FR-1999-07-26.pdf - GovInfo

fede

ral r

egiste

r

1

MondayJuly 26, 1999

Vol. 64 No. 142Pages 40281–40504

7–26–99

VerDate 18-JUN-99 19:28 Jul 23, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\26JYWS.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 26JYWS

.

II

2

Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 142 / Monday, July 26, 1999

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: 64 FR 12345.

SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COPIES

PUBLICSubscriptions:

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

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

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

FEDERAL AGENCIESSubscriptions:

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

VerDate 18-JUN-99 19:28 Jul 23, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\26JYWS.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 26JYWS

Contents Federal Register

III

Vol. 64, No. 142

Monday, July 26, 1999

Agriculture DepartmentSee Animal and Plant Health Inspection ServiceSee Forest Service

Air Force DepartmentNOTICESEnvironmental statements; notice of intent:

Enchanted Skies Park and Observatory, Grants, NM;construction, 40355–40356

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

Mexican fruit fly, 40281–40282

Centers for Disease Control and PreventionNOTICESGrants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.:

African Americans; health promotion and diseaseprevention initiative program, 40374–40376

Meetings:Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control

Special Emphasis Panel, 40376Injury Prevention and Control Advisory Committee,

40376–40377

Children and Families AdministrationRULESPersonal Responsibility and Work Opportunity

Reconciliation Act of 1996; implementation:Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program

Correction, 40290–40292NOTICESAgency information collection activities:

Submission for OMB review; comment request, 40377

Commerce DepartmentSee Export Administration BureauSee International Trade AdministrationSee National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Consumer Product Safety CommissionNOTICESMeetings; Sunshine Act, 40355

Defense DepartmentSee Air Force DepartmentPROPOSED RULESFederal Acquisition Regulation (FAR):

Empowerment contracting; withdrawn, 40493–40494NOTICESMeetings:

Vieques, PR; special panel on military operations, 40355

Education DepartmentNOTICESAgency information collection activities:

Submission for OMB review; comment request, 40356Meetings:

National Assessment Governing Board, 40356–40357

Energy DepartmentSee Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

NOTICESElectricity export and import authorizations, permis, etc.:

Electric Clearinghouse, Inc., 40357–40358Sonat Power Marketing, L.P., 40358

Meetings:Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory

Board—Pantex Plant, TX, 40359Rocky Flats, CO, 40358–40359

Environmental Protection AgencyRULESAir quality implementation plans; approval and

promulgation; various States:Indian, 40287–40290

PROPOSED RULESAir quality implementation plans; approval and

promulgation; various States:Indiana, 40328

Superfund program:National oil and hazardous substances contingency

plan—National priorities list update, 40328–40331

NOTICESMeetings:

Cadmium and compounds and IRIS summaries;toxicological review; peer-review panel workshop,40369–40370

Pesticide registration, cancellation, etc.:Acetic acid and salts, etc., 40370–40372

Superfund; response and remedial actions, proposedsettlements, etc.:

Lakeland Disposal Service, Inc., Site, IN, 40372

Executive Office of the PresidentSee Management and Budget OfficeSee Presidential Documents

Export Administration BureauNOTICESCommittees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.:

Technical Advisory Committees; recruitment of private-sector members, 40336

Federal Aviation AdministrationRULESAirworthiness directives:

Alexander Schleicher Segelflugzeugbau, 40283–40285VOR Federal airways, 40285–40286PROPOSED RULESAirworthiness directives:

Airbus, 40319–40321Aviation safety:

Voluntarily submitted information; confidentialityprotection, 40471–40482

NOTICESAgency information collection activities:

Submission for OMB review; comment request, 40403Passenger facility charges; applications, etc.:

Fairbanks International Airport, AK, 40403–40404

VerDate 18-JUN-99 19:29 Jul 23, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\26JYCN.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 26JYCN

IV Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 142 / Monday, July 26, 1999 / Contents

Federal Communications CommissionRULESRadio stations; table of assignments:

California, 40292Texas, 40292–40293

PROPOSED RULESDigital television stations; table of assignments:

Washington, 40331NOTICESAgency information collection activities:

Proposed collection; comment request, 40372–40373

Federal Energy Regulatory CommissionNOTICESElectric rate and corporate regulation filings:

Texas-New Mexico Power Co. et al., 40364–40365Hydroelectric applications, 40365–40367Meetings; Sunshine Act, 40367–40369Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:

Algonquin Gas Transmission Co., 40359–40360Black Marlin Pipeline Co., 40360CNG Transmission Corp., 40360–40361Dauphin Island Gathering Partners, 40361Destin Pipeline Co., L.L.C., 40361Duke Energy Field Services Inc., 40361–40362Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc., 40362Koch Gateway Pipeline Co., 40362Portland Natural Gas Transmission System, 40362–40363Texas Eastern Transmission Corp., 40363Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co., 40363–40364

Federal Highway AdministrationNOTICESMotor carrier safety standards:

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

40404–40408

Federal Housing Finance BoardNOTICESMeetings; Sunshine Act, 40373

Federal Railroad AdministrationNOTICESExemption petitions, etc.:

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority,40409

Traffic control systems; discontinuance or modification:Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway, 40409CSX Transportation, Inc., 40409–40412Norfolk Southern Corp., 40412Red River Valley & Western Railroad Co., 40412

Federal Reserve SystemNOTICESBanks and bank holding companies:

Formations, acquisitions, and mergers, 40373Permissable nonbanking activities, 40373–40374

Federal Transit AdministrationNOTICESGrants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.:

Electronic payment system for transit fare collection,parking payment, electronic toll collection, and otherapplications; operational test, 40465–40469

Financial Management ServiceSee Fiscal Service

Fiscal ServiceRULESBonds and notes, U.S. Treasury:

U.S. securities; electronic transactions and fundstransfers, 40483–40491

Fish and Wildlife ServicePROPOSED RULESEndangered and threatened species:

Canada lynx, 40333–40334NOTICESEndangered and threatened species permit applications,

40385–40386Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.:

Sport fish and wildlife restoration; Federal aidadministrative project funding cancelled, 40386–40387

Food and Drug AdministrationPROPOSED RULESAnimal drugs, feeds, and related products:

Sheep as minor species, 40321–40323NOTICESAgency information collection activities:

Submission for OMB review; comment request, 40377–40380

Grant and cooperative agreement awards:University of Maryland, College Park; Joint Institute for

Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, 40380–40381Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.:

Monoclonal antibody products; sameness interpretationunder orphan drug regulations; industry guidance,40381–40382

Forest ServiceNOTICESAgency information collection activities:

Proposed collection; comment request, 40335–40336Environmental statements; notice of intent:

Dixie National Forest, UT, 40336

General Services AdministrationPROPOSED RULESFederal Acquisition Regulation (FAR):

Empowerment contracting; withdrawn, 40493–40494

Health and Human Services DepartmentSee Centers for Disease Control and PreventionSee Children and Families AdministrationSee Food and Drug AdministrationSee National Institutes of Health

Housing and Urban Development DepartmentRULESPublic and Indian housing:

Rental voucher and certificate programs (Section 8)—Management assessment program; technical

amendment, 40495–40499

Indian Affairs BureauNOTICESIrrigation projects; operation and maintenance charges:

Colorado River Irrigation Project, AZ, 40387–40388

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


VFederal Register / Vol. 64, No. 142 / Monday, July 26, 1999 / Contents

See Minerals Management ServiceSee Reclamation BureauSee Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office

International Trade AdministrationNOTICESAntidumping:

Hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel products from—Germany and United Kingdom, 40336–40351

Live cattle from—Canada, 40351–40352

Tapered roller bearings from—China, 40352

Countervailing duties:Cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from—

France, 40430–40438India, 40438–40445Indonesia, 40457–40463Italy, 40415–40430Korea, 40445–40457

Justice DepartmentNOTICESExecutive Office for Immigration Review:

Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act;aliens filing abbreviated motion to reopen cases;deportation suspension and removal cancellation,40389–40390

Pollution control; consent judgments:Bronson Plating Co. et al., 40390Continental Airlines, Inc., et al., 40390–40391Coon Refrigeration et al., 40391Port Clinton, OH, 40391

Privacy Act:Systems of records, 40392

Voting Rights Act certification:Leake County, MS, 40392

Labor DepartmentSee Labor Statistics Bureau

Labor Statistics BureauNOTICESAgency information collection activities:

Proposed collection; comment request, 40392–40393

Land Management BureauNOTICESAgency information collection activities:

Submission for OMB review; comment request, 40388

Management and Budget OfficeNOTICESBudget rescissions and deferrals

Cumulative reports, 40396–40398

Minerals Management ServiceNOTICESOuter Continental Shelf operations:

Gulf of Mexico—Leasing maps and protracted diagrams, 40388–40389

National Aeronautics and Space AdministrationPROPOSED RULESFederal Acquisition Regulation (FAR):

Empowerment contracting; withdrawn, 40493–40494

National Institutes of HealthNOTICESAgency information collection activities:

Proposed collection; comment request, 40382–40383Meetings:

National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research,40383

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences,40383

National Institute on Deafness and Other CommunicationDisorders, 40383

National Library of Medicine, 40383–40384Scientific Review Center, 40384–40385

National Mediation BoardRULESPractice and procedure:

Administrative corrections, 40286–40287

National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationRULESFishery conservation and management:

Alaska; fisheries of Exclusive Economic Zone—Deep-water species, 40293–40294

West Coast States and Western Pacific fisheries—Pacific Coast groundfish, 40293

NOTICESGrants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.:

Satellite data use for studying local and regionalphenomena, 40352–40354

Meetings:New England Fishery Management Council, 40354

Permits:Marine mammals, 40354–40355

Nuclear Regulatory CommissionPROPOSED RULESByproduct material; domestic licensing:

Industrial devices containing byproduct material,generally licensed; requirements, 40295–40310

NOTICESCommercial nuclear power plants; safety performance:

Regulatory oversight program; pilot program; commentrequest, 40394–40395

Meetings:Reactor Safeguards Advisory Committee, 40395–40396

Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:Tennessee Valley Authority, 40393–40394

Office of Management and BudgetSee Management and Budget Office

Presidential DocumentsADMINISTRATIVE ORDERSStrom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 1999; delegation of authority to theSecretary of Defense (Memorandum of July 16, 1999),40501–40503

Public Debt BureauSee Fiscal Service

Public Health ServiceSee Centers for Disease Control and PreventionSee Food and Drug AdministrationSee National Institutes of Health


VI Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 142 / Monday, July 26, 1999 / Contents

Reclamation BureauNOTICESMeetings:

Bay-Delta Advisory Council, 40389

Securities and Exchange CommissionNOTICESAgency information collection activities:

Submission for OMB review; comment request, 40399Securities:

Suspension of trading—Uniprime Capital Acceptance, Inc., 40401

Self-regulatory organizations:Clearing agency registration applications—

Delta Clearing Corp., 40401–40402Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:

Public utility holding company filings, 40399–40401

Small Business AdministrationRULESOrganization, functions, and authority delegations:

Disaster Area Counsel et al; administrative claimsapproval, denial, etc., 40282–40283

PROPOSED RULESBusiness loans:

Loan loss reserve fund, 40310–40311Small business size standards:

Freight and cargo transportation arrangement industry,40314–40319

General building contractors, heavy construction,dredging and surface cleanup, special tradecontractors, garbage and refuse collection, and refusesystems, 40311–40314

NOTICESDisaster loan areas:

Georgia, 40402North Dakota, 40402South Dakota, 40402

State DepartmentNOTICESOrganization, functions, and authority delegations:

Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs,40403

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

plan submissions:Kansas, 40323–40326Mississippi, 40326–40328

Surface Transportation BoardNOTICESRailroad services abandonment:

Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co., 40412–40413

Transportation DepartmentSee Federal Aviation AdministrationSee Federal Highway AdministrationSee Federal Railroad AdministrationSee Federal Transit AdministrationSee Surface Transportation BoardPROPOSED RULESStandard time zone boundaries:

Nevada, 40331–40333

Treasury DepartmentSee Fiscal Service

United States Information AgencyRULESExchange visitor program:

Return to home country two-year requirement; waiverrequests; processing fee, 40286

Separate Parts In This Issue

Part IIDepartment of Commerce, International Trade

Administration, 40415–40463

Part IIIDepartment of Transportation, Federal Transit


Part IVDepartment of Transportation, Federal Aviation


Part VDepartment of Treasury, Forest Service, 40483–40491

Part VIDepartment of Defense, General Services Administration,

National Aeronautics and Space Administration,40493–40494

Part VIIDepartment of Housing and Urban Development, 40495–

40499

Part VIIIThe President, 40501–40503

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. 64, No. 142 / Monday, July 26, 1999 / Contents

3 CFRAdministrative Orders:Memorandums:July 16, 1999 ...................40503

7 CFR301...................................40281

10 CFRProposed Rules:30.....................................4029531.....................................4029532.....................................40295170...................................40295171...................................40295

13 CFR114...................................40282Proposed Rules:120...................................40310121 (2 documents) .........40311,

40314

14 CFR39.....................................4028371.....................................40285Proposed Rules:39.....................................40319193...................................40472

21 CFRProposed Rules:514...................................40321

22 CFR514...................................40286

24 CFR985...................................40496

29 CFR1203.................................402861205.................................402861209.................................40286

30 CFRProposed Rules:916...................................40323924...................................40326

31 CFR315...................................40484353...................................40484357...................................40484370...................................40484

40 CFR52.....................................40287Proposed Rules:52.....................................40328300...................................40328

45 CFR260...................................40290261...................................40290262...................................40290263...................................40290264...................................40290265...................................40290

47 CFR73 (2 documents) ............40292Proposed Rules:73.....................................40331

48 CFRProposed Rules:12.....................................4049414.....................................4049415.....................................4049426.....................................4049436.....................................40494

52.....................................40494

49 CFRProposed Rules:71.....................................40331

50 CFR660...................................40293679...................................40293Proposed Rules:17.....................................40333

VerDate 18-JUN-99 19:29 Jul 23, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4711 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\26JYLS.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 26JYLS

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

40281

Vol. 64, No. 142


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health InspectionService

7 CFR Part 301

[Docket No. 98–082–5]

Mexican Fruit Fly Regulations;Removal of Regulated Area

AGENCY: Animal and Plant HealthInspection Service, USDA.ACTION: Interim rule and request forcomments.

SUMMARY: We are amending the Mexicanfruit fly regulations by removing theregulated portion of San Diego County,CA, from the list of regulated areas. Wehave determined that the Mexican fruitfly has been eradicated from this areaand that restrictions on the interstatemovement of regulated articles from thisarea are no longer necessary to preventthe spread of the Mexican fruit fly intononinfested areas of the United States.This action relieves unnecessaryrestrictions on the interstate movementof regulated articles from the previouslyregulated area. As a result of this action,there are no longer any areas regulatedfor the Mexican fruit fly in the State ofCalifornia.DATES: This interim rule is effective asof July 25, 1999. We invite you tocomment on this docket. We willconsider all comments that we receiveby September 24, 1999.ADDRESSES: Please send your commentand three copies to: Docket No. 98–082–5, Regulatory Analysis andDevelopment, PPD, APHIS, Suite 3C03,4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale,MD 20737–1238. Please state that yourcomment refers to Docket No. 98–082–5.

You may read any comments that wereceive on this docket in our readingroom. The reading room is located inroom 1141 of the USDA South Building,

14th Street and Independence Avenue,SW., Washington, DC. Normal readingroom hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,Monday through Friday, exceptholidays. To be sure someone is there tohelp you, please call (202) 690–2817before coming.

APHIS documents published in theFederal Register, and relatedinformation, including the names oforganizations and individuals who havecommented on APHIS rules, areavailable on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/webrepor.html.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.Michael B. Stefan, Operations Officer,Invasive Species and Pest ManagementStaff, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River RoadUnit 134, Riverdale, MD 20737–1236;(301) 734–8247; or e-mail:[email protected] INFORMATION:

BackgroundThe Mexican fruit fly, Anastrepha

ludens (Loew), is a destructive pest ofcitrus and other types of fruit. The shortlife cycle of the Mexican fruit fly allowsrapid development of serious outbreaksthat can cause severe economic losses incommercial citrus-producing areas. TheMexican fruit fly regulations, containedin 7 CFR 301.64 through 301.64–10(referred to below as the regulations),quarantine infested States, designateregulated areas, and restrict theinterstate movement of specified fruitsand other regulated articles fromregulated areas in order to prevent thespread of the Mexican fruit fly tononinfested areas of the United States.Quarantined States are listed in§ 301.64(a), and regulated areas arelisted in § 301.64–3(c).

In an interim rule effective August 10,1998, and published in the FederalRegister on August 14, 1998 (63 FR43603–43604, Docket No. 98–082–1), weamended the Mexican fruit flyregulations by designating a portion ofthe El Cajon area of San Diego County,CA, as a regulated area. In a secondinterim rule effective October 16, 1998,and published in the Federal Registeron October 22, 1998 (63 FR 56537–56539, Docket No. 98–082–2), wedesignated a portion of the San Diegoarea of San Diego County, CA, as aregulated areas. In a third interim ruleeffective November 16, 1998, andpublished in the Federal Register on

November 20, 1998 (63 FR 64409–64411, Docket No. 98–082–3), weexpanded the regulated area in the SanDiego area of San Diego County, CA. Ina fourth interim rule effective June 9,1999, and published in the FederalRegister on June 15, 1999 (64 FR 31964–31966, Docket No. 98–083–4), weamended the Mexican fruit flyregulations by removing the regulatedportion of the El Cajon area in San DiegoCounty, CA, from the list of regulatedareas.

Based on insect trapping surveys byinspectors of California State andcounty agencies and by inspectors of theAnimal and Plant Health InspectionService, we have determined that theMexican fruit fly has been eradicatedfrom the San Diego area of San DiegoCounty, CA. The last finding of Mexicanfruit fly thought to be associated withthe infestation in this area was made onDecember 21, 1998.

Since then no evidence of Mexicanfruit fly infestations has been found inthis area. Therefore, we are removingthis area from the list of areas in§ 301.64–3(c) that are regulated becauseof the Mexican fruit fly. As a result ofthis action, there are no longer any areasin California regulated because of theMexican fruit fly. Because we havedetermined that the Mexican fruit fly nolonger exists in California, we areremoving California from the list in§ 301.64(a) of States quarantinedbecause of the Mexican fruit fly.

Immediate ActionThe Administrator of the Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service hasdetermined that there is good cause forpublishing this interim rule withoutprior opportunity for public comment.Immediate action is warranted toremove unnecessary restrictions on thepublic. The area in California affectedby this document was regulated due tothe possibility that the Mexican fruit flycould spread to noninfested areas of theUnited States. Since this situation nolonger exists, the continued regulatedstatus of this area would imposeunnecessary restrictions.

Because prior notice and other publicprocedures with respect to this actionare impracticable and contrary to thepublic interest under these conditions,we find good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553to make this action effective less than 30days after publication. We will considercomments that are received within 60

VerDate 18-JUN-99 09:09 Jul 23, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A26JY0.030 pfrm12 PsN: 26JYR1

40282 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 142 / Monday, July 26, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

days of publication of this rule in theFederal Register. After the commentperiod closes, we will publish anotherdocument in the Federal Register. Thedocument will include a discussion ofany comments we receive and anyamendments we are making to the ruleas a result of the comments.

Executive Order 12866 and RegulatoryFlexibility Act

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

This rule removes restrictions on theinterstate movement of regulatedarticles from a portion of San DiegoCounty, CA. Within this regulated area,there are 265 small entities that may beaffected by this rule. These include 210fruit sellers, 12 nurseries, 16 wholesaledistributors, 1 grower, 4 mobile fruitvendors, 2 farmer’s markets, and 20farmer’s market vendors. These 265entities comprise less than 1 percent ofthe total number of similar enterprisesoperating in the State of California.

These small entities sell regulatedarticles primarily for local intrastate, notinterstate, movement, and thedistribution of these articles was notaffected by the regulatory provisions weare removing. Many of these entitiesalso handle other items in addition tothe previously regulated articles. Theeffect on those few entities that moveregulated articles interstate wasminimized by the availability of varioustreatments that, in most cases, allowedthese small entities to move regulatedarticles interstate with very littleadditional cost. Therefore, the effect, ifany, of this rule on these entitiesappears to be minimal.

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

Executive Order 12372This program/activity is listed in the

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistanceunder No. 10.025 and is subject toExecutive Order 12372, which requiresintergovernmental consultation withState and local officials. (See 7 CFR part3015, subpart V.)

Executive Order 12988This interim rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12988, CivilJustice Reform. This rule: (1) Preemptsall State and local laws and regulationsthat are inconsistent with this rule; (2)has not retroactive effect; and (3) does

not require administrative proceedingsbefore parties may file suit in courtchallenging this rule.

Paperwork Reduction ActThis rule contains no new

information collection or recordkeepingrequirements under the PaperworkReduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.).

List of Subject in 7 CFR Part 301Agricultural commodities, Plant

diseases and pests, Quarantine,Reporting and recordkeepingrequirements, Transportation.

Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFRpart 301 as follows:

PART 301—DOMESTIC QUARANTINENOTICES

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

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 147a, 150bb, 150dd,150ee, 150ff, 161, 162, and 164–167; 7 CFR2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(c).

§ 301.64 [Amended]2. In § 301.64, paragraph (a) is

amended by removing the phrase ‘‘theStates of California and Texas’’ and byadding the phrase ‘‘the State of Texas’’in its place.

§ 301.64–3 [Amended]3. In § 301.64–3, paragraph (c) is

amended by removing the entry forCalifornia and the description of theregulated area for San Diego County,CA.

Done in Washington, DC, this 20th day ofJuly 1999.William R. DeHaven,Acting Administrator, Animal and PlantHealth Inspection Service.[FR Doc. 99–18980 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

13 CFR Part 114

Administrative Claims Under the TortClaims Act and Representations andIndemnification of SBA Employees

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: With this rule, SBA revises aportion of its regulations governingAdministrative Claims under the TortClaims Act. Previously, a claim had tobe presented to the SBA DistrictCounsel for the SBA District Office inthe same State as the claim. The SBADistrict Counsel had the authority todeny a tort claim of $5,000 or less or to

recommend any other action to the SBAGeneral Counsel. This final ruleprovides the same authority to DisasterArea Counsel when the claim is basedon the acts or omissions of employeesof SBA’s Disaster Assistance Program. Italso vests authority to approve or denya tort claim of $25,000 or less withSBA’s Associate General Counsel forLitigation, rather than the GeneralCounsel.DATES: This rule is effective July 26,1999.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Timothy C. Treanor, Chief Counsel tothe Disaster Assistance Program, Officeof General Counsel, at (202) 205–6885.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SBApromulgates, without change, a rulewhich it proposed on April 29, 1999 (64FR 23027). SBA received no commentsto the proposed rule.

Under the Disaster AssistanceProgram, SBA makes direct loans toindividual and business victims ofnatural disasters. SBA makes theseloans through an organizationalstructure that is separate and distinctfrom other SBA lending programs. TheDisaster Assistance Program operatesfrom four permanent Area Offices andfrom temporary local offices that arefrom time to time established to handlesuch disasters. SBA’s Disaster AreaOffice employees and local officeemployees are located in differentoffices from other SBA employees andreport to different managers.

Under the previous regulation, SBA’sDistrict Counsels who are not located indisaster offices had exclusive authorityto investigate any claim arising withinthe jurisdiction covered by theirDistricts, including claims based on actsor omissions of Disaster Assistanceemployees. District Counsels also hadthe authority to deny or recommendapproval of a claim for $5,000 or less.Under the previous regulation, DistrictCounsels investigated claims exceeding$5,000 but less than $25,000 andforwarded them with a recommendationto SBA’s General Counsel.

Under the new regulation, a claimantmay file a tort claim against SBA for theacts or omissions of an employee ofSBA’s Disaster Assistance Programeither at the State’s District Office (theone closest to the site of the injury ifthere is more than one District Office) orat the nearest Disaster Area Office. Thenew regulation provides authorityidentical to that of the District Counselto the Disaster Area Counsel toinvestigate and make recommendationsconcerning claims arising from aDisaster Assistance employee’s acts oromissions. It also vests the Associate

VerDate 18-JUN-99 15:33 Jul 23, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JYR1.XXX pfrm11 PsN: 26JYR1

40283Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 142 / Monday, July 26, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

General Counsel for Litigation with theauthority to decide claims of $25,000 orless, which is in line with the Agency’scurrent practice.

The new regulation also removesinaccurate language from § 114.105concerning the requirement that DistrictCounsel consult with the GeneralCounsel before approving claims for lessthan $5,000 (the District Counsel doesnot have the authority to approve suchclaims).

The new regulation also removesunnecessary language from §§ 114.106and 114.108 which purport tocharacterize § 114.107, and makes other,minor, technical changes.

Compliance With Executive Orders12612, 12988, and 12866, theRegulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.601–612), and the PaperworkReduction Act (44 U.S.C. Ch. 35)

SBA certifies that this rule does nothave a significant economic impact ona substantial number of small entitieswithin the meaning of Executive Order12866 or the Regulatory Flexibility Act,5 U.S.C. 601–612. It merely changesSBA’s internal procedures and serves tomake tort claim resolution moreaccessible to the general public. It willnot have an annual economic effect of$100 million or more, result in a majorincrease in costs or prices, or have asignificant adverse effect on competitionor the United States economy.

For purposes of the PaperworkReduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Ch. 35, SBAcertifies that this rule contains no newreporting or recordkeepingrequirements.

For purposes of Executive Order12612, SBA certifies that this rule hasno federalism implications warrantingthe preparation of a federalismassessment.

For purposes of Executive Order12988, SBA certifies that this rule isdrafted, to the extent practicable, inaccordance with the standards set forthin Section 3 of that Order.

List of Subjects in 13 CFR Part 114

Tort claims.For the reasons stated in the

preamble, the SBA amends 13 CFR part114 as follows:

PART 114—ADMINISTRATIVE CLAIMSUNDER THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMSACT AND REPRESENTATION ANDINDEMNIFICATION OF SBAEMPLOYEES

Subpart A—Administrative Tort Claims


Authority: 15 U.S.C. 634 (b)(1), (b)(6); 28U.S.C. 2672; 28 CFR 14.11.

2. Revise § 114.102 to read as follows:

§ 114.102 When, where and how do Ipresent a claim?

(a) When. You must present yourclaim within 2 years of the date ofaccrual.

(b) Where. You may present yourclaim at the SBA District Office nearestto the site of the action giving rise to theclaim and within the same state as thesite. If your claim is based on the actsor omissions of an employee of SBA’sDisaster Assistance Program, you maypresent your claim either to theappropriate SBA District Office or to theDisaster Assistance Office nearest to thesite of the action giving rise to the claim.

(c) How. You must use an official formwhich can be obtained from the SBAoffice where you file the claim or giveother written notice of your claim,stating the specific amount of youralleged damages and providing enoughinformation to enable SBA to investigateyour claim. You may present your claimin person or by mail, but your claim willnot be considered presented until SBAreceives the written information.

3. In § 114.105, revise paragraphs (b)and (c) to read as follows:

§ 114.105 Who investigates and considersmy claim?

* * * * *(b) In those cases in which SBA

investigates your claim, and which ariseout of the acts or omissions ofemployees other than employees of theDisaster Assistance Program, the SBADistrict Counsel in the office withjurisdiction over the site where theaction giving rise to the claim occurredwill investigate and makerecommendations or determination withrespect to your claim. In those cases inwhich SBA investigates your claim, andwhich arise out of acts or omissions ofDisaster Assistance Program employees,the SBA Disaster Area Counsel in theoffice with jurisdiction over the sitewhere the action giving rise to the claimoccurred will investigate and makerecommendations or a determinationwith respect to your claim. The DistrictCounsel, or Disaster Area Counsel,where appropriate, may negotiate withyou, and is authorized to use alternativedispute resolution mechanisms, whichare nonbinding on SBA, when they maypromote the prompt, fair and efficientresolution of your claim.

(c) If your claim is for $5,000 or less,the District Counsel or Disaster AreaCounsel who investigates your claimmay deny the claim, or may recommendapproval, compromise, or settlement of

the claim to the Associate GeneralCounsel for Litigation, who will in sucha case take final action.


§ 114.106 What if my claim exceeds$5,000?

The District Counsel or Disaster AreaCounsel, as appropriate, must reviewand investigate your claim and forwardit with a report and recommendation tothe Associate General Counsel forLitigation, who may approve or deny anaward, compromise, or settlement ofclaims in excess of $5,000, but notexceeding $25,000.


§ 114.108 What if my claim is approved?SBA will notify you in writing if it

approves your claim. The DistrictCounsel or Disaster Area Counselinvestigating your claim will forward toyou, your agent or legal representativethe forms necessary to indicatesatisfaction of your claim and youracceptance of the payment. Acceptanceby you, your agent or your legalrepresentative of any award,compromise or settlement releases allyour claims against the United Statesunder the Federal Tort Claims Act. Thismeans that it binds you, your agent oryour legal representative, and any otherperson on whose behalf or for whosebenefit the claim was presented. It alsoconstitutes a complete release of yourclaim against the United States and itsemployees. If you are represented bycounsel, SBA will designate you andyour counsel as joint payees and willdeliver the check to counsel. Payment iscontingent upon the waiver of yourclaim and is subject to the availabilityof appropriated funds.

Dated: July 20, 1999.Aida Alvarez,Administrator.[FR Doc. 99–18951 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 8025–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99–CE–06–AD; Amendment 39–11234; AD 99–15–13]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; AlexanderSchleicher Segelflugzeugbau ModelASH 26E Sailplanes

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



SUMMARY: This amendment supersedesAirworthiness Directive (AD) 98–09–09,which currently requires replacing theinternal cooling air fan with a fan thatincorporates a white impeller on allAlexander Schleicher Segelflugzeugbau(Alexander Schleicher) Model ASH 26Esailplanes. This AD requires inspectingthe internal cooling air fan for damage,and replacing any fan that does notincorporate a black impeller with a fanthat incorporates a black impeller eitherimmediately or at a certain time period,depending on the results of theinspection. This AD is the result ofmandatory continuing airworthinessinformation (MCAI) issued by theairworthiness authority for Germany.The actions specified by this AD areintended to prevent failure of theinternal cooling system air fan causedby a certain design configuration of theimpeller, which could cause the engineto overheat with possible engine failure.DATES: Effective September 13, 1999.

The incorporation by reference ofcertain publications listed in theregulations is approved by the Directorof the Federal Register as of September13, 1999.ADDRESSES: Service information thatapplies to this AD may be obtained fromAlexander Schleicher Segelflugzeugbau,6416 Poppenhausen, Wasserkuppe,Federal Republic of Germany;telephone: 49.6658.890 or 49.6658.8920;facsimile: 49.6658.8923 or49.6658.8940. This information mayalso be examined at the FederalAviation Administration (FAA), CentralRegion, Office of the Regional Counsel,Attention: Rules Docket No. 99–CE–06–AD, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street,Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or at theOffice of the Federal Register, 800 NorthCapitol Street, NW, suite 700,Washington, DC.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,Small Airplane Directorate, 1201Walnut, suite 900, Kansas City, Missouri64106; telephone: (816) 426–6932;facsimile: (816) 426–2169.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Events Leading to the Issuance of ThisAD

A proposal to amend part 39 of theFederal Aviation Regulations (14 CFRpart 39) to include an AD that wouldapply to all Alexander Schleicher ModelASH 26E sailplanes was published inthe Federal Register as a notice ofproposed rulemaking (NPRM) on April26, 1999 (64 FR 20231). The NPRMproposed to supersede AD 98–09–09,Amendment 39–10489 (63 FR 20308,April 24, 1998). AD 98–09–09 currently

requires replacing the internal coolingair fan with a fan that incorporates awhite impeller, part number (P/N)R1K059.

The NPRM proposed to requireinspecting the internal cooling air fanfor damage, and replacing any fan thatdoes not incorporate a black impeller,P/N R1K074, with a fan thatincorporates a P/N R1K074 impeller.The replacement would beaccomplished either immediately or at acertain time period, depending on theresults of the inspection.

Accomplishment of the proposedactions as specified in the NPRM wouldbe required in accordance withAlexander Schleicher Technical NoteNo. 5 , dated July 23, 1998, and Mid-West Service Bulletin No. 002, datedNovember 13, 1997.

The NPRM was the result ofmandatory continuing airworthinessinformation (MCAI) issued by theairworthiness authority for Germany.

Interested persons have been affordedan opportunity to participate in themaking of this amendment. Nocomments were received on theproposed rule or the FAA’sdetermination of the cost to the public.

The FAA’s Determination

After careful review of all availableinformation related to the subjectpresented above, the FAA hasdetermined that air safety and thepublic interest require the adoption ofthe rule as proposed except for minoreditorial corrections. The FAA hasdetermined that these minor correctionswill not change the meaning of the ADand will not add any additional burdenupon the public than was alreadyproposed.

Differences Between the ServiceBulletin, the German AD, and This AD

Alexander Schleicher Technical NoteNo. 5, dated July 23, 1998, specifiesinspecting the internal air cooling airfan prior to further flight, and GermanAD 1998–391, dated October 8, 1998,requires the inspection prior to furtherflight on sailplanes registered inGermany.

The FAA does not have justificationto require the inspection prior to furtherflight. The FAA is utilizing theinspection compliance time of ‘‘withinthe next 30 calendar days after theeffective date of the AD.’’ The FAA isutilizing the replacement compliancetime of ‘‘within the next 9 calendarmonths after the effective date of theAD’’, or if damage is found during theinspection, ‘‘prior to further flight.’’

Compliance Time of This AD

Although a damaged impeller blade isonly unsafe while the affectedsailplanes are in flight, the conditioncould occur at any time. For example,damage could occur on one sailplanewith 25 hours time-in-service (TIS)while not occurring on another until250 hours TIS. This is due to differentusage levels and the various wayssailplanes are operated and utilized. Inaddition, the average monthly usage ofthe affected sailplane ranges throughoutthe fleet. For example, one owner mayoperate the sailplane 25 hours TIS inone week, while another owner mayoperate the sailplane 25 hours TIS inone year. In order to assure that theunsafe condition is detected andcorrected on all affected sailplanes in atimely manner without inadvertentlygrounding any affected sailplane, theFAA is utilizing compliance based oncalendar time instead of hours TIS.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 9 sailplanesin the U.S. registry will be affected bythis AD, that it will take approximately14 workhours per sailplane toaccomplish this AD, and that theaverage labor rate is approximately $60an hour. Parts are available from themanufacturer at no cost. Based on thesefigures, the total cost impact of this ADon U.S. operators is estimated to be$7,560, or $840 per sailplane.

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 copy of the finalevaluation prepared for this action iscontained in the Rules Docket. A copyof it may be obtained by contacting theRules Docket at the location providedunder the caption ADDRESSES.



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

safety, Incorporation by reference,Safety.

Adoption of the AmendmentAccordingly, pursuant to the

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

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESSDIRECTIVES


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

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

removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)98–09–09, Amendment 39–10489 (63FR 20308, April 24, 1998), and byadding a new airworthiness directive(AD) to read as follows:99–15–13 Alexander Schleicher

Segelflugzeugbau: Amendment 39–11234; Docket No. 99–CE–06–AD;Supersedes AD 98–09–09; Amendment39–10489.

Applicability: Model ASH 26E sailplanes,all serial numbers, certificated in anycategory; that are equipped with an internalcooling system air fan that does notincorporate a black impeller, part number(P/N) R1K074.

Note 1: This AD applies to each sailplaneidentified in the preceding applicabilityprovision, regardless of whether it has beenmodified, altered, or repaired in the areasubject to the requirements of this AD. Forsailplanes that have been modified, altered,or repaired 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 in thebody of this AD, unless alreadyaccomplished.

To prevent failure of the internal coolingsystem air fan caused by a certain designconfiguration of the impeller, which couldcause the engine to overheat with possibleengine failure, accomplish the following:

(a) Within the next 30 calendar days afterthe effective date of this AD, inspect theinternal cooling air fan for damage inaccordance with Alexander SchleicherTechnical Note No. 5, dated July 23, 1998.

(b) Replace the internal cooling system airfan with a fan that incorporates a blackimpeller, P/N R1K074, at whichever of thecompliance times below (paragraphs (b)(1)and (b)(2) of this AD) that applies.

Accomplish this replacement in accordancewith Mid-West Service Bulletin No. 002,dated November 13, 1997:

(1) Prior to further flight if damage is foundin the internal cooling air fan during theinspection required by paragraph (a) of thisAD; or

(2) Within the next 9 calendar months afterthe effective date of this AD if damage is notfound during the inspection required byparagraph (a) of this AD.

(c) As of the effective date of this AD, noperson may install, on any affected sailplane,an internal cooling system air fan that doesnot incorporate a black impeller, P/NR1K074, as specified in Mid-West ServiceBulletin No. 002, dated November 13, 1997;and Alexander Schleicher Technical NoteNo. 5, dated July 23, 1998.

(d) Special flight permits may be issued inaccordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR21.197 and 21.199) to operate the sailplaneto a location where the requirements of thisAD can be accomplished.

(e) An alternative method of compliance oradjustment of the compliance times thatprovides an equivalent level of safety may beapproved by the Manager, Small AirplaneDirectorate, FAA, 1201 Walnut, suite 900,Kansas City, Missouri 64106. The requestshall be forwarded through an appropriateFAA Maintenance Inspector, who may addcomments and then send it to the Manager,Small Airplane Directorate.

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

(f) Questions or technical informationrelated to Alexander Schleicher TechnicalNote No. 5 , dated July 23, 1998, and Mid-West Service Bulletin No. 002, datedNovember 13, 1997, should be directed toAlexander Schleicher Segelflugzeugbau, 6416Poppenhausen, Wasserkuppe, FederalRepublic of Germany; telephone: 49.6658.890or 49.6658.8920; facsimile: 49.6658.8923 or49.6658.8940. This service information maybe examined at the FAA, Central Region,Office of the Regional Counsel, Room 1558,601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri64106.

(g) The inspection required by this ADshall be done in accordance with AlexanderSchleicher GmbH & Co. Technical Note No.5, dated July 23, 1998. The replacementrequired by this AD shall be done inaccordance with Mid-West Engines Ltd.Service Bulletin No. 002, dated November 13,1997. 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 Alexander Schleicher Segelflugzeugbau,6416 Poppenhausen, Wasserkuppe, FederalRepublic of Germany. Copies may beinspected at the FAA, Central Region, Officeof the Regional Counsel, Room 1558, 601 E.12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri, or at theOffice of the Federal Register, 800 NorthCapitol Street, NW, suite 700, Washington,DC.

Note 3: The subject of this AD is addressedin German AD 1998–391, dated October 8,1998.

(h) This amendment supersedes AD 98–09–09, Amendment 39–10489.

(i) This amendment becomes effective onSeptember 13, 1999.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on July 14,1999.Michael Gallagher,Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, AircraftCertification Service.[FR Doc. 99–18625 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–13–P



14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 97–ANM–23]

RIN 2120–AA66

Establishment of VOR FederalAirways; WA

AGENCY: Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), DOT.ACTION: Final rule; establishment ofeffective date.

SUMMARY: On July 22, 1998, the FAApublished a final rule in the FederalRegister that revised Federal AirwaysV–165 and V–287 located in the State ofWashington. Federal Airway V–165 wasrevised to establish a route between theOlympia Very High FrequencyOmnidirectional Range/Tactical AirNavigation System (VORTAC) to thePenn Cove VOR, to Bellingham, WA.Federal Airway V–287 was revised toestablish a route from the PaineVORTAC to the Penn Cove VOR. OnAugust 14, 1998, the effective date ofthese airway revisions was delayed topermit the FAA to conduct additionalflight inspections. This actionestablishes the effective date for V–165and V–287 as September 9, 1999.EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of thefinal rule published at 63 FR 39234 anddelayed at 63 FR 43622 is 0901 UTC,September 9, 1999.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: KenMcElroy, Airspace and Rules Division,ATA–400, Office of Air Traffic AirspaceManagement, Federal AviationAdministration, 800 IndependenceAvenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;telephone: (202) 267–8783.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 5,1998, the FAA published a Notice ofProposed Rulemaking in the FederalRegister inviting comments on aproposal to revise V–165 and V–287 inthe State of Washington (63 FR 24764).



The proposed revisions would improvethe FAA in management of air trafficoperations in the State of Washington.No comments were received in responseto the proposal.

On July 22, 1998, the FAA publisheda final rule amending 14 CFR part 71,revising V–165 and V–287 in the Stateof Washington (63 FR 39234). However,on August 14, 1998 the FAA delayed theeffective date for the revisions toconduct additional flight inspections(63 FR 43622). This final ruleestablishes an effective date ofSeptember 9, 1999, for theimplementation of changes to V–165and V–287 in the State of Washington.

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


Airspace, Incorporation by reference,Navigation (air).

Effective Date

The effective date of the final rule,Airspace Docket No. 97–ANM–23, aspublished in the Federal Register onJuly 22, 1998 (63 FR 39234), anddelayed on August 14, 1998 (63 FR43622) is 0901 UTC September 9, 1999.

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

Issued in Washington, DC, on July 14,1999.

Reginald C. Matthews,Manager, Airspace and Rules Division.[FR Doc. 99–18565 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

UNITED STATES INFORMATIONAGENCY

22 CFR Part 514

Exchange Visitor Program

AGENCY: United States InformationAgency.ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: By interim rule publishedJune 26, 1998 (63 FR 34808) the Agencyadopted a fee sufficient for it to recoverthe full cost of its administrativeprocessing of request for waiver of thetwo-year return to the home countryrequirement set forth in section 212(e)of the Immigration and NaturalizationAct (8 U.S.C. 1182(e)). Such interim ruleis hereby adopted as final withoutchange.EFFECTIVE DATE: July 26, 1999.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Stanley S. Colvin, Assistant GeneralCounsel, United States InformationAgency, 301 4th Street, SW,Washington, DC 20547; telephone, (202)619–6531.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: TheAgency has determined that its reviewof and recommendation regardingrequests for the waiver of the two-yearreturn to the home country requirementimposed by 8 U.S.C. 1182(e) confers aspecific benefit to the requestingindividual. Accordingly, a fee sufficientto recoup the costs of conferring thisspecific benefit is appropriate. TheAgency identified all administrativetasks associated with the administrativeprocessing of a waiver application anddetermined that the per unit cost ofprocessing a waiver application is $136.

In publishing its interim rule theAgency provided a thirty day publiccomment period and received fourcomments. All comments were wellreasoned and suggested that the feeshould vary according to the statutorybasis upon which the application waspresented. The assumption underlyingthese comments was that significantlymore or less work is involved in thereview and recommendation of waivercases depending upon the basis of theapplication. The Agency has examinedthis suggestion and determines that allwaiver and recommendations requirethat the Agency receive the waiverapplication, record the fee, input theapplication data, manage assortedrecords, adjudicate the application,prepare outgoing correspondence, andrespond to various inquiries regardingthe application. Accordingly, theadministrate cost associated with theprocessing of these various waiverrequests varies little if at all and the

$136 unit cost is the appropriate fee forall waiver applications.

A second comment theme to thecomments received regarded thesegregation of the fee monies collectedfor use by the administrative processingunit responsible for waiver application.As explained in the interim rule, theGovernment may recoup the full cost ofadministrative processing, but not more.Pursuant to statute and ExecutiveBranch directive, the fee collected mustbe used to pay the costs of theadministrative unit responsible for theprocessing of the applications.

Finally, the comments suggested thatthe Agency clarify that no fee isrequired for an advisory opinionrequest. The Agency does not anticipateimposing a fee for advisory opinionsand does not consider an advisoryopinion to confer a specific andidentifiable benefit upon an individualfor which a fee may be lawfullyimposed.


Cultural Exchange Programs.Les Jin,General Counsel.

Accordingly, the interim ruleamending 22 CFR part 514, published at63 FR 34808 on June 26, 1998 isadopted as a final rule without change.

[FR Doc. 99–18987 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 8230–01–M

NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD

29 CFR Parts 1203, 1205 and 1209

Adminstrative Corrections

AGENCY: National Mediation Board.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The National MediationBoard is making minor administrativecorrections at various locations in itsregulations. None of the corrections willaffect the substance of any provision inthe regulations.

DATES: This rule is effective July 26,1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Ronald M. Etters, General Counsel,National Mediation Board, Washington,DC 20572, Telephone (202) 692–5040.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Becausethese changes are minor and do notaffect the substance of 29 CFR, we arepublishing this rule as a final rule withno opportunity for public comment.



