for any person knowingly and willfullyto submit or cause to be submitted to anyagency of the United States any false orfraudulent statement(s) as to any matterwithin the agency’s jurisdiction. Falsestatements by the farm operator will alsoresult in loss of eligibility. Eligibility canonly be regained upon the approval of theCommissioner.

§ 428.9 Farm operators who are formerowners of excess land.

(a) You or a landholder may notreceive irrigation water on land held intrust or by a legal entity if:

(1) You owned the land when theland was excess, whether or not underrecordable contract;

(2) You sold the land at a priceapproved by Reclamation; and

(3) You are the direct or indirect farmoperator of that land.

(b) This section does not apply if:(1) The formerly excess land becomes

exempt from the acreage limitations ofFederal reclamation law; or

(2) You or the landholder pays thefull-cost rate for any irrigation waterdelivered to your formerly excess landthat is otherwise eligible to receive

irrigation water. If you are a part ownerof a legal entity that is the direct orindirect farm operator of the land inquestion, then the full-cost rate willapply to the proportional share of theland that reflects your interest in thatlegal entity.

§ 428.10 Districts’ responsibilitiesconcerning certain formerly excess land.

Districts must not make irrigationwater available to formerly excess landthat meets the criteria under § 428.9(a),unless an exception provided in§ 428.9(b) applies.

§ 428.11 Effective date.

This part will be effective beginningon January 1, 2000. On that date theprovisions of § 428.9 will apply to allfarm operating arrangements betweenfarm operators and trusts or legalentities that:

(a) Are then in effect; or(b) Are initiated on, or after, January

1, 2000.

[FR Doc. 98–30756 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]


fede

ral r

egiste

r

64167


Part IV

Department ofEducationHigh School Equivalency Program;College Assistance Migrant Program;Notice



[CFDA Nos.: 84.141A—(HEP) and CFDA No.84.149A—(CAMP)]

High School Equivalency Program;College Assistance Migrant Program

AGENCY: Department of Education.ACTION: Notice inviting applications fornew awards for fiscal year (FY) 1999 forthe High School Equivalency Program(HEP) and the College AssistanceMigrant Program (CAMP).

Purpose of Programs: The purpose ofthe HEP and CAMP programs is toprovide grants to institutions of highereducation (IHEs), or to private non-profit agencies working in cooperationwith IHEs, to help migrant and seasonalfarmworkers complete high school andsucceed in postsecondary education.

Eligible Applicants—HEP and CAMP:The Secretary invites applications fromIHEs or from private non-profit agenciesworking in cooperation with IHEs.

Deadline for Transmittal ofApplications: January 25, 1999.

Applications Available: November 23,1998.

Deadline for IntergovernmentalReview: March 26, 1999.

Available funds: HEP FY 1999:$9,000,000.

Estimated Range of Awards: HEP$150,000–$495,000.

Estimated Average Size of Awards:HEP $375,000.

Estimated Number of Awards: HEP25.

Available Funds: CAMP FY 1999:$4,000,000.

Estimated Range of Awards: CAMP$150,000–$450,000.

Estimated Average Size of Awards:CAMP $325,000.

Estimated Number of Awards: CAMP12.

Note: The Department is not bound by anyestimates in this notice.

Project Period: Up to 60 months.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The HEPprogram assists migrant and seasonalfarmworkers to obtain a generaleducation diploma (GED) and to beplaced in postsecondary education ortraining, career positions, or themilitary. By locating the programs atIHEs, migrant and seasonal farmworkersalso have opportunities to attendcultural events, academic programs, andother educational and cultural activities

usually not available to them. TheCAMP program assists migrant andseasonal farmworkers to successfullycomplete the first academic year ofstudy in the college or university, andprovides follow-up services to helpstudents continue in postsecondaryeducation.

Applicants should be aware that theselection criteria for awarding grants,and the 15 points for prior performance,have changed since the last grantcompetition. The selection criteria usedto review applications, including thecriterion for awarding points for priorperformance, as required by the programstatute are included in the applicationpackage.

The Congress has appropriated$9,000,000 for HEP and $4,000,000 forCAMP for FY 1999, which is an increaseof approximately 18% for HEP and 92%for CAMP over the 1998 appropriation.