List of Subjects

29 CFR Part 1203

Administrative practice andprocedure, Air carriers, Labormanagement relations.

29 CFR Part 1205

Air carriers, Railroads.

29 CFR Part 1209

National Mediation Board, SunshineAct.

Accordingly, the National MediationBoard is amending 29 CFR parts 1203,1205, and 1209 as follows:

PART 1203—APPLICATIONS FORSERVICE


Authority: 44 Stat. 577, as amended; 45U.S.C. 151–163.

§ 1203.1 [Amended]2. Section 1203.1 is amended in the

first sentence by removing the word‘‘Secretary’’ and adding in its place thewords ‘‘Chief of Staff’s Office or on theInternet at www.nmb.gov’’. The lastsentence is amended by revising‘‘Board’s officer’’ to read ‘‘Board’soffices’’.

§ 1203.2 [Amended]3. Section 1203.2 is amended in the

first sentence by revising ‘‘ExecutiveSecretary’’ to read ‘‘Representation andLegal Department or on the Internet atwww.nmb.gov’’.

§ 1203.3 [Amended]4. Section 1203.3 is amended in

paragraph (a) by revising ‘‘Secretary’’ toread ‘‘Chief of Staff’’.

PART 1205—NOTICES IN RE:RAILWAY LABOR ACT


Authority: 44 Stat. 577, as amended; 45U.S.C. 151–163.

§ 1205.4 [Amended]6. Section 1205.4 is amended by

removing the ‘‘s’’ in ‘‘Acts’’.

PART 1209—PUBLIC OBSERVATIONOF NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARDMEETINGS

7. The authority citation for part 1209is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(g).

§ 1209.7 [Amended]8. In § 1209.7(f) remove the words

‘‘Executive Secretary’’ and add in theirplace, the words ‘‘Chief of Staff’’.

§ 1209.8 [Amended]

9. In § 1209.8(d) remove the words‘‘Executive Secretary’’ and add in theirplace, the words ‘‘Chief of Staff’’.

Dated: July 19, 1999.Stephen E. Crable,Chief of Staff.[FR Doc. 99–18939 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 7550–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IN96–1a; FRL–6401–9]

Approval and Promulgation ofImplementation Plan; Indiana

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving temporaryrevised opacity limits for two processesat ALCOA Warrick Operations, whichwere submitted by the IndianaDepartment of EnvironmentalManagement (IDEM) on December 8,1998, as amendments to its StateImplementation Plan (SIP). ALCOAWarrick Operations is a primaryaluminum smelter located in Newburgh,Indiana. The revised limits allow forhigher opacity emissions during fluxingoperations at two holding furnaces for aperiod of one year. The temporary limitsfor the #1 and #8 complexes expire onMay 26, 1999, and June 15, 1999,respectively. Mass emissions limits arenot being changed.DATES: This rule is effective onSeptember 24, 1999, unless EPAreceives adverse written comments byAugust 25, 1999. If adverse comment isreceived, EPA will publish a timelywithdrawal of the rule in the FederalRegister and inform the public that therule will not take effect.ADDRESSES: You should mail writtencomments to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief,Regulation Development Section, AirPrograms Branch (AR–18J), U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,Chicago, Illinois 60604.

You may inspect copies of the Statesubmittal and EPA’s analysis of it at:Regulation Development Section,Regulation Development Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Region 5, 77 West JacksonBoulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:David Pohlman, EnvironmentalScientist, Regulation Development

Section, Regulation DevelopmentBranch (AR–18J), U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Region 5, 77 WestJackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois60604, (312) 886-3299.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:Throughout this document wherever‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’, or ‘‘our’’ are used we meanEPA.

Table of Contents

I. What is the EPA approving?II. What facilities/operations does this action

apply to?III. What are the provisions of the temporary

opacity limits?IV. What are the current limits on these

sources?V. What supporting materials did Indiana

provide?VI. What are the environmental effects of this

action?VII. EPA rulemaking action.VIII. Administrative requirements.

A. Executive Order 12866B. Executive Order 12875C. Executive Order 13045D. Executive Order 13084E. Regulatory Flexibility ActF. Unfunded MandatesG. Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller GeneralH. Paperwork Reduction ActI. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement ActJ. Petitions for Judicial Review

I. What Is the EPA Approving?

We are approving as SIP revisionstemporary revised opacity limits for twoprocesses at ALCOA WarrickOperations, which were submitted byIDEM on December 8, 1998. The revisedlimits allow for higher opacityemissions during fluxing operations attwo holding furnaces for a period of oneyear. The temporary limits for the #1and #8 complexes expire on May 26,1999, and June 15, 1999, respectively.

II. What Facilities/Operations Does ThisAction Apply to?

We are approving temporary revisedopacity limits for two processes atALCOA Warrick Operations. ALCOAWarrick Operations is a primaryaluminum smelter located in Newburgh,Indiana. Molten aluminum istransferred from the melt furnaces intothe holding furnaces for final fluxing,then cast into slabs. There are noparticulate matter (PM) control devicesfor these processes. Emissions areexhausted through ventilation hoods tothe exhaust stacks for each holdingfurnace. The revised limits apply to the#1 Complex (the Horizontal Direct ChillCasting, or HDC) and the #8 Complex(the Electromagnetic Casting, or EMC).



III. What Are the Provisions of theTemporary Opacity Limits?

The temporary limits for both the #1complex and the #8 complex werecontained in a variance issued by IDEMon May 8, 1998. The limit on the #8complex was revised on May 28, 1998.These revised limits became effective inIndiana 18 days after being issued, andare effective for one year. The temporarylimits for the #1 and #8 complexesexpire on May 26, 1999, and June 15,1999, respectively.

The revised limits allow emissionswith an opacity up to 80 percent duringthe fluxing portion of the productioncycle from the East and West holdingfurnace exhaust stacks at the #1Complex (HDC). This opacity is allowedfor no more than 6 six-minute averagingperiods, and only during fluxing. For allother portions of the production cycle,the limit remains at 40 percent. Fluxinglasts approximately 12–15 minutes ofthe 5–10 hour production cycle for theHDC.

For the East and West holding furnaceexhaust stacks at the #8 Complex (EMC),the revised limit allows opacity duringfluxing up to 95 percent for 2 six-minuteaveraging periods, and up to 90 percentopacity for an additional 4 six-minuteaveraging periods. During all otherportions of the production cycle, theopacity of emissions from the EMCcontinues to be limited to 40 percent.Fluxing lasts approximately 12–15minutes of the 3–4 hour productioncycle for the EMC.

Mass PM emissions remain the same.

IV. What Are the Current Limits onThese Sources?

These processes are currently coveredby SIP rule Title 326 IndianaAdministrative Code, Article 5, Rule 1,Section 2 (326 IAC 5–1–2), whichprovides a 40 percent opacity limit.

They are also covered by a SIP massemission limit contained in 326 IAC 6–3–2. This regulation provides for a limitbased on the process rate.

V. What Supporting Materials DidIndiana Provide?

Indiana provided stack test data andopacity readings. Stack tests wereconducted by ALCOA to show that therevised opacity limit would still beprotective of the SIP mass PM emissionlimits. ALCOA conducted two rounds ofstack tests, and opacity readings weretaken during fluxing for many of theruns.

The first round measured emissions ofPM over the entire production cycle.(The production cycle lasts 5–10 hoursfor the HDC and 3–4 hours for the EMC.)

Nine test runs were conducted on eachexhaust stack. Fluxing was conductedfor 35 minutes during each run, toapproximate a worst-case scenario.(Fluxing normally lasts only 12–15minutes.)

These tests showed PM emission ratesof 17–32 pounds per hour (lbs/hr) and1–3 lbs/hr for the HDC East and Westholding furnaces, respectively. Thiscompares to SIP limits of 31–44 lbs/hrfor the East furnace and 14–28 lbs/hr forthe West furnace. (Limits vary becausethey are based on production rate.)

For the EMC, measured emissionsranged from about 4–7 lbs/hr for theEast holding furnace and about 4–10lbs/hr for the West holding furnace.Limits for the EMC were about 49lbs/hr for the East furnace and 47–53lbs/hr for the West furnace.

During fluxing, 6-minute averageopacity readings ranged from about 20–95 percent for the EMC, with an averageof about 70 percent. For the HDC, 6-minute average opacity readings rangedfrom about 10–80 percent, with anaverage of about 50 percent.

The second round of tests wasconducted for only one hour of theproduction cycle each, including thefluxing portion of the cycle. These testswere designed to show compliance withmass PM emissions limits on a one-hourbasis. The tests include the fluxingportion of the cycle since fluxingproduces the bulk of emissions from theholding furnaces. 3–12 test runs wereconducted on each exhaust stack.During these tests, fluxing was alsoconducted for a ‘‘worst-case’’ time of 35minutes. Opacity readings were takenduring many of the runs.

These tests showed PM emission ratesof 11–32 pounds per hour (lbs/hr) and8–13 lbs/hr for the HDC East and Westholding furnaces, respectively. Thiscompares to limits of 17–37 lbs/hr forthe East furnace and 12–20 lbs/hr for theWest furnace. (Limits vary because theyare based on production rate.) For theEMC, measured emissions ranged fromabout 7–15 lbs/hr for the East holdingfurnace and about 10–15 lbs/hr for theWest holding furnace. Limits for theEMC were about 38–44 lbs/hr for theEast furnace and 41–44 lbs/hr for theWest furnace.

The tests show that ALCOA can meetSIP mass emissions limits at the EMCand HDC holding furnace stacks duringfluxing. Even though opacity was oftenhigh during fluxing, no violations of theSIP mass PM emissions limits weremeasured. The tests indicate that thetemporary revised opacity limits willnot allow violations of the mass limitsfor these sources.

VI. What Are the Environmental Effectsof This Action?

While they are in effect, thetemporary revised opacity limits willallow darker smoke to be emitted thandoes the current SIP rule. However,since no mass limits are being revised,and since the temporary revised opacitylimits are protective of the current masslimits, this SIP revision should notjeopardize air quality.

VII. EPA Rulemaking Action

We are approving, through direct finalrulemaking, temporary revised opacitylimits for two processes at ALCOAWarrick Operations. We are publishingthis action without prior proposalbecause we view this as anoncontroversial revision and anticipateno adverse comments. However, in aseparate document in this FederalRegister publication, we are proposingto approve the SIP revision shouldadverse written comments be filed. Thisaction will be effective without furthernotice unless we receive relevantadverse written comment by August 25,1999. Should we receive suchcomments, we will publish a final ruleinforming the public that this actionwill not take effect. Any partiesinterested in commenting on this actionshould do so at this time. If no suchcomments are received, you are advisedthat this action will be effective onSeptember 24, 1999.

It should be noted that the applicableperiod of these temporary opacity limitsis wholly in the past. Therefore, wemust judge whether the variancewarrants inclusion as a codified elementof the Indiana SIP. We are undertakingan effort to revise the presentation ofSIPs in a manner that more clearlyidentifies the enforceable elements ofeach SIP. Part of this effort is toeliminate referencing of temporarylimits that have expired. The temporaryopacity limits for ALCOA alter theopacity limits to be enforced forapproximately one year, but have noeffect on the current regulationsgoverning emissions at this facility.Consequently, we are not codifying thetemporary opacity limits for ALCOA aspart of the Indiana SIP.

VIII. 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 the mandate isunfunded, EPA must provide to theOffice 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 writtencommunications 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 createa mandate 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 13045

Protection of Children fromEnvironmental Health Risks and SafetyRisks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),applies to any rule that: (1) isdetermined to be ‘‘economicallysignificant’’ as defined under 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 13084

Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issuea 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 compliance

costs incurred by the tribalgovernments. If the mandate isunfunded, EPA must provide to theOffice of Management and Budget, in aseparately identified section of thepreamble to the rule, a description ofthe extent of EPA’s prior consultationwith representatives of affected tribalgovernments, a summary of the natureof their concerns, and a statementsupporting the need to issue theregulation. In addition, E.O. 13084requires EPA to develop an effectiveprocess permitting elected 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 notsignificantly or uniquely affect thecommunities of Indian tribalgovernments. Accordingly, therequirements of section 3(b) of E.O.13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility ActThe 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); 42 U.S.C.7410(a)(2).

F. 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 rule

that 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 thatmay 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. Section 804,however, exempts from section 801 thefollowing types of rules: rules ofparticular applicability; rules relating toagency management or personnel; andrules of agency organization, procedure,or practice that do not substantiallyaffect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA isnot required to submit a rule reportregarding this rulemaking action undersection 801 because this is a rule ofparticular applicability.

H. Paperwork Reduction ActThis action does not contain any

information collection requirementswhich requires OMB approval under thePaperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.3501 et seq.).

I. National Technology Transfer andAdvancement Act

Section 12 of the National TechnologyTransfer and Advancement Act(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federalagencies to evaluate existing technicalstandards when developing a newregulation. To comply with NTTAA,EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary



consensus standards’’ (VCS) if availableand applicable when developingprograms and policies unless doing sowould be inconsistent with applicablelaw or otherwise impractical.

The EPA believes that VCS areinapplicable to this action. Today’saction does not require the public toperform activities conducive to the useof VCS.

J. 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 September 24,1999. Filing a petition forreconsideration by the Administrator ofthis final rule does not affect the finalityof this rule for the purposes of judicialreview nor does it extend the timewithin which a petition for judicialreview may be filed, and shall notpostpone the effectiveness of such ruleor action. This action may not bechallenged later in proceedings toenforce its requirements. (See section307(b)(2).)


Environmental protection, Airpollution control, Particulate matter.

Dated: July 9, 1999.Francis X. Lyons,Regional Administrator, Region 5.[FR Doc. 99–18870 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ANDHUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Children andFamilies

45 CFR Parts 260, 261, 262, 263, 264,and 265

Temporary Assistance for NeedyFamilies (TANF) Program

AGENCY: Administration for Childrenand Families, Office of FamilyAssistance, HHS.ACTION: Technical and correctingamendments.

SUMMARY: This document containstechnical correcting amendments to theTemporary Assistance for NeedyFamilies final rule published on April12, 1999 (64 FR 17720). The final ruleimplements key statutory provisionsrelated to work, penalties, and datacollection.DATES: Effective October 1, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: AnnBurek, Office of Family Assistance, 202–401–4528.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. BackgroundWe published the final rule on the

Temporary Assistance for NeedyFamilies (TANF) program on April 12,1999 in the Federal Register (64 FR17720). The purpose of the final rule isto implement key provisions of the newwelfare block grant program, which wasenacted as part of the PersonalResponsibility and Work OpportunityReconciliation Act of 1996. Theeffective date of the rule is October 1,1999.

II. Need for Technical and CorrectingAmendments in 45 CFR Parts 260, 261,262, 263, 264, and 265

This document corrects technicalerrors and omissions in the preambleand text of the final regulations andrefines certain provisions to make themclearer.

A. Regulatory TextWe have made the following changes

in the regulatory text:• In § 260.30, we defined

noncustodial parent primarily for thepurpose of specifying who must beincluded under certain reportingprovisions in part 265. In fact, althoughthe preamble uses the term in a numberof places, part 265 is the only place inthe regulation that the term is used. Butsome readers were assuming that thedefinition restricted the benefits andservices that noncustodial parents mightreceive. Similarly, the definition createdconfusion about exactly what needed tobe reported if a noncustodial parent wasinvolved. We have refined the definitionat § 260.30 to eliminate the confusionand revised the regulatory text at § 265.3to clearly address the circumstancesunder which States must reportinformation on noncustodial parents.

• The changes to the heading of§ 260.59 correct errors in format.

• In § 261.56, we have inserted amissing quotation mark.

• In § 262.5, we intended to giveStates that could not meet the reportingdeadline for the first two quarters of FY2000 data, due to Y2K complianceactivities, additional time to submit thedata and avoid a penalty. While the June30, 2000, date in the rules gave Statesan additional 90 days to submit the firstquarter’s data, it did not give States theintended additional time for the secondquarter’s data. States that submitted thesecond quarter’s data by June 30 wouldnot have been subject to a reportingpenalty under the normal TANF

reporting rules and therefore receivedno additional time for that quarter. Thisresult was inadvertent. In order toprovide the additional time that weintended, we should have specified aSeptember 30, 2000, date as the finaldeadline for States wishing to claimreasonable cause for failing to meet thereporting requirements on a timelybasis. Thus, we are making that changeas a technical amendment.Corresponding changes should also bemade to the preamble references to July1, 2000, on pages 17804 (column 3) and17866 (column 1) and the reference toJune 30, 2000, on page 17858 (column3).

• In § 263.2(b)(1)(iii), we have addedsome statutory language that we hadinadvertently omitted from the finalrule. It is clear from the statute atsection 409(a)(7)(B)(i)(IV) and thepreamble discussion on page 17822 (i.e.,in the first comment) that the thirdcategory of ‘‘eligible families,’’ for MOEpurposes, includes only ‘‘families ofaliens lawfully present in the UnitedStates’’ that would be eligible for TANF,but for the alien provisions inPRWORA. We have corrected theregulatory text to reflect this limitation.

• We are also refining § 263.2(d). Theregulation at § 260.31(c) provides thatthe definition of assistance does notapply to the use of the term ‘‘assistance’’in subpart A of part 263—the subpartthat addresses allowable MOEexpenditures. The MOE regulation at§ 263.2(d) included a similar provision.However, this latter provisionreferenced only paragraph (a) of § 263.2.Since paragraph (b)(1)(i) also includedthe term ‘‘assistance,’’ readers wereunsure whether the definition ofassistance applied in paragraph (b)(1)(i).The effect of applying the definition ofassistance in paragraph (b)(1)(i) wouldhave been to substantially narrow thenumber and type of families for whombenefits and services that were not‘‘assistance’’ would count as MOE.

The language at § 260.31(c) broadlyaddressed the issue of the applicabilityof the definition of assistance under thatsection to the MOE provisions of therule. Under that provision, thedefinition of assistance does not limitwhat is considered assistance inparagraph (b)(1)(i) of § 263.2. However,because readers found the language at§ 263.2(d) confusing, we have refined itto reaffirm that the definition ofassistance does not limit paragraph(b)(1)(i). The change is a conformingamendment.

• In § 264.3(b), we had omitted theword ‘‘because’’ from the originalregulatory text.



• In § 264.10(b), the originalregulatory text included a reference to aregulatory section—§ 260.52—that hadbeen repealed. Thus, we corrected thecitation for the Income Eligibility andVerification Systems (IEVS) regulations(by replacing this reference with areference to § 205.60). Correspondingchanges should also be made to thereferences to § 205.62 on page 17849 inboth the last paragraph in column oneand the first response in column two.

• As already explained, in § 265.3(f),we clarify the circumstances underwhich States must report information onnoncustodial parents.

B. Preamble Language

In addition to the regulatory textchanges described above, we note thefollowing correction to the preamblelanguage in the final rule:

In the preamble to § 260.30, weinadvertently omitted some languageexplaining the new definition of‘‘expenditures’’ in § 260.30. We areremoving the first paragraph at thebeginning of the third column on page17752 of the Federal Register notice(i.e., immediately following the heading‘‘(c) Significant Fiscal Terms’’) andadding the following:

In the final rule, we have added adefinition for the term expenditure andadded a new § 260.33 to explain thecircumstances under which refundableEarned Income Tax Credits and otherrefundable tax credits would count asexpenditures. We felt it was necessary toinclude a basic definition of expenditure andadd this additional regulatory text because,under the statute, Federal TANF funds andState MOE funds must both be used for‘‘expenditures.’’

We have received many questions fromStates and other interested parties aboutwhether the costs of State EITC programs andother tax provisions could count asexpenditures. The new definition andregulatory text are designed to address thesequestions.

This subpart also incorporates a number ofdefinitions that have substantial policysignificance, which we included forclarification purposes.

For example, it incorporates terms thatdistinguish among several types ofexpenditures. These distinctions are criticalbecause the applicability of the TANFrequirements varies depending on the sourceof funds for the expenditures. In particular,it distinguishes between expenditures fromthe Federal TANF grant and from the Statefunds expended to meet MOE requirements(either within the TANF program or inseparate State programs).

Following is a brief summary of the keyfiscal terms:

Expenditure. This term refers to thespending or disbursement of funds. It doesnot include costs avoided or revenue losses.

Omission of this language had nosubstantive effect on the policy in thefinal rule. However, the language ishelpful in explaining why we added adefinition of expenditure, and theomitted language was referenced in thepreamble discussion at § 260.33.

Waiver of Notice and CommentProcedures

The Administrative Procedure Act (5U.S.C. 55(b)(B)) requires that theDepartment publish a notice ofproposed rulemaking unless theDepartment finds, for good cause, thatsuch notice is impracticable,unnecessary, or contrary to the publicinterest. In this instance, the noticeaffects only technical changes,clarifications, and corrections of text notproperly included in the regulations.Accordingly, the Department hasdetermined that it would beunnecessary and contrary to the publicinterest to use notice and commentprocedures in issuing theseamendments.

Impact Analysis

No impact analysis is needed for thetechnical amendments. The impact ofthe necessary corrections falls withinthe analysis of the TANF final rulepublished in the Federal Register onApril 12, 1999 (64 FR 17873).

List of Subjects in 45 CFR Parts 260,261, 262, 263, 264, and 265

Administrative practice andprocedure, Day care, Employment,Grant programs—social programs, Loanprograms—social programs, Manpowertraining programs, Penalties, Publicassistance programs, Reporting andrecordkeeping requirements, Vocationaleducation.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic AssistancePrograms: 93.558; TANF programs-StateFamily Assistance Grants, Assistance grantsto Territories, Matching grants to Territories,Supplemental Grants for PopulationIncreases and Contingency Fund; 93.559—Loan Fund; 93.595—Welfare ReformResearch, Evaluations and National Studies)

Dated: July 14, 1999.

Kerry Weems,Acting, Deputy Assistant Secretary forInformation Resources Management.

For the reasons set forth in thepreamble, 45 CFR parts 260, 261, 262,263, 264, and 265, published in theFederal Register (64 FR 17720) on April12, 1999, are corrected by making thefollowing technical and correctingamendments:

PART 260—GENERAL TEMPORARYASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES(TANF) PROVISIONS


Authority: 42 U.S.C. 601, 601 note, 603,604, 606, 607, 608, 609, 610, 611, 619, and1308.

2. In § 260.30, correct the definition of‘‘noncustodial parent’’ to read asfollows:

§ 260.30 What definitions apply under theTANF regulations?

* * * * *Noncustodial parent means a parent

of a minor child who:(1) Lives in the State; and(2) Does not live in the same

household as the minor child.* * * * *

3. Correct the heading to § 260.59 toread as follows:

§ 260.59 What penalty relief is available toa State that failed to comply with the five-year limit on Federal assistance because itprovided federally recognized good causedomestic violence waivers?

PART 261—ENSURING THATRECIPIENTS WORK


Authority: 42 U.S.C. 601, 602, 607, and609.

§ 261.56 [Corrected]

5. Correct § 261.56(b)(2)(ii) by addinga quotation mark in front of the words‘‘reasonable distance.’’

PART 262—ACCOUNTABILITYPROVISIONS—GENERAL


Authority: 31 U.S.C. 7501 et seq.; 42 U.S.C.606, 609, and 610.

§ 262.5 [Corrected]

7. Correct § 262.5(b)(1)(ii) byremoving ‘‘June 30, 2000’’ and adding‘‘September 30, 2000’’ in its place.

PART 263—EXPENDITURES OF STATEAND FEDERAL TANF FUNDS


Authority: 42 U.S.C. 604, 607, 609, and862a.

9. Correct § 263.2 by revisingparagraph (b)(1)(iii) and adding asentence to the end of paragraph (d) toread as follows:



§ 263.2 What kinds of State expenditurescount toward meeting a State’s basic MOEexpenditure requirement?

(b) * * *(1) * * *(iii) Are lawfully present in the

United States and would be eligible forassistance, but for the application oftitle IV of PRWORA;* * * * *

(d) * * * Further, families that meetthe criteria in paragraphs (b)(2) and(b)(3) of this section are considered to beeligible for TANF assistance for thepurposes of paragraph (b)(1)(i) of thissection.* * * * *

PART 264—OTHER ACCOUNTABILITYPROVISIONS


Authority: 31 U.S.C. 7501 et. seq.; 42U.S.C. 609, 654, 1302, 1308, and 1337.

11. Correct § 264.3(b) to read asfollows:

§ 264.3 How can a state avoid a penalty forfailure to comply with the five-year limit?

* * * * *(b) In addition, we will determine a

State has reasonable cause if itdemonstrates that it failed to complywith the five-year limit on Federalassistance because of federallyrecognized good cause domesticviolence waivers provided to victims ofdomestic violence in accordance withprovisions of subpart B of part 260.

§ 264.10 [Corrected]12. Correct § 264.10(b) by removing

‘‘205.62’’ and inserting ‘‘205.60’’ in itsplace.

PART 265—DATA COLLECTION ANDREPORTING REQUIREMENTS


Authority: 42 U.S.C. 603, 605, 607, 609,611, and 613.

14. Correct § 265.3 by redesignatingparagraph (f) introductory test asparagraph (f)(1); redesignatingparagraphs (f)(1), (2), and (3) asparagraphs (f)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii),respectively; and adding the followingparagraph (f)(2) to read as follows:

§ 265.3 What reports must the State file ona quarterly basis?

* * * * *(f) * * *(2) Reporting conditions. (i) If the

noncustodial parent is the only memberof the family receiving assistance, theState must report the disaggregated and

aggregated information on the entirefamily under paragraphs (b) and (d) ofthis section, as applicable.

(ii) If the noncustodial parent is onlyparticipating in work activities that donot constitute assistance (as defined in§ 260.31 of this chapter) and the othermembers of the family are not receivingassistance, the State must report onlythe aggregated information underparagraph (b)(3) of this section on thenoncustodial parent.

[FR Doc. 99–18655 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4184–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONSCOMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 99–46; RM–9470]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Tecopa,CA

AGENCY: Federal CommunicationsCommission.ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document allots Channel291A to Tecopa, California, as thatcommunity’s first local auraltransmission service in response to apetition for rule making filed by HodsonBroadcasting. See 64 FR 8781 February23, 1999. Coordinates used for Channel291A at Tecopa are 35–50–48 NL and116–13–24 WL. With this action, theproceeding is terminated.DATES: Effective August 30, 1999. Afiling window for Channel 291A atTecopa, California, will not be openedat this time. Instead, the issue ofopening a filing window for thischannel will be addressed by theCommission in a subsequent Order.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202)418–2180.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is asynopsis of the Commission’s Reportand Order, MM Docket No. 99–46,adopted July 7, 1999, and released July16, 1999. The full text of thisCommission decision is available forinspection and copying during normalbusiness hours in the FCC’s ReferenceInformation Center (Room CY–A257),445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington,DC. The complete text of this decisionmay also be purchased from theCommission’s copy contractor,International Transcription Service,Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW.,Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857–3800.


Radio broadcasting.

Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code ofFederal Regulations is amended asfollows:

PART 73—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 73reads as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.

§ 73.202 [Amended]

2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FMAllotments under California, isamended by adding Tecopa, Channel291A.Federal Communications Commission.John A. Karousos,Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and RulesDivision, Mass Media Bureau.[FR Doc. 99–18960 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6712–01–P


47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 99–131; RM–9333]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Llano,TX

AGENCY: Federal CommunicationsCommission.ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document allotsChannels 293A and 275A to Llano,Texas, in response to a petition filed byElgin FM Limited Partnership (‘‘Elgin’’)to resolve the mutual exclusivitybetween three applicants for Channel242A at Llano. See 64 FR 24566, May7, 1999. We shall allot Channel 293A toLlano at coordinates 30–42–27 and 98–46–25 and modify Elgin’s applicationfor Channel 242A to specify Channel293A (BPH–970914MI) and cut-offprotection. In response to commentsfiled by BK Radio (‘‘BK’’) we shall allotChannel 275A to Llano and modify theapplication for Channel 242A (BPH–970815MD) to specify Channel 275Awith cut-off protection. The coordinatesfor Channel 275A at Llano are 30–42–24 and 98–46–23. Mexican concurrencehas been obtained for the allotment ofChannels 293A and 275A at Llano. Withthis action, this proceeding isterminated.DATES: Effective August 30, 1999.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass MediaBureau, (202) 418–2180.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is asummary of the Commission’s Reportand Order, MM Docket No. 99–131,adopted July 7, 1999, and released July



16, 1999. The full text of thisCommission decision is available forinspection and copying during normalbusiness hours in the Commission’sReference Center, 445 12th Street, SW,Washington, DC. The complete text ofthis decision may also be purchasedfrom the Commission’s copycontractors, International TranscriptionServices, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW,Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857–3800,facsimile (202) 857–3805.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73Radio broadcasting.Part 73 of title 47 of the Code of

Federal Regulations is amended asfollows:

PART 73—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 73continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.

§ 73.202 [Amended]2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM

Allotments under Texas, is amended byadding Channels 275A and 293A atLlano.Federal Communications Commission.John A. Karousos,Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and RulesDivision, Mass Media Bureau.[FR Doc. 99–18959 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6712–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration

50 CFR Part 660

[Docket No. 981231333–9127–03; I.D.071999C]

Fisheries off West Coast States and inthe Western Pacific; Pacific CoastGroundfish Fishery; Whiting Closurefor the Catcher/Processor Sector

AGENCY: National Marine FisheriesService (NMFS), National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA),Commerce.ACTION: Fishing restrictions; request forcomments.

SUMMARY: NMFS announces closure ofthe 1999 catcher/processor fishery forwhiting at 12 noon local time (l.t.) July21, 1999, because the allocation for thecatcher/processor sector will be reachedby that time. This action is intended tokeep the harvest of whiting within the1999 allocation levels.DATES: Effective from 12 noon l.t. July21, 1999, until the start of the 2000

primary season for the catcher/processorsector, unless modified, superseded orrescinded. Comments will be acceptedthrough August 10, 1999.ADDRESSES: Submit comments toWilliam Stelle, Jr., Administrator,Northwest Region (RegionalAdministrator), NMFS, 7600 Sand PointWay NE., Seattle, WA 98115–0070; orRodney R. McInnis, Acting RegionalAdministrator, Southwest Region,NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite4200, Long Beach, CA 90802–4213.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Katherine King at 206–526–6145 orBecky Renko at 206–526–6110.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Thisaction is authorized by regulationsimplementing the Pacific CoastGroundfish Fishery Management Plan(FMP), which governs the groundfishfishery off Washington, Oregon, andCalifornia. On January 8, 1999 (64 FR1316), regulations were publishedannouncing the 1999 fishing seasons forPacific whiting. A new whiting stockassessment was completed in early1999, and an allowable biological catch(ABC) and optimum yield (OY) of232,000 metric tons (mt) wererecommended for all U.S. harvests. OnMay 24, 1999, (64 FR 27928), NMFSannounced the 1999 whiting ABC andOY of 232,000 mt, the tribal whitingallocation of 32,500 mt, and thecommercial OY of 199,500 mt.

Regulations at 50 CFR 660.323(a)(3)(i)describe the primary season for catcher/processors as the period(s) when at-seaprocessing is allowed and the fishery isopen for the catcher/processor sector.Regulations at 50 CFR 660.323(a)(4)divide the commercial allocation intoseparate allocations for the catcher/processor, mothership, and shore-basedsectors of the whiting fishery. Wheneach sector’s allocation is reached, theprimary season for that sector is ended.The catcher/processor sector iscomposed of vessels that harvest andprocess whiting. The mothership sectoris composed of motherships and catchervessels that harvest whiting for deliveryto motherships. Motherships are vesselsthat process, but do not harvest,whiting. The shoreside sector iscomposed of vessels that harvestwhiting for delivery to shore-basedprocessors. The allocations, which arebased on the 1999 commercial harvestguideline for whiting of 199,500 mt, are:67,800 mt (34 percent) for the catcher/processor sector; 47,900 mt (24 percent)for the mothership sector; and 83,800 mt(42 percent) for the shoreside sector.

The best available information on July20, 1999, indicated that the 67,800–mt

catcher/processor allocation would bereached by 12 noon l.t., July 21, 1999.

NMFS Action

For the reasons stated here and inaccordance with the regulations at 50CFR 660.323(a)(4)(iii)(A), NMFS hereinannounces: Effective 12 noon l.t. July21, 1999, further taking and retaining,receiving or at-sea processing of whitingby a catcher/processor is prohibited. Noadditional unprocessed whiting may bebrought on board after at-sea processingis prohibited, but a catcher/processormay continue to process whiting thatwas on board before at-sea processingwas prohibited.

Classification

This action is authorized by theregulations implementing the FMP. Thedetermination to take this action isbased on the most recent data available.The aggregate data upon which thedetermination is based are available forpublic inspection at the Office of theRegional Administrator (see ADDRESSES)during business hours. This action istaken under the authority of 50 CFR660.323(a)(4)(iii)(A) and is exempt fromreview under E.O. 12866.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

Dated: July 20, 1999.Bruce C. Morehead,Acting Director, Office of SustainableFisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.[FR Doc. 99–18996 Filed 7–21–99; 3:52 pm]BILLING CODE 3510–22–F



50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 990304062–9060–01; I.D.072199A]

Fisheries of the Economic ExclusiveZone Off Alaska; Deep-Water SpeciesFishery by Vessels Using Trawl Gear inthe Gulf of Alaska

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

SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directedfishing for species that comprise thedeep-water species fishery by vesselsusing trawl gear in the Gulf of Alaska(GOA). This action is necessary becausethe third seasonal apportionment of the1999 Pacific halibut bycatch allowancespecified for the trawl deep-water



species fishery in the GOA has beencaught.DATES: Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska localtime (A.l.t.), July 21, 1999, until 1200hrs, A.l.t., October 1, 1999.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Thomas Pearson, 907–481–1780 [email protected] INFORMATION: NMFSmanages the groundfish fishery in theGOA exclusive economic zoneaccording to the Fishery ManagementPlan for Groundfish of the Gulf ofAlaska (FMP) prepared by the NorthPacific Fishery Management Councilunder authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation andManagement Act. Regulations governingfishing by U.S. vessels in accordancewith the FMP appear at subpart H of 50CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The Pacific halibut bycatch allowancefor the GOA trawl deep-water speciesfishery, which is defined at§ 679.21(d)(3)(iii)(B), was established bythe Final 1999 Harvest Specifications ofGroundfish for the GOA (64 FR 12094,March 11, 1999) for the third season, the

period July 4, 1999, through September30, 1999, as 400 metric tons.

In accordance with § 679.21(d)(7)(i),the Administrator, Alaska Region,NMFS (Regional Administrator), hasdetermined that the third seasonalapportionment of the 1999 Pacifichalibut bycatch allowance specified forthe trawl deep-water species fishery inthe GOA has been caught.Consequently, NMFS is prohibitingdirected fishing for the deep-waterspecies fishery by vessels using trawlgear in the GOA. The species andspecies groups that comprise the deep-water species fishery are: rockfish asdefined at § 679.2, deep-water flatfish(Dover sole, Greenland turbot, anddeepsea sole), rex sole, arrowtoothflounder, and sablefish.

Maximum retainable bycatch amountsmay be found in the regulations at§ 679.20(e) and (f).

Classification

This action responds to the bestavailable information recently obtainedfrom the fishery. It must be

implemented immediately in order toprevent overharvesting the thirdseasonal apportionment of the 1999Pacific halibut bycatch allowancespecified for the trawl deep-waterspecies fishery in the GOA. A delay inthe effective date is impracticable andcontrary to the public interest. The thirdseasonal apportionment of the Pacifichalibut bycatch allowance has beencaught. Further delay would only resultin overharvest. NMFS finds for goodcause that the implementation of thisaction cannot be delayed for 30 days.Accordingly, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), adelay in the effective date is herebywaived.

This action is required by § 679.21and is exempt from review under E.O.12866.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

Dated: July 21, 1999.Bruce C. Morehead,Acting Director, Office of SustainableFisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.[FR Doc. 99–18997 Filed 7–21–99; 3:52 pm]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

40295

Vol. 64, No. 142


NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION

10 CFR Parts 30, 31, 32, 170, and 171

RIN 3150–AG03

Requirements for Certain GenerallyLicensed Industrial Devices ContainingByproduct Material

AGENCY: Nuclear RegulatoryCommission.ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) is proposing toamend its regulations governing the useof byproduct material in certainmeasuring, gauging, or controllingdevices. The proposed amendmentswould include adding explicitrequirements for a registration processthat the NRC plans to initiate through arelated rulemaking, would add aregistration fee, and would clarifywhich provisions of the regulationsapply to all general licenses forbyproduct material. The proposed rulewould also modify the reporting,recordkeeping, and labelingrequirements for specific licensees whodistribute these generally licenseddevices. The proposed rule is intendedto allow the NRC to better track certaingeneral licensees and the devices theypossess and to further ensure thatgeneral licensees are aware of andunderstand the requirements for thepossession of devices containingbyproduct material.DATES: Submit comments by October 12,1999. Comments received after this datewill be considered if it is practical to doso, but the Commission is able to ensureconsideration only for commentsreceived on or before this date.ADDRESSES: Send comments by mail tothe Secretary, U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, Washington, DC 20555–0001. Attention: Rulemakings andAdjudications Staff.

Hand deliver comments to: 11555Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland,

between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm onFederal workdays.

You may also provide comments viathe NRC’s interactive rulemaking website through the NRC home page(http://www.nrc.gov). This site providesthe availability to upload comments asfiles (any format), if your web browsersupports that function. For informationabout the interactive rulemaking site,contact Ms. Carol Gallagher (301) 415–5905; e-mail [email protected].

Certain documents related to thisrulemaking, including commentsreceived and the regulatory analysis,may be examined at the NRC PublicDocument Room, 2120 L Street NW.(Lower Level), Washington, DC. Thesesame documents also may be viewedand downloaded electronically via theinteractive rulemaking websiteestablished by NRC for this rulemaking.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Catherine R. Mattsen, Office of NuclearMaterial Safety and Safeguards, U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission,Washington, DC 20555–0001, telephone(301) 415–6264, or e-mail [email protected] INFORMATION:

Background

On February 12, 1959 (24 FR 1089),the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)amended its regulations to provide ageneral license (10 CFR 30.21(c)) for theuse of byproduct material contained incertain measuring, gauging, orcontrolling devices. Under currentregulations in 10 CFR 31.5, certainpersons may receive and use a devicecontaining byproduct material underthis general license if the device hasbeen manufactured and distributedaccording to a specific license issued bythe NRC or by an Agreement State. Aspecific license authorizing distributionof generally licensed devices is issued ifa regulatory authority determines thatthe safety features of the device and theinstructions for its safe operation areadequate and meet regulatoryrequirements.

The person or firm who receives sucha device is a general licensee. Thesegeneral licensees are subject torequirements for maintaining labels,following instructions for safe use,storing or disposing of the deviceproperly, and reporting transfers andfailure of or damage to the device. Forsome devices, the general licensee must

also comply with testing requirementsfor leakage and for proper operation ofon-off mechanisms. General licenseesare also subject to the terms andconditions in § 31.2 concerning generallicense requirements, transfer ofbyproduct material, reporting andrecordkeeping, and inspection. Generallicensees must comply with the safetyinstructions contained in or referencedon the label of the device and must havethe testing or servicing of the deviceperformed by an individual who isauthorized to manufacture, install, orservice these devices except asindicated on the label.

A generally licensed device usuallyconsists of radioactive material,contained in a sealed source, within ashielded housing. The device isdesigned with inherent radiation safetyfeatures so that it can be used bypersons with no radiation training orexperience. The general licensesimplifies the licensing process so thata case-by-case determination of theadequacy of the radiation training orexperience of each user is not necessary.

There are about 45,000 generallicensees authorized by § 31.5 to possessabout 600,000 devices that containbyproduct material. The NRC has notcontacted or inspected these generallicensees on a regular basis because ofthe relatively small radiation risk posedby these devices.

Individuals who possess devicesunder this general license are notalways aware of applicablerequirements and thus are notnecessarily complying with all of theserequirements. The NRC is mostconcerned about occurrences wheregenerally licensed devices have notbeen handled or disposed of properly.In some cases, this has resulted inradiation exposure to the public andcontamination of property. Somegenerally licensed devices have beenaccidentally melted in steel millscausing considerable contamination ofthe mill, the steel product, and thewastes from the process, the slag andthe baghouse dust. Although knownexposures have generally not exceededthe public dose limits, there is apotential for significant exposures.

The NRC conducted a 3-year sampling(1984 through 1986) of general licenseesto assess the effectiveness of the generallicense program. The sampling revealedseveral areas of concern regarding the

VerDate 18-JUN-99 10:28 Jul 23, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A26JY2.059 pfrm12 PsN: 26JYP1

40296 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 142 / Monday, July 26, 1999 / Proposed Rules

use of generally licensed devices. Inparticular, the NRC concluded that—

(1) Many general licensees areunaware of the regulations that apply tothe possession of a generally licenseddevice; and

(2) Many general licensees are unableto account for their devices.

Approximately 15 percent of thegeneral licensees sampled could notaccount for all of their generallylicensed devices. The NRC concludedthat these problems could be resolvedby more frequent and timely contactbetween general licensees and the NRC.

On December 27, 1991 (56 FR 67011),the NRC published a notice of proposedrulemaking concerning theaccountability of generally licenseddevices. The proposed rule contained anumber of provisions, including arequirement under § 31.5 for generallicensees to provide information to theNRC upon request, through which adevice registry could be developed. Theproposed rule also includedrequirements in §§ 32.51a and 32.52 forspecific licensees who manufacture orinitially transfer generally licenseddevices. Although the public commentsreceived were reviewed and a final ruledeveloped, a final rule was not issuedbecause the resources to fullyimplement the rule were not available.

The NRC has continued to considerthe issues related to the loss of controlof generally licensed, as well asspecifically licensed, devices. In July1995, the NRC, with assistance from theOrganization of Agreement States,formed a working group to evaluatethese issues. The working groupconsisted of both NRC and AgreementState regulatory personnel andencouraged the involvement of allpersons having a stake in the processand its final recommendations. Allworking group meetings were open tothe public. A final report was publishedin October 1996 as NUREG–1551, ‘‘FinalReport of the NRC-Agreement StateWorking Group to Evaluate Control andAccountability of Licensed Devices.’’

In considering the recommendationsof this working group, the NRC decided,among other things, to again initiaterulemaking to establish an annualregistration of devices generallylicensed under § 31.5. This registrationprogram would be similar to theprogram originally proposed in the 1991proposed rule. However, it would applyonly to those devices considered topresent a higher risk of potentialexposure of the public or property lossin the case of loss of control (comparedto other generally licensed devices).Initially, the NRC has been using thecriteria developed by the working group

for determining which sources shouldbe subject to the registration program.Using these criteria, it is now estimatedthat the registration requirement wouldapply to about 5100 general licenseespossessing about 20,000 devices. Thesecriteria were based on considerations ofrelative risk and are limited toradionuclides currently in use in thesetypes of devices. If quantities of otherradionuclides that would present asimilar risk are used in these devices inthe future, the criteria may be revised toinclude additional radionuclides. TheCommission may also consider revisingthe criteria to include a larger numberof devices in the registrationrequirement for other reasons in futurerulemaking.

The Atomic Energy Act of 1954(AEA), as amended, provides the NRCwith the authority to requestinformation from its licenseesconcerning licensed activities. However,the Commission had not included anexplicit provision in its regulations thatwould require § 31.5 general licensees toprovide information on request. OnDecember 2, 1998 (63 FR 66492), theCommission published a proposed rulethat would explicitly require generallicensees who possess certainmeasuring, gauging, or controllingdevices to provide the NRC withinformation about the devices.Assuming it becomes a final rule, theNRC intends to use that provisionprimarily to institute a registration andaccounting system for the devicescontaining certain quantities of specificradionuclides that present a higher riskof exposure to the public or propertydamage if a device were lost. Thatrulemaking was not proposed as amatter of compatibility for AgreementStates. That proposed rule presented anestimate of 6000 general licensees,based on the estimates made in theworking group report. However, thishad not accounted for the fact that, inthe interim, Massachusetts had becomean Agreement State. Using the samecriteria, and removing the previouslyNRC general licensees in Massachusetts,results in an estimate of 5100 NRCgeneral licensees that would be subjectto the registration requirement.

This proposed rule would addspecific requirements concerning theregistration of devices and additionalprovisions of an enhanced regulatoryoversight program for all generallicensees to be registered. The proposedrule would also establish levels ofcompatibility for Agreement Stateregulations so that an increased level ofoversight for general licensees inAgreement States would also berequired. Some States have already

instituted some form of enhancedoversight for these general licensees. Ina few cases, States have instituted aregistration program. A few States havea higher level of control on thesedevices through requiring specificlicenses. Under the proposed level ofcompatibility for § 31.5, the essentialobjectives of the regulation should beadopted by the State to avoid conflicts,duplications, or gaps. However, themanner in which the essentialobjectives of the regulation areaddressed need not be the same as NRC.Strict compatibility would only berequired for revisions to therequirements applicable to distributorsbecause of interjurisdictionaldistribution.

Discussion

The December 2, 1998, proposed rulewould provide one of the key elementsin improving the accountability andcontrol over devices of particularconcern through the institution of aregistration process. However, currentregulatory provisions are inadequate toallow for the NRC to track generallicensees and the specific devices theypossess. The NRC needs to track thesegeneral licensees in order that they canbe contacted or inspected whenappropriate. The NRC also needs totrack individual generally licenseddevices, so that the responsible partycan be identified when a device is foundin an inappropriate situation.

Tracking devices would also allow theNRC to contact the appropriate generallicensees if a generic defect in a groupof devices is identified. As noted, thatproposed rule would not requireAgreement State regulations to becompatible.

There are other means for reducingthe likelihood of incidents of lostsources. The Commission hasreconsidered the provisions in its 1991proposed rule, evaluated therecommendations of the NRC-Agreement State Working Group, andidentified additional issues concerningthese devices in developing thisproposed rule.

Summary and Discussion of ProposedRequirements

Revisions to the Requirements forGeneral Licensees Under § 31.5

Registration

This proposed rule would addexplicit provisions delineating anannual registration requirement, as wellas a registration fee. The registrationprocess would be initiated under§ 31.5(c)(11), proposed on December 2,

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:01 Jul 23, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26JYP1.XXX pfrm08 PsN: 26JYP1

40297Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 142 / Monday, July 26, 1999 / Proposed Rules

1998, if that requirement is adopted ina final rule. Proposed § 31.5(c)(11)would require licensees to respond torequests for information from NRCwithin 30 days or as otherwisespecified. The provisions proposed inthis document (new § 31.5(c)(13)) areessentially consistent with theCommission’s plans for the registrationprocess discussed in the December 2,1998, proposed rule. This proposed rulewould specifically require that theinformation about devices be verified bythe licensee through a physicalinventory and by checking labelinformation. The advantage of includingmore explicit requirements in theregulation is that information about theregistration process will be more clearlydefined and more available. When thedistributor of a device supplies copies of§ 31.5 to its customers (under§ 32.51a(a)), the potential generallicensees would be made aware of theregistration requirement, the devices towhich it applies, the nature of theregistration information, and theregistration fee.

An organization which uses generallylicensed devices at numerous locationsis considered a separate general licenseeat each location. Different facilities atthe same complex or campus are not,however, considered separate locations.In the case of portable devices that areroutinely used at multiple field sites,there is one general licensee for eachprimary place of storage, not for eachplace of use. Thus, an organizationwould be required to complete morethan one registration, if it possessdevices subject to registration atmultiple distinct locations.

The proposed rule would add a fee to§ 170.31 to be assessed in conjunctionwith the annual registration process.This registration fee would be for eachgeneral licensee filing a registrationunder § 31.5(c)(13) regardless of thenumber of devices. As noted above, anorganization is considered to be aseparate general licensee at eachseparate address at which devices areused, and would be assessed aregistration fee for each location of use.

The NRC is required by the OmnibusBudget Reconciliation Act of 1990, asamended (OBRA–90), to recoverapproximately 100 percent of its budgetthrough fees. Since OBRA–90 wasenacted, all costs of the general licenseprogram have been recovered throughannual fees paid by specific licensees.The proposed registration fees wouldrecover the cost of the general licenseprogram associated with this group ofgeneral licensees in an equitable way, asrequired by law. Those who are allowedto use devices under the general license

would now bear the operational cost ofthe program instead of those who holdspecific licenses. However, it should benoted that the initial program startupcosts would be recovered from theannual fee paid by current holders ofspecific licenses.

The costs to be recovered through theregistration fee include the costs forobtaining and maintaining informationassociated with the devices subject tothe registration requirement, the costs ofprocessing and reviewing theregistrations, and the costs forinspections and follow-up effortsexpected to be made as a result of theregistration process identifyingnoncompliance with existingregulations. The fee would be based onthe average cost of the program for eachof the licensees registering devices.Some of the general licensees, such asnon-profit educational institutions, willbe exempt from the fee under § 170.11.Costs not recovered from this smallsegment of the general licenseesregistering devices would continue to berecovered from annual fees paid bycurrent holders of specific licenses.

It is expected that the overall cost willdecline after the initial years ofimplementation of the registrationprocess, due to increased complianceleading to reduced inspection andfollow-up. However, the number ofgenerally licensed devices in NRCjurisdiction is reduced when a Statebecomes an Agreement State and takesover responsibility for the generallicensees in that State. Although a largepart of the cost of the program isproportional to the number of generallicensees, a portion of the cost is fixed.Thus, the cost per general licenseecould increase if the number of generallicensees subject to registrationdecreases. The proposed registration feeis $420 based on the current estimatedcost of the program and the currentnumber of general licensees withdevices that would be subject toregistration. If additional States becomeAgreement States before this rule ismade final, the fee could be somewhathigher in the final rule.

The Commission considered otherapproaches to the proposed feestructure, such as a fee per device or asliding scale, i. e., fees set for a fewranges of numbers of devices. However,basing fees on the number of devices ora sliding scale would not necessarilymeet the intent of the IndependentOffices Appropriation Act of 1952(IOAA), which is the authority underwhich 10 CFR part 170 fees areestablished. The IOAA provides thatfees recover the agency’s cost inproviding the service. The agency’s

costs to register generally licenseddevices at each location is projected tobe nearly the same regardless of thenumber of sources/devices possessed bythe licensee. Costs of follow-up andinspection do not go up substantiallywith increased numbers of devices. Inaddition, these alternative methodswould complicate the determination ofthe proper fee and the fee recoveryprocess, not only for NRC but for theregistrants as well. With the uncertaintyof the licensees’ status from one year tothe next, the additional administrativeeffort related to the reconciliation of thefee based on the number of devicespossessed from year to year, would notbe cost effective, considering the totalamount projected to be recovered for theregistration program. Additionally,under these alternative methods a largediversified firm that owns one devicewould pay a reduced fee, while a smallentity whose business may dependsolely on the use of the devices mightpay a disproportionate fee because it hasmore than one device. The NRC believesthat basing the fee on a per device basisor a sliding scale would not result in afair and equitable allocation of itsregulatory costs, and would not achievethe goal of the Regulatory Flexibility Actto reduce the impact of fees on smallentities. The NRC believes that theproposed approach of assessing a fee foreach licensee subject to registration—

(1) Better reflects the costs toadminister the program,

(2) Is most consistent with existingNRC fee assessment practices,

(3) Would simplify fee collection,(4) Would be fair and equitable, and(5) Would minimize impacts to small

entities.The planned registration process will

be somewhat different from that used inthe Commission’s other registrationprograms, in which blank forms arefilled out by registrants. Instead, it isplanned to send a registration requestcontaining the information recorded inthe Commission’s database, whichwould ask the general licensee to verify,correct, and/or add to the informationprovided. This would be similar to theapproach typically used by States forthe renewal of automobile registrations.This is intended to be more efficient forthe general licensees and theCommission.

The first registration that would becarried out under § 31.5(c)(11) woulddepend on the NRC’s ability to contactgeneral licensees because the NRC mustrequest the information. This proposedrule also specifies that the generallicensee would complete registration byverifying, correcting, and/or adding tothe information in a request for



registration received from theCommission. It is silent on when or howgeneral licensees should register if theCommission fails to contact the generallicensee. Thus, it might be interpretedthat, if the Commission fails to contacta general licensee, the registrationrequirement would not apply. TheCommission seeks comment on whetherthe registration requirement shouldinclude a provision that would requirethe general licensee to completeregistration by a certain time, such as 15months after—

(1) The date of the previousregistration certificate;

(2) The receipt of a device subject toregistration; or

(3) The effective date of this rule foran unregistered device possessed at thetime of the effective date of a final ruleenacted in response to this proposedrule.

This would put the burden ofregistering on general licensees whohave not been notified by the NRC of therequirement. The intent would be forgeneral licensees who find out about thenew requirements, for example, from adistributor, to contact the NRC to beginthe registration process. If this approachwere taken, the Commission wouldlikely exercise enforcement discretionin cases where the Commission locatesa general licensee who has notpreviously registered devices, if thegeneral licensee was unaware of therequirement. It is recognized that somegeneral licensees who have receiveddevices in the past may never belocated.

The time of year for registrationwould vary for licensees. However,requests for renewal of registrationwould be made approximately 1 yearafter the previous registration requestfor that licensee. Although registrationwould not be required before the receiptof a device, the Commission plans tosend requests for registration to newgeneral licensees subject to registrationthat are identified in distributors’quarterly transfer reports submittedunder § 32.52 shortly after thisinformation is received and recorded. Ifa general licensee has previouslyregistered devices and receivesadditional devices requiringregistration, the new devices would beregistered when the annualreregistration is carried out. TheCommission requests comment onwhether the NRC should have earliercontact with previous registrants whoreceive additional devices, either by anacknowledgment by NRC to the user orby a required response from the generallicensee that accounts for the additionaldevice(s). The effective date of the

registration fee will be set to apply afterthe initial registration requests havebeen sent for response under§ 31.5(c)(11) so that the first round ofannual registration will be completeprior to this effective date and the feewill be imposed with the firstreregistration for all devices currently inuse.

Other Revisions for § 31.5 GeneralLicensees.

The proposed rule would establishadditional requirements for all generallicensees under § 31.5. These proposedrequirements include—

(1) An explicit requirement for thegeneral licensee to appoint anindividual assigned responsibility forknowing what regulatory requirementsare applicable and having authority totake required actions to comply with theapplicable regulations and throughwhom the general licensee carries outits responsibilities to comply with theapplicable regulations (new§ 31.5(c)(12));

(2) A provision that limits the amountof time a general licensee can keep anunused device in storage and allows thedeferment of testing during the period ofstorage (new § 31.5(c)(15));

(3) A provision to allow transfers tospecific licensees authorized under part30, or equivalent Agreement Stateregulations, as waste collectors, inaddition to currently allowed transfersto part 32 (and Agreement State)licensees; to allow transfers to otherspecific licensees but only with priorwritten NRC approval; and to add therecipient’s license number, the serialnumber of the device, and the date oftransfer to the information required tobe provided to NRC upon transfer of adevice (revision of § 31.5(c)(8));

(4) A provision to notify NRC ofaddress changes, including namechanges (new § 31.5(c)(14));

(5) For device damage or failures thatare likely to or are known to haveresulted in contamination, the additionof a plan for ensuring that premises andenvirons are suitable for unrestrictedaccess, to the information that must besent to NRC in the case of a failure; achange to the addressee for reportinginformation concerning a failure; and anote that the criteria in § 20.1402,‘‘Radiological criteria for unrestricteduse,’’ may be applied by theCommission in the case ofcontamination in spite of the exemptionin § 31.5(c)(10) (revision to § 31.5(c)(5));and

(6) A revision of the reportingrequirement, in the case of a transfer toa general licensee taking overpossession of a device at the same

location, to provide the serial number ofthe device and the name and phonenumber for the person designated as theresponsible individual, rather thansimply a contact name (revision to§ 31.5(c)(9)(i)).

The rationale for each of theseproposed amendments is:

(1) New § 31.5(c)(12)—Responsibleperson. The ‘‘person’’ who holds ageneral license is usually a corporation,or public or private institution, ratherthan an individual. In practice, in orderfor the general licensee to comply withexisting regulations, an individual inthe corporation or institution must beaware of the requirements and beauthorized to take the required actions.Appointing a specific individual to beresponsible for knowing about andtaking actions to comply withregulations is an appropriate operationalpractice, which, unfortunately, is notalways followed. If a device is notsubject to testing under § 31.5(c)(2),there are no routine actions required tobe taken, because the requirements aregenerally restrictions on actions, such asnot abandoning the device, or actions tobe taken only in the case of particular,non-routine events, such as notificationof NRC of the transfer or failure of thedevice. It is this type of situation, whereknowledge of the nature of the device,the general license, and the associatedregulations is unlikely to be maintainedand passed on to individuals using thedevice. Requiring the assignment of theresponsibility for knowing and havingauthority to take required actions forcomplying with regulations to a specificindividual would improve theprobability that the general licenseeswill do what they are already requiredto do. The impact of this should beminimal, somewhat limiting operationalflexibility with regard to the assignmentof duties. This individual does not haveto work on site at the place of use of thedevice and does not have to conduct allrequired actions, but would beresponsible to ensure that the generallicensee is aware of required actions tobe taken. This assignment does notrelieve the general licensee ofresponsibility.

The NRC/Agreement State WorkingGroup recommended that generallicensees assign a backup responsibleindividual (BRI) as well. The proposedrule does not include this requirement,but the Commission solicits commenton this issue and will consider addingit to the final rule. A BRI would addsome assurance that there is acontinuation of knowledge of therequirements in the event of the personassigned to be the responsibleindividual leaves his assigned duties.



However, even without a BRI, thegeneral licensee would have theresponsibility under the proposed ruleto replace the responsible individual tomaintain compliance with proposed§ 31.5(c)(12).

(2) New § 31.5(c)(15)—Timeliness ofdisposition and deferral of testing whilein storage. When a device is not in usefor a prolonged time, it is particularlysusceptible to being forgotten andultimately disposed of or transferredinappropriately. General licensees areunlikely to keep a device unused formore than 2 years and subsequently useit. If a device is being held in storageindefinitely, it is likely that it is beingstored to avoid the costs of properdisposal. If a general licensee intends touse a device after a period of more than2 years of nonuse, the device could besent back to the supplier to be heldunder the distributor’s specific licenseuntil later use, or the general licenseecould request an exemption from§ 31.5(c)(15) indicating the reason(s)why the licensee intends to use thedevice after 2 years and prefers to keepit on site in the interim.

If a period of storage exceeds thenormal interval for testing, testingwould not need to be done until thedevice is to be put back into use again.This would relieve the burden ofunnecessary testing during the period ofstorage as well as eliminate anyunnecessary exposure that could occurduring testing for that period.

(3) Revision to § 31.5(c)(8)—Provisions for transfers to specificlicensees. This proposed revision wouldprovide some flexibility to the generallicensee in transferring a device whileensuring that it is transferredappropriately. It would allow a generallicensee to transfer a device directly toa waste collector for disposal, ratherthan going through a distributor. Itwould also allow the transfer of a deviceto other specific licensees, but wouldrequire NRC approval in these cases sothat NRC can ensure that the recipientis authorized to receive the device.

The inclusion of a recipient’s licensenumber in the report of transfer wouldbetter ensure that the general licenseehas verified that the recipient is a part32 licensee, a part 30 waste collectionlicensee, or a specific licensee underequivalent Agreement State regulationsauthorized to receive it. It would alsosupply an additional means for NRC toidentify the recipient, because companynames and addresses sometimes change.The addition of the date of transfer willmake the transfer easier to track andhelp to ensure that the general licenseemakes the report in a timely manner(required within 30 days of transfer).

(4) New § 31.5(c)(14)—Change ofaddress notification (including changein name of general licensee). Thequarterly reports required of distributorsunder § 32.52(a) and (b) are intended toprovide NRC and the Agreement Stateregulatory agencies with the identity ofgeneral licensees in their jurisdictionsand addresses at which these generallicensees can be contacted (proposed tonow be specifically the mailing addressfor the location of use of the generallylicensed device). These generallicensees can then be contacted orinspected. If general licensees movetheir operations without notifying theNRC, or appropriate Agreement Stateagency, they may be difficult to locate.Even a change of name can cause mailto be returned. This proposedrequirement to report address changeswould only apply to previouslysupplied mailing addresses and, forportable devices, the mailing address forthe primary place of storage, althoughthe devices may be used at multiplefield sites. For those registering devices,other changes in addresses, if differentfrom the mailing address for thelocation of use, will be provided at thetime of the next registration.

Note: Changes to the general licensee, otherthan a simple name change, such as in thecase of a sale of a company, require reportingof additional information under§ 31.5(c)(9)(i).

This simple change of addressnotification is intended to track movesinto and within NRC jurisdiction and tomaintain current mailing addressinformation. The general license in§ 31.5 only applies to persons withinNRC jurisdiction. If a general licenseeintends to move from one jurisdiction toanother, it should contact the applicableregulatory authority, NRC or theparticular Agreement State, before doingso to determine the applicable, currentregulations in that jurisdiction. Alljurisdictions do not have a comparablegeneral license and specific provisionsof the general license may vary amongjurisdictions. If a general licensee hasobtained a portable device in anAgreement State and wishes to use thedevice within NRC jurisdiction, it mustdo so under § 31.5, because there is noreciprocity provision applicable togeneral licenses. In this case, theywould be subject to the provisions of§ 31.5.

(5) Revision to § 31.5(c)(5)—Reports ofdevice failures. General licensees arenot subject to decommissioningrequirements. A general license isgranted by regulation and, under normalcircumstances, does not involve anytermination of license process. If a

generally licensed device fails or isseriously damaged so as to causesignificant contamination of thepremises or environs, the NRC mayneed to respond to the notification of anincident made under § 31.5(c)(5) toensure that a facility is properlydecontaminated. Following such anincident, the NRC would determinewhat actions are necessary on a case-by-case basis and, if necessary, wouldapply the criteria set out in § 20.1402,‘‘Radiological criteria for unrestricteduse.’’ The general licensee is exemptfrom this section of part 20 when inpossession of an intact generallylicensed device. However, when adevice has been damaged, the materialin the device may no longer be fullycontained within the device, i.e., it mayalso be unsealed radioactive material.Action can be taken by the NRC under§ 30.61, ‘‘Modification and revocation oflicenses,’’ which is applicable to generallicensees. The provision proposed inthis action would require that thegeneral licensee propose to theCommission how it will be shown thatthe premises are or will be adequatelycleaned up. Depending on the nature ofthe event, the remedial action taken(and reported under existingrequirements) along with anyconfirmatory surveys may be sufficientto complete action on the event.

The addressee for submittinginformation under § 31.5(c)(5) would bechanged from Regional Administrator toDirector of Nuclear Material Safety andSafeguards so that all NRC addresseesspecified in § 31.5 for reports by theselicensees are the same and to eliminatethe need for the general licensee to referto part 20 to determine the appropriateaddressee. The addressee and addressfor registration will be specified in theregistration request. Adding a noteconcerning the possible applicability of§ 20.1402 is a clarification.

(6) Revision to § 31.5(c)(9)(i)—Reporting new general licensee’sresponsible individual. Consistent withthe provision for appointing anindividual through whom the generallicensee will ensure compliance withthe applicable regulations andrequirements, and other reportingrequirements being proposed, it is moreeffective for the general licensee toprovide the name of the newresponsible individual when anothergeneral licensee takes over the facilityand responsibility for the device.

An additional proposed amendmentto § 31.5 would clarify the status of aperson who receives a device throughan unauthorized transfer and wouldremove a restriction on devices.Paragraph (b) would be revised to (1)



limit the applicability of the generallicense to those who receive a devicethrough an authorized transfer and (2)expand the applicability of the generallicense to devices authorized fordistribution by an Agreement State thathas no general license covering the useof such devices within that State.

Concerning the first of these issues,the NRC has generally, although notconsistently, interpreted the generallicense to apply to any recipient withinthe group identified in § 31.5(a), i.e.,‘‘* * * commercial and industrial firmsand research, educational and medicalinstitutions, individuals in the conductof their business, and Federal, State orlocal government agencies * * *’’, evenif the device is received through anunauthorized transfer. The proposedlanguage would clearly provide that thegeneral license does not apply if thedevice is obtained through anunauthorized transfer. In the case of anunauthorized transfer, the recipientwould possess the device without alicense.

Section 31.5(b) currently restrictsapplicability of the general license inthe case of devices from distributors inAgreement States, to those devices fromAgreement States that authorize thedevices to be used under a generallicense within their respective States.However, the NRC practice is to allowa device to be used under the generallicense in § 31.5, that is distributed inaccordance with a license issued underequivalent regulations to § 32.51 by anAgreement State that does not authorizedevices to be used under a generallicense within their State. Thisapproach reserved for NRC the right torequire distributors in this situation toobtain an NRC distribution license inorder to transfer devices into NRCjurisdiction, but did not require them todo so as long as the State issuedacceptably equivalent licenses. ThroughNRC’s oversight of Agreement Stateprograms, NRC ensures the safety ofthese devices. Given this fact and theexperience to date with these few States,the Commission believes that thisrestriction is no longer necessary.

In addition to the proposed changes to§ 31.5, other amendments are proposedthat would clarify which sections of theregulations in part 30 apply to all of thegeneral licensees under part 31. Section31.1, ‘‘Purpose and scope,’’ would beamended to clarify that only thoseparagraphs in part 30 specified in § 31.2or the particular general license apply topart 31 general licensees. Section 31.2,‘‘Terms and conditions,’’ would beamended to reference the sections ofpart 30 that are applicable to all of thepart 31 general licensees, including

§ 30.7, ‘‘Employee protection,’’ § 30.9,‘‘Completeness and accuracy ofinformation,’’ and § 30.10, ‘‘Deliberatemisconduct.’’ The proposed clarificationwould make it easier for generallicensees to be aware of applicableregulations. In addition, futureamendments to part 30 that wouldapply to part 31 general licensees wouldinclude a conforming amendment topart 31. Note, however, that while § 31.2would specify sections of part 30generally applicable to general licenses,it would not eliminate the applicabilityof other parts of the Commission’sregulations that may apply.

The applicability of § 30.34(h) onbankruptcy notification to generallicensees also needs to be clarified.Under the existing regulations, thisrequirement appears to apply to alllicensees. However, its application togeneral licensees is not clear because itis not referenced in § 31.2 or § 31.5. Thisproposed rule would make thebankruptcy notification requirementapplicable only to those generallicensees subject to the registrationrequirement. These licensees possessdevices for which the Commissionbelieves a higher level of oversight isappropriate. Thus, notification that sucha general licensee is filing forbankruptcy may be important to allowthe Commission to intervene to ensurethat the financial status of the licenseedoes not lead to the improper disposalor abandonment of a device.

Requirements for Manufacturers andInitial Distributors of Devices

The proposed rule would modify thequarterly transfer reporting,recordkeeping, and labelingrequirements for specific licensees whodistribute these generally licenseddevices, and the requirement forproviding information to users. Theexisting requirements in these areas area matter of strict compatibility ofAgreement State regulation, that is, theState regulations are essentiallyidentical. The proposed amendmentswould also be a matter of strictcompatibility so that revisions toAgreement State regulations would benecessary and distributors in AgreementStates would be affected. The basis ofthis compatibility requirement issignificant direct transboundaryimplications. This results from the factthat devices are distributed undervarious Agreement State and NRCauthorities into other jurisdictionswhere different regulatory agenciesregulate the possession and use of thedevices. Currently, there are 28 NRClicensed distributors and approximately

61 licensed distributors in AgreementStates.

ReportingThe following information would be

added to the existing quarterly transferreporting requirement: The serialnumber and model number of thedevice; the date of transfer; indication ifthe device is a replacement, and if so,the type, model number, and serialnumber of the one returned; name andlicense number of reporting company;and the specific reporting period. Themodel number of the device is alreadyrequired in reports to Agreement States.The general licensee address would bespecified as the mailing address for thelocation of use of the generally licenseddevice.

The name and phone number of theperson identified by the general licenseeas having knowledge of and authority totake required actions to ensurecompliance with the appropriateregulations and requirements wouldreplace the name and/or position of asimple contact between the Commissionand the general licensee.

A form will be provided for use inmaking these reports. However, the useof the form would not be required aslong as the report is clear and legibleand includes all of the requiredinformation. Proposed amendmentswould be made to § 32.52(a) and (b).

The existing reporting requirement isintended to provide NRC and theAgreement State regulatory agencieswith the identity of general licensees intheir jurisdictions, addresses at whichthe general licensees can be contacted(which are usually the location of use ofthe devices), the particulars of the typeof device possessed, and the name (orposition) of an individual whoconstitutes a point of contact betweenthe NRC or the Agreement State and thegeneral licensee. These general licenseescan then be contacted or inspected.Including the serial number wouldallow the NRC and Agreement States totrack individual devices. The existingreporting requirement in § 31.5(c)(8)does not require the general licensee toreport a transfer if it is for the purposeof obtaining a replacement. This isconsistent with the original intent ofthis regulation in that the status of thegeneral licensee is unchanged, only thespecific device is changed. In order forindividual devices to be tracked, theNRC or Agreement State needs to beinformed of such a transfer. Theproposed rule would require that thedistributor provide this informationeither to NRC or the appropriateAgreement State. Under existingrequirements, quarterly reports are



required to include specifics on anynew device transferred but not on thedevices returned. The NRC believes thatthe distributor could include thisadditional information in the quarterlyreports without a significant burden andthat the distributor is likely to be morereliable than the general licensee inproviding this information. The nameand license number of the reportingcompany and the specific reportingperiod are typically included in thereports in order to show compliancewith the reporting requirement.However, this information is not alwaysreadily identifiable.

The individual who acts as contactwith the NRC or the Agreement Stateconcerning the general license shouldhave knowledge of the device, thegeneral license, and the regulationspertaining to the general license, or atleast know who in the organizationdoes. This is the intent of the existingrequirement. However, in practice, thename given to the distributor andreported to the NRC (or the AgreementState) frequently is not an individualwith this type of knowledge. Theproposed rule would specify that thecontact designated be the person (1)assigned responsibility for ensuring thatthe general licensee is aware of itsregulatory responsibilities and (2) whohas authority to take required actions forcomplying with the applicableregulations.

RecordkeepingThe proposed rule would add to the

recordkeeping requirements informationon final disposition of devices. Therecordkeeping requirements concerningtransfers would have the period ofretention extended from 5 years fromthe date of the recorded event, to 3 yearsafter the expected useful life of thedevice or the final disposition, ifknown. Proposed amendments wouldbe made to § 32.52(c).

It is important that information aboutthe general licensees and the specificdevices in their possession be availableuntil the device is disposed ofpermanently. Requiring the distributorto keep these records for an extendedtime provides a backup to therecordkeeping of NRC and Stateregulatory agencies. The records includeinformation on final disposition thatmay not have been included in reportsto NRC and the Agreement States. It isNRC’s understanding that thesedistributors generally keep these recordsindefinitely. Thus, this regulatoryrequirement should have little, if any,impact.

In addition, distributors would berequired to make available records of

final disposition of devices to thevarious regulatory agencies in the caseof bankruptcy or termination of license(new § 32.51a(d)). When a distributorgoes out of business and terminates itslicense, the distributor can no longer berequired to retain these records. Thisrequirement would give NRC, as well asState regulatory agencies, theopportunity to obtain and retain recordsof this type previously kept by thedistributor. These records could behelpful in verifying information used tokeep track of devices relative to the finaldisposition of devices. This provisionwould not require distributors toautomatically provide these recordsunless the NRC or the Agreement Statein which the device was distributedmakes a request for these records. In thecase of bankruptcy, NRC or theAgreement State may want to securethese records early in the process, incase financial difficulties interfere withthe licensee fulfilling itsresponsibilities.

LabelingThe proposed rule would amend the

existing labeling requirements to requirean additional label on any separablesource housing and a permanent labelon devices meeting the criteria forregistration (new § 32.51(a)(4) and (5)and § 32.51a(c)). The NRC wouldconsider a label ‘‘permanent,’’ if, forexample, it were embossed, etched,stamped, or engraved in metal. Underthese requirements, new distributorswould have labels approved as part ofobtaining a license; distributors,including existing licensees, wouldhave the new labeling requirements asconditions of license in § 32.51(a)(4) and(5). Approval of the new labels by NRCfor existing distributors would not berequired. However, distributors mayvoluntarily submit information for NRCreview on how they plan to complywith the new labeling requirements. Inany case, labeling is subject toinspection. To the extent necessary, thenew labeling requirements wouldsupercede anything contradictory inindividual license conditions. Theindividual license conditions would beupdated to include specifics related tothe new requirements during the firstlicense renewal or amendmentfollowing the effective date of thoseparagraphs of the rule.

The first change simply carries out theinitial intent of the existing requirementfor devices where the source may beseparable in a housing that does notinclude the label. It is important thatthis housing, if separated from theremainder of the device, can also beidentified. The impact of this

requirement should be minimal. Thepermanent label for devices requiringregistration would provide betterassurance that even when a device hasbeen exposed to other than normal useconditions, for example, when abuilding has been refurbished ordemolished with the device in place,the label will be intact and the devicemay be identified and proper actionscan be taken. This may result in a moresignificant change to the production ofdevices. Distributors would have 1 yearafter the effective date of the rule toimplement these changes to minimizeany impact to the manufacturing anddistributing process.

Information To Be Provided to GeneralLicensees

The proposed rule would amend therequirements pertaining to theinformation distributors must provide tothe general licensee (§ 32.51a(a) and (b)).Distributors are now required to providegeneral licensees with a copy of § 31.5when the device is transferred. Theproposed rule would require that a copyof § 31.5 be provided before transfer.The distributor would also be requiredto provide copies of additionalapplicable sections of the regulations, alisting of the services that can only beperformed by a specific licensee, andinformation regarding disposal optionsfor the devices being transferred. Thedisposal options would include theestimated cost for disposal of the deviceat the end of its useful life to the extentthat the cost information is available tothe distributor at the time of the sale ofthe device. For transfers to generallicensees in Agreement States, thedistributor may furnish either theapplicable NRC regulations or thecomparable ones of the AgreementState. In addition, the distributor wouldfurnish the name, address, and phonenumber of the contact at the AgreementState regulatory agency from whichadditional information may be obtained.

The general licensee should be awareof the specific requirements beforepurchasing a generally licensed device,rather than afterward. While theCommission does not want to getinvolved with details of licensees’business practices, it is theCommission’s intent that ‘‘prior totransfer’’ would be before a finaldecision to purchase so that theinformation can be considered inmaking that decision. The Commissionseeks comment on how best to achieveand enforce this intent. For example:What are the advantages/disadvantagesof using the words, ‘‘prior to purchase’’in the regulatory text?



While § 31.5 contains the primaryrequirements related to the generallicense, it does not reference theapplicable sections of part 30. Thegeneral licensee should have copies ofat least those regulations that mayrequire an action on his part. Thesections of the regulation that would beincluded in this requirement arebelieved to be the most important forthe general licensee to be aware of. Theinclusion of a listing of services that canonly be performed by a specific licenseewould clarify the services that can andcannot be performed by the generallicensee. These services vary dependingon the nature and design of theparticular device and so are notspecified in the regulations. Informationon the estimated cost for disposal of thedevice at the end of its useful life maybe a significant factor in a decision topurchase a device because of the highcosts of disposing of radioactivematerials. In some cases, the cost ofdisposal could exceed the purchaseprice of the device.

Additional clarifying amendmentswould be made in §§ 30.31, 30.34(h),and 31.5(c)(9)(ii). The wording of§ 30.31 would provide a similarclarification as that in the SuggestedState Regulations with respect to generallicenses. The amendment to § 30.34(h)would be consistent with the previouslydiscussed change concerning reportingbankruptcy.

The revision of § 31.5(c)(9)(ii) toinclude the term, ‘‘intermediateperson,’’ is intended to provideclarification about intermediate personsholding devices. Specifically,intermediate persons holding devices intheir original shipping containers attheir intended location of use aregeneral licensees. Distributors licensedunder § 32.51, or equivalent AgreementState regulations, must provideinformation about both intermediatepersons and intended users in theirquarterly reports submitted under§ 32.52(a). Transfers from intermediatepersons to intended users under§ 31.5(c)(9)(ii) do not need to bereported to NRC because informationabout the intended user must bereported by the distributor under§ 32.52(a).

Minor conforming amendmentswould also be made to §§ 170.2, 170.3,171.5, and 171.16.

Public Comments on the OriginalProposed Rule

The NRC reviewed the commentsreceived on the December 27, 1991,proposed rule in developing both theproposed rule published on December 2,1998 (63 FR 66492), and this proposed

rule. There were 26 comment lettersreceived from a variety of sourcesincluding private and publicly heldcorporations, private citizens, citizensgroups, the Armed Forces, and Stategovernments. These comments havebeen considered to the extent applicableto each rule. A detailed analysis of thecomments received on the December 27,1991, proposed rule, which waswithdrawn by the notice of proposedrulemaking on December 2, 1998, is notpresented in either of the subsequentproposed rules because many of thespecific comments pertain to specificprovisions that have been withdrawn, agreat deal of time has passed since thesecomments were made, and additionalopportunity for comment is beingprovided.

Early State and Public InputThese proposed amendments were

provided to the Agreement States twiceduring its development via the use ofthe NRC Technical Conference Websiteand notification to the States of itsavailability. Input was receivedfollowing the first posting throughdiscussions at an All Agreement Statemeeting in October of 1998. The secondposting was also available to the public.A notice of availability was publishedDecember 31, 1998 (63 FR 72216). TheStates and the distributors were notifiedof its availability directly, as well. Twocomments were received. One from aState and one from industry. They weregenerally supportive and indicatedpoints needing clarification.

Summary of Proposed Provisions byParagraph

Section 30.31—Revision wouldreconcile the apparent conflict betweenthe description of a general license anda registration requirement.

Section 30.34, paragraph (h)(1)—Revision would make the bankruptcynotification requirement applicable onlyto those general licensees subject to theregistration requirement.

Section 31.1—Revision would clarifythat only those paragraphs in part 30specified in § 31.2 or the particulargeneral license apply to part 31 generallicensees.

Section 31.2—Revision would clarifyreferences to the sections of part 30 thatare applicable to all of the part 31general licensees.

Section 31.5, paragraph (b)—Revisionwould clarify the status of a person whoreceives a device through anunauthorized transfer by limiting theapplicability of the general license tothose who receive a device through anauthorized transfer; and would removethe restriction on devices distributed by

Agreement State licensees in AgreementStates without a general license.

Section 31.5, paragraph (c)(5)—Revision would add a plan for ensuringthat premises and environs are suitablefor unrestricted access, to theinformation that must be sent to NRC inthe case of a failure, when devicedamage or failure is likely to or knownto have resulted in contamination;would change the addressee forreporting information concerning afailure; and would clarify that thecriteria in § 20.1402 may be applied inspite of the exemption in § 31.5(c)(10).

Section 31.5, paragraph (c)(8)—Revision would allow transfers tospecific licensees authorized under part30, or equivalent Agreement Stateregulations, as waste collectors, inaddition to currently allowed transfersto part 32 (and Agreement State)licensees; would allow transfers to otherspecific licensees but only with priorwritten NRC approval; and would addthe recipient’s license number, the serialnumber of the device, and the date oftransfer to the information required tobe provided to NRC upon transfer of adevice.

Section 31.5, paragraph (c)(9)(i)—Revision would add to the reportingrequirement, in the case of a transfer toa general licensee taking overpossession of a device at the samelocation, to provide the serial number ofthe device and the name and phonenumber of the person identified ashaving knowledge of and authority totake required actions to ensurecompliance with the appropriateregulations and requirements, ratherthan simply a contact name.

Section 31.5, paragraph (c)(9)(ii)—Revision would add the term,‘‘intermediate person,’’ to clarify that areport of transfer is not required onlywhen the information on both anintermediate person and an intendeduser was provided through thedistributor in a quarterly materialtransfer report.

Section 31.5, paragraph (c)(12)—Would add an explicit requirement forthe general licensee to appoint anindividual assigned responsibility forknowing what regulatory requirementsare applicable to the general licenseeand having authority to take requiredactions to comply with the applicableregulations.

Section 31.5, paragraph (c)(13)—Would add an explicit requirement forthe general licensee to register devicesmeeting certain criteria, which specifiesthe information to be provided andreferences the fee requirement in§ 170.31.



Section 31.5, paragraph (c)(14)—Would add requirement for generallicensees to notify NRC of addresschanges.

Section 31.5, paragraph (c)(15)—Would limit to 2 years the amount oftime a general licensee can keep anunused device in storage and allow thedeferment of testing during the period ofstorage.

Section 32.51, paragraphs (a)(4) and(5)—Would add requirement for anadditional label on any separable sourcehousing and a permanent label ondevices meeting the criteria forregistration.

Section 32.51a, paragraphs (a) and(b)—Revision would amend therequirements pertaining to theinformation distributors must provide tothe general licensee. Distributors arenow required to provide generallicensees with a copy of § 31.5 when thedevice is transferred. The proposed rulewould require that § 31.5 be providedbefore transfer. The distributor wouldalso be required to provide copies ofadditional applicable sections of theregulations, a listing of the services thatcan only be performed by a specificlicensee, and information regardingdisposal options for the devices beingtransferred, including estimated costs ofdisposal. For transfers to generallicensees in Agreement States, thedistributor may furnish either theapplicable NRC regulations or thecomparable ones of the AgreementState. In addition, the distributor wouldfurnish the name, address, and phonenumber of the contact at the AgreementState regulatory agency from whichadditional information may be obtained.

Section 32.51a, paragraph (c)—Wouldmake labeling requirements a conditionof license 1 year after effective date ofrule.

Section 32.51a, paragraph (d)—Wouldadd requirement for distributors to makeavailable records of final disposition ofdevices to the various regulatoryagencies in the case of bankruptcy ortermination of the distributor’s license.

Section 32.52, paragraphs (a) and(b)—Revision would add the followinginformation to the existing quarterlytransfer reporting requirement: the serialnumber and model number of thedevice; the date of transfer; indication ifdevice is a replacement, and if so, thetype, model number, and serial numberof the one returned; name and licensenumber of reporting company; and thespecific reporting period. Also, thegeneral licensee address would bespecified as the mailing address for thelocation of use of the generally licenseddevice.

The name and phone number of theperson identified by the general licenseeas having knowledge of and authority totake required actions to ensurecompliance with the appropriateregulations and requirements wouldreplace the name and/or position of asimple contact between the Commissionand the general licensee. Also, a formwill be provided for use in making thesereports. However, the use of the formwould not be required as long as thereport is clear and legible and includesall of the required information.

Section 32.52, paragraph (c)—Revision would add to therecordkeeping requirements informationon final disposition of devices. Therecordkeeping requirements concerningtransfers would have the period ofretention extended from 5 years fromthe date of the recorded event to 3 yearsafter the expected useful life of thedevice or the final disposition, ifknown.

Section 170.2—Would conform thescope of part 170 to include a generallicensee registrant.

Section 170.3—Would revisedefinition of ‘‘Materials License’’ toinclude part 31 and the words, ‘‘orgranted’’ as general licenses are grantedby regulation rather than individuallyissued to licensees.

Section 170.31—Revision would add$420 registration fee for generallicensees subject to § 31.5(c)(13).

Section 171.5—Would revisedefinition of ‘‘Materials License’’ toinclude part 31 and the words, ‘‘orgranted’’ as general licenses are grantedby regulation rather than individuallyissued to licensees.

Section 171.16—Would add categoryfor part 31 general license registrationfor consistency with the Table in§ 170.31.

National DatabaseThe Commission is in the process of

developing a new computer database tohandle information about generallicensees and generally licenseddevices. Among other improvementsfrom the currently used system, it willbe designed to handle the registrationprocess efficiently with automatedfeatures. In doing so, the Commissionhas given some consideration towhether a national database should beestablished in which information on theidentity of general licensees and deviceinformation for all jurisdictions wouldbe maintained, making this informationaccessible to all Agreement States andthe NRC. There are variations on theexact approach that might be takenparticularly with respect to access andupdate authority. At this time, the

Commission has not yet found itpractical to resolve all the issues relatedto having broad access to the database.

The Commission would like to givefurther consideration to establishingsuch a database. It would not requirerulemaking. However, if it were to beestablished, one option would be tochange the material transfer reportingrequirements so that distributors wouldreport all transfers to the NRC ratherthan reporting to all jurisdictions intowhich transfers of devices are made.

A primary advantage of a nationaldatabase would be the ease of tracing a‘‘found’’ device back to the generallicensee owner responsible for thedevice. A ‘‘found’’ generally licenseddevice would be considered an orphansource until such time as theresponsible general licensee isidentified and it is returned to thelicensee. The Commission is in theprocess of modifying the NuclearMaterials Events Database (NMED) toaccept and track information on orphansources nationally (i.e. all States).Access to the NMED will be available tothe NRC and all the States. TheCommission will encourage the States touse NMED for this purpose so that thiscategory of information will be sharednationally. However, NMED would relyon reporting of events for its data. Inorder for a device to be traced back tothe responsible general licensee, eachjurisdiction would need to search itsown files. In addition, information in anational general license database wouldbe immediately available, and wouldcontain the most complete informationabout general licensees and generallylicensed devices.

The primary disadvantage to anational database would be thedifficulty of maintaining the security ofthe data, which is primarily made up ofproprietary information. A nationaldatabase would also present more riskto the integrity of the data, because therewould be a higher potential for illicitcorruption of data.

In considering whether or not toimplement a national database and, ifso, what the particular approach wouldbe used, there are a number of aspectsto be considered including—

(1) Who will maintain the database(the NRC, an independent third party, oreach agency maintaining its own data)?

(2) How access to the data would becontrolled.

(3) Potential changes to the reportingrequirements for transfers.

(4) The ability for the NRC and theAgreement States to protect informationof other agencies.



(5) Costs to implement and maintainthe system or systems (includingtraining).

The Commission seeks comment onthe advantages and disadvantages ofimplementing a national database andon these related issues.

Specific Questions for Public CommentThe Commission welcomes comments

on all aspects of this proposed rule, andis especially interested in receivingcomments on the specific questionssummarized here:

1. The Commission seeks comment onwhether the registration requirementshould include a provision that wouldrequire the general licensee to completeregistration by a certain time, whetheror not the NRC requests registration.

2. The Commission requests commenton whether it is appropriate for newdevices obtained by registrants to beregistered when the annualreregistration is carried out without theNRC having earlier contact afteradditional devices are received. Earliercontact could be made either by anacknowledgment by NRC to the user orby a required response from the generallicensee to account for the additionaldevice(s).

3. The Commission solicits commenton whether general licensees should berequired to assign a backup responsibleindividual (BRI).

4. The Commission seeks comment onhow best to achieve and enforce theintent that full disclosure of informationrequired to be provided to generallicensee customers by distributors bemade early enough to be considered ina decision to purchase. For example:Would it be better to use the words,‘‘prior to purchase’’ in the regulatorytext?

5. The Commission seeks comment onthe advantages and disadvantages ofimplementing a national database ofgeneral licensees and their devices.

EnforcementOn March 9, 1999 (64 FR 11508), the

Commission established an interimenforcement policy for violations of§ 31.5 that licensees discover and reportduring the initial cycle of theregistration program. This policysupplements the normal NRCEnforcement Policy in NUREG–1600,Rev. 1. It will remain in effect throughone complete cycle of the registrationprogram.

Under this interim enforcementpolicy, enforcement action normallywill not be taken for violations of § 31.5that are identified by the generallicensee, and reported to the NRC ifreporting is required, provided that the

general licensee takes appropriatecorrective action to address the specificviolations and prevent recurrence ofsimilar problems and otherwise hasundertaken good faith efforts to respondto NRC notices and provide requestedinformation. This change from theCommission’s normal enforcementpolicy is to remove the potential for thethreat of enforcement action to be adisincentive for the licensee to identifydeficiencies. This approach is warrantedgiven the limited NRC inspections ofgeneral licensees. This approach isintended to encourage general licenseesto determine if applicable requirementshave been met, to search their facilitiesto ensure sources are located, and todevelop appropriate corrective actionwhen deficiencies are found. Under theinterim enforcement policy,enforcement action, including issuanceof civil penalties and Orders, may betaken where there is—

(a) Failure to take appropriatecorrective action to prevent recurrenceof similar violations;

(b) Failure to respond and provide theinformation required by regulation;

(c) Willful failure to provide completeand accurate information to the NRC; or

(d) Other willful violations, such aswillfully disposing of generally licensedmaterial in an unauthorized manner.

As noted in the December 2, 1998,proposed rule, the Commission alsoplans to increase the civil penaltyamounts specified in its EnforcementPolicy in NUREG–1600, Rev. 1, forviolations involving lost or improperlydisposed sources or devices. Thisincrease will better relate the civilpenalty amount to the costs avoided bythe failure to properly dispose of thesource or device. Due to the diversity ofthe types of sources and devices, theCommission is considering theestablishment of three levels of basecivil penalty for loss or improperdisposal. The three levels of base civilpenalty would be $5500, $15,000, and$45,000. The higher tiers would be forsources that are relatively costly todispose of and would be based onapproximately three times the averagecost of proper transfer or disposal of thesource or device.