Applicable Regulations(a) The Education Department General

Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) asfollows:

(1) 34 CFR Part 74 (Administration ofGrants and Agreements with Institutionsof Higher Education, Hospitals, andNonprofit Organizations).

(2) 34 CFR Part 75 (Direct GrantPrograms).

(3) 34 CFR Part 77 (Definitions thatApply to Department Regulations).

(4) 34 CFR Part 79 (IntergovernmentalReview of Department of EducationPrograms and Activities).

(5) 34 CFR Part 82 (New Restrictionson Lobbying).

(6) 34 CFR Part 85 (GovernmentwideDebarment and Suspension) Non-procurement and GovernmentwideRequirements for Drug-Free Workplace(Grants).

(7) 34 CFR Part 86 Drug-Free Schoolsand Campuses).

(b) 34 CFR Part 206 (SpecialEducation Programs for Students WhoseFamilies are Engaged in Migrant andOther Seasonal Farmwork.

(c) The definitions of a migratorychild, a migratory agricultural workerand a migratory fisher contained in 34CFR 200.40 and the definitions offarmwork, migrant farmworker andseasonal farmworker contained in 20CFR 633.104.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toobtain a copy of the application or toobtain information on the program, call

or write Mary L. Suazo, U.S. Departmentof Education, Office of Elementary andSecondary Education, Office of MigrantEducation, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW,Room 3E317, FOB 6, Washington, D.C.20202–6135. Telephone Number: (202)260–1396. Inquiries may be sent by e-mail to [email protected] or by FAXat (202) 205–0089. Individuals who usea telecommunications device for thedeaf (TDD) may call the FederalInformation Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 between 8 a.m. and 8p.m., Eastern time, Monday throughFriday.

Individuals with disabilities mayobtain this document in an alternateformat (e.g., Braille, large print,audiotape, or computer diskette) onrequest to the contact person listed inthe preceding paragraph.

Electronic Access to This Document

Anyone may view this document, aswell as all other Department ofEducation documents published in theFederal Register, in text or portabledocument format (pdf) on the WorldWide Web at either of the followingsites:

http://ocfo.ed.gov/fedreg.htmhttp://www.ed.gov/news.html

To use the pdf you must have theAdobe Acrobat Reader Program withSearch, which is available free at eitherof the previous sites. If you havequestions about using the pdf, call theU.S. Government Printing Office tollfree at 1–888–293–6498.

Information about the Department’sfunding opportunities, including copiesof application notices for discretionarygrant competitions, can be viewed onthe Department’s electronic bulletinboard (ED Board), telephone (202) 260–9950; or on the Internet Gopher Serverat GOPHER.ED.GOV (underAnnouncements, Bulletins and PressReleases). However, the officialapplication notice for a discretionarygrant competition is the noticepublished in the Federal Register.

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070d–2.Dated: November 16, 1998.

Gerald N. Tirozzi,Assistant Secretary, Office of Elementary andSecondary Education.[FR Doc. 98–30955 Filed 11–17–98; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4000–01–P

i

Reader Aids Federal Register

Vol. 63, No. 222


CUSTOMER SERVICE AND INFORMATION

Federal Register/Code of Federal RegulationsGeneral Information, indexes and other finding

aids202–523–5227

Laws 523–5227

Presidential DocumentsExecutive orders and proclamations 523–5227The United States Government Manual 523–5227

Other ServicesElectronic and on-line services (voice) 523–4534Privacy Act Compilation 523–3187Public Laws Update Service (numbers, dates, etc.) 523–6641TTY for the deaf-and-hard-of-hearing 523–5229

ELECTRONIC RESEARCH

World Wide Web

Full text of the daily Federal Register, CFR and otherpublications:

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

Federal Register information and research tools, including PublicInspection List, indexes, and links to GPO Access:

http://www.nara.gov/fedreg

E-mail

PENS (Public Law Electronic Notification Service) is an E-mailservice that delivers information about recently enacted PublicLaws. To subscribe, send E-mail to

[email protected]

with the text message:

subscribe publaws-l <firstname> <lastname>

Use [email protected] only to subscribe or unsubscribe toPENS. We cannot respond to specific inquiries at that address.