Agreement State CompatibilityUnder the ‘‘Policy Statement on

Adequacy and Compatibility ofAgreement State Programs’’ publishedon September 3, 1997 (62 FR 46517), theproposed rule would be a matter ofcompatibility between the NRC and theAgreement States, thereby providingconsistency among Agreement State andNRC requirements. The revisions to part32 would be classified as Category B

and the revisions to § 31.5 would beclassified as Category C. Through thisaction, existing provisions of § 31.5would also be reclassified from CategoryD to Category C. Although changes arebeing made to §§ 30.31, 30.34(h)(1),31.1, and 31.2, and parts 170 and 171as part of this rulemaking, the existingcompatibility designations for theseregulations will not be affected.

Category B means the provisionsaffect a program element withsignificant direct transboundaryimplications. The State programelement should be essentially identicalto that of NRC. Category C means theprovisions affect a program element, theessential objectives of which should beadopted by the State to avoid conflicts,duplications, or gaps in the nationalprogram. The manner in which theessential objectives are addressed neednot be the same as NRC provided theessential objectives are met.

Specific information about thecompatibility or health and safetycomponents assigned to this rule may befound at Office of State Programswebsite, http://www.hsrd.ornl.gov/nrc/home.html.

As discussed above, revised § 32.52(a)and (b) would add the followinginformation to the existing distributors’quarterly transfer reportingrequirements: the serial number andmodel number of the device, the date oftransfer, indication if the device is areplacement (and if so, the type, modelnumber, and serial number of the devicereturned), the name and license numberof the reporting company, and thespecific reporting period. The proposedrevisions would also require the nameand phone number of a generallicensee’s ‘‘responsible individual’’rather than simply a contact and wouldspecify that the address of the generallicensee be the mailing address for thelocation of use. According to NRCManagement Directive (MD) 5.9,‘‘Adequacy and Compatibility ofAgreement State Programs,’’ NRCregulations that should be adopted byan Agreement State for purposes ofcompatibility should be adopted in atime frame such that the effective dateof the State requirement is no later than3 years after the effective date of NRC’sfinal rule. MD 5.9 also provides thatsome circumstances may warrant thatthe States adopt certain regulations inless than the recommended 3-year timeframe or that the effective dates for bothNRC licensees and Agreement Statelicensees be the same. The Commissionbelieves it is important to theimplementation of this program, and toAgreement State programs, to beginreceiving the additional information in



the distributors’ quarterly transferreports as soon as possible. TheCommission requests comments onwhether NRC and the Agreement Statesshould establish a singleimplementation date for this provisionwhich would be earlier than is usuallyallowed for revision of Agreement Staterules for compatibility. One approachwould be to request Agreement States torequire distributors to provide all theinformation consistent with this rule(proposed § 32.52(a) and (b)) eithercoincident with the effective date of theCommission’s final action on thisrulemaking or within 1 year of thateffective date. Agreement States wouldhave the flexibility to adopt thisprovision through rulemaking, licenseconditions, or other legally bindingrequirements.

Plain LanguageThe Presidential Memorandum dated

June 1, 1998, entitled, ‘‘Plain Languagein Government Writing,’’ directed thatthe government’s writing be in plainlanguage. This memorandum waspublished June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883).In complying with this directive,editorial changes have been made in theproposed revisions to improve theorganization and readability of theexisting language of paragraphs beingrevised. These types of changes are notdiscussed further in this notice. TheNRC requests comments on thisproposed rule specifically with respectto the clarity and effectiveness of thelanguage used. Comments should besent to the address listed under theheading: ADDRESSES above.

Environmental Impact: CategoricalExclusion

The NRC has determined that therevisions proposed in this rule are thetypes of actions described in thecategorical exclusions in § 51.22(c)(1)through (3). Therefore, neither anenvironmental impact statement nor anenvironmental assessment has beenprepared for this regulation.

Paperwork Reduction Act StatementThis proposed rule amends

information collection requirements thatare subject to the Paperwork ReductionAct of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq). Thisrule has been submitted to the Office ofManagement and Budget for review andapproval of the information collectionrequirements.

The public reporting burden for thisinformation collection is estimated toaverage 2 minutes per response,including the time for reviewinginstructions, searching existing datasources, gathering and maintaining the

data needed, and completing andreviewing the information collection.The time involved is small because mostof the proposals are minor revisions toexisting information collectionrequirements. The U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission is seekingpublic comment on the potential impactof the information collections containedin the proposed rule and on thefollowing issues:

1. Is the proposed informationcollection necessary for the properperformance of the functions of theNRC, including whether the informationwill have practical utility?

2. Is the estimate of burden accurate?3. Is there a way to enhance the

quality, utility, and clarity of theinformation to be collected?

4. How can the burden of theinformation collection be minimized,including the use of automatedcollection techniques?

Send comments on any aspect of thisproposed information collection,including suggestions for reducing theburden, to the Records ManagementBranch (T–6F33), U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, Washington,DC 20555–0001, or by Internetelectronic mail at [email protected]; andto the Desk Officer, Office ofInformation and Regulatory Affairs,NEOB–10202 (3150–0016), Office ofManagement and Budget, Washington,DC 20503.

Comments to OMB on the informationcollections or on the above issuesshould be submitted by August 25,1999. Comments received after this datewill be considered if it is practical to doso, but assurance of considerationcannot be given to comments receivedafter this date.

Public Protection NotificationIf a means used to impose an

information collection does not displaya currently valid OMB control number,the NRC may not conduct or sponsor,and a person is not required to respondto, the information collection.

Regulatory AnalysisThe NRC has prepared a draft

regulatory analysis for this proposedregulation. The analysis examines thecost and benefits of the alternativesconsidered by the NRC. The commentsreceived on the draft regulatory analysisassociated with the proposed rule ofDecember 27, 1991, have beenconsidered to the extent that they applyto this action. The regulatory analysis isavailable for inspection in the NRCPublic Document Room, 2120 L StreetNW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.Single copies of the analysis may be

obtained by calling Catherine R.Mattsen, U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, Office of Nuclear MaterialSafety and Safeguards, Washington, DC20555–0001; telephone (301) 415–6264;or e-mail at [email protected].

Regulatory Flexibility CertificationAs required by the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), theCommission has evaluated the impact ofthis rule on small entities. The NRC hasestablished standards for determiningwhich NRC licensees qualify as smallentities (10 CFR 2.810). TheCommission certifies that this proposedrule, if adopted, would not have asignificant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entities.The most significant cost of thisproposed rule would be the proposed$420 fee to be assessed for eachregistration. Portions of the proposedrule would apply to the approximately45,000 persons possessing productsunder an NRC general license, many ofwhom may be classified as smallentities. However, the annualregistration requirement and associatedfee would apply to about 5100 of thesegeneral licensees. Based on inputreceived previously from small entitieswho hold specific materials licenses, theNRC believes that the proposed $420part 170 registration fee would not havea significant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entities.The NRC believes that the economicimpact of the other proposedrequirements on any general licenseewould be a negligible increase inadministrative burden. The NRC issoliciting comment from the generallicensees who meet the NRC’s smallentity size standards and would berequired to register their devicespursuant to part 31 on whether theproposed part 170 fee for their annualregistration would have a significanteconomic impact on their business.

The proposed rule would also reviserequirements for specifically licenseddistributors of certain generally licenseddevices. Currently, there are 28 NRClicensed distributors and approximately61 Agreement State licenseddistributors. Many of these licensees arenot small entities and the impact to anyof these distributors is not expected tobe significant in any case. Distributorswho are small entities are also invitedto comment on whether they believe theeconomic impact would be significant.

Those small entities that offercomments on the potential impact onsmall entities and how that might beminimized should specifically includeinformation on the type and size of theirbusiness and how the proposed



1 Attention is directed particularly to theprovisions of part 20 of this chapter concerninglabeling of containers.

2 Persons possessing byproduct material indevices under a general license in § 31.5 beforeJanuary 15, 1975, may continue to possess, use, ortransfer that material in accordance with thelabeling requirements of § 31.5 in effect on January14, 1975.

regulations would result in a significanteconomic impact on them as comparedto larger organizations in the samebusiness community. To the extentpossible, the commenter should providerelevant economic data, such as thelicensee’s gross annual receipts, as wellas number of employees.

Backfit Analysis

The NRC has determined that thebackfit rule, § 50.109, does not apply tothis proposed rule and, therefore, abackfit analysis is not required becausethese amendments would not involveany provisions that would imposebackfits as defined in § 50.109(a)(1).

List of Subjects

10 CFR Part 30

Byproduct material, Criminalpenalties, Government contracts,Intergovernmental relations, Isotopes,Nuclear materials, Radiation protection,Reporting and recordkeepingrequirements.

10 CFR Part 31

Byproduct material, Criminalpenalties, Labeling, Nuclear materials,Packaging and containers, Radiationprotection, Reporting and recordkeepingrequirements, Scientific equipment.

10 CFR Part 32

Byproduct material, Criminalpenalties, Labeling, Nuclear materials,Radiation protection, Reporting andrecordkeeping requirements.

10 CFR Part 170

Byproduct material, Import andexport licenses, Intergovernmentalrelations, Non-payment penalties,Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plantsand reactors, Source material, Specialnuclear material.

10 CFR Part 171

Annual charges, Byproduct material,Holders of certificates, registrations,approvals, Intergovernmental relations,Non-payment penalties, Nuclearmaterials, Nuclear power plants andreactors, Source material, Specialnuclear material.

For the reasons set out above andunder the authority of the AtomicEnergy Act of 1954, as amended; theEnergy Reorganization Act of 1974, asamended; and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC isproposing to adopt the followingamendments to 10 CFR parts 30, 31, 32,170, and 171.

PART 30—RULES OF GENERALAPPLICABILITY TO DOMESTICLICENSING OF BYPRODUCTMATERIAL


Authority: Secs. 81, 82, 161, 182, 183, 186,68 Stat. 935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended,sec. 234, 83, Stat. 444, as amended, (42U.S.C. 2111, 2112, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236,2282); secs. 201 as amended, 202, 206, 88Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C.5841, 5842, 5846).

Sec. 30.7 also issued under Pub. L. 95–601,sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 as amended by Pub. L.102–486; sec. 2902, 106 Stat. 3123, (42 U.S.C.5851). Section 30.34(b) also issued under sec.184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C.2234). Section 30.61 also issued under sec.187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).

2. Section 30.31 is revised to read asfollows:

§ 30.31 Types of licenses.

Licenses for byproduct material are oftwo types: General and specific.

(a) The Commission issues a specificlicense to a named person who has filedan application for the license under theprovisions of this part and parts 32–36,and 39 of this chapter.

(b) A general license is provided byregulation, grants authority to a personfor certain activities involvingbyproduct material, and is effectivewithout the filing of an application withthe Commission or the issuance of alicensing document to a particularperson. However, registration with theCommission may be required by theparticular general license.

3. In § 30.34, paragraph (h)(1) isrevised to read as follows:

§ 30.34 Terms and conditions of licenses.

* * * * *(h)(1) Each general licensee that is

required to register by § 31.5(c)(13) ofthis chapter and each specific licenseeshall notify the appropriate NRCRegional Administrator, in writing,immediately following the filing of avoluntary or involuntary petition forbankruptcy under any chapter of title 11(Bankruptcy) of the United States Codeby or against:

(i) The licensee;(ii) An entity (as that term is defined

in 11 U.S.C. 101(14)) controlling thelicensee or listing the license or licenseeas property of the estate; or

(iii) An affiliate (as that term isdefined in 11 U.S.C. 101(2)) of thelicensee.* * * * *

PART 31—GENERAL DOMESTICLICENSES FOR BYPRODUCTMATERIAL


Authority: Secs. 81, 161, 183, 68 Stat. 935,948, 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2111, 2201,2233); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 88 Stat.1242, as amended, 1244 (42 U.S.C. 5841,5842).

Section 31.6 also issued under sec. 274, 73Stat. 688 (42 U.S.C. 2021).


§ 31.1 Purpose and scope.This part establishes general licenses

for the possession and use of byproductmaterial and a general license forownership of byproduct material.Specific provisions of 10 CFR part 30are applicable to general licensesestablished by this part. Theseprovisions are specified in § 31.2 or inthe particular general license.


§ 31.2 Terms and conditions.The general licenses provided in this

part are subject to the general provisionsof Part 30 of this chapter (§§ 30.1through 30.10), the provisions of§§ 30.14(d), 30.34(a) to (e), 30.41, 30.50to 30.53, 30.61 to 30.63, and parts 19,20, and 21, of this chapter 1 unlessindicated otherwise in the specificprovision of the general license.

7. In § 31.5, paragraphs (b), (c)(5),(c)(8), and (c)(9) are revised andparagraphs (c)(12), (13), (14), and (15)are added to read as follows:

§ 31.5 Certain measuring, gauging, orcontrolling devices.2

* * * * *(b)(1) The general license in

paragraph (a) of this section appliesonly to byproduct material contained indevices which have been manufacturedor initially transferred and labeled inaccordance with the specificationscontained in—

(i) A specific license issued under§ 32.51 of this chapter; or

(ii) An equivalent specific licenseissued by an Agreement State.

(2) The devices must have beenreceived from one of the specificlicensees described in paragraph (b)(1)



of this section or through a transfermade under paragraph (c)(9) of thissection.

(c) * * ** * * * *

(5) Shall immediately suspendoperation of the device if there is afailure of, or damage to, or anyindication of a possible failure of ordamage to, the shielding of theradioactive material or the on-offmechanism or indicator, or upon thedetection of 0.005 microcurie or moreremovable radioactive material. Thedevice may not be operated until it hasbeen repaired by the manufacturer orother person holding a specific licenseto repair such devices that was issuedunder parts 30 and 32 of this chapter orby an Agreement State. The device maybe disposed of by transfer to a personauthorized by a specific license toreceive the byproduct materialcontained in the device. A reportcontaining a brief description of theevent and the remedial action taken;and, in the case of detection of 0.005microcurie or more removableradioactive material or failure of ordamage to a source likely to result incontamination of the premises or theenvirons, a plan for ensuring that thepremises and environs are acceptablefor unrestricted use, must be furnishedto the Director of Nuclear MaterialSafety and Safeguards, U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, Washington,DC 20555–0001 within 30 days. Underthese circumstances, the criteria set outin § 20.1402, ‘‘Radiological criteria forunrestricted use.’’ may be applicable, asdetermined by the Commission on acase-by-case basis;* * * * *

(8)(i) Shall transfer or dispose of thedevice containing byproduct materialonly by transfer to another generallicensee as authorized in paragraph(c)(9) of this section or to a personauthorized to receive the device by aspecific license issued under parts 30and 32 of this chapter, part 30 of thischapter that authorizes waste collection,or equivalent regulations of anAgreement State, or as approved underparagraph (c)(8)(iii) of this section.

(ii) Shall furnish a report to theDirector of Nuclear Material Safety andSafeguards, U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, Washington, DC 20555–0001 within 30 days after the transfer ofa device to a specific licensee. A reportis not required if the device istransferred to the specific licensee inorder to obtain a replacement devicefrom the same specific licensee. Thereport must contain—

(A) The identification of the device bymanufacturer’s name, model number,and serial number;

(B) The name, address, and licensenumber of the person receiving thedevice; and

(C) The date of the transfer.(iii) Shall obtain written NRC

approval before transferring the deviceto any other specific licensee.

(9) Shall transfer the device to anothergeneral licensee only if—

(i) The device remains in use at aparticular location. In this case, thetransferor shall give the transferee acopy of this section and any safetydocuments identified in the label of thedevice. Within 30 days of the transfer,the transferor shall report themanufacturer’s name and the modelnumber and the serial number of thedevice transferred, the name andaddress of the transferee, and the nameand phone number of the responsibleindividual identified by the transfereein accordance with paragraph (c)(12) ofthis section to have knowledge of andauthority to take actions to ensurecompliance with the appropriateregulations and requirements to theDirector of Nuclear Material Safety andSafeguards, U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, Washington, DC 20555–0001; or

(ii) The device is held in storage by anintermediate person in the originalshipping container at its intendedlocation of use prior to initial use by ageneral licensee.* * * * *

(12) Shall appoint an individualresponsible for having knowledge of theappropriate regulations andrequirements and the authority fortaking required actions to comply withappropriate regulations andrequirements. The general licensee,through this individual, shall ensure theday-to-day compliance with appropriateregulations and requirements. Thisappointment does not relieve thegeneral licensee of responsibility in thisregard.

(13)(i) Shall register, in accordancewith paragraphs (c)(13)(ii) and (iii) ofthis section, devices containing at least370 MBq (10 mCi) of cesium-137, 3.7MBq (0.1 mCi) of strontium-90, 37 MBq(1 mCi) of cobalt-60, or 37 MBq (1 mCi)of americium-241 or any othertransuranic, i.e., element with atomicnumber greater than uranium (92),based on the activity indicated on thelabel.

(ii) If in possession of a devicemeeting the criteria of paragraph(c)(13)(i) of this section, shall registerthese devices annually with the

Commission and shall pay the feerequired by § 170.31 of this chapter.Registration must be done by verifying,correcting, and/or adding to theinformation provided in a request forregistration received from theCommission. The registrationinformation must be submitted to theNRC within 30 days of the date of therequest for registration or as otherwiseindicated in the request. In addition, ageneral licensee holding devicesmeeting the criteria of paragraph(c)(13)(i) of this section is subject to thebankruptcy notification requirement in§ 30.34(h) of this chapter.

(iii) In registering devices, the generallicensee shall furnish the followinginformation and any other informationspecifically requested by theCommission—

(A) Name and mailing address of thegeneral licensee.

(B) Information about each device:The manufacturer, model number, serialnumber, the radioisotope and activity(as indicated on the label).

(C) Name and telephone number ofthe responsible person designated as arepresentative of the general licenseeunder paragraph (c)(12) of this section.

(D) Address at which the device(s) areused and/or stored. For portabledevices, the address of the primaryplace of storage.

(E) Certification by the responsiblerepresentative of the general licenseethat the information concerning thedevice(s) has been verified through aphysical inventory and checking of labelinformation.

(F) Certification by the responsiblerepresentative of the general licenseethat they are aware of the requirementsof the general license.

(14) Shall report changes of address(including change in name of generallicensee) to the Director of NuclearMaterial Safety and Safeguards, U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission,Washington, DC 20555–0001 within 30days of the effective date of the change.If it is a portable device, a report ofaddress change is only required for achange in the device’s primary place ofstorage.

(15) May not hold devices that are notin use for longer than 2 years. If deviceswith shutters are not being used, theshutter must be locked in the closedposition. The testing required byparagraph (c)(2) of this section need notbe performed during the period ofstorage only. However, when devicesare put back into service or transferredto another person, and have not beentested within the required test interval,they must be tested for leakage before



use or transfer and the shutter testedbefore use.* * * * *

PART 32—SPECIFIC DOMESTICLICENSES TO MANUFACTURE ORTRANSFER CERTAIN ITEMSCONTAINING BYPRODUCT MATERIAL


Authority: Secs. 81, 161, 182, 183, 68 Stat.935, 948, 953, 954, as amended (42 U.S.C.2111, 2201, 2232, 2233); sec. 201, 88 Stat.1242, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841).

9. In § 32.51, paragraphs (a)(4) and (5)are added to read as follows:

§ 32.51 Byproduct material contained indevices for use under § 31.5; requirementsfor license to manufacture, or initiallytransfer.

(a) * * *(4) Each device having a separable

source housing that provides theprimary shielding for the source alsobears, on the source housing, a durablelabel containing the device modelnumber and serial number, the isotopeand quantity, the words, ‘‘Caution—Radioactive Material,’’ the radiationsymbol described in § 20.1901 of thischapter, and the name of themanufacturer or initial distributor.

(5) Each device meeting the criteria of§ 31.5(c)(13)(i) of this chapter, bears apermanent (e.g., embossed, etched,stamped, or engraved) label affixed tothe source housing if separable, or thedevice if the source housing is notseparable, that includes the words,‘‘Caution—Radioactive Material,’’ and,if practicable, the radiation symboldescribed in § 20.1901 of this chapter.* * * * *

10. Section 32.51a is revised to readas follows:

§ 32.51a Same: Conditions of licenses.(a) If a device containing byproduct

material is to be transferred for useunder the general license contained in§ 31.5 of this chapter, each person thatis licensed under § 32.51 shall providethe information specified in thisparagraph to each person to whom adevice is to be transferred. Thisinformation must be provided before thedevice may be transferred. In the case ofa transfer through an intermediateperson, the information must also beprovided to the intended user prior toinitial transfer to the intermediateperson. The required informationincludes—

(1) A copy of the general licensecontained in § 31.5 of this chapter;

(2) A copy of §§ 31.2, 30.51, 20.2201,and 20.2202 of this chapter;

(3) A list of the services that can onlybe performed by a specific licensee; and(4) Information on acceptable disposaloptions including estimated costs ofdisposal.

(b) If byproduct material is to betransferred in a device for use under anequivalent general license of anAgreement State, each person that islicensed under § 32.51 shall provide theinformation specified in this paragraphto each person to whom a device is tobe transferred. This information must beprovided before the device may betransferred. In the case of a transferthrough an intermediate person, theinformation must also be provided tothe intended user prior to initial transferto the intermediate person. The requiredinformation includes —

(1) A copy of the Agreement State’sregulations equivalent to §§ 31.5, 31.2,30.51, 20.2201, and 20.2202 of thischapter or a copy of §§ 31.5, 31.2, 30.51,20.2201, and 20.2202 of this chapter. Ifa copy of the NRC regulations isprovided to a prospective generallicensee, it shall be accompanied by anote explaining that use of the device isregulated by the Agreement State;

(2) A list of the services that can onlybe performed by a specific licensee;

(3) Information on acceptable disposaloptions including estimated costs ofdisposal; and (4) The name, address,and phone number of the contact at theAgreement State regulatory agency fromwhich additional information may beobtained.

(c) Each device that is transferred after(insert date 1 year after the effective dateof this rule) must meet the labelingrequirements in § 32.51(a)(3) through(5).

(d) If a notification of bankruptcy hasbeen made under § 30.34(h) or thelicense is to be terminated, each personlicensed under § 32.51 shall provide,upon request, to the NRC and to anyappropriate Agreement State, records offinal disposition required under§ 32.52(c).


§ 32.52 Same: Material transfer reportsand records.

Each person licensed under § 32.51 toinitially transfer devices to generallylicensed persons shall comply with therequirements of this section.

(a) The person shall report alltransfers of devices to persons for useunder the general license in § 31.5 ofthis chapter to the Director of the Officeof Nuclear Material Safety andSafeguards, U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, Washington, DC 20555–0001. The report must be submitted on

a quarterly basis on Form 653—‘‘Transfers of Industrial Devices Report’’or in a clear and legible reportcontaining all of the data required bythe form.

(1) The required informationincludes—

(i) The identity of each generallicensee by name and mailing addressfor the location of use;

(ii) The name and phone number ofthe person identified by the generallicensee as having knowledge of andauthority to take required actions toensure compliance with the appropriateregulations and requirements;

(iii) The date of transfer;(iv) The type, model number, and

serial number of the device transferred;and

(v) The quantity and type ofbyproduct material contained in thedevice.

(2) If one or more intermediatepersons will temporarily possess thedevice at the intended place of usebefore its possession by the user, thereport must include the sameinformation for both the intended userand each intermediate person, andclearly designate the intermediateperson(s).

(3) If a device transferred replacedanother returned by the generallicensee, the report must also includethe type, model number, and serialnumber of the one returned.

(4) The report must cover eachcalendar quarter, must be filed within30 days of the end of the calendarquarter, and must clearly indicate theperiod covered by the report.

(5) The report must clearly identifythe specific licensee submitting thereport and include the license numberof the specific licensee.

(6) If no transfers have been made topersons generally licensed under § 31.5of this chapter during the reportingperiod, the report must so indicate.

(b) The person shall report alltransfers of devices to persons for useunder a general license in an AgreementState’s regulations that are equivalent to§ 31.5 of this chapter to the responsibleAgreement State agency. The reportmust be submitted on Form 653—‘‘Transfers of Industrial Devices Report’’or in a clear and legible reportcontaining all of the data required bythe form.

(1) The required informationincludes—

(i) The identity of each generallicensee by name and mailing addressfor the location of use;

(ii) The name and phone number ofthe person identified by the generallicensee as having knowledge of and



authority to take required actions toensure compliance with the appropriateregulations and requirements;

(iii) The date of transfer;(iv) The type, model number, and

serial number of the device transferred;and

(v) The quantity and type ofbyproduct material contained in thedevice.

(2) If one or more intermediatepersons will temporarily possess thedevice at the intended place of usebefore its possession by the user, thereport must include the sameinformation for both the intended userand each intermediate person, andclearly designate the intermediateperson(s).

(3) If a device transferred replacedanother returned by the generallicensee, the report must also includethe type, model number, and serialnumber of the one returned.

(4) The report must be submittedwithin 30 days after the end of eachcalendar quarter in which such a deviceis transferred to the generally licensedperson and clearly indicate the periodcovered by the report.

(5) The report must clearly identifythe specific licensee submitting the

report and must include the licensenumber of the specific licensee.

(6) If no transfers have been made toa particular Agreement State during thereporting period, this information shallbe reported to the responsibleAgreement State agency upon request ofthe agency.

(c) The person shall keep records ofall transfers of devices for each generallicensee including all the information inthe reports required by this section andrecords of final disposition. Recordsrequired by this paragraph must bemaintained for a period of 3 yearsfollowing the estimated useful life of thedevice or the date of final disposition,if known.

PART 170—FEES FOR FACILITIES,MATERIALS, IMPORT AND EXPORTLICENSES, AND OTHERREGULATORY SERVICES UNDER THEATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954, ASAMENDED


Authority: 31 U.S.C. 9701; sec. 301, Pub.L. 92—314, 86 Stat. 222 (42 U.S.C. 2201w);sec. 201, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended (42U.S.C. 5841); sec. 205, Pub. L. 101–576, 104Stat. 2842, (31 U.S.C. 9012).

13. Section 170.2 is amended byadding a paragraph (r) to read asfollows:

§ 170.2 Scope.

* * * * *(r) A holder of a general license

granted by 10 CFR part 31 who isrequired to register a device(s).

14. In § 170.3, the definition ofMaterials License is revised to read asfollows:

§ 170.3 Definitions.

* * * * *Materials License means a license,

certificate, approval, registration, orother form of permission issued orgranted by the NRC pursuant to theregulations in 10 CFR parts 30, 31through 36, 39, 40, 61, 70, 71 and 72.* * * * *

15. Section 170.31 is amended byadding a fee category, 3. Q. to theschedule of materials fees and amendingfootnote 1 to add a paragraph (f).

§ 170.31 Schedule of fees for materialslicenses and other regulatory services,including inspections, and import andexport licenses.

* * * * *

SCHEDULE OF MATERIALS FEES

[See footnotes at end of table]

Category of materials licenses and type of fees 1 Fee 2,3

* * * * *3. * * *

Q. Registration of a device(s) generally licensed pursuant to Part 31 .................................................................................................. $420

* * * * *

1 Types of fees.

* * *(f) Generally licensed device registrations

under 10 CFR 31.5. Submittals of registrationinformation must be accompanied by theprescribed fee.

* * * * *

PART 171—ANNUAL FEES FORREACTOR OPERATING LICENSES,AND FUEL CYCLE LICENSES ANDMATERIALS LICENSES, INCLUDINGHOLDERS OF CERTIFICATES OFCOMPLIANCE, REGISTRATIONS, ANDQUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAMAPPROVALS AND GOVERNMENTAGENCIES LICENSED BY THE NRC


Authority: Sec. 7601, Pub. L. 99–272, 100Stat. 146, as amended by sec. 5601, Pub. L.100–203, 101 Stat. 1330, as amended by sec.3201, Pub. L. 101–239, 103 Stat. 2106 asamended by sec. 6101, Pub. L. 101–508, 104Stat. 1388 (42 U.S.C. 2213); sec. 301, Pub. L.92–314, 86 Stat. 222 (42 U.S.C. 2201(w)); sec.201, 88 Stat. 1242 as amended (42 U.S.C.5841; sec. 2903, Pub. L. 102–486, 106 Stat.3125 (42 U.S.C. 2214 note).

17. In § 171.5, the definition ofMaterials License is revised to read asfollows:


* * * * *Materials License means a license,

certificate, approval, registration, or

other form of permission issued orgranted by the NRC pursuant to theregulations in 10 CFR parts 30, 31through 36, 39, 40, 61, 70, 71, and 72.* * * * *

18. In § 171.16, paragraph (d) isamended by adding a fee category, 3. Q.to the schedule of annual fees.

§ 171.16 Annual fees: Material Licensees,Holders of Certificates of Compliance,Holders of Sealed Source and DeviceRegistrations, Holders of Quality AssuranceProgram Approvals and GovernmentAgencies Licensed by the NRC.

* * * * *

(d) * * *



SCHEDULE OF MATERIALS ANNUAL FEES AND FEES FOR GOVERNMENT AGENCIES LICENSED BY NRC[See footnotes at end of table]

Category of materials license Annualfees 1,2,3

* * * * *3. * * *

Q. Registration of devices generally licensed pursuant to part 31 ........................................................................................................ 11N/A

* * * * *

11 No annual fee is charged for this category since the cost of the general license registration program will be recovered through 10 CFR part170 fees.

Dated at Rockville, MD., this 19th day ofJuly, 1999.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.J. Samuel Walker,Acting Secretary of the Commission.[FR Doc. 99–18981 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 7590–01–P


13 CFR Part 120

Business Loan Program

AGENCY: Small Business Administration(SBA).ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This proposed rule wouldimplement Public Law 106–22, enactedon April 27, 1999, which establishesnew rules for the loan loss reserve fundwhich an intermediary must maintain toparticipate in SBA’s microloan program.DATES: Comments must be submitted onor before August 25, 1999.ADDRESSES: Comments should bemailed to Jane Palsgrove Butler,Associate Administrator for FinancialAssistance, Small BusinessAdministration, 409 Third Street, SW.,Washington, DC. 20416.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: JodyRaskind, 202–205–6497.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PublicLaw 106–22, enacted on April 27, 1999,amended section 7(m) of the SmallBusiness Act (15 U.S.C. 636(7)(m)) inorder to change the requirements for theloan loss reserve fund (LLRF) whicheach intermediary in the SBA’smicroloan program must maintain. TheLLRF is an interest-bearing depositaccount at a bank. An intermediarymust establish an LLRF to pay anyshortage in its day-to-day revolvingaccount caused by delinquencies orlosses on microloans it makes toqualified small business borrowers. Anintermediary must maintain the LLRFuntil it repays all obligations it owes tothe SBA.

Under the present rule, anintermediary, during its first year in themicroloan program, must maintain itsLLRF at a level equal to at least 15percent of the total outstanding balanceof notes receivable owed to it by itsmicroloan borrowers (Portfolio).Thereafter, the minimum balance thatan intermediary must maintain in itsLLRF must be the percent of its Portfolioequal to its actual average loan loss rateafter its first year in the microloanprogram. The maximum level of theLLRF, under the present rule, cannotexceed 15 percent of the Portfolio. Thereis no prescribed minimum level.

Under the proposed rule, until theintermediary is in the microloanprogram for at least five years, it wouldbe required to maintain a balance ondeposit in its LLRF equal to 15 percentof its Portfolio. After an intermediary isin the microloan program for five years,it may request SBA’s AssociateAdministrator for Financial Assistance(AA/FA) to grant the intermediary’srequest to reduce the percentage of itsPortfolio which it must maintain in itsLLRF to an amount equal to its actualaverage loan loss rate during thepreceding five year period. The AA/FAwould review the intermediary’s annualloss rate for that five year period anddetermine whether he or she shouldgrant the intermediary’s request. TheAA/FA could not reduce the loan lossreserve to under ten percent of thePortfolio.

Under the proposed rule, to get areduction in its loan loss reserve, anintermediary must demonstrate to thesatisfaction of the AA/FA that (1) itsaverage annual loss rate during thepreceding five years is under fifteenpercent, and (2) no other factors existthat might impair its ability to repay allobligations which it may owe to SBAunder the microloan program.

Compliance With Executive Orders12612, 12988 and 12866, the RegulatoryFlexibility Act ( 5 U.S.C. 601–612), andthe Paperwork Reduction Act (44U.S.C. Ch. 35)

SBA certifies that this proposed ruledoes not constitute a significant rulewithin the meaning of Executive Order12866, since it is not likely to have anannual effect on the economy of $100million or more, result in a majorincrease in costs or prices, or have asignificant adverse effect on competitionor the U.S. economy.

SBA certifies that this proposed rulewill not have a significant economicimpact on a substantial number of smallentities within the meaning of theRegulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612.

SBA certifies that this proposed ruledoes not impose any additionalreporting or recordkeeping requirementsunder the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44U.S.C. chapter 35.

For purposes of Executive Order12612, SBA certifies that this proposedrule has no federalism implicationswarranting preparation of a FederalismAssessment.

For purposes of Executive Order12988, SBA certifies that this proposedrule is drafted, to the extent practicable,to accord with the standards set forth insection 3 of that Order.


Loan programs-business.

For the reasons stated in thepreamble, under the authority in section5(b)(6) of the Small Business Act (15U.S.C. 634(b)(6), the Small BusinessAdministration proposes to amend 13CFR part 120 as follows:

PART 120—BUSINESS LOANS


Authority: 15 U.S.C. 634(b)(6) and 636(a)and (h).



2. Amend § 120.710 by revisingparagraphs (b) and (c) and by addingparagraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows:

§ 120.710 What is the Loan Loss ReserveFund?* * * * *

(b) Level of Loan Loss Reserve Fund.Until it is in the Microloan program forat least five years, an Intermediary mustmaintain a balance on deposit in itsLLRF equal to 15 percent of theoutstanding balance of the notesreceivable owed to it by its Microloanborrowers (‘‘Portfolio’’).

(c) SBA Review of Loan Loss Reserve.After an Intermediary has been in theMicroloan program for five years, it mayrequest the SBA’s AA/FA to reduce thepercentage of its Portfolio which it mustmaintain in its LLRF to an amount equalto the actual average loan loss rateduring the preceding five year period.Upon receipt of such request, the AA/FA will review the Intermediary’sannual loss rate for the most recent five-year period preceding the request.

(d) Reduction of Loan Loss Reserve.The AA/FA has the authority to reducethe percentage of an Intermediary’sPortfolio which it must maintain in itsLLRF to an amount equal to the actualaverage loan loss rate during thepreceding five year period. The AA/FAcan not reduce the loan loss reserve toless than ten percent of the Portfolio.

(e) What Intermediary MustDemonstrate to Get a Reduction in LoanLoss Reserve. To get a reduction in itsloan loss reserve, an Intermediary mustdemonstrate to the satisfaction of theAA/FA that

(1) Its average annual loss rate duringthe preceding five years is less thanfifteen percent, and

(2) No other factors exist that mayimpair the Intermediary’s ability torepay all obligations which it owes tothe SBA under the Microloan program.



13 CFR Part 121

Small Business Size Standards;General Building Contractors, HeavyConstruction, Dredging and SurfaceCleanup Activities, Special TradeContractors, Garbage and RefuseCollection, and Refuse Systems

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Small BusinessAdministration (SBA) proposes a sizestandard of $25.0 million in averageannual receipts for all industries inGeneral Building Contractors (StandardIndustrial Classification (SIC) MajorGroup 15) and for all industries exceptDredging and Surface CleanupActivities in Heavy Construction OtherThan Building Construction (SIC MajorGroup 16); $20.0 million for Dredgingand Surface Cleanup Activities (part ofSIC 1629, Heavy Construction, NotElsewhere Classified (NEC)); $10.5million for all Special Trade Contractorsindustries (SIC Major Group 17); and$9.0 million for Garbage and RefuseCollection, Without Disposal (part ofSIC 4212, Local Trucking WithoutStorage), and Refuse Systems (SIC4953). The proposed revisions are beingmade to adjust these industries’ sizestandards for the effects of inflationsince the time they were established inthe mid-1980s.DATES: Comments must be submitted onor before September 24, 1999.ADDRESSES: Send comments to Gary M.Jackson, Assistant Administrator forSize Standards, 409 3rd Street, SW, MailCode 6880, Washington DC 20416.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Robert N. Ray, Office of Size Standards,(202) 205–6618.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SBAproposes revisions to its size standardsin two industry groups—Constructionand Refuse Systems and RelatedServices. For Construction, SBAproposes an increase to the sizestandards for all industries in GeneralBuilding Contractors and HeavyConstruction (except Dredging andSurface Cleanup Activities), MajorGroups 15 and 16, respectively, from$17 million in average annual receiptsto $25 million; for Dredging and SurfaceCleanup Activities (a component of SIC1629, Heavy Construction, NEC), from$13.5 million to $20 million; and for allindustries in Special Trade Contractors,Major Group 17, from $7 million to$10.5 million. For the two industriescomprising Refuse Systems and RelatedServices, SBA proposes an increase tothe size standard from $6 million to $9million for Garbage and RefuseCollection, part of SIC 4212 (LocalTrucking Without Storage) and forRefuse Systems, SIC 4953.

These proposed revisions adjust thecurrent size standards for inflation thathas occurred since 1984, when all butone of these size standards becameeffective. The size standard for Dredgingand Surface Cleanup Activities becameeffective on December 9, 1985 (50 FR46418, November 8, 1985), based on a

special study of the industrial structureof the Dredging industry. That studyessentially verified that the inflationadjustment of 40% which applied to allother Construction industries in 1984was also appropriate for Dredging. Thus,SBA believes it is appropriate to applythe 1994 inflation adjustment to theDredging industry without anyadjustment for the later date when theDredging size standard actually tookeffect.

From September 30, 1988 untilSeptember 30, 1996, SBA wasprohibited by statute from changing thesize standards for the Construction andRefuse Systems and Related Servicesindustries. These industries are subjectto the special procurement proceduresof the Small Business CompetitivenessDemonstration Program (Program) (TitleVII of Pub. L. 100–656, 102 Stat. 3853,3889). This Program specifies specialprocedures on the use of small businessset-aside contracting for theprocurement of services within fourdesignated industry groups. Thedesignated groups are: Construction(SIC codes 1521–1542, SIC codes 1611–1629 and SIC codes 1711–1799);Engineering Services (SIC code 8711),Architectural Services (SIC code 8712),and Surveying and Mapping Services(SIC codes 8713 and part of SIC code7389); Refuse Systems and RelatedServices (SIC code 4953 and part of SICcode 4212); and Non-nuclear ShipRepair (part of SIC code 3731, ShipBuilding and Repairing).

Between 1988 and 1996, the Programincluded a provision that prohibited anychange to the size standards for anyindustry in the designated industrygroups that were in effect as ofSeptember 30, 1988. However, the SmallBusiness Act of 1996 included anamendment to the Program thatrepealed this prohibition (OmnibusConsolidated Appropriations Act, 1997,Division D, Title I, section 108 of Pub.L. 104–208, 110 Stat. 3009–733.) In theaccompanying legislative history,Congress indicated that SBA shouldtake appropriate action to adjust the sizestandards for the designated industrygroups, although no specific guidancewas provided on how these sizestandards should be adjusted by SBA.

SBA’s preliminary assessment of theindustries covered by the Programindicated that the size standards for theEngineering Services, ArchitecturalServices, and Surveying and MappingServices industries, among the lowest ofSBA’s size standards, were more in needof adjustment than the other sizestandards. Further review of thoseindustries led to a proposed rule toincrease their size standards published



on February 3, 1998 (63 FR 5480) anda final rule adopting new size standardspublished on May 14, 1999 (64 FR26275). At this time, SBA is proposingonly an inflation adjustment to theremaining industries covered by theProgram which have a receipts-basedsize standard. A decision will be madeat a later time on whether to propose achange to the 1,000-employee sizestandard for Non-nuclear Ship Repair.

The inflation adjustment proposed forthe Construction and Refuse Systemsand Related Services industries’ sizestandards is identical to the percentageSBA made to most of its receipts-basedsize standards in 1994 (see 59 FR 16513,April 7, 1994) to account for the effectsof inflation that had occurred since1984, the year of SBA’s previousinflationary adjustment (49 FR 5024,February 9, 1984). SBA is choosing toadjust these size standards to the levelsthat would have occurred in 1994, ifthey could have been adjusted at thattime, so that all receipts-based sizestandards will be adjusted for inflationto the same point in time. All of SBA’sreceipts-based size standards will havebeen adjusted to the same time periodif this rule becomes final (except for theagricultural production size standardswhich are statutorily set). SBArecognizes that inflation has occurredsince 1994, but not to a sufficientamount to warrant further adjustment atthis time to these or other receipts-basedsize standards. SBA will make aconsistent inflation adjustment to allreceipts-based size standards when datasuggest the need for such an inflationadjustment.

Inflation Adjustment MethodologyOn April 7, 1994, SBA adjusted most

of its receipt-based size standards toaccount for the effects of inflation thathad occurred since SBA’s previousinflationary adjustment in 1984 (59 FR16513, April 7, 1994). In that rule, SBAapplied an inflation adjustment of48.2% to each receipts-based sizestandard and then rounded that level tothe nearest half million dollarincrement. This rounding methodproduces increases to most industry sizestandards that are slightly above orbelow the calculated inflation rate of48.2%.

In determining the rate of inflation,SBA used the U.S. Department ofCommerce’s Gross Domestic Product(GDP) Implicit Price Deflator. The 1994adjustment calculated inflation from thethird quarter of 1982 (the ending periodfor the previous inflation adjustment in1984) to the fourth quarter of 1993 (thelatest data available at the time of the1994 final rule). SBA proposes to make

the same adjustments to the industriesaddressed in this notice of proposedrulemaking.

Dominant in Field of OperationSection 3(a) of the Small Business Act

defines a small concern as one that is:1. Independently owned and

operated,2. Not dominant in its field of

operation, and3. Meets detailed definitions or

standards established by theAdministrator of SBA.

In lieu of a separate small businesseligibility criterion, SBA includes aspart of its evaluation of a size standardwhether a concern at or below arecommended size standard would beconsidered dominant in its field ofoperation. This assessment generallytakes into consideration the marketshare of firms at a recommended sizestandard, or other factors that mayreveal if a firm can exercise a majorcontrolling influence on a national basisin which significant numbers ofbusiness concerns are engaged.

SBA has determined that at therecommended size standards of $25.0million for General Building Contractorsand Heavy Construction, $20 million forDredging and Surface CleanupActivities, $10.5 million for SpecialTrade Contractors and $9.0 million forGarbage and Refuse Collection and forRefuse Systems, no firm at or belowthose levels would be of a sufficient sizeto be dominant in its field of operation.Firms at the proposed size standardsgenerate less than one percent of totalindustry sales for each industryreviewed in this proposed rule. Thislow level of market share for the largestfirm covered by SBA’s proposed sizestandards effectively precludes anyability by a firm to exert a controllingeffect on the industry in which itoperates.

Alternative Size StandardsSBA considered adjusting the

Construction and Refuse Systems andRelated Services size standards by theamount of inflation that has beenreported by the latest available GDPdeflator (first quarter of 1999). The GDPdeflator records an inflation rate of60.6% from the third quarter of 1982through the first quarter of 1999. Asdiscussed earlier, if this adjustmentwere applied to the Construction andRefuse Systems and Related Servicessize standards it would result inreceipts-based size standards beingadjusted at different time periods.

SBA is closely monitoring the amountof inflation that has occurred since the1994 adjustment and will propose an

inflation adjustment to all receipts-based size standards when it hasdetermined that a significant amount ofinflation has occurred to warrant suchan adjustment. Thus far, inflation hasonly increased 9.6% since the 1994adjustment—an amount too small towarrant an inflation adjustment at thistime. Furthermore, industry data fromthe U.S. Bureau of the Census’ 1997Economic Census will be available nextyear upon which to reassess theseindustries’ size standards.

SBA welcomes public comments onthe proposed size standards for theConstruction and Refuse Systems andRelated Services industries. Commentson alternative size standards shouldexplain the reasons why they arepreferable to the proposed sizestandards.

Compliance With Executive Orders12612, 12988, and 12866, theRegulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601et seq., and the Paperwork ReductionAct, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

SBA certifies that this rule, if adopted,would be a significant regulatory actionwithin the meaning of Executive Order12866 since it is expected to have anannual economic impact of over $100million. For purposes of the RegulatoryFlexibility Act, this rule would have asignificant impact on a substantialnumber of small businesses if adopted.Immediately below, SBA has set forthan initial regulatory flexibility analysisand economic impact analysis of thisproposed rule.

1. Description of Entities to Which theRule Applies

SBA estimates that 2,279 additionalfirms would be considered small as aresult of this rule, if adopted. Thesefirms would be eligible to seek availableSBA assistance provided they meetother program requirements. Many ofthese firms (if in existence at the time)probably had small business status in1984 when the size standards for theseindustries were established, but havesince lost eligibility because ofinflationary increases.

Of the additional firms gainingeligibility, 621 operate in GeneralBuilding Contractors, 375 operate inHeavy Construction, 1,153 operate inthe Special Trade Constructionindustries, while 130 operate in RefuseSystems and Related Services.

Firms becoming eligible for SBAassistance as a result of this rulecumulatively generate $28.9 billion inannual sales, while total sales in theseindustries are $564 billion. Of the $28.9billion in annual sales for newly eligiblefirms, $11.7 billion are in the General



Building Contractors industry, $7.2billion are in Heavy Construction, $9.1billion are in the Special Trades and$0.9 billion are in Refuse Systems andRelated Services.

SBA estimates that out of theapproximately $7.85 billion in totalinitial Federal contracts per year, anadditional $400 million worth ofcontracts could be awarded to firmsdesignated as small firms in the fourindustry groups affected by this rule. Ofthese contracts, $378 million could beawarded to the newly defined firms and$22 million to current small firms.These contracts could be obtainedthrough awards under the smallbusiness set-aside Program, the 8(a)Program, the Small DisadvantagedBusiness (SDB) Program, the HUBZoneEmpowerment Contracting Program, oron an unrestricted basis.

Also, these newly defined smallbusinesses would be eligible for SBA’sfinancial assistance programs and couldpotentially receive an estimated $21.2million in loans under the 7(a)Guaranteed Loan Program and $3.9million in loans under the CertifiedDevelopment Company (504) Program.

2. Description of Potential Benefits ofthe Rule

This rule will result in an increase inthe number of firms eligible for smallbusiness set-aside contracts, the 8(a)Program, the HUBZone Program, andSDB and HUBZone price preferences.For Federal contracts set aside for smallbusiness or competed under the 8(a) andHUBZone Programs, this rule will leadto an increase in competition for thesecontracts and thus lower overall costs tothe government.

When an SDB or HUBZone firmcompetes for an unrestricted contract,the Federal government generally allowsthem a price preference of up to 10%.This rule may increase the number offirms competing for these contracts intwo ways. First, the number of SDB andHUBZone firms will increase. Second,with more small firms competing onunrestricted contracts, the governmentmay decide to set aside more contractsfor competition among all smallbusinesses where they had previouslyawarded price preferences. Any increase

in competition that results in a moreefficient or competitive firm winning acontract will result in a benefit.

3. Description of Potential Costs of theRule

In areas where the rule acts todecrease competition for contacts, itmay lead to an increase in costs. Thismay occur in areas where smallbusinesses are currently not present orare not bidding on Federal contracts. If,after issuance of this rule, smallbusinesses bid on these contracts andrequire the government to provide aprice preference or this rule causes adecision to set aside a contract underone of the procurement preferenceprograms, it may increase costs to theFederal government on some contracts.These additional costs will be relativelyminor since, as a matter of policy,procurements may be set aside for smallbusinesses or under the 8(a) andHUBZone Programs only if awards areexpected to be made at fair andreasonable prices.

4. Transfers

The primary effect of the rule will betransfers among the four partiesinvolved—Federal government, largefirms, firms gaining small businessstatus under this rule, and firms that arecurrently small firms. SBA estimatesthat, of the $400 million in Federalcontracts expected to be awarded to thesmall firms, approximately 11.3%, or$45.2 million, may be reallocated fromlarge firms to current small firms andthe newly defined small firms.

The remaining $354.8 million ofcontacts will not change hands, rather,the firms holding the contracts will bereclassified as small under the rule. Inaddition, of $3.9 billion of initialcontracts awarded to small firms, SBAestimates that $43.8 million could betransferred from current small firms tolarger, more efficient or competitive,newly defined small firms.

5. Description of Reasons Why ThisAction Is Being Taken and Objectives ofRule

SBA has provided in thesupplementary information a statementof the reasons why these new size

standards should be established and astatement of the reasons for and theobjectives of this rule.

For the purpose of the PaperworkReduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,SBA certifies that this rule would notimpose new reporting or record keepingrequirements. For purposes of ExecutiveOrder 12612, SBA certifies that this ruledoes not have any federalismimplications warranting the preparationof a Federalism Assessment. Forpurposes of Executive Order 12988,SBA certifies that this rule is drafted, tothe extent practicable, in accordancewith the standards set forth in thatorder.


Government procurement,Government property, Grant programs-business, Loan programs-business,Small business.

For the reasons stated in thepreamble, SBA proposes to amend 13CFR part 121 as follows:

PART 121—SMALL BUSINESS SIZEREGULATIONS


Authority: Pub. L. 105–135 sec. 601 et.seq., 111 Stat. 2592; 15 U.S.C. 632(a),634(b)(6), 637(a), and 644(c); and Pub. L.102–486, 106 Stat. 2776, 3133.

§ 121.201 [Amended]

2. In § 121.201, the table ‘‘SIZESTANDARDS BY SIC INDUSTRY,’’ isamended as follows:

a. Revise DIVISION C—CONSTRUCTION:

b. Under DIVISION E—TRANSPORTATION,COMMUNICATIONS, ELECTRIC, GAS,AND SANITARY SERVICES, MAJORGROUP 42–MOTOR FREIGHTTRANSPORTATION ANDWAREHOUSING, revise the entry 4212(Part):

c. Under DIVISION E—TRANSPORTATION,COMMUNICATIONS, ELECTRIC, GAS,AND SANITARY SERVICES, MAJORGROUP 49–ELECTRIC, GAS, ANDSANITARY SERVICES, revise the entry4953 to read as follows:

SIZE STANDARDS BY SIC INDUSTRY

SIC code and descriptionSize standards in

number of employeesor millions of dollars

* * * * * * *DIVISION C—CONSTRUCTION

MAJOR GROUP 15–GENERAL BUILDING CONTRACTORS ............................................................................................... $25.0



SIZE STANDARDS BY SIC INDUSTRY—Continued

SIC code and descriptionSize standards in

number of employeesor millions of dollars

MAJOR GROUP 16–HEAVY CONSTRUCTION, NON BUILDING ........................................................................................ $25.0EXCEPT:

1629 (Part) Dredging and Surface Cleanup Activities .................................................................................................... $20.01 1

MAJOR GROUP 17—CONSTRUCTION-SPECIAL TRADE CONTRACTORS ...................................................................... $10.5

* * * * * * *

DIVISION E—TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS, ELECTRIC, GAS, AND SANITARY SERVICES

* * * * * * *4212 (Part) Garbage and Refuse Collection, Without Disposal ...................................................................................... 9.0

* * * * * * *4953 Refuse Systems ...................................................................................................................................................... 9.0

1 SIC code 1629–Dredging: To be considered small for purposes of Government procurement, a firm must perform at least 40 percent of thevolume dredged with its own equipment or equipment owned by another small dredging concern.

Dated: May 28, 1999.Aida Alvarez,Administrator.[FR Doc. 99–18955 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 8025–01–P


13 CFR Part 121

Small Business Size Standards;Arrangement of Transportation ofFreight and Cargo

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Small BusinessAdministration (SBA) proposes tomodify the way average annual receiptsare calculated for firms in theArrangement of Transportation ofFreight and Cargo industry (StandardIndustrial Classification (SIC) code4731). This rule would exclude fundsreceived in trust for unaffiliated thirdparties from calculation of a firm’sreceipts. The current size standard forthis industry, $18.5 million, is based ongross billings and is equivalent to a firmsize of $1.85 million in income fromcommissions and fees. SBA alsoproposes a size standard of $5 millionin average annual receipts (afterexcluding funds received in trust forunaffiliated third parties). The revisionsare proposed to better define the size ofbusiness in this industry that SBAbelieves should be eligible for Federalsmall business assistance programs.DATES: Submit comments on or beforeSeptember 24, 1999.ADDRESSES: Send comments to Gary M.Jackson, Assistant Administrator forSize Standards, 409 3rd Street, S.W.,

Mail Code 6880, Washington D.C.20416.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Patricia B. Holden, Office of SizeStandards, (202) 205–6618 or (202) 205–6385.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SBAreceived requests from the public toreview the size standard for theArrangement of Transportation ofFreight and Cargo industry (SIC 4731).These requests express concern aboutthe way average annual receipts arecalculated for freight forwarders andcustoms brokers in this industry.

Under SBA’s Small Business SizeRegulations (13 CFR 121.104), the sizeof a firm for a receipts-based sizestandard is based on informationreported on a firm’s Federal tax returns.Generally, receipts reported to theInternal Revenue Service (IRS) includea firm’s gross receipts or sales fromprovision of goods or services. Therequesters believe that receipts collectedfor payment of charges imposed by theactual transportation provider orshipper should not be included in thecalculation of a freight forwarder andcustoms broker’s average annualreceipts for size determinationpurposes.

SBA evaluated this issue and agreesthat certain types of receipts should beexcluded from the calculation of size forfirms in this industry. Related to thisissue is whether the current sizestandard is appropriate if a significantproportion of receipts is excluded froma firm’s gross receipts. In reviewing thesize standard for this industry, SBAbelieves the current $18.5 million sizestandard is not appropriate if size is notmeasured by gross receipts.

Accordingly, SBA proposes a revisionto the size standard for the Arrangementof Transportation of Freight and Cargoindustry by excluding funds received intrust for unaffiliated third parties and bychanging the size standard from $18.5million in average annual receipts (grossreceipts) to $5 million (excluding fundsreceived in trust for unaffiliated thirdparties). The following discussionexplains the reasons for these twoproposed revisions.

Calculation of Average Annual ReceiptsAlthough SBA reviews requests to

exclude receipts of certain businessactivities on a case-by-case basis, thestructure of the reviews is consistentwith past proposed rules on this issue(e.g., advertising agencies, 57 FR 38452,and conference management planners,60 FR 57982). The reviews identify andevaluate five industry characteristicsunder which it might be appropriate toexclude certain funds received and latertransmitted to an unaffiliated thirdparty:

1. A broker or agent-like relationshipexists between a firm and a third partyprovider which is a dominant or crucialactivity of firms in the industry;

2. The pass-through funds associatedwith the broker or agent-likerelationship are a significant portion ofthe firm’s total receipts;

3. Consistent with the normalbusiness practice of firms in theindustry, a firm’s income remainingafter the pass-through funds areremitted to a third party is typicallyderived from a standard commission orfee;

4. Firms in this industry do notusually consider billings that arereimbursed to other firms as their ownincome, preferring instead to count only



receipts that are retained for their ownuse; and,

5. Federal government agencies whichengage in the collection of statistics andother industry analysts typicallyrepresent receipts of the industry firmson an adjusted receipts basis.

SBA’s review of information obtainedon the Arrangement of Transportation ofFreight and Cargo industry finds thatthese characteristics exist in theindustry. These characteristics supportthe proposal to exclude funds receivedin trust for unaffiliated third partiesfrom the calculation of a freightforwarder’s or customs broker’s receipts-size. The following discussionsummarizes these findings.

1. Agent-Like RelationshipThe Standard Industrial Classification

Manual (1987) states that this industryencompasses ‘‘establishments primarilyengaged in furnishing shippinginformation and acting as agents inarranging transportation for freight andcargo’’ (See SIC 4731, page 280). Abouthalf of the establishments in thisindustry are freight forwarders andcustoms brokers who advise customerson the options for transporting cargoand coordinate the actual shipment ofcargo. These firms act as agents,ensuring that customs, shippers andothers for whom the funds are collectedget paid. The remaining establishmentsare other types of agents and brokersand establishments that provideshipping information. Therefore, thedominant activity in this industry iscarried out in a broker or agent-likerelationship.

2. Pass-Through Funds Are a SignificantPortion of Total Receipts

It is common practice in the industry,although not mandatory, for the client’sbill from the freight forwarder andcustoms broker to include charges oftransportation providers, duties, etc.,which are temporarily held in trust bythe firm for remittance to thetransportation provider, governmentagency, or other parties. The charges byother providers are stated on the bill.Moreover, these remitted funds aretypically much larger in magnitude thanthe firm’s own earnings for arrangingthe transportation. It is not unusual forthe remitted funds to be over 90% of thetotal billing.

3. Remaining Income Is Derived FromStandard Commission or Fee

The freight forwarder or customsbroker earns income as a commissionfrom the transportation provider or as afee for services from their customers.Only six percent to ten percent of the

billings are income from commissionsand fees.

4. Firms in This Industry Only CountReceipts Retained for Their Own Use

Firms in this industry do not considerfunds collected for unaffiliated thirdparties as their own funds. As discussedabove, the role of freight forwarders andcustoms brokers is to facilitate thetransportation of goods, not to act as theactual shipper. Their income is largelyderived from commissions and feesprovided by the underlying transporterfrom the payment of shipping chargespaid on behalf of the customer. Thispayment structure shows that chargesfor shipping costs are not those of thefreight forwarder or customs broker.This point is also reinforced by the fifthand final characteristic.

5. Federal Agencies and IndustryAnalysts Typically Represent Receiptsof These Firms on an Adjusted ReceiptsBasis

Finally, data from the U.S. Bureau ofthe Census (Census Bureau) on thisindustry that SBA uses to evaluate sizestandards show firm receipts on acommission or fee basis. The surveyform used by the Census Bureau (UT4700) when surveying freightforwarders, customs brokers, shippingagents, and other freight brokers orarrangers specifically instructs them toonly report ‘‘Agency or brokeragecommissions or fees for arrangingtransportation of freight and cargo’’ and‘‘Freight Forwarding (net)’’ (UT 4700,Page 2, items 1 and 2).

Thus, the Census Bureau recognizesthat the normal arrangement in thisindustry is to handle money for others,retaining a small fraction as commissionor fee income. Similarly, the creditreporting firm of Dun and Bradstreetalso reports receipts for firms in thisindustry by using income derived fromcommission and fees, not gross billings.

Based on these findings, SBA believesit is appropriate to exclude amountscollected on behalf of a third partywhen calculating receipts for firms inthe Arrangement of Transportation ofFreight and Cargo industry, as itpresently does for real estate agencies,travel agencies, conference planners andadvertising agencies. More specifically,charges by the shipper for transportingcargo, customs duties, and other directfees associated with the cost of shippingcargo which the firm holds in trust foran unaffiliated third party and to whichit does not have a claim of right wouldbe excluded from gross receipts.Receipts from fees, commissions, andincome derived from other activitieswould be attributable to the firm.

Size Standard for the Arrangement ofTransportation of Freight and Cargo

The above proposal effectivelyincreases the current $18.5 million sizestandard. A firm with receipts exclusiveof pass-throughs to third parties of $18.5million would be equivalent to a firmwith gross billings between $185million to $308 million.

Accordingly, SBA believes it isappropriate to re-evaluate the sizestandard along with its proposal toallow exclusions for certain types ofpass-through funds. Based on thatevaluation, SBA proposes a $5 millionsize standard for this industry—net ofpass-through funds. The followingdiscussion describes SBA’s sizestandards methodology and theevaluation of data on the Arrangementof Transportation of Freight and Cargoindustry supporting a revision to thecurrent size standard.

Size Standards Methodology

Congress granted SBA discretion toestablish detailed size standards. SBA’sStandard Operating Procedure (SOP) 9001 3 ‘‘Size Determination Program’’ setsout four categories for establishing andevaluating size standards:

(1) The structure of the industry andits various economic characteristics.

(2) SBA program objectives and theimpact of different size standards onthese programs.

(3) Whether a size standardsuccessfully excludes those businesseswhich are dominant in the industry, and

(4) Other factors, if applicable.Other factors may come to SBA’s

attention during the public commentperiod or from SBA’s own research onthe industry. The reason SBA has notadopted a general formula or uniformweighting system is to ensure that thefactors will be evaluated in context of aspecific industry. Below is a discussionof SBA’s analysis of the economiccharacteristics of an industry, theimpact of a size standard on SBAprograms, and the evaluation of whethera firm at or below a size standard couldbe considered dominant in the industry.

Industry Analysis

In 13 CFR part 121.102 (a) and (b),evaluation factors are listed which arethe primary factors describing thestructural characteristics of anindustry—average firm size, distributionof firms by size, start-up costs and entrybarriers, and degree of industrycompetition. While these evaluationfactors are generally considered themost important indicators of industrystructure, SBA will consider andevaluate all relevant information that



would assist it in assessing an industry’ssize standard. Below is a briefdescription of the industry structureevaluation factors.

1. Average firm size is simply totalindustry revenues (or number ofemployees) divided by the total numberof firms. If an industry has an averagefirm size significantly higher than theaverage firm size of a group ofcomparative industries (in this case,industries with the anchor size standardof $5 million in receipts), this fact maysupport establishing a higher sizestandard than the one in effect for thegroup of related industries. Conversely,data showing an industry with asignificantly lower average firm sizerelative to the related group ofindustries tends to support a lower sizestandard.

2. The distribution of firms by sizeexamines the proportion of industrysales, employment, or other economicactivity accounted for by firms ofdifferent sizes within an industry. If thepreponderance of an industry’s outputis by large firms, this would tend tosupport a higher size standard than theanchor. The opposite is true for anindustry in which the distribution offirms by size indicates that output isconcentrated among the smaller firms inan industry.

3. Start-up costs affect a firm’s initialsize because entrants into an industrymust have sufficient capital to start aviable business. To the extent that firmsin an industry have greater start-upcapital requirements than firms in otherindustries, SBA is justified inconsidering a higher size standard. As aproxy measure for start-up costs, SBAexamines the average level of assets forfirms in an industry. An industry witha relatively high level of average assetsper firm as compared with the averageassets per firm of the group ofcomparative industries with a $5.0million size standard is likely to be acapital intensive industry in whichstart-up costs tend to be higher for firmsentering the industry. For those types ofindustries, that circumstance maysupport the need for a relatively highersize standard than the anchor sizestandard.

4. SBA assesses the degree of industrycompetition by measuring theproportion or share of industry salesobtained by firms above a relativelylarge firm size. In this proposed rule,SBA analyzes the proportion of industrysales generated by the four largest firmsin an industry—generally referred to asthe ‘‘four-firm concentration ratio.’’ If asignificant proportion of revenue fromsales within an industry is concentratedamong a few relatively large producers,

SBA tends to set a higher size standardto assist a broader range of firms tocompete with firms that are clearlydominant in the industry. If this factorshows the industry to be highlycompetitive, SBA tends to apply theanchor.

5. Competition for Federalprocurements and SBA financialassistance. SBA also evaluates theimpact of a size standard on itsprograms and other applications of sizestandards to determine whether smallbusinesses defined under the existingsize standard are receiving a reasonablelevel of assistance. This assessmentmainly focuses on the proportion orshare of Federal contract dollarsawarded to small businesses. In general,the lower the share of Federal contractdollars awarded to small businesses inan industry which receives significantFederal procurement revenues, thegreater is the justification for a sizestandard higher than the existing one.

As another factor to evaluate theimpact of a proposed size standard onSBA programs, the volume ofguaranteed loans within an industry andthe size of firms in that industryobtaining loans in SBA’s financialassistance programs is considered whendetermining whether or not the currentsize standard may inappropriatelyrestrict the level of financial assistanceto firms in that industry. If smallbusinesses receive ample assistancethrough these programs, a change to thesize standard (especially if it is alreadyabove the anchor size) may not beappropriate.

SBA established a size standard of500 employees for the manufacturingand mining industries at SBA’sinception in 1953 and shortly thereafterestablished a $1 million size standardfor the nonmanufacturing industries.These two size standards are generallyreferred to as ‘‘a base or anchor sizestandards.’’ The revenue-based sizestandards were adjusted for inflation sothat, currently, the anchor size for thenonmanufacturing industries is $5million.

If the structural characteristics of anindustry are significantly different fromthe average characteristics of industrieswith the anchor size standard, a sizestandard higher or, in rare cases, lowerthan the anchor size standard may besupportable. Only when all or most ofthe industry data are significantlysmaller than the average characteristicsof the anchor group industries, or otherindustry considerations suggest theanchor standard is an unreasonably highsize standard, will SBA adopt a sizestandard below the anchor sizestandard.

Excluding agriculture and subsistencecategories which for the most part havesize standards established by statute,only seven industries in the revenue-based size standards are below the $5.0million anchor and none in themanufacturing or mining industries isbelow the 500 employee-based sizestandards.

For the Arrangement ofTransportation of Freight and Cargoindustry under review in this proposedrule, SBA begins by comparing thecharacteristics of the five evaluationfactors for this industry to the averagecharacteristics of the nonmanufacturingindustries which have the anchor sizestandard of $5 million (hereafterreferred to as the nonmanufacturinganchor group). If the characteristics ofthe industry are similar to the averagecharacteristics of the nonmanufacturinganchor group, then the anchor sizestandard of $5 million is considered anappropriate size standard for thatindustry. If, however, the industrycharacteristics significantly differ fromthe average characteristics of thenonmanufacturing anchor group, then asize standard above or below $5 millionmay be appropriate.

Evaluation of Industry Size Standard

SBA analyzed the size standard forthe Arrangement of Transportation ofFreight and Cargo industry bycomparing the industry’s characteristicswith the average characteristics of thenonmanufacturing group discussedabove. SBA examined economic data onthe industry using:

• A special tabulation of the 1992Economic Census prepared on contractby the U.S. Bureau of the Census (whichfor the Arrangement of Transportationof Freight and Cargo industry collectsrevenue data based on commissions andfees, not gross billings);

• Asset data from Dun andBradstreet’s 1998 Industry Norms andKey Business Ratios (revenue data arealso reported based on commissions andfees); and

• Federal contract award data forfiscal years 1997 and 1998 from the U.S.General Services Administration’sFederal Procurement Data Center.

• 7(a) Business Loans from SBA’sdatabase.

The table below shows thecharacteristics for the Arrangement ofTransportation of Freight and Cargoindustry compared to the averagecharacteristics for the nonmanufacturinganchor group. A review of these factorsleads to a proposed size standard of $5million for this industry.



INDUSTRY CHARACTERISTICS OF SIC 4731 COMPARED TO THE NONMANUFACTURING ANCHOR GROUP

CategoryAveragefirm size($ mil.)

Percent of industry-sales by firms of

Average as-sets per firm

($ mil.)

Four-firmconcentra-tion ration

Percent ofgov’t pro-curementdollars to

small busi-ness

<$5mil. <$10mil. <$25mil.

Nonmanufacturing Anchor Group ............ $0.85 51.0 61.0 67.0 $0.5 15.0 21.0Arrangement of Transportation of Freight

& Cargo ................................................ 0.94 52.5 61.8 70.9 0.2 5.7 50.1

The average firm size in theArrangement of Transportation ofFreight and Cargo industry is very closeto the average firm size of thenonmanufacturing anchor group, andsupports a size standard at the $5million anchor size standard. Similarly,the distribution of sales by firm size alsosupports a size standard for thisindustry at the anchor size standard.Under this factor, the proportion ofindustry sales obtained by firms of $5million and less in sales, $10 millionand less in sales, and $25 million andless in sales, is nearly identical withthat of firms of the same size class foundfor the anchor nonmanufacturing group.

The average assets per firm and thefour-firm concentration ratio support asize standard no higher than $5 million.The average assets for firms in theArrangement of Transportation ofFreight and Cargo industry is less thanhalf the average assets of the comparablenonmanufacturing industries in theanchor group. This factor indicates thatthe industry is not as capital intensiveas those in the anchor group, and thus,would support a size standardmoderately below the anchor of $5million.

The four-firm concentration ratioshows that the four largest firms in theArrangement of Transportation ofFreight and Cargo industry account foronly about one-third of the proportionaccounted for by the four-firmconcentration of the anchor group. Thisfactor shows the industry is alreadyhighly competitive. If a few large firmswere controlling a large portion of theindustry revenues, then raising the sizestandard above the anchor size standardmight help smaller firms compete.However, when the industry is alreadycompetitive, as this one is, nothingwould be gained in competitiveness bylowering the size standard. Therefore,we conclude that the four-firmconcentration ratio does not support astandard higher than the anchor, but donot make the parallel argumentsupporting a size standard lower thanthe anchor.

Purpose of and Impact on SBAPrograms

The percent of Federal contractdollars awarded to small firms in theArrangement of Transportation ofFreight and Cargo industry during fiscalyears 1997 and 1998 is more than twiceas large as the share of Federalcontracting going to small firms withinthe nonmanufacturing anchor group anddoes not seem to support an increase tothe current size standard. In fiscal years1997 and 1998, of the 208 actionsreported by the Federal ProcurementData System, 97 went to small firms.While the 97 actions were 46.6% of thetotal actions, they were 50.1% of thetotal contract dollars awarded, when thetwo years are combined. Assumingsmall businesses used gross billings (asrequired under the current sizestandard) when they identifythemselves as ‘‘small,’’ they hadobtained a reasonable share of Federalprocurements.

However, SBA’s review ofpreliminary data reveals that there mayhave been inconsistencies on how firmswere self-certifying as small businessthat significantly affects how this factorshould be assessed and the conclusionsregarding an appropriate size standard.An industry association informed usthat there is no standard way for firmsto report revenues to the InternalRevenue Service. Whether they reportgross billings and deduct pass-throughfunds as ‘‘cost-of goods sold’’ to arriveat gross or total income, or whether theyreport commissions and fees as gross ortotal income, the tax consequences arethe same.

For SBA size standard purposes, thedifferent methods have different results.SBA procedures changed effectiveMarch 1996 making the Federal taxreturns forms the predominantdocumentation for determining annualreceipts. Historically, SBA hasinterpreted the size standard for SIC4731 to be based on $18.5 million ingross billings without any deductionsfor pass-through funds. The proportionof contracts reported to small businessesin this SIC has doubled since SBA

started using Federal tax returns for self-certifying to a revenue-based size. Whenthe procurement data are reviewedbefore and after that procedural change,it shows a big difference in proportionof contract dollars going to smallbusinesses. The 50% share reportedabove is a two-year average for FY 1997and 1998. In FY 1994 small businessesin SIC 4731 obtained 26.3%, 21.6% inFY 1995, 39.9% in FY 1996.

The procurement data suggests thatthe proportion of contracts reported tosmall business may have beenoverstated over the last two years ascompared to how SBA prefers to definea small business in this industry. Whenconsidering that there is some evidencethat awards reported to small businesseswere likely made to businessesexceeding $18.5 million in grossrevenues, it leads to some uncertaintyabout how to suitably evaluate thisfactor. If the small business awards weremade only to firms with $18.5 millionin gross billings (equivalent to $1.85million in commissions and fees), thecurrent size standard would beappropriate.

However, SBA believes that some ofthe reported small business awards havebeen made to firms exceeding $18.5million in gross billing (although thesefirms earned commissions and fees lessthan $18.5 million). If so, a sizestandard higher than $18.5 million ingross billings or $1.85 million incommissions and fees would besupportable. Based on theseconsiderations, SBA believes that a $5million size standard measured inadjusted gross receipts (i.e., adjusted toexclude funds held in trust forunaffiliated third-parties) indicated bymost of the industry factors would be areasonable size standard in terms of itsimpact on Federal procurement. Thatsize standard would likely result in asmall business share no higher thancurrently shown, but would not returnto the lower 1994–1995 levels either.

Also, an increase to the size standardfor this industry appears reasonablebased on the distribution of SBAguaranteed loans under the 7(a)program. In fiscal years 1997 and 1998,



small businesses in the Arrangement ofTransportation of Freight and Cargoindustry received approximately $14.5million in loans per year. About 92% ofthe loans went to firms with 50 or feweremployees (equivalent to firms with lessthan $4 million in receipts) and theyreceived $12 million per year in loans,or 83% of the value of 7(a) loans madeto all firms in this industry.

The percentage of firms and 7(a) loansto firms in this industry with less than50 employees is similar but somewhatbelow the comparable percentages forall industries combined (96% of firmsand 93% of loans made to firms withless than 50 employees). A size standardof $5 million (equivalent toapproximately 60 employees) couldmoderately expand the level of financialassistance SBA is currently providing tofirms in this industry. Almost all newloans would likely go to firms in the 20to 50 employee range, thereby raisingthe share of loans to firms with less than50 employees in this industry closer tothe average percentage for all industriescombined. As with the Federalprocurement data, the same sizereporting uncertainties as discussedabove may exist here. However, only avery few loans could have been made tofirms exceeding the current sizestandard. Thus, the potential increase in7(a) loans in this industry is expected tobe modest and would support a $5million size standard as one providinga reasonable level of assistance to smallbusinesses in this industry.

Considering these industry structurefactors and the impact on SBA programsin the aggregate, SBA believes that the$5 million anchor size standard isreasonable and would provideassistance to firms we believe should beeligible as small business for thisindustry. Three of the industry factorssupport a size standard in-line with thenonmanufacturing anchor group andone industry factor supports a sizestandard lower than the anchor sizestandard. As discussed above, thereexists some uncertainly on how to fullyassess the program factor, especially forthe Federal procurement data. However,$5 million appears to be a reasonablesize standard for SBA programs.Without more of the factors pointing toa size standard lower than the anchorstandard, and with no factor pointing toa higher size standard, we believe theanchor standard is a reasonablestandard for this industry.

Dominant in Field of OperationSection 3(a) of the Small Business Act

defines a small concern as one that isindependently owned and operated, notdominant in its field of operation, and

within detailed definitions or standardsestablished by the SBA Administrator.SBA considers as part of its evaluationof a size standard whether a businessconcern at or below a recommendedsize standard would be considereddominant in its field of operation. Thisassessment generally considers themarket share of firms at a proposed sizestandard as well as other factors thatmay reveal if a firm can exercise a majorcontrolling influence on a national basisin which significant numbers ofbusiness concerns are engaged.

SBA has determined that at therecommended size standard of $5million for the Arrangement ofTransportation of Freight and Cargoindustry no firm at or below that levelwould be of a sufficient size to bedominant in its field of operation. Afirm at the proposed size standard of $5million accounts for less than 0.1% ofindustry total industry sales. This levelof market share effectively precludesany firm from exerting a controllingeffect on an industry. This is the thirdof four evaluations and all three supporta size like the anchor. As for ‘‘otherfactors’’, everything we have obtainedfrom the industry association orotherwise, has been considered in thefirst three evaluations, industrystructure, dominance in the industry, orpurpose of or impact on SBA programs.However, during the public commentperiod, we may obtain other informationand will consider it before goingforward with a final rule.

Alternative Size StandardsSBA considered two alternative size

standards for this industry. Onealternative considered was modifyingthe average annual receipts method toallow for pass-through funds received intrust for third parties without adjustingthe current $18.5 million size standard.Assuming that firms in this industrynormally earn receipts of six percent toten percent of gross billings, $18.5million is equivalent to $185 million to$308 million in gross billings. Had SBAonly modified the receipts calculationmethod and retained the current sizestandard, it would define all but 158 outof 9,631 firms in the industry as small.Further, small businesses with $18.5million or less in commissions and feescumulatively account for two-thirds oftotal industry sales. SBA considers asize standard that defines that large ofa proportion of an industry as smallbusinesses to be undesirable.

A second alternative considered wasto select a size standard between $1.1million and $1.8 million to conform tothe six percent to ten percent of grossbillings that firms in the industry with

gross billings of $18.5 million report asreceipts. However, the industrycharacteristics of the Arrangement ofTransportation of Freight and Cargoindustry, as compared with the averagecharacteristics of the nonmanufacturinganchor group, support a higher sizestandard than one simply based on anarithmetic conversion of the existingsize standard.

SBA welcomes public comments onthe proposed size standards for theArrangement of Transportation ofFreight and Cargo industry. Commentsaddressing the basis for allowing anexclusion of funds held in trust for thirdparties from the calculation of averageannual receipts, as well as the types ofreceipts held in trust for others wouldbe especially helpful to SBA in makingits final decision.

Also, SBA solicits comments on;1. whether or not six percent to ten

percent of gross billings typicallyrepresents the commissions and feesearned by firms in this industry, and

2. whether a size standard betweenthe anchor size of $5 million and thecurrent effective size of $ 1.8 millionwould be more appropriate. In yourcomments on any of these alternatives,or alternatives not yet discussed, pleasepresent the reasons why it is preferableto the proposed size standard.

Compliance With Executive Orders12612, 12988, and 12866, theRegulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.601–612), and the PaperworkReduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

SBA certifies that this rule, if adopted,would not be a significant rule withinthe meaning of Executive Order 12866.The total amount of Federalprocurement and SBA guaranteed loanscombined is less than $50 million tothis industry annually. It is unlikely thatthese programs would be significantlyaffected by a change to the sizestandard.

For purposes of the RegulatoryFlexibility Act, this rule would not havea substantial impact on a significantnumber of small entities. Althoughpotentially 1,000 additional firms couldgain small business status as a result ofthis rule, only a very small percentageof firms in the industry compete forFederal procurements or obtainguaranteed loans through SBA’sfinancial assistance programs.

For the purpose of the PaperworkReduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,SBA certifies that this rule would notimpose new reporting or record-keepingrequirements other than those alreadyrequired of SBA.

For purposes of Executive Order12612, SBA certifies that this rule does



not have any federalism implicationswarranting the preparation of aFederalism Assessment.

For purposes of Executive Order12988, SBA certifies that this rule isdrafted, to the extent practicable, inaccordance with the standards set forthin that order.


Government procurement,Government property, Grant programs-business, Loan programs-business,Small business.

For the reasons stated in thepreamble, SBA proposes to amend 13CFR part 121 as follows:

PART 121—SMALL BUSINESS SIZEREGULATIONS

1. The authority citation of Part 121continues to read as follows:

Authority: Pub. L. 105–135 Sec. 601 et.seq., 111 Stat. 2592; 15 U.S.C. 632(a),634(b)(6), 637(a), and 644(c); and Pub. L.102–486, 106 Stat. 2776, 3133.

2. Revise § 121.104 (a) (1) to read asfollows:

§ 121.104 How does SBA calculate annualreceipts?

(a) * * *Receipts means ‘‘total income’’ (or in

the case of a sole proprietorship, ‘‘grossincome’’) plus the ‘‘cost of goods sold’’as these terms are defined or reportedon Internal Revenue Service (IRS)Federal tax return forms (Form 1120 forcorporations; Form 1120S forSubchapter S corporations; Form 1065for partnerships; and Form 1040,Schedule F for farm or Schedule C forother sole proprietorships). However,the term receipts excludes net capitalgains or losses, taxes collected for andremitted to a taxing authority ifincluded in gross or total income,proceeds from the transactions betweena concern and its domestic or foreignaffiliates (if also excluded from gross ortotal income on a consolidated returnfiled with the IRS), and amountscollected for another by a travel agent,real estate agent, advertising agent,conference management serviceprovider, freight forwarder or customsbroker.* * * * *

§ 121.201 [Amended]3. In § 121.201, the table ‘‘SIZE

STANDARDS BY SIC INDUSTRY,’’ isamended as follows:

a. Under Division E-Transportation,Communications, Electric, Gas, andSanitary Services, Major Group 42—Motor Freight Transportation andWarehousing, revise the entry 4731:

b. Revise, in the table ‘‘SIZESTANDARDS BY SIC INDUSTRY,’’

Footnote 6 to read as follows:

SIZE STANDARDS BY SIC INDUSTRY

SIC code and description

Size stand-ards in

number ofemployeesor millionsof dollars

* * * * *Division E—Transportation,

Communications, Electric,Gas, and Sanitary Services

* * * * *4731 Arrangement of Trans-

portation of Freight andCargo .................................... 6 $5.0

* * * * *

6 SIC codes 4724, 4731, 6531, 7311, 7312,7313, 7319, and 8741 (part): As measured bytotal revenues, but excluding funds received intrust for an unaffiliated third party, such asbookings or sales subject to commissions. Thecommissions received are included as rev-enue.




14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99–NM–94–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus ModelA320 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 tocertain Airbus Model A320 seriesairplanes. This proposal would requiremodification of the autopilot modeengagement/disengagement lever of therudder artificial feel unit. This proposalis prompted by issuance of mandatorycontinuing airworthiness information bya foreign civil airworthiness authority.The actions specified by the proposedAD are intended to prevent reducedcontrollability of the airplane due to thefailure of the rudder artificial feel unit

to properly disengage from autopilotmode during approach and landing.DATES: Comments must be received byAugust 25, 1999.ADDRESSES: Submit comments intriplicate to the Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), TransportAirplane Directorate, ANM–114,Attention: Rules Docket No. 99–NM–94–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 fromAirbus Industrie, Customer ServicesDirectorate, 1 Rond Point MauriceBellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France.This information may be examined atthe FAA, Transport AirplaneDirectorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,Renton, Washington.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:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited toparticipate in the making of theproposed rule by submitting suchwritten data, views, or arguments asthey may desire. Communications shallidentify the Rules Docket number andbe submitted in triplicate to the addressspecified above. All communicationsreceived on or before the closing datefor comments, specified above, will beconsidered before taking action on theproposed rule. The proposals containedin this 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 99–NM–94–AD.’’ The



postcard 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.99–NM–94–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

DiscussionThe Direction Generale de l’Aviation

Civile (DGAC), which is theairworthiness authority for France, hasnotified the FAA that an unsafecondition may exist on certain AirbusModel A320 series airplanes. The DGACadvises that several cases of stiff rudderpedals have been reported. The stiffnessis due to the rudder artificial feel unitbeing in autopilot mode while theautopilot is disengaged; this is due tojamming of the artificial feel autopilotmode disengagement lever.Investigations have shown that theradial play of the lever bearing togetherwith low temperature could cause anincreased operating force. In this case,the back driving force is not able to getthe autopilot mode disengaged. Thiscondition, if not corrected, could resultin reduced controllability of theairplane.

Explanation of Relevant ServiceInformation

Airbus Industrie has issued ServiceBulletin A320–27–1042, Revision 3,dated April 7, 1999, which describesprocedures for the modification of theautopilot mode engagement/disengagement lever of the rudderartificial feel unit. This service bulletinintroduces a new modified lever with alarger radial play of the bearing. Themodification ensures that the correctoperating force exists at the pedalsduring approach and landing.Accomplishment of the actionsspecified in the service bulletin isintended to adequately address theidentified unsafe condition. The DGACclassified this service bulletin asmandatory and issued Frenchairworthiness directive 1999–075–128(B), dated February 24, 1999, inorder to assure the continuedairworthiness of these airplanes inFrance.

FAA’s ConclusionsThis airplane model is manufactured

in France and is type certificated foroperation in the United States under theprovisions of section 21.29 of theFederal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR21.29) and the applicable bilateralairworthiness agreement. Pursuant to

this bilateral airworthiness agreement,the DGAC has kept the FAA informedof the situation described above. TheFAA has examined the findings of theDGAC, reviewed all availableinformation, and determined that ADaction is necessary for products of thistype design that are certificated foroperation in the United States.

Explanation of Requirements ofProposed Rule

Since an unsafe condition has beenidentified that is likely to exist ordevelop on other airplanes of the sametype design registered in the UnitedStates, the proposed AD would requireaccomplishment of the actions specifiedin the service bulletin describedpreviously.

Cost ImpactThe FAA estimates that 17 airplanes

of U.S. registry would be affected by thisproposed AD, that it would takeapproximately 6 work hours perairplane to accomplish the proposedactions, and that the average labor rateis $60 per work hour. Based on thesefigures, the cost impact of the proposedAD on U.S. operators is estimated to be$6,120, or $360 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.

Regulatory ImpactThe regulations proposed herein

would 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 the

location 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:

Airbus Industrie: Docket 99–NM–94–AD.Applicability: Model A320 series airplanes,

certificated in any category, except airplaneson which Airbus Industrie Modification22624 has been accomplished or on whichModification 21999 was accomplished inproduction.

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

Compliance: Required as indicated, unlessaccomplished previously.

To prevent reduced controllability of theairplane due to the failure of the rudderartificial feel unit to properly disengage fromautopilot mode, accomplish the following:

Modification

(a) Within 18 months after the effectivedate of this AD, modify the rudder artificialfeel unit in accordance with Airbus IndustrieService Bulletin A320–27–1042, Revision 3,dated April 7, 1999.

Note 2: Accomplishment of themodification, prior to the effective date ofthis AD, in accordance with Airbus IndustrieService Bulletin A320–27–1042, dated March21, 1992, or Revision 1, dated June 6, 1998,or Revision 2, dated November 4, 1998, isconsidered acceptable for compliance withthe requirements of this AD.



Spares

(b) As of the effective date of this AD, noperson shall install an artificial feel unithaving part number D2727040000600,D2727040000651, D2727040000800, orD2727040000851 on any airplane.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

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

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

Special Flight Permits

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

Note 4: The subject of this AD is addressedin French airworthiness directive 1999–075–128(B), dated February 24, 1999.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 20,1999.D.L. Riggin,Acting Manager, Transport AirplaneDirectorate, Aircraft Certification Service.[FR Doc. 99–19016 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–13–P


Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 514

[Docket No. 99N–2151]

RIN 0910–AB69

New Animal Drug Applications; Sheepas a Minor Species

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

SUMMARY: The Food and DrugAdministration (FDA) is proposing toamend its regulations to reclassify sheepas a minor species for all data collectionpurposes. This would allow sponsors ofsupplemental new animal drugapplications (NADA’s) to extrapolatehuman food safety data from a majorspecies such as cattle to sheep. Inparticular, this will allow theextrapolation of the tolerances for

residues of new animal drugs in cattleto sheep.DATES: Written comments must besubmitted by October 25, 1999.ADDRESSES: Submit written commentsto the Dockets Management Branch(HFA–305), Food and DrugAdministration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm.1061, Rockville, MD 20852.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MegOeller, Center For Veterinary Medicine(HFV–130), Food and DrugAdministration, 7500 Standish Pl.,Rockville, MD 20855, 301–827–7581.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Minor Use and Minor Species

Since 1983 (48 FR 1922, January 14,1983 (hereinafter referred to as theJanuary 1983 final rule)), FDA haspermitted some flexibility in the meansto meet the data requirements to supportthe approval of new animal drugsintended for ‘‘minor uses’’ and ‘‘minorspecies.’’ Specifically, theseclassifications permit data extrapolationfrom a major use or major species tosupport the safety and effectiveness of anew animal drug for a minor use orminor species. The requirements werecodified in § 514.1(d) (21 CFR 514.1(d))by the January 1983 final rule (effectiveFebruary 14, 1983).

‘‘Minor use’’ is defined as use of newanimal drugs in a minor animal species,or use of new animal drugs in anyanimal species for control of a diseasethat occurs infrequently or in limitedgeographic areas. ‘‘Minor species’’ aredefined by exclusion as any speciesother than horses, cattle, swine, dogs,cats, chickens, and turkeys. Sheep areclassified as a minor species for thepurposes of target animal safety andeffectiveness studies. However, they areconsidered a major species for thepurpose of determining the human foodsafety of edible products.

II. The Minor Species Designation andSafety and Effectiveness

The current minor use regulations(§ 514.1(d)) do not negate or alter thelegal requirement that sponsors mustprovide data from ‘‘adequate and well-controlled investigations’’ to showeffectiveness and ‘‘adequate tests by allmethods reasonably applicable’’ todemonstrate safety. The agency hasguidance that lays out its interpretationof what data for minor use/minorspecies drugs will be sufficient to meetthese legal standards (Ref. 1). Theregulations permit data provided insupport of a drug approved for use in amajor species to be used in support ofan approval for the same drug for use in

a minor species where scientificallyappropriate.

III. The Minor Species Designation andHuman food safety

The preamble of the January 1983final rule (48 FR 1922 at 1923) describedthe toxicology, residue evaluation, andanalytical methodology standards thatare components of the human foodsafety evaluation for minor use drugs.For minor species, sufficient toxicologyand metabolism data must be availablewithin the residue evaluation datapackage in the application, or byreference, to establish a tolerance fornew animal drug residues in animal-derived food. The tolerance is a limit onthe amount of drug residue in edibletissue, as measured by the approvedanalytical method, that will not renderthe edible tissue adulterated undersection 402(a)(2)(D) of the Federal Food,Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C.342(a)(2)(D)).