Reference questions. Send questions and comments about theFederal Register system to:

[email protected]

The Federal Register staff cannot interpret specific documents orregulations.

FEDERAL REGISTER PAGES AND DATES, NOVEMBER

58619–59202......................... 259203–59456......................... 359457–59690......................... 459691–59874......................... 559875–60202......................... 660203–60448......................... 962919–63120.........................1063121–63384.........................1263385–63590.........................1363591–63780.........................1663781–63968.........................1763969–64168.........................18

CFR PARTS AFFECTED DURING NOVEMBER

At the end of each month, the Office of the Federal Registerpublishes separately a List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA), whichlists parts and sections affected by documents published sincethe revision date of each title.

3 CFRProclamations:7144.................................591997145.................................592037146.................................63121Executive Orders:12170 (See Notice of

Nov. 9, 1998) ...............6312512938 (See Notice of

Nov. 12, 1998) .............6358913105...............................60201Administrative Orders:Memorandum of Oct.

27, 1998 .......................63123Notices:Nov. 9, 1998 ....................63125Nov. 12, 1998 ..................63589Presidential Determinations:No. 99–1 of October

21, 1998 .......................59201

5 CFR

316...................................63781317...................................59875335...................................59875351...................................63591532...................................63591591...................................63385890...................................594572634.................................58619Proposed Rules:316...................................64008532...................................58659

7 CFR

17.....................................59691246...................................63969301.......................62919, 63385723...................................59205737...................................60203905...................................62919911...................................60204915...................................60204916...................................60209917...................................60209920...................................62923944...................................629191499.................................59876Proposed Rules:15.....................................6296215d...................................62962930.......................63803, 64008984.......................59246, 59891985...................................638041214.................................629641216.....................59893, 599071755.................................59248

8 CFR

103...................................63593244...................................63593274a.................................63593

299...................................63593

9 CFR

1.......................................629252.......................................6292511.....................................6292592.....................................6292793.....................................6292794.....................................6292795.....................................6292796.....................................6292798.....................................62927

10 CFR

50.....................................6312770.....................................63127835...................................59662Proposed Rules:432...................................63360

11CFR

9003.................................633889033.................................63388

12 CFR

4.......................................62927208...................................58620211...................................58620215...................................58620225...................................58620262...................................58620263...................................58620265...................................58620Proposed Rules:Ch. VI...............................64013611...................................60219614...................................60219618...................................60219701...................................59742

14 CFR

23.....................................6293025.....................................5969239 ...........58622, 58624, 58625,

59206, 59460, 59695, 59696,59697, 59699, 60222, 60224,62931, 62935, 63130, 63132,63134, 63137, 63388, 63390,63391, 63393, 63396, 63397,63398, 63400, 63402, 63597,63598, 63784, 63967, 63975

71 ...........58627, 58628, 58629,58811, 59701, 59702, 59703,59704, 59705, 59842, 59878,62936, 63139, 63140, 63600,

63601, 63967, 6397791.....................................6378897 ............59878, 59879, 59881107...................................60448108...................................60448121...................................63788125...................................63788

ii Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 222 / Wednesday, November 18, 1998 / Reader Aids

Proposed Rules:23.....................................5866036.....................................6414639 ...........59252, 59743, 60222,

60224, 62970, 62973, 63423,63620

71 ...........59255, 59256, 59257,62975, 63622, 63623, 63624,63625, 63626, 63627, 64016,

6402191.........................59494, 62976119...................................62976121 ..........59192, 59494, 62976125...................................62976135 ..........59192, 59494, 62976145...................................59192

15 CFR

740...................................63141742...................................63141

16 CFR

1700.................................63602Proposed Rules:305...................................58671

17 CFR

10.....................................58811200.......................59862, 63143201...................................63404240 .........58630, 59208, 59362,

63143249.......................59862, 63143274...................................62936Proposed Rules:240.......................59911, 63222

18 CFR

Proposed Rules:4.......................................59916153...................................59916157...................................59916161...................................63425250...................................63425284...................................63425375...................................59916