The agency may require the residueevaluation data package to containadditional information on metabolismbeyond that used for the approval inmajor species, if available informationraises human food safety concerns aboutthe level or toxicity of metabolictransformation products in edibletissues of the minor target species. Inaddition, if the conditions of safe use ofthe product require withholding ofanimals from slaughter for a prescribedperiod of time following treatment, aregulatory analytical method will benecessary. The sponsor of the minor useapplication must then demonstrate thatthe approved analytical methodology issuitable for monitoring compliance withthe approved conditions of use.

IV. The Status of Sheep

In the preamble of the January 1983final rule, the agency set out thejustification for the determination thatsheep are a major species for humanfood safety purposes. The agency’sconcern centered on consumers in theUnited States who eat a large proportionof lamb and mutton in their diets. In itsevaluations, FDA used data fromconsumers who had reported eatingsheep products during the previous 2weeks. Using these values, FDAcalculated that those consumers eat 24percent as much lamb as beef. Theagency determined that this was enoughto categorize sheep as a major speciesfor human food safety purposes. Theagency stated in the preamble that itwould be willing to reevaluate thisconclusion if new data becameavailable.



V. The Evidence to Support a Change inthe Designation of Sheep

New data have become available sincepublication of the January 1983 finalrule. These data allow the agency toconclude that sheep should be a minorspecies with respect to all datarequirements. The new data concern thesimilarity of drug metabolism betweensheep and cattle rather thanconsumption levels. The agency nowbelieves that the body of evidenceconcerning drug metabolism is moresignificant in determining the major/minor status of species thanconsumption data because itdemonstrates the reliability of dataextrapolated from a major species. C. R.Short (Ref. 2) reviewed a collection ofstudies demonstrating that cattle andsheep metabolize drugs similarly. Hedocumented the similarity in both majorand minor pathways of drug metabolismbetween cattle and sheep, and found nodifferences of a qualitative nature.

These findings are further supportedby a comparison of products that havebeen approved for use in both cattle andsheep under the current regulations. Ifsheep were considered a minor speciesfor human food safety, the toleranceapproved in cattle would be applied tosheep. A tissue residue depletion studywould be conducted in sheep toestablish the withdrawal period. Toevaluate the impact of such anextrapolation, the agency reviewed thecodified tolerances for cattle and sheepfor those products with existingapprovals in both species.

In most cases, the codified tolerancesfor cattle and sheep already are the same(e.g., ceftiofur, 21 CFR 556.113;chlortetracycline, 21 CFR 556.150;levamisole hydrochloride, 21 CFR556.350; neomycin, 21 CFR 556.430;oxytetracycline, 21 CFR 556.500;tetracycline, 21 CFR 556.720; andthiabendazole, 21 CFR 556.730).

In two instances, the codifiedtolerances for cattle and sheep aredifferent: Albendazole, 21 CFR 556.34and ivermectin, 21 CFR 556.344. In thecase of albendazole, the tolerance incattle is lower than the tolerance insheep (i.e., 200 parts per billion (ppb)for cattle and 250 ppb in sheep). In thiscase, application of the cattle toleranceto sheep would result in a longerwithdrawal time than the application ofthe approved sheep tolerance. Forivermectin, the currently approvedcattle tolerance of 100 ppb is higherthan the approved sheep tolerance of 30ppb. However, the original tolerance forcattle was 15 ppb (51 FR 27021, July 29,1986). Following the original approvalsin cattle and sheep, a revised acceptable

daily intake (ADI) was calculated forivermectin based on additionaltoxicological data (59 FR 50829, October6, 1994). However, the revised ADI wasused only to support a revision in thecattle tolerance to 100 ppb. The sheeptolerance was not similarly revised andremained at 30 ppb. Thus, the sheeptolerance of 30 ppb should be comparedto the cattle tolerance of 15 ppb. In thiscircumstance, application of the cattletolerance to sheep would also result ina longer withdrawal time. Thus,codified tolerances for existingapprovals for cattle and sheepdemonstrate that extrapolation of thetolerance is scientifically justified.

VI. Proposed ActionThe proposed rule would amend

§ 514.1(d)(1)(ii) to designate sheep as aminor species with respect to all datacollection purposes under NADA’s. Theeffect of the change would be to permitthe extrapolation of the tolerance fromother closely related species, such ascattle, to sheep.

VII. Environmental ImpactThe designation of sheep as a minor

species means that most new animaldrugs to be used in sheep fall within acategory of actions which FDAconsiders to not individually orcumulatively have a significant effect onthe human environment and for whichneither an environmental assessmentnor an environmental impact statementis required (40 CFR 1508.4). Thecategorical exclusion is in § 25.33(d)(4)(21 CFR 25.33(d)(4)) of FDA’senvironmental regulations. Categoricalexclusion under § 25.33(d)(4) for drugsfor minor species applies to those newanimal drugs that have been previouslyapproved for use in another or the samespecies when similar animalmanagement practices are used in theminor species.

VIII. Analysis of Economic ImpactsFDA has examined the impact of the

proposed rule under Executive Order12866, under the Regulatory FlexibilityAct (5 U.S.C. 601–612), and under theUnfunded Mandates Reform Act (Pub.L. 104–4). Executive Order 12866directs agencies to assess all costs andbenefits 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 RegulatoryFlexibility Act requires agencies toexamine regulatory alternatives forsmall entities, if the rule may have a

significant impact on a substantialnumber of small entities. The UnfundedMandates Reform Act requires agenciesto prepare an assessment of anticipatedcosts and benefits before enacting anyrule that may result in an expenditureby State, local, and tribal governments,in the aggregate, or by the private sector,of $100 million (adjusted annually forinflation) in any one year.

FDA concludes that this proposedrule is consistent with the principles setforth in the Executive Order and inthese two statutes. FDA estimates thatthe proposed rule will not impose anycompliance costs on the animal drugindustry, but rather expects it to providea small cost savings for any companysubmitting an NADA for an animal drugto be used on sheep. As a result, theproposed rule is not a significantregulatory action as defined by theExecutive Order and so is not subject toreview under the Executive Order. FDAhas further determined, as described inthe following paragraph, that theproposed rule will not have a significanteconomic impact on a substantialnumber of small entities. Further, sincethis proposed rule makes no mandateson other government entities and is notexpected to result in expenditures of$100 million in any one year, FDA neednot prepare additional analyses underthe Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

FDA is proposing to amend the newanimal drug regulations to reclassifysheep as a minor species for all datacollection purposes, thereby allowingextrapolation from major species data tobe used in conjunction with a totalresidue depletion study in sheep tomeet the human food safety datastandard for NADA’s. Currently, FDAconsiders sheep a minor species for thepurpose of the data necessary todemonstrate animal safety andeffectiveness only. It considers sheep amajor species for the purpose of humanfood safety requirements. This divisionin the classifications for sheep wasoriginally based on expectations ofconsumption levels of sheep, especiallyamong certain consumer groups. Sincethe original classification was made,new data demonstrating the similarity ofdrug metabolism between ruminantspecies has become available. Sincethere are not significant differences inthe metabolism of most drugs betweenruminant species, FDA believes mostdata packages supporting an NADA foruse in sheep should be able to rely onthe tolerance calculated for cattle.

The benefit of this proposed rulewould be to permit the tolerancecalculated for major species, includingcattle, to be used with a tissue residuestudy in sheep to determine a



withdrawal time for new animal drugsto be used in sheep. The proposed ruleis therefore expected to lower researchexpenses and provide an impetus forsponsors to submit supplementalNADA’s for sheep. More specifically, itwould eliminate the need for a totalresidue metabolism study that can becostly and prohibitive for sponsors ofnew animal drugs for small marketssuch as sheep. FDA believes this studyis unnecessary in this instance due tothe similarities in the metabolism ofmost drugs in cattle and sheep.Adopting the approach that allows forinterspecies data extrapolation, alongwith the tissue residue depletionstudies, would encourage NADAsubmissions by decreasing researchcosts while continuing to protect humanfood safety. Apart from these costsavings, FDA does not expect thisproposal to impose any othercompliance burdens on sponsors of newanimal drugs.

IX. Regulatory Flexibility AnalysisThe proposed rule is intended to

reduce research costs for sponsors ofNADA’s for animal drugs used in sheepwhile maintaining the necessarysafeguards concerning animal drugresidues in human food. FDA estimatesthat this rule will not result in anycompliance costs on the affectedindustry, regardless of the size of thecompanies involved. Further, FDAestimates that the rule will result in costsavings to sponsors of NADA’s foranimal drugs for use in sheep. Inaddition, most NADA sponsors wouldnot be considered small businessesaccording to the standards of the SmallBusiness Administration. Thus, inaccordance with the RegulatoryFlexibility Act, FDA certifies that thisproposed rule would not have asignificant economic effect on asubstantial number of small entities.

X. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of1995

Section 202 of the UnfundedMandates Reform Act requires thatagencies prepare an assessment ofanticipated costs and benefits beforeproposing any expenditure by State,local, and tribal governments, in theaggregate, or by the private sector of$100 million (adjusted annually forinflation) in any one year. Thepublication of the proposal to reclassifysheep as a minor species for all datacollection purposes is not expected toresult in expenditures of funds by State,local, and tribal governments or theprivate sector in excess of $100 millionin any one year. Because the agencyestimates no compliance costs and

modest cost savings due to the proposedrule, FDA is not required to perform acost/benefit analysis according to theUnfunded Mandates Reform Act.

XI. The Paperwork Reduction Act of1995

FDA tentatively concludes that thisproposed rule contains no collections ofinformation. Therefore clearance by theOffice of Management and Budget underthe Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 isnot required.

XII. CommentsInterested persons may, on or before

October 25, 1999, submit to the DocketsManagement Branch (address above),written comments regarding thisproposed rule. 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. Receivedcomments may be seen in the officeabove between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.,Monday through Friday.

XIII. 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,‘‘Guidance for Industry: FDA Approval ofNew Animal Drugs for Minor Uses and forMinor Species,’’ Guidance No. 61, January1999.

2. Short, C. R., ‘‘Consideration of Sheep asa Minor Species: Comparison of DrugMetabolism and Disposition with OtherDomestic Ruminants,’’ Veterinary andHuman Toxicology, vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 24–40,February 1994.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 514Administrative practice and

procedure, Animal drugs, Confidentialbusiness information, Reporting andrecordkeeping requirements.

Therefore, under the Federal Food,Drug, and Cosmetic Act and underauthority delegated to the Commissionerof Food and Drugs, it is proposed that21 CFR part 514 be amended as follows:

PART 514—NEW ANIMAL DRUGAPPLICATIONS

1. The authority citation for 21 CFRpart 514 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 351, 352, 360b, 371,379e, 381.

2. Revise § 514.1 in paragraph(d)(1)(ii) to read as follows:

§ 514.1 Applications.

* * * * *

(d) * * *(1) * * *(ii) Minor species means animals

other than cattle, horses, swine,chickens, turkeys, dogs, and cats.* * * * *

Dated: July 15, 1999.Margaret M. Dotzel,Acting Associate Commissioner for Policy.[FR Doc. 99–18926 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4160–01–F

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamationand Enforcement

30 CFR Part 916

[SPATS No. KS–021–FOR]

Kansas Regulatory Program

AGENCY: Office of Surface MiningReclamation and Enforcement, Interior.ACTION: Proposed rule; public commentperiod and opportunity for publichearing.

SUMMARY: The Office of Surface MiningReclamation and Enforcement (OSM) isannouncing receipt of an amendment tothe Kansas regulatory program (Kansasprogram) under the Surface MiningControl and Reclamation Act of 1977(SMCRA). Kansas is proposing tocondense and revise its previouslyapproved revegetation successguidelines. The amendment is intendedto revise the Kansas program to beconsistent with the correspondingFederal regulations and to improveoperational efficiency.

This document gives the times andlocations that the Kansas program andthe amendment to that program areavailable for public inspection, thecomment period during which you maysubmit written comments on theproposed amendment, and theprocedures that will be followed for thepublic hearing, if one is requested.DATES: We will accept writtencomments until 4:00 p.m., c.d.t., August25, 1999. If requested, we will hold apublic hearing on the amendment onAugust 20, 1999. We will acceptrequests to speak at the hearing until4:00 p.m., c.d.t. on August 10, 1999.ADDRESSES: You should mail or handdeliver written comments and requeststo speak at the hearing to John Coleman,Mid-Continent Regional CoordinatingCenter, at the address listed below.

You may review copies of the Kansasprogram, the amendment, a listing ofany scheduled public hearings, and allwritten comments received in response



to this document at the addresses listedbelow during normal business hours,Monday through Friday, excludingholidays. You may receive one free copyof the amendment by contacting OSM’sMid-Continent Regional CoordinatingCenter.

John Coleman, Mid-ContinentRegional Coordinating Center, Office ofSurface Mining, Alton Federal Building,501 Belle Street, Alton, Illinois, 62002,Telephone: (618) 463–6460.

Kansas Department of Health andEnvironment, Surface Mining Section,4033 Parkview Drive, Frontenac, Kansas66763, Telephone (316) 231–8540.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: JohnColeman, Mid-Continent RegionalCoordinating Center. Telephone: (618)463–6460. Internet:[email protected] INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Kansas ProgramOn January 21, 1981, the Secretary of

the Interior conditionally approved theKansas program. You can find generalbackground information on the Kansasprogram, including the Secretary’sfindings, the disposition of comments,and the conditions of approval in theJanuary 21, 1981, Federal Register (46FR 5892). You can find later actionsconcerning the Kansas program at 30CFR 916.10, 916.12, 916.15, and 916.16.

II. Description of the ProposedAmendment

By letter dated July 12, 1999(Administrative Record No. KS–616),the Kansas Department of Health andEnvironment, Surface Mining Section(SMS) sent us an amendment to theKansas program under SMCRA. TheSMS sent the amendment in response todeficiencies that we identified inKansas’ revegetation success guidelinesin a final rule decision on August 19,1992 (57 FR 37430). The amendmentalso includes changes made at theSMS’s own initiative. The SMSproposes to amend the Kansasrevegetation success guidelines entitled‘‘Revegetation Standards for Successand Statistically Valid SamplingTechniques for Measuring RevegetationSuccess.’’ A brief summary of thechanges are discussed below. The fulltext of the program amendment isavailable for your inspection at thelocations listed above under ADDRESSES.

1. PrefaceKansas revised the preface to reflect

the current revisions to its revegetationsuccess guidelines. Kansas also removedlanguage from the preface that was notapproved by us in the August 19, 1992,final rule decision. The removed

language appeared to exempt specificpermits from possible revisions toreflect the success standards andsampling techniques in Kansas’revegetation success guidelines.

2. IntroductionKansas made minor revisions to the

existing language and added thefollowing new paragraph:

In adopting the aforementioned references,the operator is required to use a statisticallyvalid sampling technique at a 90% or greaterstatistical confidence as approved by theSMS in consultation with the United StatesDepartment of Agriculture (USDA), NaturalResource Conservation Service (NRCS).Furthermore, success standards for eachpermit will be based on the most currentcounty survey in place at the time of thepermit’s issuance.

3. DefinitionsKansas defined the following terms

that are used throughout the Kansasrevegetation success guidelines: A.U.M.;Cropland; Diverse; Effective; Forage;Historically Cropped; KDWP; KSU;NRCS; Permanent; Previously Mined;Prime Farmland; and SMS.

4. TablesKansas added four new tables. Table

1 contains productivity and groundcover vegetation requirements for PhaseII and Phase III bond release of pastureland and grazing land; wildlife habitat,recreation, shelter belts, and forestproducts; and industrial, commercial, orresidential land uses. Table 2 listsproductivity and ground covervegetation requirements for Phase II andPhase III bond release of primefarmland. Table 3 contains productivityand ground cover vegetationrequirements for Phase II and Phase IIbond release of cropland. Table 4provides the suggested minimumnumber of samples by size of area beingevaluated for corn, soybeans, wheat/oats, sorghum, and forage crops.

5. Chapter I. Ground Cover SuccessKansas consolidated the substantive

provisions of its currently approvedground cover success standards for allland uses in this chapter. Section Acovers the standard for ground cover ontopsoiled areas. Section B discusses thestandard for ground cover on previouslymined areas. Section C provides thestandard for ground cover on wildlifehabitat areas. Section D containsstandards for ground cover onindustrial, commercial, or residentialareas with topsoil. Sections E and Fprovide general information on groundcover sampling criteria and techniques.Section G contains specific pre-miningground cover sampling techniques.

Section H provides specific post-miningground cover sampling criteria. Finally,Section I covers specific post-miningground cover sampling techniques.

6. Chapter II. Forage Production SuccessStandard

Kansas revised and consolidated thesubstantive provisions of its currentlyapproved forage production successstandards for all applicable land uses inthis chapter. Kansas also added wholefield harvest to the methods of datacollection for forage. Section Adiscusses the use of the USDA–NRCScrop yield database that is listed by soilmapping units in the published countysoil surveys for Kansas and the USDA–NRCS database in the Technical GuideNotice KS–145 (Appendix B). Section Bcontains information on methods ofcalculation using the Animal UnitMonth (A.U.M.) values listed in theUSDA–NRCS soil surveys for Kansas.Section C provides productivitystandards for prime farmland foragecrops. Section D covers the productivitystandard for previously mined landsreconstructed to pasture and grazingland. Section E contains information onthe productivity standard for pastureand grazing land. Section F discussesthe use of representative areas, with testplots, or whole field harvesting asmethods for data collection. Section Gcontains forage crop productionsampling criteria. Finally, Section Hprovides forage crop productionsampling techniques.

7. Chapter III. Productivity StandardDatabases for Row Crops

Kansas revised and consolidated thesubstantive provisions of its currentlyapproved row crop production successstandards for prime and non-primefarmland in this chapter. Kansas alsoadded corn as an acceptable row crop.Section A discusses the acceptable rowcrops for revegetation productivity.Section B contains information on themethod of row crop production successstandard calculations. Section Cprovides row crop sampling criteria.Section D contains methods for datacollection involving representativeareas, with test plots, and whole fieldharvesting. Section E providesproductivity sampling criteria for primefarmland row crops. Section F discussesproductivity sampling criteria for non-prime farmland cropland row crops.Finally, Section G contains row cropsampling techniques involving test plotsand whole field harvest for grainsorghum (milo), wheat, soybeans, andcorn. In response to deficiencies that weidentified in the August 19, 1992, finalrule decision on Kansas’ current



revegetation success guidelines, Kansasrevised its row crop samplingtechniques for grain sorghum and wheatto require a determination of statisticalsample adequacy based on sampleweights corrected to a standard moisturecontent.

8. Chapter IV. Stem DensityKansas consolidated its productivity

success standards for trees and shrubsin this chapter. Section A discusses thegeneral success standards for fish andwildlife habitat, recreation, shelter belts,and forest products land uses. Section Bcontains the Phase II and Phase IIIproductivity success standards for theseland uses. Section C providesinformation on productivity samplingcriteria. Section D contains stem densitysampling techniques. Section Ediscusses previously mined areas thatare reclaimed to fish and wildlifehabitat, recreation, shelter belts, orforest products land uses.

9. ReferencesKansas listed the technical reports,

studies and other documents used indeveloping its revegetation successguidelines.

10. Appendix A, Plant Species ListThis appendix lists plant species, tree

species, shrub and vine species, andlegume species. It lists the plant speciesthat are unacceptable for all land uses,with the following exception. All plantspecies listed are acceptable for the fishand wildlife habitat land use unlessthey are marked with an asterisk (*). Itlists the acceptable tree species for fishand wildlife habitat, recreation, shelterbelts, and forest products land uses. Italso lists the acceptable shrub and vinespecies for fish and wildlife habitat,recreation, and shelter belt land uses.Finally, Appendix A lists the acceptablelegume species based on land use forrevegetation productivity and groundcover.

11. Appendix B, Methods of ProductionSuccess Standard Calculations

Kansas is proposing a new AnimalUnit Month (A.U.M.) value for use incalculating forage production. Kansasdefines the A.U.M. as the monthlyaverage pounds of forage needed tosupport each 1,000 pounds of cattle.Kansas submitted calculations anddocumentation to support an A.U.M.equal to 760 pounds. Thedocumentation included two methodsof calculating forage production basedon A.U.M. per soil type for cool seasongrass seed mixtures and warm seasongrass seed mixtures. Appendix B alsocontains tables showing two methods of

calculating the success standard forgrain sorghum by soil type and soybeansby soil type.

12. Appendix C, Planting Reports

This appendix contains the followingreports: Mining Section Planting Report;Cropland Seeding Report; Forage/Pastureland Seeding Report; Woodland/Wildlife Seeding and Planting Report;Wildlife Seeding Mixture Report; andAnnual Production and Ground CoverSurvey.

13. Appendix D, Reference Area Criteria

Kansas moved its previouslyapproved provisions for reference areasto Appendix D.

14. Appendix E, Representative SampleField Area Definition and Test PlotCriteria

This appendix discusses the use ofdata from representative sample fieldareas to prove row crop productionsuccess. This data is obtained fromindividual row crop test plots.

III. Public Comment Procedures

Under the provisions of 30 CFR732.17(h), we are requesting commentson whether the proposed amendmentsatisfies the applicable programapproval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If weapprove the amendment, it will becomepart of the Kansas program.

Written Comments

Your written comments should bespecific and pertain only to the issuesproposed in this rulemaking. Youshould explain the reason for anyrecommended change. In the finalrulemaking, we will not necessarilyconsider or include in theAdministrative Record any commentsreceived after the time indicated underDATES or at locations other than theMid-Continent Regional CoordinatingCenter.

Public Hearing

If you wish to speak at the publichearing, contact the person listed underFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by4:00 p.m., c.d.t. on August 10, 1999. Wewill arrange the location and time of thehearing with those persons requestingthe hearing. If you are disabled andneed special accommodation to attend apublic hearing, contact the individuallisted under FOR FURTHER INFORMATIONCONTACT. The hearing will not be heldif no one requests an opportunity tospeak at the public hearing.

You should file a written statement atthe time you request the hearing. Thiswill allow us to prepare adequateresponses and appropriate questions.

The public hearing will continue on thespecified date until all personsscheduled to speak have been heard. Ifyou are in the audience and have notbeen scheduled to speak and wish to doso, you will be allowed to speak afterthose who have been scheduled. Wewill end the hearing after all personsscheduled to speak and persons presentin the audience who wish to speak havebeen heard.

Public MeetingIf only one person requests an

opportunity to speak at a hearing, apublic meeting, rather than a publichearing, may be held. If you wish tomeet with us to discuss the amendment,request a meeting by contacting theperson listed under FOR FURTHERINFORMATION CONTACT. All such meetingsare open to the public and, if possible,we will post notices of meetings at thelocations listed under ADDRESSES. Wealso make a written summary of eachmeeting a part of the AdministrativeRecord.

IV. Procedural Determinations

Executive Order 12866The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) exempts this rule from reviewunder Executive Order 12866(Regulatory Planning and Review).

Executive Order 12988The Department of the Interior has

conducted the reviews required bysection 3 of Executive Order 12988(Civil Justice Reform) and hasdetermined that, to the extent allowedby law, this rule meets the applicablestandards of subsections (a) and (b) ofthat section. However, these standardsare not applicable to the actual languageof State regulatory programs andprogram amendments since each suchprogram is drafted and promulgated bya specific State, not by OSM. Undersections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and 30 CFR730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10),decisions on State regulatory programsand program amendments must bebased solely on a determination ofwhether the submittal is consistent withSMCRA and its implementing Federalregulations and whether the otherrequirements of 30 CFR parts 730, 731,and 732 have been met.

National Environmental Policy ActThis rule does not require an

environmental impact statement sincesection 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C.1292(d)) provides that agency decisionson State regulatory program provisionsdo not constitute major Federal actionswithin the meaning of section 102(2)(C)



of the National Environmental PolicyAct (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not containinformation collection requirements thatrequire approval by OMB under thePaperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.3507 et seq.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior hasdetermined that this rule will not havea significant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entitiesunder the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The State submittalwhich is the subject of this rule is basedupon corresponding Federal regulationsfor which an economic analysis wasprepared and certification made thatsuch regulations would not have asignificant economic effect upon asubstantial number of small entities.Therefore, this rule will ensure thatexisting requirements previouslypublished by OSM will be implementedby the State. In making thedetermination as to whether this rulewould have a significant economicimpact, the Department relied upon thedata and assumptions for thecorresponding Federal regulations.

Unfunded Mandates

OSM has determined and certifiesunder the Unfunded Mandates ReformAct (2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq.) that this rulewill not impose a cost of $100 millionor more in any given year on local, state,or tribal governments or private entities.


Intergovernmental relations, Surfacemining, Underground mining.

Dated: July 19, 1999.Brent Wahlquist,Regional Director, Mid-Continent RegionalCoordinating Center.[FR Doc. 99–18946 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310–05–P


Office of Surface Mining Reclamationand Enforcement

30 CFR Part 924

[SPATS No. MS–015–FOR]

Mississippi Regulatory Program

AGENCY: Office of Surface MiningReclamation and Enforcement, Interior.ACTION: Proposed rule; public commentperiod and opportunity for publichearing.

SUMMARY: The Office of Surface MiningReclamation and Enforcement (OSM) isannouncing receipt of an amendment tothe Mississippi regulatory program(Mississippi program) under the SurfaceMining Control and Reclamation Act of1977 (SMCRA). Mississippi proposesrevisions to regulations concerningformal hearings; bond release;hydrologic balance; cessation orders;formal review of citations; definitions;areas where mining is prohibited orlimited; performance bonds; pre-blasting surveys; permitting;inspections; coal exploration; qualifiedlaboratories; disposal of excess spoil;coal mine waste impounding structures;backfilling and grading; roads; and coalpreparation plant performancestandards. The State also proposes tocorrect typographical errors and makeother non-substantive revisions.Mississippi intends to revise its programto be consistent with the correspondingFederal regulations.

This document gives the times andlocations that the Mississippi programand the amendment to that program areavailable for your inspection, thecomment period during which you maysubmit written comments on theamendment, and the procedures thatwill be followed for the public hearing,if one is requested.

DATES: We will accept writtencomments until 4:00 p.m., c.d.t., August25, 1999. If requested, we will hold apublic hearing on the amendment onAugust 20, 1999. We will acceptrequests to speak at the hearing until4:00 p.m., c.d.t. on August 10, 1999.

ADDRESSES: You should mail or handdeliver written comments and requeststo speak at the hearing to Arthur W.Abbs, Director, Birmingham FieldOffice, at the address listed below.

You may review copies of theMississippi program, the amendment, alisting of any scheduled public hearings,and all written comments received inresponse to this document at theaddresses listed below during normalbusiness hours, Monday through Friday,excluding holidays. You may receiveone free copy of the amendment bycontacting OSM’s Birmingham FieldOffice.

Arthur W. Abbs, Director,Birmingham Field Office, Office ofSurface Mining, 135 Gemini Circle,Suite 215, Homewood, Alabama 35209,Telephone: (205) 290–7282.

Department of Environmental Quality,Office of Geology, 2380 Highway 80West, P.O. Box 20307, Jackson,Mississippi 39289–1307, Telephone:(601) 961–5500.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Arthur W. Abbs, Director, BirminghamField Office. Telephone: (205) 290–7282. Internet: [email protected] INFORMATION:

I. Background on the MississippiProgram

On September 4, 1980, the Secretaryof the Interior approved the Mississippiprogram. You can find backgroundinformation on the Mississippi program,including the Secretary’s findings andthe disposition of comments, in theSeptember 4, 1980, Federal Register (45FR 58520). You can find later actions onthe program at 30 CFR 924.10, 924.15,924.16, and 924.17.

II. Description of the ProposedAmendment

By letter dated July 1, 1999(Administrative Record No. MS–0373),Mississippi sent us an amendment to itsprogram pursuant to SMCRA.Mississippi sent the amendment inresponse to required programamendments at 30 CFR 924.16(f)–(h), (j),(k), (m), and (n). The amendment alsoincludes changes made at Mississippi’sown initiative. Mississippi proposes toamend the Mississippi Surface CoalMining Regulations. Below is asummary of the changes proposed byMississippi. The full text of the programamendment is available for yourinspection at the locations listed aboveunder ADDRESSES.

A. Revisions required by 30 CFR924.16(f)–(n)

1. Section 3301. Formal HearingMississippi proposes to revise

paragraph (b) to read as follows:Any party may file a petition for temporary

relief from the Permit Board’s action inconjunction with the filing of the request fora formal hearing or at any time before a finaldecision is issued by the Permit Board aftera formal hearing.

2. Section 4501. Procedures for SeekingRelease of Performance Bond

Mississippi proposes to reviseparagraph (c) to clarify that Federal,State, and local governmental agencieswhich have special expertise withrespect to any environmental, social, oreconomic impact involved in the coalmining operation are allowed to filewritten objections to the proposed bondrelease and to request public hearings.

3. Section 5333. Hydrologic Balance:Surface- and Ground-Water Monitoring

Mississippi proposes to reviseparagraph (b)(3)(A) to require theoperator to demonstrate that the coalmining operation has minimized



disturbance to the hydrologic balance inthe permit and adjacent areas.

4. Section 6501. Cessation OrdersMississippi proposes to revise

paragraph (c)(4) to replace a reference to§ 53–9–69 with a reference to § 6509.

5. Section 6511. Formal Review ofCitations

a. Mississippi proposes to reviseparagraph (a) to require interestedparties to request formal reviews within30 days of the date the Commission, theExecutive Director, or the ExecutiveDirector’s authorized representativetook the action that is being contestedduring the formal review. Mississippialso proposes to add a requirement thatthe Commission notify parties in writingof the time and place of the hearing atleast five working days before thehearing date.

b. Mississippi proposes to reviseparagraph (l)(1) by changing thereference from § 6511(e) to § 6511(a).

c. Mississippi proposes to reviseparagraph (n)(9) to read as follows:

(9) Any party desiring to appeal a decisionof the Commission granting or denying anapplication for expedited review may appealto and seek relief from the appropriatechancery court pursuant to § 53–9–77.

B. Revisions Made at Mississippi’s OwnInitiative

1. Section 105. DefinitionsMississippi proposes to revise the

definition for performance bond to readas follows:

Performance Bond—a surety bond,collateral bond, letter or letters of credit, orself-bond, or a combination thereof, by whicha permittee assures faithful performance ofall the requirements of the act, theseregulations, this program and therequirements of the permit and reclamationplan.

2. Section 1105. Areas Where Mining isProhibited or Limited

Mississippi proposes to reviseparagraph (c) to read as follows:

(c) on any lands which will adverselyaffect any publicly owned park or any placeincluded on the National Register of HistoricPlaces, unless approved jointly by the PermitBoard and the federal, state or local agencywith jurisdiction over the park or place;

3. Section 4301. Form of thePerformance Bond

Mississippi proposes to add ‘‘a letteror letters of credit’’ to the list ofacceptable forms of performance bond.

4. Section 4303. Terms and Conditionsof the Bond

Mississippi proposes to reviseparagraph (g)(6) by placing the term

‘‘indemnity agreement’’ with the term‘‘letter of credit.’’

5. Section 4701. General

Mississippi proposes to reviseparagraph (a) to read as follows:

(a) Except as in compliance with § 4701(b),the Commission shall proceed to cause theforfeiture of all or part of a bond or othercollateral accepted pursuant to Chapter 43 forany permit where required or authorized by§ 4705.

6. Correction of Typographical Errors

a. Mississippi assigned an incorrectsection number (Section 5343) to itsregulatory provisions for ‘‘Use ofExplosives: Pre-blasting Survey.’’Mississippi proposes to change thisincorrect section number to Section5349.

b. Mississippi proposes to correcttypographical errors and other non-substantive revisions in the followingsections: Section 105. Definitions;Section 407. Contents of Application forExemption; Section 413. Conditions ofExemption and Right of Inspection andEntry; Section 1105. Areas WhereMining is Prohibited or Limited; Section2103. Permit Requirements forExploration Removing More Than 250Tons of Coal, or Occurring on LandsDesignated as Unsuitable for SurfaceCoal Mining Operations; Section 2105.Coal Exploration Compliance Duties;Section 2313. Permit Term Information;3113. Review of Permit Applications;Section 3119. Permit Approval or DenialActions; Section 3121. Permit Terms;Section 3509. Permit Renewals:Completed Applications; Section 3713.Qualified Laboratories; Section 5359.Disposal of Excess Spoil: GeneralRequirements; Section 5377. Coal minewaste: Impounding structures; Section5391. Backfilling and Grading: GeneralGrading Requirements; Section 5393.Backfilling and grading: ThinOverburden; Section 53111. Roads:General; Section 5703. Steep Slopes:Backfilling and grading: Steep slopes;and Section 5903.

Coal Preparation Plants: PerformanceStandards.

III. Public Comment Procedures

Under the provisions of 30 CFR732.17(h), we are requesting commentson whether the amendment satisfies theapplicable program approval criteria of30 CFR 732.15. If we approve theamendment, it will become part of theMississippi program.

Written Comments

Your written comments should bespecific and pertain only to the issuesproposed in this rulemaking. You

should explain the reason for anyrecommended change. In the finalrulemaking, we will not necessarilyconsider or include in theAdministrative Record any commentsreceived after the time indicated underDATES or at locations other than theBirmingham Field Office.

Public HearingIf you wish to speak at the public

hearing, contact the person listed underFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by4:00 p.m., c.d.t. on August 10, 1999. Wewill arrange the location and time of thehearing with those persons requestingthe hearing. If you are disabled andneed special accommodations to attenda public hearing, contact the individuallisted under FOR FURTHER INFORMATIONCONTACT. The hearing will not be heldif no one requests an opportunity tospeak at the public hearing.

You should file a written statement atthe time you request the hearing. Thiswill allow us to prepare adequateresponses and appropriate questions.The public hearing will continue on thespecified date until all personsscheduled to speak have been heard. Ifyou are in the audience and have notbeen scheduled to speak and wish to doso, you will be allowed to speak afterthose who have been scheduled. Wewill end the hearing after all personsscheduled to speak and persons presentin the audience who wish to speak havebeen heard.

Public MeetingIf only one person requests an

opportunity to speak at a hearing, apublic meeting, rather than a publichearing, may be held. If you wish tomeet with us to discuss the amendment,request a meeting by contacting theperson listed under FOR FURTHERINFORMATION CONTACT. All such meetingsare open to the public and, if possible,we will post notices of meetings at thelocations listed under ADDRESSES. Wealso make a written summary of eachmeeting a part of the AdministrativeRecord.

IV. Procedural Determinations

Executive Order 12866The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) exempts this rule from reviewunder Executive Order 12866(Regulatory Planning and Review).

Executive Order 12988The Department of the Interior has

conducted the reviews required bysection 3 of Executive Order 12988(Civil Justice Reform) and hasdetermined that, to the extent allowedby law, this rule meets the applicable



standards of subsections (a) and (b) ofthat section. However, these standardsare not applicable to the actual languageof State regulatory programs andprogram amendments since each suchprogram is drafted and promulgated bya specific State, not by OSM. Undersections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and 30 CFR730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10),decisions on State regulatory programsand program amendments must bebased solely on a determination ofwhether the submittal is consistent withSMCRA and its implementing Federalregulations and whether the otherrequirements of 30 CFR Parts 730, 731,and 732 have been met.

National Environmental Policy Act

This rule does not require anenvironmental impact statement sincesection 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C.1292(d)) provides that agency decisionson State regulatory program provisionsdo not constitute major Federal actionswithin the meaning of section 102(2)(C)of the National Environmental PolicyAct (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not containinformation collection requirements thatrequire approval by OMB under thePaperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.3507 et seq.).


The Department of the Interior hasdetermined that this rule will not havea significant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entitiesunder the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The State submittalwhich is the subject of this rule is basedupon corresponding Federal regulationsfor which an economic analysis wasprepared and certification made thatsuch regulations would not have asignificant economic effect upon asubstantial number of small entities.Therefore, this rule will ensure thatexisting requirements previouslypublished by OSM will be implementedby the State. In making thedetermination as to whether this rulewould have a significant economicimpact, the Department relied upon thedata and assumptions for thecorresponding Federal regulations.

Unfunded Mandates

OSM has determined and certifiesunder the Unfunded Mandates ReformAct (2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq.) that this rulewill not impose a cost of $100 millionor more in any given year on local, state,or tribal governments or private entities.


Intergovernmental relations, Surfacemining, Underground mining.

Dated: July 15, 1999.Brent Wahlquist,Regional Director, Mid-Continent RegionalCoordinating Center.[FR Doc. 99–18947 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310–05–P


40 CFR Part 52

[IN96–1b; FRL–6402–1]

Approval and Promulgation ofImplementation Plan; Indiana

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving temporaryrevised opacity limits for two processesat ALCOA Warrick Operations, whichwere submitted by the IndianaDepartment of EnvironmentalManagement (IDEM) on December 8,1998. ALCOA Warrick Operations is aprimary aluminum smelter located inNewburgh, Indiana. The revised limitsallow for higher opacity emissionsduring fluxing operations at two holdingfurnaces for a period of one year, endingMay 1999. Mass emissions limits are notbeing changed.DATES: EPA must receive writtencomments on this proposed rule byAugust 25, 1999.ADDRESSES: You should mail writtencomments to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief,Regulation Development Section, AirPrograms Branch (AR–18J), U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,Chicago, Illinois 60604.

You may inspect copies of the Statesubmittal and EPA’s analysis of it at:

Regulation Development Section,Regulation Development Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Region 5, 77 West JacksonBoulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:David Pohlman, EnvironmentalScientist, Regulation DevelopmentSection, Regulation DevelopmentBranch (AR–18J), U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Region 5, 77 WestJackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois60604, (312) 886–3299.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:Throughout this document, wherever‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’, or ‘‘our’’ are used we meanEPA.

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA taking today?II. Where can I find more information about

this proposal and the correspondingdirect final rule?

I. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?We are proposing to approve

temporary revised opacity limits for twoprocesses at ALCOA WarrickOperations, which were submitted byIDEM on December 8, 1998. The revisedlimits allow for higher opacityemissions during fluxing operations attwo holding furnaces for a period of oneyear, ending May 1999.

II. Where can I Find More InformationAbout This Proposal and theCorresponding Direct Final Rule?

For additional information see thedirect final rule published in the rulessection of this Federal Register.

Dated: July 9, 1999.Francis X. Lyons,Regional Administrator, Region 5.[FR Doc. 99–18871 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560–50–P


40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–6401–7]

National Oil and Hazardous,Substances Pollution ContingencyPlan; National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency.ACTION: Notice of intent to delete theMason County Landfill Superfund Sitefrom the National Priorities List; requestfor comments.

SUMMARY: The United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency (U.S.EPA) Region V announces its intent todelete the Mason County Landfill Sitefrom the National Priorities List (NPL)and requests public comment on thisaction. The NPL constitutes appendix Bof 40 CFR part 300 which is theNational Oil and Hazardous SubstancesPollution Contingency Plan (NCP),which U.S. EPA promulgated pursuantto section 105 of the ComprehensiveEnvironmental Response,Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980(CERCLA) as amended. This action isbeing taken by U.S. EPA, because it hasbeen determined that all Fund-financedresponses under CERCLA have beenimplemented and U.S. EPA, inconsultation with the State of Michigan,has determined that no further responseis appropriate. It should be noted,



however, long-term maintenance of thelandfill cap and monitoring of thegroundwater at the Site will continue toensure that the effectiveness of theremedy is sustained. U.S. EPA and theState have determined that remedialactivities conducted at the Site to datehave been protective of public health,welfare, and the environment.DATES: Comments concerning theproposed deletion of the Site from theNPL may be submitted on or beforeAugust 25, 1999.ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed toGladys Beard, Associate RemedialProject Manager, Superfund Division,U.S. EPA, Region V, 77 W. Jackson Blvd.(SR–6J), Chicago, IL 60604.Comprehensive information on the siteis available at U.S. EPA’s Region Voffice and at the local informationrepository located at: Ludington PublicLibrary 217 E. Ludington, Ludington, MI49431. Requests for comprehensivecopies of documents should be directedformally to the Region V Docket Office.The address and phone number for theRegional Docket Officer is JanPfundheller (H–7J), U.S. EPA, Region V,77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604,(312) 353–5821.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Jeffrey Gore at (312) 886–6552 (SR–6J),Remedial Project Manager or GladysBeard (SR–6J), Associate RemedialProject Manager, Superfund Division,U.S. EPA, Region V, 77 W. JacksonBlvd., Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 886-7253or Stuart Hill (P–19J), Office of PublicAffairs, U.S. EPA, Region V, 77 W.Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604, (312)886–0689.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of ContentsI. IntroductionII. NPL Deletion CriteriaIII. Deletion ProceduresIV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion

I. IntroductionThe U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) Region V announces itsintent to delete the Mason CountyLandfill Site from the National PrioritiesList (NPL), which constitutes appendixB of the National Oil and HazardousSubstances Pollution Contingency Plan(NCP), and requests comments on theproposed deletion. The EPA identifiessites that appear to present a significantrisk to public health, welfare or theenvironment, and maintains the NPL asthe list of those sites. Sites on the NPLmay be the subject of remedial actionsfinanced by the Hazardous SubstanceSuperfund Response Trust Fund (Fund).Pursuant to § 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP,any site deleted from the NPL remains

eligible for Fund-financed remedialactions if the conditions at the sitewarrant such action.

The U.S. EPA will accept commentson this proposal for thirty (30) days afterpublication of this document in theFederal Register.

Section II of this document explainsthe criteria for deleting sites from theNPL. Section III discusses proceduresthat EPA is using for this action. SectionIV discusses the history of this site andexplains how the site meets the deletioncriteria.

Deletion of sites from the NPL doesnot itself create, alter, or revoke anyindividual’s rights or obligations.Furthermore, deletion from the NPLdoes not in any way alter U.S. EPA’sright to take enforcement actions, asappropriate. The NPL is designedprimarily for informational purposesand to assist in Agency management.

II. NPL Deletion CriteriaThe NCP establishes the criteria the

Agency uses to delete sites from theNPL. In accordance with 40 CFR300.425(e), sites may be deleted fromthe NPL where no further response isappropriate. In making thisdetermination, U.S. EPA considers, inconsultation with the State, whether anyof the following criteria have been met:

(i) Responsible parties or otherpersons have implemented allappropriate response actions required;or

(ii) All appropriate Fund-financedresponses under CERCLA have beenimplemented, and no further responseaction by responsible parties isappropriate; or

(iii) The Remedial Investigation hasshown that the release poses nosignificant threat to public health or theenvironment and, therefore, remedialmeasures are not appropriate.

III. Deletion ProceduresUpon determination that at least one

of the criteria described in § 300.425(e)has been met, U.S. EPA may formallybegin deletion procedures once the Statehas concurred. This Federal Registerdocument, and a concurrent notice inthe local newspaper in the vicinity ofthe site, announce the initiation of a 30-day comment period. The public isasked to comment on U.S. EPA’sintention to delete the Site from theNPL. All critical documents needed toevaluate U.S. EPA’s decision areincluded in the information repositoryand the deletion docket.

Upon completion of the publiccomment period, if necessary, the U.S.EPA Regional Office will prepare aResponsiveness Summary to evaluate

and address comments that werereceived. The public is welcome tocontact the U.S. EPA Region V Office toobtain a copy of this responsivenesssummary, if one is prepared. If U.S. EPAthen determines the deletion from theNPL is appropriate, final notice ofdeletion will be published in theFederal Register.

IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion

The Mason County Landfill Site islocated three miles south of the city ofLudington, Michigan and one mile eastof Lake Michigan. The Site occupiesapproximately eighteen acres of apredominantly rural area in PereMarquette Township; approximately tenacres of the Site is landfilled. During itsactive life, Industrial, commercial andmunicipal waste was placed in thelandfill.

The Site property was originallyowned by Edward Dains when it wasselected for use as a sanitary landfill bythe Mason County Department of PublicWorks (DPW). In 1971, Mason CountyDPW leased the property from Mr. Dainsand subsequently entered into anagreement with Acme Disposal tooperate the landfill. Mr. Dains was hiredby Acme Disposal as a SanitationEngineer to oversee the daily operationsof the landfill from 1972 until 1978. TheMichigan Department of Public Health(MDPH) approved Acme’s Solid WasteDisposal Area License in 1971 with thestipulations that no refuse be disposedof below the 710 foot elevation (meansea level) that the final cover containedat least twenty percent clay, and thatmonitoring wells be installed. In 1973,landfill licensing and oversight weretransferred from the MDPH to theMichigan Department of NaturalResources (MDNR). During its oversight,the MDNR documented that slurry andsludge wastes from local industries werebeing dumped at the landfill, allowed todry, and then covered. The Site’s licensewas renewed annually through 1977. Itwas closed in August of 1978 when itreached capacity. Public concerns overthe water quality in nearby Iris Creekprompted the Mason County DPW andthe MDNR to review closure activities atthe site.

In 1983, the Mason County DPWreceived a grant from the State ofMichigan for improvements to thelandfill. A clay cap was completed andberms and storm drains wereconstructed to improve Site drainage.Two surface aerators were installed inBabbin Pond to help aerate the pondand facilitate biodegradation of organicmatter. Fifteen gas vents were placedinto the top of the landfill.



Ludington, Michigan has a populationof about 9,500. The population of MasonCounty has been estimated at 26,400based on the 1980 census. Thepopulation within a three mile radius ofthe Site has been estimated at 1,112.

Just north of the Site are heavilywooded areas and orchards are locatedto the east and south of the Site. Thetopography varies from relatively levelupland areas south and east of thelandfill to steep valleys north of thelandfill. The landfill is generally avalley fill with a maximum depthestimated to be 40 to 50 feet.

Surface waters which the Site affectedincluded Iris Creek, the Pere MarquetteRiver, Pere Marquette Lake, and LakeMichigan. The headwaters of Iris Creekare located less than 500 feet from thelandfill and consist of a wet, marshyarea southwest of Babbin Road. Waterfrom the marshy area drains into BabbinPond, which discharges directly into IrisCreek. Iris Creek discharges into PereMarquette River, which discharges intoLake Michigan. A pumped-storagepower reservoir operated by ConsumersEnergy Company is locatedapproximately one half mile south ofthe Site. Lake Michigan is the maindrinking water source in the area and isthe City of Ludington’s water supply. Inrural Pere Marquette Township,residents generally depend on smalldomestic wells screened in sand andgravel aquifers for potable watersupplies. Fourteen residential wells arewithin about a half mile radius of thelandfill that vary in depth from 30 to150 feet below ground surface.

Other water uses in the area includelarge capacity wells that produce saltbrine for industrial use. A salt brinewell about 1,000 feet west of the landfillis screened in an aquifer at a depth of450 feet. The brine aquifer is separatedfrom the overlying aquifers used forpotable water by more than 300 feet oflow permeability glacial till.

Mason County is undelain by bedrockformations at depths from 300 to 700feet. The Mississippi Age ColdwaterShale lies beneath the landfill Site at adepth of 650 feet. The formation ispredominantly shale with occasionalinterbeds of sandstone and limestone.

A U.S. EPA Field Investigation Team(FIT) inspected the landfill Site in May1982. The team sampled and analyzedthe existing monitoring wells at the site.Based on this investigation, the Site wasassigned a hazard ranking system scoreof 34.18, a score high enough to qualifyit for inclusion on the National PriorityList (NPL). This score was arrived atbased primarily on the presence ingroundwater of ethyl-benzene,pentachlorophenol, trichloroethene, 1,2

trans-dichloroethene, and 1,1-dichloroethene. The Site was proposedfor the Federal National Priorities List(NPL) on December 30, 1982. The listingwas finalized on September 8, 1983.

U.S. EPA conducted a RemedialInvestigation (RI) at the Site through theuse of a its contractor, CH2MHill. TheRI included two phases of samplingevents. Phase I of the RI fieldwork wasconducted from September to November1986 and Phase II was conductedbetween October 1987 and January1988. The RI at the Site included thefollowing:

1. Review and evaluation of pastinvestigations as well as historicalpractices and other records relating tothe Site. (RI Phase I)

2. Extensive aquifer sampling andwater level measurements (in both theupper and lower aquifers) to determinegroundwater quality, flow directions,and gradients. (RI Phase I and II)

3. Evaluation through anelectromagnetic geophysical survey todetermine whether existing landfillmonitoring wells were properlypositioned to interpret potential plumesoriginating from the Site. (RI Phase II)

4. Sampling within the wetland,Babbin Pond, and Iris Creek to definethe Site’s impact on surface waters andsediment. The base flow in Iris Creekwas determined to help estimategroundwater discharge rates into thecreek. (RI Phase I and II)

5. Soil borings and the gamma loggingof existing monitoring wells wereconducted to help define the geology ofthe Site. (RI Phase I and II)

6. Sampling of the Site’s gas vents andambient air accrued to determine theSite’s impact on air quality. (RI Phase Iand II)

7. Surface soil samples were taken todetermine if erosion along the northernside of the Site presented a pathway ofcontaminant migration.

8. Samples from a drainage pipeleading from the Site to Iris Creek weretaken to determine if groundwater and/or leachate were infiltrating into thepipe and therefore presenting a possiblepathway of contaminant migration.

The Remedial Investigation (RI) forthe site was completed in July 1988. AFeasibility Study (FS) was prepared forthe site to evaluate potentialremediations for the site. The FS alsowas completed in July 1988.

Based on the exposure pathways ofthe Feasibility Study (FS), two operableunits or pathways were selected to beaddressed: (1) Landfill contents, and (2)groundwater. The landfill contentsoperable unit addressed all materialscontained beneath the existing Site cap,such as general refuse, sludges, possible

buried drums and the underlying soilcontaminated by leachate. The landfillcontents operable unit also addressedgas generated by the decomposingburied waste. The general remedialaction goals for the landfill contentsoperable unit were to prevent directcontact with contaminant sources and tominimize future release ofcontaminants. The selected remedy forthe landfill operable unit consisted ofproperly capping the landfill. Theoperable unit that directly addressedgroundwater contamination and otherpotential off-site contamination wascompleted after more investigation hadbeen done. These investigationsincluded an assessment of theeffectiveness of the new landfill capcalled for in the September 28, 1988ROD. The specific components of theselected remedy include: a RCRAsubtitle C compliant soil/clay cap, afence around the site, deed restrictionson and near the site to prohibit use ofthe shallow aquifer, and continuedmonitoring to assess the quality ofgroundwater and to monitor theeffectiveness of the new cap. TheRecord of Decision (ROD) for the firstoperable unit was signed on September28, 1988.

The results of on-site groundwatermonitoring indicated that the landfillcap was effective in reducing theamount of contamination reaching thegroundwater, resulting in a reduction ofthe number and levels of chemicalspresent in the groundwater. Prior to theconstruction of the upgraded cap avariety of chemicals including volatile,semivolatile and inorganic compoundswere detected in several site wells, someat levels exceeding the MaximumContaminant Level (MCL) set by U. S.EPA under the Safe Drinking Water Act,(benzene, antimony, cadmium,chromium, lead and nickel). After thelandfill cap was repaired and upgradedhowever, many contaminants were nolonger detected in the groundwater.

The groundwater operable unitaddressed the shallow and deepaquifers. The general remedial actiongoals for the groundwater operable unitwere to minimize migration ofcontaminants in groundwater and toprevent exposure to contaminants inresidential wells. The ROD for thisoperable unit was signed September 27,1993. The selected remedy wascontinued groundwater monitoring. TheROD documented that no furtherremedial action was necessary at thissite beyond continuation of amonitoring program.

Construction of a RCRA subtitle Ccompliant soil/clay cap began onNovember 13, 1990 and was completed



on September 23, 1991. Institutionalcontrols along with deed restrictionswere put in place late 1991 at the Site.

A five-year review pursuant toOSWER Directive 9355.7–02 (‘‘Structureand Components of Five-Year Reviews’’)was conducted at the Site. The Five-Year review was signed November 13,1997.

EPA, with concurrence from the Stateof Michigan, has determined that allappropriate Fund-financed responsesunder CERCLA at the Mason CountyLandfill Superfund Site have beencompleted, and no further CERCLAresponse is appropriate in order toprovide protection of human health andthe environment. The long-termmaintenance of the landfill cap andmonitoring of the groundwater willcontinue to ensure that the effectivenessof the remedy is sustained. Therefore,EPA proposes to delete the Site from theNPL.

Dated: July 14, 1999.David A. Ullrich,Acting Regional Administrator, Region V.[FR Doc. 99–18720 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560–50–P


47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 99–262, RM–9659]

Digital Television Broadcast Service;Spokane, WA

AGENCY: Federal CommunicationsCommission.ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission requestscomments on a petition filed bySpokane School District #81, licensee ofstation KSPS(TV), NTSC Channel *7,Spokane, Washington, proposing thesubstitution of DTV Channel *8 forstation KSPS(TV)’s assigned DTVChannel *39. DTV Channel *8 can beallotted to Spokane, Washington, incompliance with the principlecommunity coverage requirements ofSection 73.625(a) at referencecoordinates 47–34–34 N. and 117–17–58W. However, since the community ofSpokane is located within 320kilometers (200 miles) of the U.S.-Canadian border, concurrence by theCanadian government must be obtainedfor this allotment. As requested, wepropose to modify station KSPS(TV)’sauthorization to specify operation onDTV Channel *8 at Spokane,Washington, with a power of 21.6 (kW)

and a height above average terrain(HAAT) of 558.

DATES: Comments must be filed on orbefore September 13, 1999, and replycomments on or before September 28,1999.

ADDRESSES: Federal CommunicationsCommission, 445 12th Street, SW, RoomTW–A325, Washington, DC 20554. Inaddition to filing comments with theFCC, interested parties should serve thepetitioner, or its counsel or consultant,as follows: John Crigler, Esq., Haley,Bader & Potts P.L.C., 4350 North FairfaxDrive, Suite 900, Arlington, Virginia22203–1633 (Counsel for SpokaneSchool District #).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: PamBlumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, (202)418–1600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is asynopsis of the Commission’s Notice ofProposed Rule Making, MM Docket No.99–262, adopted July 19, 1999, andreleased July 21, 1999. The full text ofthis Commission decision is availablefor inspection and copying duringnormal business hours in the FCCReference Center 445 12th Street, SW,Washington, DC. The complete text ofthis decision may also be purchasedfrom the Commission’s copy contractor,International Transcription Services,Inc., (202) 857–3800, 1231 20th Street,NW, Washington, DC 20036.

Provisions of the RegulatoryFlexibility Act of 1980 do not apply tothis proceeding.

Members of the public should notethat from the time a Notice of ProposedRule Making is issued until the matteris no longer subject to Commissionconsideration or court review, all exparte contacts are prohibited inCommission proceedings, such as thisone, which involve channel allotments.See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rulesgoverning permissible ex parte contacts.

For information regarding properfiling procedures for comments, see 47CFR 1.415 and 1.420.


Digital television broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.

Barbara A. Kreisman,Chief, Video Services Division, Mass MediaBureau.[FR Doc. 99–18958 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]



Office of the Secretary

49 CFR Part 71

[OST Docket No. OST–99–5947]

RIN 2105–AC82

Standard Time Zone Boundary in theState of Nevada: Proposed Relocation

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: At the request of the City ofWest Wendover, Nevada, DOT proposesto relocate the boundary between Pacifictime and mountain time in the State ofNevada. DOT proposes to relocate theboundary in order to move WestWendover, Nevada from the PacificTime Zone to the Mountain Time Zone.DATES: Comments should be received bySeptember 24, 1999 to be assured ofconsideration. Comments received afterthat date will be considered to theextent practicable. If the time zoneboundary is changed as a result of thisrulemaking, the effective date would be2:00 a.m. PDT Sunday, October 31,1999.ADDRESSES: You may submit yourcomments and related material by oneof the following methods:

(1) By mail to the Docket ManagementFacility (OST–1999–5947), U.S.Department of Transportation, room PL–401, 400 Seventh Street SW.,Washington, DC 20590–0001.

(2) By hand delivery to room PL–401on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building,400 Seventh Street SW., Washington,DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Mondaythrough Friday, except Federal holidays.The telephone number is 202–366–9329.

(3) By fax to Docket ManagementFacility at 202–493–2251.

(4) Electronically through the WebSite for the Docket Management Systemat http://dms.dot.gov.

The Docket Management Facilitymaintains the public docket for thisrulemaking. Comments and materialreceived from the public, as well asdocuments indicated in this preamble asbeing available in the docket, willbecome part of this docket and will beavailable for inspection or copying atroom PL–401 on the Plaza level of theNassif Building at the same addressbetween 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Mondaythrough Friday, except Federal holidays.You may also find this docket on theInternet at http://dms.dot.gov.

For questions on viewing orsubmitting material to the docket, callDorothy Walker, Chief, Dockets,



Department of Transportation,telephone 202–366–9329.

Public Hearing: A public hearing willbe chaired by a representative of DOT atthe West Wendover Library, Pilot PeakRoom, 590 Camper Drive, WestWendover, Nevada, on Tuesday, August10, 1999, at 6:00 p.m. MDT/5:00 p.m.PDT. The hearing will be informal andwill be tape recorded for inclusion inthe docket. Persons who desire toexpress opinions or ask questions at thehearings do not have to sign up inadvance or give any prior notification.To the greatest extent practicable, theDOT representative will provide anopportunity to speak for all thosewishing to do so.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Joanne Petrie, Office of the AssistantGeneral Counsel for Regulation andEnforcement, U.S. Department ofTransportation, Room 10424, 400Seventh Street, Washington, D.C. 20590,(202) 366–9315; email address:[email protected] INFORMATION:

BackgroundUnder the Standard Time Act of 1918,

as amended by the Uniform Time Act of1966 (15 U.S.C. 260–64), the Secretaryof Transportation has authority to issueregulations modifying the boundariesbetween time zones in the United Statesin order to move an area from one timezone to another. The standard in thestatute for such decisions is ‘‘regard forthe convenience of commerce and theexisting junction points and divisionpoints of common carriers engaged ininterstate or foreign commerce.’’

Petition for RulemakingOn January 8, 1999, Mayor Walter F.

Sanders, Mayor of the City of WestWendover, Nevada sent a letter to theDepartment of Transportation asking theDepartment to change the city from thePacific time zone to the Mountain timezone. The letter noted the followingfacts in support of its petition.

1. West Wendover is located on theborder of Utah and Nevada and isdirectly adjacent to the City ofWendover, Utah, which is in theMountain time zone.

2. It is more than one hundred milesto the nearest city.

3. Businesses in West Wendover makemost of their purchases from Salt LakeCity, which is in the Mountain timezone.

4. The city receives all of its televisionand radio broadcasts from Salt LakeCity. Due to mountain ranges west ofWest Wendover, radio broadcastscannot be received from the Nevadaarea.

5. West Wendover has one weeklylocal newspaper, which is printed inSalt Lake City.

6. The City of West Wendovercurrently has no passenger rail service.The nearest public rail service is locatedin either Salt Lake City, Utah or Elko,Nevada. Both cities are more than onehundred miles from West Wendover.

7. Greyhound buses travel throughWest Wendover on an east/west run, butonly stop in Wendover, Utah.

8. Wendover, Utah has a small airport,which is limited to mostly small privateaircraft and which receives nocommercial air service. Tooele County,Utah, which is on Mountain time, is inthe process of renovating its airport. Theclosest major airport is Salt Lake CityInternational Airport.

9. A small percentage of WestWendover’s working population residesoutside the City limits. The majority ofemployed residents work in the gaming/tourism industry.

10. Medical services are currentlyprovided by a local medical clinic. Thefacility is owned by the City of WestWendover, which in turn has leased thefacility to the University of Utah—Medical Facility. This agreementprovided the opportunity for expandedmedical services to the community.Most residents of West Wendover travelto Salt Lake City for major and routinehealth care.

11. Secondary education is offered inSalt Lake City, Utah and Elko, Nevada.

12. West Wendover is in the processof expanding its recreation facilities.These recreational services are designedto accommodate people from theWastach Front area, which is onMountain time.

13. West Wendover’s residents musttravel to Salt Lake City or Elko in orderto obtain a greater variety of services,shopping, and recreation.

14. The City of West Wendover istrying to purchase Air Force propertyadjacent to the Tooele County Airport.This purchase is expected to provideopportunities to establish a morediversified economy within theWendover/West Wendover community.

15. Historically, West Wendover hasalways operated on Mountain time.Prior to the 1980s, there was no reasonto do otherwise because there wasliterally nothing to the town fifty yardspast the state line. When WestWendover began to ‘‘boom,’’ the towntried to operate by Pacific time.According to the Mayor, this actioncreated mass confusion for bothresidents and those outside thecommunity.

The Mayor stated that by allowingWest Wendover to formally move into

the Mountain time zone, commercewithin the Wendover/West Wendovercommunity would be facilitated andconfusion would be eliminated.

Under DOT procedures to change atime zone boundary, the Departmentwill generally begin a rulemakingproceeding if the highest electedofficials in the area make a prima faciecase for the proposed change. DOT hasdetermined that the petition from theCity of West Wendover makes a primafacie case that warrants opening aproceeding to determine whether thechange should be made. Consequently,in this notice of proposed rulemaking,DOT is proposing to make the requestedchange and is inviting public comment.

Although the City of West Wendoverhas submitted sufficient information tobegin the rulemaking process, thedecision whether actually to make thechange will be based upon informationreceived at the hearing or submitted inwriting to the docket. Personssupporting or opposing the changeshould not assume that the change willbe made merely because DOT is makingthe proposal. We are not bound eitherto accept or reject the proposal of theCity of West Wendover at the presenttime in the proceeding. The Departmenthere issues no opinion on the merits ofthe City’s request. Our decision will bemade on the basis of informationdeveloped during the rulemakingproceeding.

Impact on Observance of DaylightSaving Time

This time zone proposal does notdirectly affect the observance of daylightsaving time. Under the Uniform TimeAct of 1966, as amended, the standardtime of each time zone in the UnitedStates is advanced one hour from 2:00a.m. on the first Sunday in April until2:00 a.m. on the last Sunday in October,except in any State that has, by law,exempted itself from this observance.

Regulatory Analysis & NoticesThis proposed rule is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ undersection 3(f) of Executive Order 12866and does not require an assessment ofpotential costs and benefits undersection 6(a)(3) of that Order. It has notbeen reviewed by the Office ofManagement and Budget under thatOrder. It is not ‘‘significant’’ under theregulatory policies and procedures ofthe Department of Transportation (DOT)(44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979). Weexpect the economic impact of thisproposed rule to be so minimal that afull Regulatory Evaluation underparagraph 10e of the regulatory policiesand procedures of DOT is unnecessary.



The rule primarily affects theconvenience of individuals inscheduling activities. By itself, itimposes no direct costs. Its impact islocalized in nature.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we consideredwhether this proposed rule would havea significant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entities.The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprisessmall businesses, not-for-profitorganizations that are independentlyowned and operated and are notdominant in their fields, andgovernmental jurisdictions withpopulations of less than 50,000. Thisproposal, if adopted, would primarilyaffect individuals and their schedulingof activities. Although it would effectsome small businesses, not-for-profitsand, the City of West Wendover, itwould not be a substantial number. Inaddition, the change should have little,if any, economic impact.

Therefore, the Office of the Secretarycertifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that thisproposed rule would not have asignificant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entities. Ifyou think that your business,organization, or governmentaljurisdiction qualifies as a small entityand that this rule would have asignificant economic impact on it,please submit a comment to the DocketManagement Facility at the addressunder ADDRESSES. In your comment,explain why you think it qualifies andhow and to what degree this rule wouldeconomically affect it.

Under section 213(a) of the SmallBusiness Regulatory EnforcementFairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121),we want to assist small entities inunderstanding this proposed rule so thatthey can better evaluate its effects onthem and participate in the rulemaking.If the rule would affect your smallbusiness, organization, or governmentaljurisdiction and you have questionsconcerning its provisions or options forcompliance, please call Joanne Petrie at(202) 366–9315.

Collection of Information

This proposed rule would call for nonew collection of information under thePaperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44U.S.C. 3501–3520).

Federalism

We have analyzed this proposed ruleunder E.O. 12612 and have determinedthat this rule does not have sufficientimplications for federalism to warrant

the preparation of a FederalismAssessment.

Unfunded Mandates

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Actof 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) and E.O.12875, Enhancing the IntergovernmentalPartnership, (58 FR 58093; October 28,1993) govern the issuance of Federalregulations that require unfundedmandates. An unfunded mandate is aregulation that requires a State, local, ortribal government or the private sectorto incur direct costs without the FederalGovernment’s having first provided thefunds to pay those costs. This proposedrule would not impose an unfundedmandate.

Taking of Private Property

This proposed rule would not effect ataking of private property or otherwisehave taking implications under E.O.12630, Governmental Actions andInterference with ConstitutionallyProtected Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

This proposed rule meets applicablestandards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) ofE.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, tominimize litigation, eliminateambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

We have analyzed this proposed ruleunder E.O. 13045, Protection ofChildren from Environmental HealthRisks and Safety Risks. This rule is notan economically significant rule anddoes not concern an environmental riskto health or risk to safety that maydisproportionately affect children.

Environment

This rulemaking is not a majorFederal action significantly affecting thequality of the human environmentunder the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act and, therefore, anenvironmental impact statement is notrequired.


Time zones.For the reasons discussed above, the

Office of the Secretary proposes toamend Title 49 Part 71 as follows:

PART 71—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 71would continue to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 1–4, 40 Stat. 450, asamended; sec. 1, 41 Stat. 1446, as amended;secs. 2–7, 80 Stat. 107, as amended; 100 Stat.764; Act of Mar. 19, 1918, as amended by theUniform Time Act of 1966 and Pub. L. 97–449, 15 U.S.C. 260–267; Pub. L. 99–359; 49CFR 159(a), unless otherwise noted.

2. In § 71.9 paragraph (b) would berevised to read as follows:

§ 71.9 Boundary line between mountainand Pacific zones.

(a) * * *(b) Utah-Nevada-Arizona-California.

From the northeast corner of the Stateof Nevada southerly along the Utah-Nevada boundary to the junction withthe northern border of the City of WestWendover, Utah. Then westward alongthe northern, western, and southernboundaries of the City of WestWendover back to the Utah-Nevadaboundary. Then southerly along theUtah-Nevada boundary, the Nevada-Arizona boundary, and the Arizona-California boundary to the boundarybetween the United States and Mexico.* * * * *

Issued in Washington on July 12, 1999,under authority delegated in 49 CFR§ 1.57(a).Rosalind Knapp,Acting General Counsel.[FR Doc. 99–19041 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–62–P


Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AF03

Endangered and Threatened Wildlifeand Plants; Canada Lynx; Special RuleRecord of Compliance

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,Interior.ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: On July 8, 1998, we publisheda proposed rule to list the United States(lower 48 States) population segment ofthe Canada lynx as threatened under theEndangered Species Act of 1973, asamended (Act). The listing included aspecial rule regulation issued undersection 4(d) of the Act that would allowthe export under the Convention onInternational Trade in EndangeredSpecies of Wild Fauna and Flora(CITES) of live captive-bred Canadalynx, and skins derived from thecaptive-bred population of Canada lynx.This notice announces the availabilityof the Record of Compliance with thevarious statutory, Executive Order, andDepartmental requirements applicableto the special rule regulation and invitescomments on the Record of Compliance.ADDRESSES: To request a copy of theRecord of Compliance, contact the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, Montana



Field Office, 100 N. Park Ave., Suite320, Helena, Montana 59601. Send yourcomments on the Record of Complianceto this same address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Kemper McMaster, Field Supervisor,U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MontanaField Office, at the address above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:On July 8, 1998, we published a

proposed rule to list the United Statespopulation (lower 48 States) segment ofthe Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) asthreatened, and the captive-bredpopulation of Canada lynx within thelower 48 States as threatened due tosimilarity of appearance.

The proposed listing rule included aspecial rule regulation under section4(d) of the Act that would allow theexport under the Convention onInternational Trade in EndangeredSpecies of Wild Fauna and Flora(CITES)(50 CFR part 23) of live captive-bred Canada lynx, and skins derivedfrom the United States captive-bredpopulation (lower 48 States) of Canadalynx, accompanied by a valid CITESexport tag and permit. CITES is aninternational treaty for the regulation ofinternational trade in certain animal andplant species. We would authorize such

export in accordance with the permitrequirements at 50 CFR 17.32.

The range of the United Statespopulation (lower 48 States) segment ofthe Canada lynx includes the States ofWashington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana,Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, Minnesota,Wisconsin, Michigan, Maine, NewHampshire, Vermont, New York,Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts.Currently within the lower 48 Statesthere are facilities in Idaho, Minnesota,Montana, North Dakota, and Utah thatraise captive-bred Canada lynx forcommercial purposes.

The Department of the InteriorManual Part 318 DM, Federal RegisterDocuments, guides the Federal Registerrulemaking process. A key componentof 318 DM is the preparation of a Recordof Compliance (ROC). The ROC certifiesthat a rulemaking action complies withthe various statutory, Executive Order,and Departmental Manual requirementsapplicable to rulemaking. The contentsof the ROC include certification ofcompliance with the requirements of:Executive Order 12866-RegulatoryPlanning and Review; the RegulatoryFlexibility Act, (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);the Small Business RegulatoryEnforcement Fairness Act, (5 U.S.C.804(2)); the Unfunded Mandates ReformAct,(2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.); Executive

Order 12630-Government Actions andInterference With ConstitutionallyProtected Property Rights; ExecutiveOrder 12612-Federalism; ExecutiveOrder 12988-Civil Justice Reform; thePaperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44U.S.C. 350); the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act of 1969, as amended (42U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); the President’smemorandum of April 29, 1994,‘‘Government-to-Government Relationswith the Native American TribalGovernments’’ (59 FR 22951); and theDepartment of Interior Manual,Departmental Responsibilities for IndianTrust Resources (512 DM 2). Inaccordance with the restrictions ofsection 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act regardingthe basis for listing determinations, theeconomic determinations contained inthe ROC are not applicable to the listingdecision for the Canada lynx andpertain only to the operation of thespecial rule regulation under section4(d) of the Act if the species is listed.You can obtain a copy of this ROC byrequest (see ADDRESSES section).

Dated: May 6, 1999.

Jamie Rappaport Clark,Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.[FR Doc. 99–18962 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]



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

40335

Vol. 64, No. 142



Forest Service

Information Collection; Request forComments; Recreation Fee PermitEnvelope

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In accordance with thePaperwork Reduction Act of 1995, theForest Service announces its intentionto reinstate an information collection.This information collection will helpthe Forest Service ensure that visitors toNational Forest System recreationalsites comply with Forest Servicepolicies and regulations and pay userfees, when required. The data also willhelp the agency evaluate how well itmeets the recreational needs of itsvisitors.DATES: Comments must be received inwriting on or before September 24,1999.ADDRESSES: Send written comments toDeveloped Sites Program Manager,Recreation, Heritage, and WildernessResources Staff, Mail Stop 1125, ForestService, USDA, PO Box 96090,Washington, DC 20090–6090 or FAX to(202) 205–1145 or email: phernand/[email protected].

The public may inspect comments inthe Office of the Director, Recreation,Heritage, and Wilderness ResourcesStaff, 201 14th Street, SW, Washington,DC. Visitors are encouraged to call (202)205–1706 to facilitate entrance into thebuilding.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Peggy Hernandez, Developed SitesProgram Manager, Recreation, Heritageand Wilderness Resources Staff, at (202)205–1169.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

BackgroundAnnually, millions of people visit

National Forest System recreational

sites. The Land and Water ConservationFund Act of 1965, section 4(b), andForest Service regulations at Title 36,Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),section 291.2 authorize some of theNational Forest and Grasslandrecreational sites to collect fees fromvisitors. The Forest Service uses theRecreation Fee Permit Envelope tocollect these fees.

Description of Information CollectionThe following describes the

information collection to be reinstated:Title: FS–2300–26, Recreation Fee

Permit Envelope.OMB Number: 0596–0106.Expiration Date of Approval: August

31, 1998.Type of Request: This is a request for

reinstatement of an informationcollection that was previously approvedby the Office of Management andBudget.

Abstract: The agency will analyze thecollected data to evaluate visitor use ofrecreational sites to determine the lawenforcement, cleaning, maintenance,inspection personnel, and other staffingneeds at these recreational sites. TheForest Service also will use thecollected information to trackdemographic data (such as a visitor’slength of stay at a specific recreationalsite, a visitor’s recreational activities ofchoice, or the recreational sites mostfrequented) and to ensure that visitorson National Forest System recreationalsites comply with the agency’s feepayment policies and regulations at 36CFR, 261.15.

Visitors pick up self-service feeenvelopes at recreational sites thatcharge fees, such as campgrounds orother facilities. The visitors completethe blocks of information requested andplace the money in the envelope, whichthey deposit in a secure collection boxor fee tube, generally located at theentrance to the site. As part of the feecollection process, the Forest Serviceasks visitors to provide the followinginformation: the amount of moneyenclosed, the number of days for whichthey paid, the date and time period forwhich they paid, their vehicle licenseplate number, the State in which theylive, their camp unit number, thenumber of people in their party, andtheir planned date of departure. Theenvelope also asks for comments onhow the Forest Service can improve thefacilities or services at the site. The

agency will use the collected data toevaluate accessibility for all visitorsbased on actual reported need ratherthan agency personnel assumptions. Forexample, visitors could report that theywere unable to get a wheelchair to apicnic table or restroom or that signsweren’t available in braille.

To determine the estimate of burden,six Forest Service employees wererequested to pick up fee envelopes at aForest Service campground, read thedirections, complete the form, place thefee in the envelope, deposit theenvelope in a fee tube, and place thestubs on their dashboards. The estimateof burden is based on the average timeit took the six employees to completethe fee-payment process.

Data collected in this informationcollection is not available from othersources.

Estimate of Burden: 3 minutes.Type of Respondents: Individuals and

groups using National Forests andGrasslands recreational sites at whichfees are collected.

Estimated Number of Respondents:400,000. This estimate is based on thenumber of fee envelopes that are printedand placed in recreational sites annually(500,000).

Estimated Number of Responses perRespondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Burden onRespondents: 20,000 hours.

Comment Is InvitedThe agency invites comments on the

following: (a) Whether the proposedcollection of information is necessaryfor the stated purposes and the properperformance of the functions of theagency, including whether theinformation will have practical orscientific utility; (b) the accuracy of theagency’s estimate of the burden of theproposed collection of information,including the validity of themethodology and assumptions used; (c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, andclarity of the information to becollected; and (d) ways to minimize theburden of the collection of informationon respondents, including the use ofautomated, electronic, mechanical, orother technological collectiontechniques or other forms of informationtechnology.

Use of CommentAll comments received in response to

this notice, including name and address

VerDate 18-JUN-99 14:00 Jul 23, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A26JY3.103 pfrm12 PsN: 26JYN1

40336 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 142 / Monday, July 26, 1999 / Notices

when provided, will become a matter ofpublic record. Comments also will besummarized and included in the requestfor Office of Management and Budgetapproval.

Dated: June 21, 1999.Janette S. Kaiser,Acting Associate Deputy Chief, NFS.[FR Doc. 99–18948 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3410–11–P


Forest Service

Aquarius Ecosystem RestorationProject; Dixie National Forest, GarfieldCounty, Utah

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.ACTION: Revised notice of intent toprepare an Environmental ImpactStatement. (The original notice of intentwas published on November 16, 1998.)

The Aquarius Ecosystem RestorationProject is hereby being named theGriffin Springs Resource ManagementProject. Comments originally collectedunder the NOI for the AquariusEcosystem Restoration Project will beused for the Griffin Springs ResourceManagement Project.SUMMARY: The Dixie National Forest,Garfield County, Utah, announcedNovember 16, 1998, it’s intent toprepare an Environmental ImpactStatement (EIS) which would analyzemanagement proposals within theAquarius Ecosystem Restoration Project.Because a portion of the area has beenaffected by 36 CFR part 212,Administration of the ForestDevelopment Transportation System:Temporary Suspension of RoadConstruction and Reconstruction inUnroaded Areas, and there are existingroadless areas within the project area, itdoes not appear to be feasible to makedecisions affecting that portion of thearea at this time. For these reasons, theproject area will be divided into smallerdecision blocks. The first area that willbe decided upon will be the GriffinSprings Resource Management Project.

Comments that were received duringthe initial scoping period will be usedin this analysis, and an EnvironmentalImpact Statement will be prepared.Analysis and disclosure on the otherdecision areas will be made at laterdates. The responsible official for thisdecision will be the Forest Supervisor,Dixie National Forest. The DEIS isexpected to be available for review byOctober 1, 1999.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Cindy Calbaum, Interdisciplinary Team

Leader (435) 826–5400, EscalanteRanger District, PO Box 246, Escalante,Utah, 84726.

Dated: July 13, 1999.Mary Wagner,Forest Supervisor, Dixie National Forest.[FR Doc. 99–18944 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3410–11–M


Bureau of Export Administration

Technical Advisory Committees;Notice of Recruitment of Private-SectorMembers

SUMMARY: Six Technical AdvisoryCommittees (TACs) advise theDepartment of Commerce on thetechnical parameters for export controlsapplicable to dual-use commodities andtechnology and on the administration ofthose controls. The TACs are composedof representatives from industry andGovernment representing diverse pointsof view on the concerns of the exportingcommunity. Industry representatives areselected from firms producing a broadrange of goods, technologies, andsoftware presently controlled fornational security, foreign policy, non-proliferation, and short supply reasonsor that are proposed for such controls,balanced to the extent possible amonglarge and small firms.

TAC members are appointed by theSecretary of Commerce and serve termsof not more than four consecutive years.The membership reflects theDepartment’s commitment to attainingbalance and diversity. TAC membersmust obtain secret-level clearances priorto appointment. These clearances arenecessary so that members can bepermitted access to the classifiedinformation needed to formulaterecommendations to the Department ofCommerce. Each TAC meetsapproximately 4 times per year.Members of the committees will not becompensated for their services.

The six TACs are responsible foradvising the Department of Commerceon the technical parameters for exportcontrols and the administration of thosecontrols within the following areas:Information Systems TAC: Control ListCategories 3 (electronics—semiconductor section), 4 (computers),and 5 (telecommunications andinformation security); Materials TAC:Control List Category 1 (materials,chemicals, microorganisms, and toxins);Materials Processing Equipment TAC:Control List Category 2 (materialsprocessing); Regulations and ProceduresTAC: the Export Administration

Regulations (EAR) and procedures forimplementing the EAR; Sensors andInstrumentation TAC: Control ListCategories 3 (electronics—instrumentation section) and 6 (sensorsand lasers); Transportation and RelatedEquipment TAC: Control List Categories7 (navigation and avionics), 8 (marinetechnology), and 9 (propulsion systems,space vehicles, and related equipment).

To respond to this recruitment notice,please send a copy of your resume.Materials may be faxed to the numberbelow.DEADLINE: This Notice of Recruitmentwill be open for one year from date ofpublication in the Federal Register.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.Lee Ann Carpenter on (202) 482–2583.Materials may be faxed to (202) 501–8024, to the attention of Ms. Lee AnnCarpenter.

Dated: July 8, 1999.Iain S. Baird,Deputy Assistant Secretary for ExportAdministration.[FR Doc. 99–19017 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510–33–M


International Trade Administration

[A–412–810; C–412–811—A–428–811; C–428–812]

Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth CarbonSteel Products from Germany and theUnited Kingdom; Negative FinalDeterminations of Circumvention ofAntidumping and Countervailing DutyOrders

AGENCY: Import Administration,International Trade Administration,Department of Commerce.ACTION: Notice of Negative FinalDeterminations of Circumvention ofAntidumping and Countervailing DutyOrders.

SUMMARY: On May 1, 1998, theDepartment of Commerce publishedpreliminary negative determinations ofcircumvention of the antidumping andcountervailing duty orders on hot-rolledlead and bismuth carbon steel productsfrom Germany and the United Kingdom.

We provided interested parties anopportunity to comment on thepreliminary negative determinations.After our analysis of the case andrebuttal briefs, we have determined thatimports into the United States of leadedsteel billets that were exported fromGermany and the United Kingdom donot constitute circumvention of theantidumping and countervailing duty


40337Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 142 / Monday, July 26, 1999 / Notices

orders on hot-rolled lead and bismuthcarbon steel products from Germanyand the United Kingdom, within themeaning of section 781(a) of the TariffAct of 1930, as amended.EFFECTIVE DATE: July 26, 1999.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Russell Morris or Richard Herring,Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, OfficeVI, Group II, Import Administration,International Trade Administration,U.S. Department of Commerce, 14thStreet and Constitution Avenue, NW,Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202)482–2786.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, allcitations to the statute are references tothe provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930(the Act), as amended, by the UruguayRound Agreements Act (URAA),effective January 1, 1995. In addition,unless otherwise indicated, allreferences to the Department’sregulations are to 19 C.F.R. Parts 353and 355 (1997).

Background

On March 22, 1993, the Department ofCommerce (the Department) publishedin the Federal Register the antidumpingduty (AD) orders (58 FR 15334) andcountervailing duty (CVD) orders (58 FR15325, 15327) on hot-rolled lead andbismuth carbon steel products (hot-rolled lead bar) from Germany and theUnited Kingdom. On April 14, 1997, theDepartment received an application(amended on May 14, 1997) filed byInland Steel Bar Company and USS/KOBE Steel Company (the petitioners)requesting that the Department conductanticircumvention inquiries of the ADand CVD orders on lead bar fromGermany and the United Kingdompursuant to section 781(a) of the Act.The petitioners alleged that theprincipal German (Saarstahl A.G. i.K.and Thyssen Stahl A.G.) and British(British Steel plc) producers of lead barare circumventing their respectiveorders by shipping leaded-steel billets(lead billets) to the United States, wherethey are easily and inexpensivelyconverted into the lead bar productscovered by the orders.

Pursuant to the petitioners’application and in accordance with 19C.F.R. 353.29(e) and 355.29(e), theDepartment initiated circumventioninquiries of the AD and CVD orders onhot-rolled lead bar from Germany andthe United Kingdom (62 FR 34213; June25, 1997).

In conducting the inquiries, werequested and received detailed

information on a range of topics, suchas processing, pricing, and conversioncosts. We also collected data on patternsof trade, sourcing patterns, and othertrend data for the period January 1, 1991through June 30, 1997, for the UnitedKingdom proceeding and January 1,1988 through June 30, 1997, for theGerman proceeding.

The preliminary determination in thisinvestigation was issued on April 23,1998. See Hot-Rolled Lead and BismuthCarbon Steel Products from Germanyand the United Kingdom; NegativePreliminary Determinations ofCircumvention of Antidumping andCountervailing Duty Orders, 63 FR24156 (May 1, 1998) (PreliminaryDetermination).

In May 1998, we verified theresponses of two of the re-rollers,American Steel & Wire and RepublicEngineered Steels. We followedstandard verification procedures,including meeting with companyofficials, and examination of relevantaccounting records and original sourcedocuments. Our verification results areoutlined in detail in the verificationreports, which are on file in publicversion form in the Central RecordsUnit, Room B–099, of the CommerceDepartment.

In May 1998, the petitioners requestedthat the Department hold a publichearing on these circumventioninquiries. Based upon their request ahearing was held on July 29, 1998. Caseand rebuttal briefs were filed by theinterested parties prior to the hearing.Comments raised by the interestedparties in their respective case andrebuttal briefs are addressed in the‘‘Analysis of Comments Received’’section of this notice.

Scope of AD and CVD OrdersImports covered by these orders

include hot-rolled bars and rod of non-alloy or other alloy steel, whether or notdescaled, containing by weight 0.03percent of lead or 0.05 percent ofbismuth, in coils or cut lengths, and innumerous shapes and sizes. The orderexcludes ‘‘other alloy steels,’’ as definedby Chapter 72, note 1(f) of theHarmonized Tariff Schedule of theUnited States (HTSUS), ‘‘except steelsclassified as other alloy steel by reasonof containing by weight 0.4 percent ormore of lead or 0.1 percent or more ofbismuth, tellurium or selenium.’’ Mostof the products covered are provided forunder subheadings 7213.20.00.00 and7214.30.00.00 of the HTSUS. Smallquantities of these products may alsoenter the United States under thefollowing HTSUS subheadings:7213.31.30.00, 60.00; 7213.39.00.30,

00.60, 00.90; 7214.40.00.10, 00.30,00.50; 7214.50.00.10, 00.30, 00.50;7214.60.00.10, 00.30, 00.50; and7228.30.80.00. Although the HTSUSsubheadings are provided forconvenience and for customs purposes,the written description of the scope ofthe order remains dispositive.

Scope of the Circumvention InquiriesThe products subject to these

circumvention inquiries are carbon oralloy steel billets containing 0.03percent or more of lead or 0.05 percentor more of bismuth (the only acceptedmetallurgical equivalent to lead), andother alloy steel billets by reason ofcontaining by weight 0.4 percent ormore of lead or 0.1 percent or more ofbismuth, tellurium or selenium, thatmeet the chemical requirements for themerchandise subject to the orders.

Facts AvailableSection 776(a)(2) of the Act requires

the Department to use facts available if‘‘an interested party or any other person* * * withholds information that hasbeen requested by the administeringauthority * * * under this title.’’ Thefacts on the record show that Bar Techdid not comply with the Department’srequests for information required tocalculate the value of the processingperformed in the United States. In ourinitial questionnaire dated September10, 1997, the Department requestedinformation regarding the total amountof lead billet consumed in theproduction of one unit of lead bar (leadbillet consumption rate). Bar Techresponded to our questionnaire onOctober 29, 1997, but did not provide itslead billet consumption rate.

The Department’s supplementalquestionnaires dated November 18,1997 and January 7, 1998, againrequested that Bar Tech report its leadbillet consumption rate. Bar Tech,however, did not provide its lead billetconsumption rate to the Department.

Section 776(b) of the Act permits theadministering authority to use aninference that is adverse to the interestsof an interested party if that party has‘‘failed to cooperate by not acting to thebest of its ability to comply with arequest for information.’’ Such anadverse inference may include relianceon information derived from (1) thepetition, (2) a final determination in theinvestigation under this title, (3) anyprevious review under section 751 ordetermination under section 753regarding the country underconsideration, or (4) any otherinformation placed on the record.Because Bar Tech did not comply withthe Department’s requests to provide its



lead billet consumption rate, we findthat Bar Tech failed to cooperate by notacting to the best of its ability to complywith the Department’s informationrequests. Therefore, we are usingadverse inferences in accordance withsection 776(b) of the Act. In making anadverse inference for Bar Tech’s leadbillet consumption rate, the Departmenthas used the highest average lead billetconsumption rate submitted by anotherU.S. re-roller participating in theseinquiries. Corroboration of this data isnot necessary because this informationis not considered secondaryinformation. See Statement ofAdministrative Action (SAA)accompanying the URAA, H.Doc. 103–316, Vol. 1, at 870 (1994).

Nature of the Circumvention InquirySection 781(a)(1) of the Act provides

that the Department, after taking intoaccount any advice provided by theUnited States International TradeCommission (ITC) under section 781(e),may include the imported merchandiseunder review within the scope of anorder if the following criteria have beenmet:

A. The merchandise sold in theUnited States is of the same class orkind as any other merchandise that isthe subject of—

(i) an antidumping duty order issuedunder section 736,

(ii) a finding issued under theAntidumping Act, 1921, or

(iii) a countervailing duty orderissued under section 706 or section 303;

B. Such merchandise sold in theUnited States is completed or assembledin the United States from parts orcomponents produced in the foreigncountry with respect to which suchorder or finding applies;

C. The process of assembly orcompletion in the United States isminor or insignificant; and

D. The value of the parts orcomponents [produced in the foreigncountry with respect to which the orderapplies], is a significant portion of thetotal value of the merchandise.

If one of the four elements does notapply, there can be no finding ofcircumvention. However, even if all fourof these criteria are met, the Act requiresthat the Department also consideradditional factors. Section 781(a)(3) ofthe Act directs the Department toconsider, in determining whether toinclude parts or components producedin a foreign country within the scope ofan AD and CVD order, such factors as:(A) the pattern of trade, includingsourcing patterns; (B) whether themanufacturer or exporter of the parts orcomponents is affiliated with the person

who assembles or completes themerchandise sold in the United Statesfrom the parts or components producedin the foreign country; and (C) whetherimports into the United States of theparts or components produced in suchforeign country have increased after theinitiation of the investigation whichresulted in the issuance of such order orfinding.