21 CFR

10.....................................6397826.....................................60122101...................................63982175...................................59706176.......................59707, 63406178.......................59213, 59709211...................................59463314...................................59710510...................................59215520 ..........59712, 59713, 63982522 ..........59215, 59714, 63788524...................................59715556...................................59715558...................................59216806...................................63983814...................................59217862...................................59222864...................................59222866...................................59222872...................................59715876...................................59222880.......................59222, 59717882...................................59222886...................................59222890...................................59222892...................................59222Proposed Rules:101...................................62977

310...................................59746314...................................59746600...................................59746862...................................63122864...................................63122866...................................63122868...................................63122870...................................63122872...................................63122874...................................63122876...................................63122878...................................63122880.......................59917, 63122882...................................63122884...................................63122886...................................63122888...................................63122890...................................63122892...................................63122900...................................597501308.................................597511310.................................632531312.................................59751

24 CFR

Proposed Rules:5.......................................58675

26 CFR

1.......................................58811Proposed Rules:1...........................58811, 63016

27 CFR

Proposed Rules:4.......................................5992119.....................................5992124.....................................59921194...................................59921250...................................59921251...................................59921

28 CFR

0.......................................6293727.....................................62937

29 CFR

2704.................................631784011.................................631784022.................................631784044.....................63179, 63408

30 CFR

944...................................63608Proposed Rules:46.....................................59258913.......................63628, 63630915...................................59627938...................................59259

31 CFR

560...................................62940575...................................62942585...................................59883

32 CFR

199...................................59231311...................................59718318...................................60214

33 CFR

100.......................59232, 63611117.......................60212, 63180165.......................58635, 59719Proposed Rules:100...................................63426

117 ..........58676, 60226, 64022181...................................63638

36 CFR

200...................................60049

37 CFR

201.......................59233, 59235

38 CFR

3.......................................62943Proposed Rules:14.....................................5949517.........................58677, 6022721.....................................6325351.....................................602271001.................................640231002.................................640231003.................................640231004.................................640231005.................................640231006.................................64023

40 CFR

52 ...........58637, 59471, 59720,59884, 60214, 62943, 62947,63181, 63410, 63983, 63986

62 ...........59887, 63191, 63414,63988

63.....................................6399079.....................................6378980.....................................6379381.........................58637, 5972286.....................................63967281...................................63793721...................................62955Proposed Rules:52 ...........58678, 59754, 59923,

59924, 60257, 6342862 ............59928, 63429, 6402363.....................................6402379.....................................6380780.....................................6380781.....................................58678745...................................59754

41 CFR

60–250.............................5963060–741.............................59657301-3................................63417301-10..............................63417

42 CFR

405...................................58814410...................................58814413...................................58814414...................................58814415...................................58814424...................................58814485...................................58814Proposed Rules:5.......................................5867951c ...................................58679409...................................63429410...................................63429411...................................63429412...................................63429413...................................63429416...................................63430419...................................63429488...................................63430489...................................63429498...................................634291003.................................63429

43 CFR

Proposed Rules:428...................................64158

44 CFR

64.........................59236, 63796Proposed Rules:62 (2 documents) ...........63431,

63432

46 CFR

2.......................................59472199...................................63798Proposed Rules:45.....................................58679

47 CFR

1.......................................636122...........................58645, 6379824.....................................6361236.....................................6399352.....................................6361354.....................................6399369.....................................6399373 ...........59238, 59239, 62956,

62957, 63617, 6361890.....................................58645Proposed Rules:Ch. 1 ................................5975525.....................................6325854.....................................5868564.....................................6363973 ...........59262, 59263, 59928,

6301690.....................................58685

48 CFR215...................................63799253 ..........60216, 60217, 637991827.................................632091852.................................63209Proposed Rules:Ch. 7 ................................5950111.....................................6377852.....................................63778712...................................59501727...................................59501742...................................59501752...................................59501801...................................60257806...................................60257812...................................60257837...................................60257852...................................60257873...................................60257909...................................60269970.......................60269, 640241842.................................636541852.................................63654

49 CFR1.......................................59474195.......................59475, 63210385...................................62957571 ..........59482, 59755, 63800Proposed Rules:171...................................59505177...................................59505178...................................59505180...................................59505243...................................59928571.......................60271, 632581420.................................59263

50 CFR

17.........................59239, 63421

iiiFederal Register / Vol. 63, No. 222 / Wednesday, November 18, 1998 / Reader Aids

20.....................................6358023.....................................63210217...................................62959227...................................62959300...................................64005644...................................63421648...................................64006679 .........58658, 59244, 63221,

63801Proposed Rules:17 ...........58692, 63657, 63659,

6366118.....................................6381220.....................................6027821.....................................60278222...................................58701227...................................58701300...................................64031622 ..........60287, 63276, 64031648 .........59492, 63434, 63436,

63819, 64032649...................................63436660.......................59758, 64032679 ..........60288, 63442, 64034

iv Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 222 / Wednesday, November 18, 1998 / 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 NOVEMBER 18,1998

COMMERCE DEPARTMENTNational Oceanic andAtmospheric AdministrationFishery conservation and

management:West Coast States and

Western Pacificfisheries—Western Pacific precious

corals; published 10-19-98

COMMODITY FUTURESTRADING COMMISSIONPractice and procedure:

Miscellaneous amendments;published 10-19-98

Miscellaneous amendments;correction; published 10-31-98

ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCYAir quality implementation

plans; federally-enforceableplans for all States;availability; published 11-18-98

FEDERALCOMMUNICATIONSCOMMISSIONCommon carrier services:

Telecommunications Act of1996; implementation—Local exchange carrers,

non-rural; Federal-StateJoint Board onUniversal Service andforward-lookingmechanism for highcost support; published11-18-98

HEALTH AND HUMANSERVICES DEPARTMENTFood and DrugAdministrationAnimal drugs, feeds, and

related products:Fenbendazole suspension;

published 11-18-98

TRANSPORTATIONDEPARTMENTFederal AviationAdministrationAirworthiness directives:

Eurocopter DeutschlandGmbH; published 11-3-98

TRANSPORTATIONDEPARTMENTFederal HighwayAdministrationTransportation Equity Act for

21st Century;implementation:Repeat intoxicated driver

laws; published 10-19-98TRANSPORTATIONDEPARTMENTNational Highway TrafficSafety AdministrationTransportation Equity Act for

21st Century;implementation:Repeat intoxicated driver

laws; published 10-19-98

COMMENTS DUE NEXTWEEK

AGRICULTUREDEPARTMENTAgricultural MarketingServiceBeef promotion and research;

comments due by 11-27-98;published 10-28-98

Onions (Vidalia) grown in—Georgia; comments due by

11-24-98; published 9-25-98

Walnuts grown in—California; comments due by

11-23-98; published 11-6-98

AGRICULTUREDEPARTMENTRural Utilities ServiceTelecommunications standards

and specifications:Materials, equipment, and

construction—Cable splicing connectors;

comments due by 11-23-98; published 9-24-98

COMMERCE DEPARTMENTNational Oceanic andAtmospheric AdministrationEndangered and threatened

species:Gulf of Maine harbor

porpoise; comments dueby 11-23-98; published10-22-98

Sea turtle conservation;shrimp trawlingrequirements—Mississippi and Louisiana

inshore waters affectedby Hurricane Georges;limited tow times useas alternative to turtleexcluder devices;comments due by 11-23-98; published 10-28-98

DEFENSE DEPARTMENTFederal Acquisition Regulation

(FAR):

Foreign acquisition; Part 25rewrite; comments due by11-27-98; published 9-28-98

ENERGY DEPARTMENTFederal Energy RegulatoryCommissionOil pipeline regulations;

revisions; comments due by11-25-98; published 10-26-98

ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCYAir pollution; standards of

performance for newstationary sources:Opacity continuous emission

monitoring systems;comments due by 11-23-98; published 9-23-98

Air quality implementationplans; approval andpromulgation; variousStates:Florida; comments due by

11-23-98; published 10-22-98

Air quality implementationplans; approval andpromulgation; variousStates; air quality planningpurposes; designation ofareas:Idaho; comments due by

11-25-98; published 10-26-98

Hazardous waste programauthorizations:Arizona; comments due by

11-27-98; published 10-28-98

Louisiana; comments due by11-23-98; published 10-23-98

North Carolina; commentsdue by 11-23-98;published 10-23-98

FEDERALCOMMUNICATIONSCOMMISSIONCommon carrier services:

Interstate depreciation rates;prescription process;comments due by 11-23-98; published 10-23-98

Interstate, interexchangemarketplace;telecommunicationsservices, enhancedservices, and customerpremises equipment;bundling restrictions;comments due by 11-23-98; published 10-23-98

Radio stations; table ofassignments:Arizona; comments due by

11-23-98; published 10-9-98

Michigan; comments due by11-23-98; published 10-9-98

GENERAL SERVICESADMINISTRATIONFederal Acquisition Regulation

(FAR):Foreign acquisition; Part 25

rewrite; comments due by11-27-98; published 9-28-98

HEALTH AND HUMANSERVICES DEPARTMENTChildren and FamiliesAdministrationPersonal Responsibility and

Work OpportunityReconciliation Act of 1996;implementation:Temporary assistance for

needy families program—State child poverty rate

determinationmethodology; commentsdue by 11-23-98;published 9-23-98

HEALTH AND HUMANSERVICES DEPARTMENTFood and DrugAdministrationHuman drugs:

Drug products discontinuedfrom sale for reasons ofsafety or effectiveness;list; comments due by 11-23-98; published 10-8-98

HOUSING AND URBANDEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENTGovernment National

Mortgage Association(Ginnie Mae):Mortgage-backed securities;

book entry securities;comments due by 11-23-98; published 9-24-98

INTERIOR DEPARTMENTFish and Wildlife ServiceEndangered and threatened

species:Peregrine falcon; comments

due by 11-24-98;published 8-26-98

JUSTICE DEPARTMENTImmigration andNaturalization ServiceImmigration:

Aliens—Commerical airlines’

transport to UnitedStates; privilegesuspension; commentsdue by 11-23-98;published 10-23-98

JUSTICE DEPARTMENTGrants:

Bulletproof vest partnershipprogram; comments dueby 11-23-98; published 9-23-98

NATIONAL AERONAUTICSAND SPACEADMINISTRATIONFederal Acquisition Regulation

(FAR):

vFederal Register / Vol. 63, No. 222 / Wednesday, November 18, 1998 / Reader Aids

Foreign acquisition; Part 25rewrite; comments due by11-27-98; published 9-28-98

TRANSPORTATIONDEPARTMENTCoast GuardDrawbridge operations:

Mississippi; comments dueby 11-23-98; published 9-23-98

TRANSPORTATIONDEPARTMENTFederal AviationAdministrationAir carrier certification and

operations:Terrain awareness and

warning system;comments due by 11-24-98; published 8-26-98

Airworthiness directives:Airbus; comments due by

11-23-98; published 10-27-98

Boeing; comments due by11-23-98; published 10-9-98

British Aerospace;comments due by 11-27-98; published 10-27-98

Dornier; comments due by11-27-98; published 10-27-98

Eurocopter France;comments due by 11-27-98; published 10-27-98

International Aero EnginesAG; comments due by11-27-98; published 9-28-98

Puritan-Bennett AeroSystems Co.; commentsdue by 11-26-98;published 9-22-98

Saab; comments due by 11-27-98; published 10-27-98

Airworthiness standards:Rotorcraft; normal and

transport category—Critical parts regulations;

harmonization;comments due by 11-23-98; published 8-24-98

Class E airspace; commentsdue by 11-25-98; published10-9-98

TRANSPORTATIONDEPARTMENTFederal HighwayAdministrationMotor carrier safety standards:

Driving of commercial motorvehicles—Railroad grade crossing

safety; sufficient space;comments due by 11-27-98; published 7-30-98

TRANSPORTATIONDEPARTMENTFederal RailroadAdministrationLocomotive engineers;

qualification and certification:Miscellaneous amendments;

comments due by 11-23-98; published 9-22-98

Steam locomotive inspectionand maintenance standards;comments due by 11-24-98;published 9-25-98

TRANSPORTATIONDEPARTMENTNational Highway TrafficSafety AdministrationMotor vehicle safety

standards:Electric vehicles—

Battery electrolytespillage, post-crashretention of batteries intheir mounts, andelectrical shock hazard;comments due by 11-27-98; published 10-13-98

TREASURY DEPARTMENTInternal Revenue ServiceIncome taxes:

Qualified State tuitionprograms; comments dueby 11-23-98; published 8-24-98

LIST OF PUBLIC LAWS

This is a continuing list ofpublic bills from the currentsession of Congress whichhave become Federal laws. Itmay be used in conjunctionwith ‘‘P L U S’’ (Public LawsUpdate Service) on 202–523–6641. This list is alsoavailable online at http://www.nara.gov/fedreg.

The text of laws is notpublished in the FederalRegister but may be orderedin ‘‘slip law’’ (individualpamphlet) form from theSuperintendent of Documents,U.S. Government PrintingOffice, Washington, DC 20402

(phone, 202–512–1808). Thetext will also be madeavailable on the Internet fromGPO Access at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su—docs/.Some laws may not yet beavailable.

H.R. 1023/P.L. 105–369Ricky Ray Hemophilia ReliefFund Act of 1998 (Nov. 12,1998; 112 Stat. 3368)H.R. 2070/P.L. 105–370Correction Officers Health andSafety Act of 1998 (Nov. 12,1998; 112 Stat. 3374)H.R. 2263/P.L. 105–371To authorize and request thePresident to award thecongressional Medal of Honorposthumously to TheodoreRoosevelt for his gallant andheroic actions in the attack onSan Juan Heights, Cuba,during the Spanish-AmericanWar. (Nov. 12, 1998; 112Stat. 3376)H.R. 3267/P.L. 105–372Salton Sea Reclamation Act of1998 (Nov. 12, 1998; 112Stat. 3377)H.R. 4083/P.L. 105–373To make available to theUkrainian Museum andArchives the USIA televisionprogram ‘‘Window onAmerica’’. (Nov. 12, 1998; 112Stat. 3382)H.R. 4164/P.L. 105–374To amend title 28, UnitedStates Code, with respect tothe enforcement of childcustody and visitation orders.(Nov. 12, 1998; 112 Stat.3383)S. 759/P.L. 105–375To amend the StateDepartment Basic AuthoritiesAct of 1956 to require theSecretary of State to submitan annual report to Congressconcerning diplomaticimmunity. (Nov. 12, 1998; 112Stat. 3385)S. 1132/P.L. 105–376Bandelier National MonumentAdministrative Improvementand Watershed Protection Actof 1998 (Nov. 12, 1998; 112Stat. 3388)

S. 1134/P.L. 105–377Granting the consent andapproval of Congress to aninterstate forest fire protection

compact. (Nov. 12, 1998; 112Stat. 3391)

S. 1408/P.L. 105–378

To establish the Lower EastSide Tenement NationalHistoric Site, and for otherpurposes. (Nov. 12, 1998; 112Stat. 3395)

S. 1733/P.L. 105–379

To amend the Food StampAct of 1977 to require foodstamp State agencies to takecertain actions to ensure thatfood stamp coupons are notissued for deceasedindividuals, to require theSecretary of Agriculture toconduct a study of options forthe design, development,implementation, and operationof a national database to trackparticipation in Federal means-tested public assistanceprograms, and for otherpurposes. (Nov. 12, 1998; 112Stat. 3399)

S. 2129/P.L. 105–380

Hawaii Volcanoes NationalPark Adjustment Act of 1998(Nov. 12, 1998; 112 Stat.3401)

S.J. Res. 35/P.L. 105–381

Granting the consent ofCongress to the PacificNorthwest EmergencyManagement Arrangement.(Nov. 12, 1998; 112 Stat.3402)

Last List November 16, 1998

Public Laws ElectronicNotification Service(PENS)

PENS is a free electronic mailnotification service of newlyenacted public laws. Tosubscribe, send E-mail [email protected] withthe text message:

subscribe PUBLAWS-L YourName.

Note: This service is strictlyfor E-mail notification of newpublic laws. The text of lawsis not available through thisservice. PENS cannot respondto specific inquiries sent tothis address.

FR-1998-11-18.pdf - Govinfo.gov

Documents

Transcript of FR-1998-11-18.pdf - Govinfo.gov