U.S. Re-Rollers

We requested information from U.S.re-rollers with respect to thesecircumvention inquiries. Informationwas submitted by the following five U.S.re-rollers: (1) American Steel & Wire(AS&W), a wholly-owned subsidiary ofBirmingham Steel Corporation; (2) BarTech; (3) Nucor Steel Corporation(Nucor); (4) Republic Engineered Steels(Republic); and (5) Sheffield SteelCorporation (Sheffield). Based upon ouranalysis of the information submitted bythe foreign respondents and the U.S. re-rollers, we have determined that noaffiliation exists between the U.S. re-rollers and the foreign respondents, asdefined in section 771(33) of the Act. Adetermination with respect to sections781(a)(1) and (2) of the Act is basedsolely on the processing of lead billetsinto hot-rolled lead bar by theseunaffiliated U.S. re-rollers. The rollingfacilities owned by each of the U.S. re-rollers, except Bar Tech, were inoperation before the initiation of therespective AD and CVD investigations ofhot-rolled lead bar from Germany andthe United Kingdom. Bar Tech wasestablished after the issuance of the ADand CVD orders when Bar Techpurchased Bethlehem Steel’s Bar, Rod &Wire (BRW) facilities in Lackawanna,New York in 1994. Bethlehem Steel, aformer roller of lead billet into hot-rolled lead bar, was one of the originalpetitioners in the lead barinvestigations.

Much of the information provided bythe U.S. re-rollers is proprietary.Therefore, in most instances, theinformation used in our analysis belowhas been ranged, and our discussion ofthis information has been generalized inorder to maintain the proprietarytreatment of submitted information. Inaddition, for most of the U.S. re-rollers,the source of their imported lead billetsupply is also proprietary. Therefore,the analysis below refers to importsfrom both Germany and the UnitedKingdom.

Statutory Analysis

(1) Whether the Class or Kind ofMerchandise Is Sold in the UnitedStates

AS&W, Bar Tech, Republic, andSheffield sell hot-rolled lead bar in theUnited States. Nucor processes leadbillets into hot-rolled lead bar, whichthe company further processes intocold-finished products.

(2) Whether Merchandise Sold in theUnited States is Completed orAssembled in the United States fromForeign Parts or Components

All of the U.S. re-rollers purchase leadbillets from one or more of the foreignrespondents subject to the AD and CVDorders. They each use the lead billets toproduce hot-rolled lead bar in theUnited States.

(3) Whether the Process of Assembly orCompletion is Minor or Insignificant

Section 781(a)(2) lists the factors theDepartment will consider indetermining whether the process ofassembly or completion is minor orinsignificant. The SAA states that nosingle factor listed in section 781(a)(2)of the Act will be controlling. SAA at893. The SAA also states that theDepartment will evaluate each of thefactors as they exist in the United Statesdepending on the particularcircumvention scenario. Id. Therefore,the importance of any one of the factorslisted under 781(a)(2) of the Act canvary from case to case depending on theparticular circumstances unique to eachspecific circumvention inquiry. Asdiscussed below, each of the factors setforth in section 781(a)(2) of the Act isexamined below for the U.S. re-rollers.

(a) The Level of Investment in theUnited States

The rolling facilities owned by each ofthe U.S. re-rollers were in operationbefore the initiation of the respectiveAD and CVD investigations of hot-rolledlead bar from Germany and the UnitedKingdom. Although Bar Tech did notexist before the initiation of theinvestigations, the facility producingsubject merchandise that is operated bythe company does pre-date theinvestigations. Each of the U.S. re-rollers has made substantial capitalinvestments in its respective rollingmills.

AS&W entered the hot-rolled lead barmarket in 1986, with its purchase ofrolling facilities from U.S. Steel. In1993, Birmingham Steel acquired AS&Wand entered the specialty bar, rod, andwire products business. In 1996,Birmingham Steel invested $132 million



in a new high-quality rolling mill atAS&W’s Cleveland, Ohio facility,enabling the company to produce larger-sized bar products and bars with tightersize tolerances and more stringentmechanical properties. AS&W primarilyproduces nonlead hot-rolled bars, andless than a quarter of the mills’production utilizes lead billets. AS&Wsells the hot-rolled lead bar that itproduces to unaffiliated customers.

Bar Tech came into existence in 1994,with the purchase of Bethlehem Steel’sBRW facilities for $19 million. From1994 through 1997, Bar Tech madeadditional investments in the rollingfacilities’ buildings, machinery, andequipment. In April 1996, Bar Techacquired Bliss & Laughlin (B&L), thelargest cold-finishing company in theUnited States. In September 1997, BarTech announced plans to invest $30million in its steelmaking facilities.Approximately half of the investment isallocated for the production of lead andnonlead semi-finished steels at itsJohnstown meltshop. The majority ofthe remaining investment is designatedfor equipment upgrades at its 13-inchrolling mill in Lackawanna, New Yorkto roll both lead and nonlead billets.

Nucor’s steel mill in Darlington,South Carolina became operational as anew steel mill in 1969. Prior to 1991,Nucor added a high-speed rolling line toits mill. The addition of such equipmentallows for automatic straightening,shearing, stacking, and bundling of bar,and has significantly enhanced Nucor’sability to produce hot-rolled lead andnonlead bar from lead and nonleadbillets. Since 1991, Nucor has madeseveral investments for a variety ofimprovements.

In November 1989, Republic wascreated through an employee stockownership plan with the purchase ofLTV’s Bar Division. With the purchasedsteelmaking facilities, Republic gainedthe ability to produce lead and nonleadingots, and hot-rolled and cold-finishedbar products. Republic currentlyproduces lead billets via the ingotprocess in a shared facility; however,the quantity it can produce is restrictedby environmental permit limits. Duringthe 1990’s, Republic invested in theconstruction of a continuous castingfacility which has the capability toproduce both lead and nonlead billets;however, Republic currently onlyproduces nonlead billets at the facility.

Sheffield was established in the early1980’s, with the purchase of the SandSprings, Oklahoma meltshop and rollingfacility in 1981, and the construction ofthe Kansas City, Missouri rolling facilityin 1985. In 1986, Sheffield purchased a12-inch rolling mill facility in Joliet,

Illinois from Continental Steel for $3.5million. This rolling mill was originallyinstalled around 1957. Since acquiringthe Joliet mill in 1986, Sheffield hasmade additional investments ofapproximately $6 million in the facility,which is the company’s only rollingmill which produces hot-rolled lead bar.Sheffield entered the hot-rolled lead barmarket in 1992.

(b) The Level of Research andDevelopment (R&D) in the United States

Four of the five re-rollers had little orno R&D related to the production of hot-rolled lead bar. One U.S. re-rollerreported that it conducted some R&Dwith respect to the development ofheating, rolling and inspection practicesused in the production of leaded steels.The U.S. re-rollers reported that therehave been few technologicalbreakthroughs affecting leaded steelssince 1991. Because the rolling of hot-rolled lead bar is a technically matureprocess, R&D is not a significant factorin this industry.

(c) The Nature of the Production Processin the United States

The ITC states that the manufacturingprocess for the production of hot-rolledlead bar consists of three differentstages: (1) melting, (2) casting, and (3)hot-rolling. See Certain Hot-Rolled Leadand Bismuth Carbon Steel ProductsFrom Brazil, France, and the UnitedKingdom, Final Determinations of theCommission in Investigations Nos. 701–TA–314 thru 317, USITC Publication2611 (March 1993). Lead billets arecreated during the second stage; the U.S.re-rollers perform the third and finalstage in the manufacturing process ofhot-rolled lead bar.

Each of the U.S. re-rollers are fullyoperational hot-rolled lead and nonleadbar producers, manufacturing bar in alike manner. The nature of the processoverall consists of a series of steps forthe purpose of sizing and shaping thelead billets to produce specific sizedand shaped hot-rolled bar on rollingequipment used to manufacture eitherhot-rolled lead or nonlead bars. Therolling process does not requireequipment devoted exclusively to theproduction of hot-rolled lead bar. Threeof the five re-rollers also have cold-finishing operations to further processthe hot-rolled lead bar. In the cold-finishing process, the bar undergoessurface treatments in the form ofpolishing, turning, grinding, andstraightening.

The process for producing hot-rolledlead bar from lead billets is as follows.First, the lead billets are placed in a re-heat furnace and heated to a

temperature usually above 2200 degreesFahrenheit. This heating procedureincreases the malleability of the steel,reducing energy consumption and wearon the rolling mill. Once the lead billetsreach the necessary temperature,walking beams gradually dischargethem from the re-heat furnace onto therolling lines. The lead billets are thenrolled on a series of rolling mills,including roughing, intermediate, andfinishing mills. Each rolling mill has aseries of stands which compress andshape the lead billets with each passthrough. As a lead billet passes throughthe stands, it becomes elongated and itscross-section becomes smaller. Thisprocess transforms a lead billet into ahot-rolled lead bar product having aspecific size and shape. Generally fourto 15 percent of a lead billet’s weight islost in the rolling process.

The hot-rolled lead bar is then placedon a hot bed and cooled to atemperature of about 800 degreesFahrenheit. Once cooled, the hot-rolledlead bar undergoes straightening, non-destructive testing, deburring, and sawcutting. The hot-rolled lead bar is eithercoiled or cut into various lengths at thefinishing shear. At this stage, some re-rollers apply a surface treatment toclean and coat their products. Afterbeing inspected for straightness, length,and defects, the hot-rolled lead bars areweighed, packaged, and placed in thewarehouse for later shipment.

There are environmental issues andlimitations in rolling lead billets versusnonlead billets. Environmental controls,worker safety, and health regulations aremore stringent for lead than for nonleadgrades. For instance, additionalventilation of exhaust fumes isnecessary as lead and bismuth steelwastes are classified as hazardouswaste, necessitating their segregationand separate treatment from other scrap.Specialized safety equipment and morerigorous operating procedures must alsobe used in compliance withOccupational Safety and HealthAdministration (OSHA) standards.

(d) The Extent of Production Facilitiesin the United States

In general, each of the U.S. re-rollershas production facilities in variousstates throughout the United States, butthe rolling of hot-rolled lead bar mainlytakes place in Illinois, Ohio, Utah,South Carolina, and New York. As wehave noted earlier, most of the U.S. re-rollers were rolling lead billets into hot-rolled lead bar before the initiation ofthe AD and CVD investigations of hot-rolled lead bar from Germany and theUnited Kingdom.



In analyzing the extent of productionfacilities, we considered the squarefootage of building space dedicated torolling lead billet into hot-rolled leadbar, the number of employees involvedin rolling the lead billets, and thecapital equipment used in theproduction of hot-rolled lead bar.Sheffield, for example, reported that itsJoliet rolling facility encompasses334,305 square feet for the processing oflead billet into hot-rolled lead bar.

With regard to the number and levelof skilled employees involved in rollinglead billets into hot-rolled lead bar,Sheffield, for example, reported that inthe production process of hot-rolledlead bar, from the time the lead billetsare received in the billet yard to thetime that hot-rolled lead bar is shippedto a customer, there are 25 skilledworkers responsible for the rolling of alead billet into hot-rolled lead bar, andall of the other ancillary functions.

With respect to the capital equipmentused in the processing of lead billet intohot-rolled lead bar, the U.S. re-rollershave invested a substantial amount ofmoney not only in the construction offactory buildings used in rollingoperations for both lead and nonleadproducts, but also in the purchase ofsophisticated machinery required toproduce hot-rolled bar from lead andnonlead billets, and in the maintenancerequired for such machinery.

(e) Whether the Value of the ProcessingPerformed in the United StatesRepresents a Small Proportion of theValue of the Merchandise Sold in theUnited States

We calculated the difference in valuebetween the hot-rolled lead bar sold inthe United States and the value of thelead billets purchased from the foreignrespondents that were used in theproduction of that merchandise. ForAS&W, BarTech, Republic, andSheffield, we based our calculation ofvalue added to the merchandise sold inthe United States on the differencebetween the delivered lead billet importprice and the ex-factory sales price ofthe hot-rolled lead bar. Thismethodology was used because bothtransactions (lead billet purchases andhot-rolled lead bar sales) were salesbetween unaffiliated parties. To derivethe value of processing performed byeach U.S. re-roller, we subtracted fromthe ex-factory sales price of hot-rolledlead bar to unaffiliated customers thedelivered price of lead billets, afteradjusting for a yield factor (to accountfor additional lead billet consumed inthe production of one unit of hot-rolledlead bar).

In regard to Nucor, because thecompany uses all the hot-rolled lead barthat it produces to further manufacturecold-finished products, we applied adifferent value-added methodology. Webased our calculation of value-added onthe comparison between the conversionfee Nucor’s rolling mill charged itsaffiliated cold-finisher and the resultingtotal input cost of hot-rolled lead bar tothe cold-finisher, after adjusting both fora yield factor (to account for additionallead billet consumed in the productionof one unit of hot-rolled lead bar).

Some of the U.S. re-rollers purchasedlead billets from all three suppliers oflead billets subject to these inquiries,while others purchased exclusivelyfrom one source. Some of the U.S. re-rollers, however, were unable to identifythe supplier of lead billets on atransaction-specific basis with respect tothe U.S. sales of the processed hot-rolled lead bar. Therefore, for each U.S.re-roller, the calculation of value-addedis based upon a weighted-average priceof imported lead billet from the foreignrespondent(s) from whom the U.S. re-roller purchased its lead billets. Becausethe processing of the imported leadbillet into hot-rolled lead bar is virtuallyidentical regardless of the source of theimported lead billet, we consider thisweighted-average, non-supplier specificcalculation of value-added to beappropriate in those instances.However, where possible, we used thesupplier-specific information tocalculate the value-added to eachsupplier.

The value of processing performed inthe United States ranges fromapproximately 10 percent to 29 percentfor the U.S. re-rollers. The relative valueof processing varies because of the leadbillet prices charged by the foreignrespondents to the U.S. re-rollers, theU.S. re-roller’s yield factor for rollingone unit of lead billet into one unit ofhot-rolled lead bar, and the differentprices charged by the U.S. re-rollers totheir customers due to size and shape ofthe hot-rolled lead bar. Because thecalculation of the value of processing isbased upon proprietary data, the value-added percentages presented above havebeen ranged.

(4) Whether the Value of Imported Partsis a Significant Portion of Value of LeadBar

Under section 781(a)(1)(D) of the Act,the value of the imported parts orcomponents must be a significantportion of the total value of the subjectmerchandise sold in the United Statesin order to find circumvention. Theimported lead billet is the sole materialinput into the completed hot-rolled lead

bar and a significant portion of the valueof the completed hot-rolled lead bar isfor this material cost.

Other Factors To ConsiderIn making a determination whether to

include parts or components within anorder, section 781(a)(3) of the Actinstructs us to take into account suchfactors as: the pattern of trade, includingsourcing patterns; whether affiliationexists between the exporter of the partsand the person who assembles orcompletes the merchandise sold in theUnited States; and whether imports intothe United States of the parts producedin the foreign country have increasedafter the initiation of the investigationwhich resulted in the issuance of theorder. Each of these factors areexamined below.

(1) Pattern of Trade And SourcingThe first factor to consider under

section 781(a)(3) is changes in thepattern of trade, including changes inthe sourcing patterns of the lead billets.SAA at 894. Unlike our examination ofthe processing of lead billets into hot-rolled lead bar in the United States,which was essentially the same for allof the U.S. re-rollers, there aredifferences in the pattern of trade amongthe U.S. re-rollers and the three foreignrespondents (British Steel, Thyssen, andSaarstahl). Among the foreignrespondents, British Steel and Thyssenare the two largest lead billet exportersto the United States. In comparison,Saarstahl is a small exporter of leadbillets.

British Steel began selling lead billetsto the United States in 1994. By 1996,the company’s lead billet sales doubled.British Steel’s sales of hot-rolled leadbar peaked in 1992, declined in 1993and 1994, rebounded in 1995, andcontinued to trend upwards in 1996. Ingeneral, sales of hot-rolled lead bar byBritish Steel have greatly exceeded itssales of lead billets to the U.S. market(despite the AD and CVD orders).British Steel’s sales of hot-rolled leadbar in the U.S. market have remainedsubstantial since the imposition of theorders. In fact, Sheffield reported that itsprimary competition for hot-rolled leadbar shapes is imports from British Steel.

Thyssen has been selling lead billetsto the United States since 1988, wellbefore the Department initiated its hot-rolled lead bar investigations in May1992. Thyssen’s lead billet shipments tothe United States increased steadilyfrom 1991 to 1996, peaking in 1996,while its hot-rolled lead bar sales to theU.S. market terminated in 1992.Thyssen has stated that lead billets, andnot hot-rolled lead bar, have always



been its primary U.S. market, and thepattern of trade for both productsindicates this to be accurate.

Saarstahl began selling lead billets tothe United States in 1992, the last yearthe steelmaker sold hot-rolled lead barto U.S. customers. Saarstahl’s exports oflead billets to the United States peakedin 1993, and since then havesignificantly decreased.

AS&W has been purchasing leadbillets since its inception in 1986.AS&W reported that since 1992, thecompany has sourced lead billets fromboth foreign and domestic suppliers. Amajor change in the company’s sourcingwas the termination of a billet supplyagreement (inclusive of lead andnonlead billets) with USS/KOBE. WhenBirmingham Steel purchased AS&W in1993, there was a lead billet supplyagreement in effect with USS/LorainWorks, which subsequently becameUSS/KOBE. USS/KOBE terminated thesupply agreement in 1996, citing a lackof lead billet availability. With thetermination of this supply agreement,AS&W was no longer able to source leadbillets domestically.

Bar Tech began purchasing leadbillets in 1996. Bar Tech has notsourced lead billets from domesticproducers. Bar Tech never purchasedlead bar from the foreign respondents.

Nucor did not begin purchasing leadbillets until 1992, when the companybegan sourcing from foreignrespondents. Purchases from the foreignrespondents have been generallydeclining. Nucor had previouslypurchased hot-rolled lead bar fromforeign sources.

Republic’s predecessor beganpurchasing lead billets from foreignsources in the mid-80’s. Since becomingan independent company in 1989,Republic has continued to source itslead billets from foreign sources tosupplement its own production.Republic has not purchased lead billetsfrom domestic producers. The companydid purchase hot-rolled lead bar fromforeign sources in the early 1990’s;however, since 1993, Republic hassourced hot-rolled lead bar exclusivelyfrom domestic suppliers.

Sheffield has sourced lead billets fromboth domestic and foreign producerssince it began purchasing lead billets in1992. Throughout much of 1993,Sheffield sourced lead billets fromInland; however, by late 1993, Inlandstopped its external sales of lead billetsciting its own internal lead billetconsumption needs. In June 1995,Inland was again in a position to supplylead billets. Sheffield placed orders withInland, but by the fourth quarter of1995, Inland once again stopped selling

lead billets. Since 1996, Sheffield hassourced lead billets from abroad.

(2) AffiliationThe second factor to consider under

section 781(a)(3) of the Act is whetherthe manufacturer or exporter of the leadbillets is affiliated with the entity thatassembles or completes the merchandisesold in the United States from theimported lead billets. In thesecircumvention inquiries, theDepartment inquired whether affiliationexisted between the U.S. re-roller andthe foreign respondents, pursuant tosection 771(33) of the Act. Based uponour analysis of the information on therecord, including the questionnaireresponses from both the U.S. re-rollersand the foreign respondents, we findthat no affiliation exists between theparties. There is no common ownership,direct or indirect, between the U.S. re-rollers and the foreign suppliers of leadbillets, or a joint venture between thecompanies. Further, there are no facts(e.g., close supplier relationship) thatsuggest control of any of the re-rollersby the foreign respondents. In sum, wehave found no evidence to indicate thatthe foreign respondents have attemptedeither to purchase or to construct re-rolling facilities in the United Stateswhich would allow them to import leadbillet and process it into hot-rolled leadbar for their own use.

(3) Whether Imports Have IncreasedThe third factor to consider under

section 781(a)(3) is whether imports oflead billets into the United States haveincreased after the initiation of the hot-rolled lead bar investigations. Therefore,we have analyzed the level of importsof lead billets from both Germany andthe United Kingdom since 1992, theyear in which the AD and CVDinvestigations of hot-rolled lead barwere initiated. While we find thatimports of lead billets have increasedfrom all three foreign respondents, thereare reasons beyond the initiation of theAD and CVD investigations to explaintheir rise.

According to some of the U.S. re-rollers, there has been a switch fromdomestically produced lead billets toforeign-sourced lead billets becauseInland and USS/KOBE have not met thelead billet supply needs of the U.S.market. In addition, there were two newentrants to the hot-rolled lead barmarket after the initiation of the hot-rolled lead bar investigations thatrequired supplies of lead billet.Sheffield entered into the hot-rolledlead bar market after Bethlehem Steelexited the market in 1992. Two yearslater, Bar Tech entered the hot-rolled

lead bar market after purchasingBethlehem’s rolling facilities.Bethlehem Steel, one of the originalpetitioners in the hot-rolled lead barinvestigations, produced its own leadbillets; however, neither Sheffield norBar Tech currently have lead billetproduction and thus, must source theirlead billets from other outside sources.

Further, according to the ITC, in theUnited States almost all semifinishedsteel such as blooms, billets, and slabsare used in captive production offinished steel products. Steelprocessors, such as the U.S. re-rollers,are an important outlet for excesssemifinished steel productsmanufactured by steel producers. In therelatively limited semifinished steelmarket, the consumer is also likely to bethe supplier’s competitor in sales offinished steel. See USITC Publication2758, Industry & Trade SummarySemifinished Steel (March 1994) 3, 5,and 11. Because the consumer of a billetis generally a competitor of the supplier,the dynamics of supply operatedifferently than for finished steelproducts. A steelmaker with excessmelting capacity may have incentive torefrain from selling semifinished steel,such as billets.

It has also been difficult to measurethe rise in imports of lead billets fromGermany and the United Kingdomagainst import trends from othercountries. This is because the primaryHTS number under which lead billetsare imported is a basket category whichincludes other imports of semifinishedproducts of iron or nonalloy steel witha chemical content of under 0.25percent carbon. In its application,Inland and USS/KOBE provided importdata for this HTS category. According tothese data, imports of semifinishedproducts of iron or nonalloy steels fromcountries not subject to AD or CVDorders increased after the initiation ofthe hot-rolled lead bar investigations,and significantly in some cases.

Summary of Statutory AnalysisAs discussed above, in order to make

an affirmative determination ofcircumvention, all the elements undersections 781(a)(1) of the Act must besatisfied, taking into account the factorsunder section 781(a)(2). In addition,section 781(a)(3) of the Act instructs theDepartment to consider, in determiningwhether to include parts or componentswithin the scope of an order, suchfactors as: pattern of trade, affiliation,and whether imports into the UnitedStates of such parts or componentsincreased after the initiation of theinvestigation which resulted in theissuance of the order. When the criteria



of section 781(a)(1), taking into accountthe factors under section 781(a)(2), areapplied to the individual facts, ouranalysis of whether circumvention isoccurring is inconclusive. However,when the evidence to be consideredunder section 781(a)(3) of the Act, isincorporated into our analysis, we findthat all of the evidence, taken as awhole, does not lead us to find a basisfor including lead billets within thescope of the AD and CVD orders on hot-rolled lead bar from Germany and theUnited Kingdom.

Pursuant to sections 781(a)(1) and (2),we find that the processing of leadbillets into hot-rolled lead bar isessentially identical for all of the U.S.re-rollers involved in these inquiries. Adetailed description of the re-rollingprocess is provided above. Though theU.S. re-rollers perform only one of thethree processes needed to produce hot-rolled lead bar, they do perform thefinal process of converting thesemifinished steel product into afunctional finished steel good. Also,because the production process ofconverting lead billets into hot-rolledlead bar is a technically mature process,we did not find significant R&Dexpenditures by the U.S. re-rollers.

The process of rolling lead billet intohot-rolled lead bar requires significantcapital investment in rolling machineryand equipment, and compliance with avariety of OSHA and environmentalregulations. Capital equipment andmachinery used by the U.S. re-rollers,once purchased, installed, andoperational, represent significant fixedplant and equipment which cannot beeasily disassembled and transported toanother location. Investment in re-rolling facilities requires a long-terminvestment of capital, long-termcorporate planning, and a long-termbusiness commitment by the U.S. re-roller.

Pursuant to section 781(a)(3), inreaching our determination, we tookinto consideration the factors of patternof trade, sourcing, affiliation, andimport trends. The facts concerningpattern of trade, sourcing, affiliation,and import trends do not indicate thatthere is circumvention of the hot-rolledlead bar orders. Even if we were toconclude that the value of processingperformed by the U.S. re-rollers in theUnited States is relatively small, whenwe examined sections 781(a)(1) and (2)in conjunction with the factors undersection 781(a)(3), the facts, taken as awhole, do not lead us to find thatcircumvention of the hot-rolled lead barorders is occurring.

Throughout the United States, theU.S. re-rollers have extensive capital-

intensive rolling facilities staffed byskilled workers. As previouslydiscussed, the U.S. re-rollers are notaffiliated with the foreign respondentsand their rolling facilities were inexistence and operational before theinitiation of the hot-rolled lead barinvestigations. Indeed, the petition forthe hot-rolled lead bar investigationswas filed on behalf of two of the fiveU.S. re-rollers, AS&W and Republic. Inaddition, a third U.S. re-roller, Bar Tech,purchased its rolling facilities fromBethlehem Steel, one of the two originalpetitioners in the hot-rolled lead barinvestigations.

Based upon the information on therecord, most of the U.S. re-rollers’investment in rolling facilities in theUnited States was made before theinitiation of the AD and CVDinvestigations of hot-rolled lead barfrom Germany and the United Kingdom.In addition, some of the U.S. re-rollersmade large investments in their rollingmills after 1992, the year in which theinvestigations on hot-rolled lead barbegan. Thus, before and after 1992, U.S.re-rollers made large investments ofcapital and resources into their rollingfacilities. These facts demonstrate thatthere were substantial productionfacilities for converting lead billets intohot-rolled lead bar before the initiationof the hot-rolled lead bar investigations.

Further, as discussed above, BritishSteel remains a large exporter of hot-rolled lead bar to the United States andits bar market in the United States isstill much larger than its U.S. lead billetmarket. Thyssen was primarily a leadbillet exporter to the United Statesbefore 1992, the year the hot-rolled leadbar investigations were initiated. Thatdid not change after the initiation of thehot-rolled lead bar investigations.Saarstahl, which exports a relativelysmall volume of lead billets to theUnited States, is not a major player inthe U.S. lead billet market.

With respect to the U.S. re-rollers,changes in their respective sourcingpatterns after 1992 appear to be due tochanges in the U.S. market, independentof the hot-rolled lead bar investigations.U.S. re-rollers were purchasing leadbillets and rolling them into hot-rolledlead bar before 1992. For example,Republic began purchasing lead billetsin the mid-80’s from foreign sources.New hot-rolled lead bar entrants cameinto the market after the departure ofBethlehem, causing an increase in thedemand for lead billets. WhileBethlehem was able to produce its ownlead billets, the two new entrants, BarTech and Sheffield, have to purchasetheir lead billets from independentsources. In addition, there were also

shifts from domestic to foreign billetsuppliers because the domesticcompanies producing lead billets wereonly able to meet their own internalconsumption needs. As discussedabove, since 1996, both AS&W andSheffield have been forced to sourcelead billets from foreign suppliers as aresult of the termination of their supplyarrangements with USS/KOBE andInland, respectively.

Our analysis demonstrates that theincrease in the importation of leadbillets by the U.S. re-rollers in order toproduce hot-rolled lead bar was due tomany factors above and beyond theimposition of the bar orders. As notedabove, a number of the U.S. re-rollerswere producing hot-rolled lead bar fromforeign lead billet suppliers prior to theorders and continued to produce hot-rolled lead bar after the orders. Inaddition, these unaffiliated U.S. re-rollers invested a substantial amount intheir rolling facilities both before andafter the AD and CVD orders to roll bothlead and nonlead billets into hot-rolledbar.

The facts of these inquiries also showthat the foreign respondents did notchange their product lines in the UnitedStates as a result of the initiation of thehot-rolled lead bar investigations. Asnoted, Thyssen’s primary market in theUnited States has been lead billets sincethe mid-80’s. British Steel, whichcommenced selling lead billets in 1994,continues to export a significant amountof hot-rolled lead bar to the UnitedStates.

Based upon this analysis undersection 781(a) of the Act, we determinethat circumvention of the AD and CVDorders on hot-rolled lead bar is notoccurring by reason of imports of leadbillets from Germany and the UnitedKingdom.

Analysis of Comments Received

We invited interested parties tocomment on the preliminary negativedeterminations of circumvention of hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon steelproducts from Germany and the UnitedKingdom. We received case and rebuttalbriefs from the foreign respondents,British Steel, Saarstahl, Thyssen; two ofthe U.S. re-rollers, Republic andSheffield; and the petitioners, USS/KOBE and Inland Steel Bar Company.All comments and rebuttal argumentsproperly raised by the parties in theirbriefs to the proceeding are discussedbelow.



Comment 1: The Statute Does NotInstruct the Department To EvaluateWhy Imports Into the United StatesHave Increased

The petitioners argue that pursuant tosection 781(a)(3)(C) of the Act, theDepartment will consider whether ‘‘theparts or components produced in suchforeign country have increased after theinitiation of the investigation whichresulted in the issuance of such order orfinding.’’ The petitioners argue that thestatute instructs the Department toconsider whether an increase of the leadbillets have occurred after the initiationof the original investigation withoutevaluating possible reasons for such anincrease before or during theinvestigation period and up to the orderdate.

The petitioners assert that the data onthe record clearly demonstrates that thelevel of imported lead billets into theU.S. market from Germany and theUnited Kingdom has increaseddramatically since the investigations ofhot-rolled lead bar in 1992, whileimports of bars and rods subject to theorders have markedly declined.

The petitioners argue that theDepartment’s reasons for the sharpincrease of lead billets, as stated in thepreliminary determinations, includinggeneral sourcing patterns in the U.S.semifinished steel market, import trendsfrom other countries, and the re-rollers‘‘short supply’’ argument, do not holdup to the facts. Moreover, the petitionersargue that none of the U.S. re-rollers orforeign respondents has alleged thatthere is a shortage of lead billets in theUnited States. The petitioners argue thatnone of the alternate rationales providedby the Department disproves the factthat the imports of lead billets from theUnited Kingdom and Germanyincreased since the investigation andsubsequent orders placed on hot-rolledlead bars in 1992 and 1993,respectively.

The foreign respondents argue thatthe pattern of trade demonstrates thatthe foreign respondents were sellinglead billets to the United States beforethe imposition of the AD and CVDorders on hot-rolled lead bar. Inaddition, the U.S. re-rollersparticipating in these inquiries were inexistence before the imposition of thehot-rolled lead bar orders. Further, theU.S. re-rollers that were in existencebefore the AD and CVD orders on hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon steelproducts had been purchasing leadbillets prior to the AD and CVD orders.

Collectively, the foreign respondentsargue that the individual patterns oftrade for British Steel, Thyssen, and

Saarstahl are vastly different, and do notdemonstrate on their part or the U.S. re-rollers’ part that circumvention of theorders is occurring. For example, BritishSteel argues that its shipments of hot-rolled lead bar to the United States haveand continue to exceed its shipments oflead billets. Thyssen argues that it wasnever a significant exporter of hot-rolledlead bars to the United States. Rather,Thyssen states that it sells significantlygreater quantities of lead billets tounrelated companies throughout theworld, including the United States, thanhot-rolled lead bars. Additionally,Thyssen notes that prior to the certainhot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon steelproducts from Brazil, France, Germanyand the United Kingdom investigations,it sold lead billets to the United Statesin significantly greater quantities thanits sales of hot-rolled lead bar. Saarstahlargues that its sales of lead billets to theUnited States have significantlydeclined since peaking in 1993.

Both the foreign respondents and U.S.re-rollers argue that, because four of thefive U.S. re-rollers participating in theseproceedings either do not currentlyproduce lead billets themselves, or cannot produce sufficient quantities of leadbillets to meet their requirements, areliable source of lead billet supply isnecessary. The U.S. re-rollers, as well asthe foreign respondents, stress that thereason for the increase in lead billetimports from Germany and the UnitedKingdom is due to the fact that thedomestic lead billet industry (i.e.,petitioners) is either ‘‘unwilling’’ or‘‘unable’’ to provide a consistent andreliable supply of lead billets to the U.S.re-rollers respective facilities. AS&W,Republic, and Sheffield have maderepeated assertions that Inland andUSS/KOBE do not have the capacity tomeet their demands or the demands ofthe domestic lead billet merchantmarket and, therefore, were compelledto source lead billets from the foreignrespondents because both Inland andUSS/KOBE refused to sell lead billets ona consistent basis. British Steel notesthat AS&W approached British Steel asa possible supply source of lead billetsonly after USS/KOBE terminated asupply agreement with AS&W in 1996.

Department’s Position: Although thepattern of trade is not a determiningfactor, but rather one of several factorswhich the Department considers inevaluating whether circumvention isoccurring, the Department did considerthis to be an important factor in itsanalysis as to whether circumvention ofthe AD and CVD orders are occurring.

The petitioners have argued that inevaluating the pattern of trade, it issufficient merely to look at the trends of

the data without further examination ofthe facts surrounding those trends. Forexample, petitioners contend that wehave disregarded the statute by goingbehind the import statistics to considerwhat they characterize as ‘‘shortsupply’’ issues. We disagree withpetitioners’’ interpretation of the statute.The petitioners’ argument that theDepartment only examine whetherimports have increased would convertthis criterion into a mechanicalapproach which we believe is much lessmeaningful than an examination of allthe relevant circumstances, includingthe causes behind the import trends.The ‘‘pattern of trade’’ is more than justbare import statistics alone.

Therefore, in order to determinewhether circumvention of an order hasoccurred, we are directed by the SAA toexamine the individual facts on a case-by-case basis for each circumventioninquiry. For example, if imports of leadbillet increased after the order by 10percent, while the increase in imports ofhot-rolled lead bar was 100 percent afterthe imposition of the order, thepetitioners’ interpretation of the statutewould require that the Departmentignore contributing factors andexplanations for an increase in the levelof importations when deciding whetheror not circumvention of an order hasoccurred. To adopt this interpretation ofthe statute would render the individualfacts of a circumvention inquirymeaningless. In other words, thepetitioners’ suggestion that theDepartment must only considerquantitative changes pursuant to section781(a)(3)(C) of the Act withoutconsideration of the facts of thecircumvention inquiry and theunderlying causes that may havecontributed to such changes isinappropriate for evaluation of thiscriterion.

In analyzing the level of imports oflead billets from both Germany and theUnited Kingdom, respectively, we foundthat imports of lead billets haveincreased from all three foreignrespondents. However, the respectiveincreases appear to be the result ofcauses other than the initiation of thehot-rolled lead bar investigations andthe subsequent orders.

In evaluating the criterion providedby section 781(a)(3)(C), the Departmentrelied, in part, upon the fact that sincethe mid-1980s Thyssen’s primaryproduct market in the United States hasbeen lead billets, not hot-rolled lead bar.With respect to British Steel, theDepartment found that the pattern oftrade did not suggest circumventionbecause British Steel remains a largeexporter of hot-rolled lead bar to the



United States and its hot-rolled lead barmarket in the United States is still muchlarger than its lead billet market.Further, the reduction or elimination ofdomestic supply by Inland and/or USS/KOBE’s inability to provide a consistentsupply of lead billets to the U.S.merchant lead billet market is acontributing cause to the reportedincrease in imported lead billets into theUnited States. Thus, even though thepetitioners contend that there is now‘‘available’’ domestic capacity to meetthe U.S. lead billet merchant marketdemand, the record clearlydemonstrates that the petitioners’capacity is not necessarily available toU.S. re-rollers as evidenced by the re-rollers’ inability to secure a consistentsupply from domestic sources. Indeed,Inland has stated publicly that it doesnot sell lead billets to the U.S. leadbillet merchant market. See February 17,1998 Ex Parte Memorandum from theTeam, through Barbara E. Tillman, tothe File.

We also found during our verificationof Republic various contractualagreements between Republic and itscustomers. These contracts, also knownas a ‘‘frozen practice,’’ identify the leadbillet supplier, specifications andfunctional requirements of the input.Republic has entered into a number of‘‘frozen practice’’ arrangements with itscustomers which require Republic touse specific lead billet suppliers in theproduction of the multiple downstreamproducts which are purchased by theautomobile industry in the UnitedStates. In these cases, changes insourcing lead billets without writtenapproval of the customer are subject torefusal. See Verification of RepublicEngineered Steel’s QuestionnaireResponses in the AnticircumventionInquiry of the Antidumping andCountervailing Duty Orders on Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon SteelProducts from Germany and the UnitedKingdom, July 6, 1998 at 4.

Comment 2: The Department ShouldCompare the Investments in a Re-rollingMill to the Investments Required for anIntegrated Steel Facility

The petitioners argue that theDepartment failed to provide a properanalysis pursuant to section 781(a)(2) ofthe Act as to whether the processcarried on in the United States is‘‘minor’’ or ‘‘insignificant.’’ Inparticular, the petitioners argue that theDepartment’s analysis was deficientwith respect to the level of investmentfactor. The petitioners contend that theDepartment, in reaching its preliminarydeterminations, merely summarizedgeneric hot-rolling investment

information submitted by the U.S. re-rollers and concluded that‘‘[i]nvestment in re-rolling facilitiesrequires a long term investment ofcapital’’ and that all of the U.S. re-rollers have made ‘‘large investments ofcapital and resources into their rollingfacilities’’ without providing a propercomparison of what constituted a ‘‘longterm investment of capital’’ and ‘‘largeinvestment of capital.’’ The petitionersargue that the Department in its finaldetermination must compare the level ofinvestment required to produce leadbillets relative to the investmentrequired to roll lead billet into hot-rolled lead bar. The petitioners arguethat using a comparative analysis woulddemonstrate that the production of leadbillets requires ‘‘substantial’’ investmentin specialized facilities, includingdedicated equipment, such as bloomcasters, lead injection equipment, andfume control technology, whereas thelevel of investment dedicated andrequired to roll lead billets into hot-rolled lead bar at the U.S. re-rollerfacilities would be deemed ‘‘minor’’ or‘‘insignificant.’’

The petitioners argue that theinvestment data from the U.S. re-rollersclearly establishes that the plant andequipment required for the productionof hot-rolled lead bar represents only afraction of the plant and equipmentrequired for the production of leadbillets. According to the petitioners, theinvestment required to construct thefacilities and purchase capitalmachinery dedicated and required forthe production of lead billets vastlyexceeds the level of investment in theU.S. re-rollers’ current facilities andequipment which merely roll the leadand/or nonlead billets into hot-rolledbar.

The petitioners also note that in theirapplication for these circumventioninquiries, the petitioners compared thelevel of investment necessary to rolllead billets into hot-roll lead bar withthat required to produce lead billets,and that this relative comparisonprompted the Department to initiatethese inquiries because the level ofinvestment required to roll lead billetsat the U.S. re-roller facilities was‘‘minor’’ in comparison to theproduction of lead billets at thepetitioners’’ integrated facility.

Further, the petitioners contend thatthe Department, in reaching itspreliminary determination, failed tofollow previous anticircumventioninquiries where the Departmentconducted a comparative analysis of thelevel of investment between an industryand its individual segments. SeeGranular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin

from Italy; Final AffirmativeDetermination of Circumvention ofAntidumping Duty Order, 63 FR 26100(April 30, 1993)(PTFE), and Brass Sheetand Strip from Canada; FinalAffirmative Determination ofCircumvention of Antidumping DutyOrder, 58 FR 33610 (June 18, 1993)(Brass Sheet and Strip). In PTFE, thepetitioners assert, the Department madean affirmative finding of circumvention,in part, because ‘‘* * * in comparisonto the investment required to establishan integrated production facility forgranular PTFE resin (finished product),respondent’s investment in the UnitedStates is relatively minor’’ (58 FR at26103). Petitioners also cite to BrassSheet and Strip, where the Departmentfound that failure to compare the re-roller’s operations to an integrated millwould not ‘‘provide * * * an accuraterepresentation of the industry as awhole * * * nor a meaningfulevaluation of Great Lakes’ operations inparticular’’ (58 FR at 33613).

The U.S. re-rollers and foreignrespondents disagree with thepetitioners’ assertion that the level ofinvestment is ‘‘minor’’ and that acomparison of an integrated facility to arolling facility is warranted in theseinquiries. The U.S. re-rollers and foreignrespondents argue that the record inthese inquiries demonstrates that theU.S. re-rollers’ absolute level of theirinvestment in their respective bar millsis ‘‘significant.’’ Both the U.S. re-rollersand foreign respondents argue thatduring the course of these inquiries,documentation has been provided andverified confirming that the level ofinvestment required to modernize a barmill facility or to construct a new stateof the art bar mill facility in the UnitedStates demonstrated a substantial levelof investment in absolute terms. Thesemulti-million dollar investments in theUnited States, the U.S. re-rollers andforeign respondents argue, do notcomport with the type of ‘‘screwdriver’’operations intended to be captured bythe statutory anticircumventionprovisions.

Both the U.S. re-rollers and foreignrespondents argue that the mining,smelting, casting and refining of steel isperformed by integrated producers,which is just one part of the entire U.S.steel making industry, whereas the U.S.re-rollers are a distinct segment of thesteel making industry. Further, theforeign respondents point out that theDepartment has previously rejectedcomparisons of a petitioner’s productionactivities with those of foreignrespondents, when separate segments ofthe industry exist. See, e.g., PortableElectric Typewriters from Japan (Brother



Industries, Ltd. and Brother Industries(USA), Inc.); Negative FinalDetermination of Circumvention ofAntidumping Order 56 FR 58031(November 15, 1991)(PETS). Similarly,the foreign respondents argue that therolling operation of lead billets into leadbar is not the kind of secondaryoperation the Department found inBrass Sheet and Strip, but rather, is asubstantial operation involving largeamounts of investment necessary toperform its intended operation (i.e.,rolling, testing, finishing, etc.).

Department’s Position: In reachingour final determinations, theDepartment evaluated the U.S. re-rollers’ level of investment within thecontext of the amount of investmentrequired at a rolling mill for theproduction of hot-rolled lead andnonlead bar. We believe that acomparison of the U.S. re-rollers’ levelof investment with that of an integratedsteel making facility, as suggested by thepetitioners, is not called for in theseinquiries. First, neither the statute andSAA, nor the legislative history containsa requirement that the Department makesuch a comparison.

Second, it is not necessary orappropriate in this case to undertakesuch an analysis because the activitiesundertaken by the U.S. re-rollershistorically represent a pre-existing anddistinct segment of the leaded steelindustry. The investment made by eachU.S. re-roller in its facilities, as theDepartment has verified, was largelymade prior to the orders. Although theactual amount of an individual U.S. re-rollers’ investment is businessproprietary information, the data fromthe U.S. re-rollers reveal that, prior tothe inquiries in these cases, they madelong-term commitments to produce hot-rolled bar from leaded and nonleadedbillets and, to this end, invested asubstantial amount of money in plantand equipment. Furthermore, accordingto the ITC, the manufacturing processfor the leaded steel industry involvesmining, melting, casting, rolling, testing,and finishing. The ITC notes thatoperations performed by integratedmills include all of the above and,therefore, such facilities require moreinvestment in relation to the U.S. re-rollers which undertake the end stage,characterized by rolling, testing andfinishing operations. Thus, acomparison of operations undertakenand the investment needed by anintegrated mill would not represent anappropriate standard in this case andwould fail to provide an accuraterepresentation of the U.S. re-rollers’level of investment. The petitioners’assertion that the U.S. re-rollers’

investment in rolling mills is smallcompared to its integrated mills’investment in the United States isirrelevant because, here, we are onlyconcerned with the investment requiredat a rolling mill, a separate, recognizedsegment of the steelmaking industry asidentified by the ITC.

Section 781 of the Act was notintended to deter commercialinvestment in the United States or tothwart the legitimate business interestsof U.S. companies. SAA at 894. In thisregard, the record in this proceedingestablishes that each U.S. re-roller hasmade significant investment in theUnited States in plant, equipment, andthe training of employees related to therolling of leaded billets, and they did solargely prior to the antidumpinginvestigations. In view of the amountand type of investment by the U.S. re-rollers and the existence of theseoperations prior to the investigations,we do not agree that the level ofinvestment in this case plainly supportsa finding that the processing in theUnited States is minor or insignificant,whether or not the level of investmentmay be smaller than the amount neededfor a fully integrated steel mill, aspetitioners argue. Rather, when all ofthe facts of this case are considered, wefind that these investments representsignificant investments in the re-rollingsegment of the U.S. industry.

Although the petitioners cite toprevious circumvention decisionswhere the Department did comparesegments of an industry to its whole, theDepartment has also found itunnecessary to make such comparisonsin other circumvention inquiries. See,e.g., Certain Internal-Combustion,Industrial Forklift Trucks from Japan;Negative Final Determination ofCircumvention of Antidumping DutyOrder, 55 FR 6028 (February 21, 1990)(Forklift Trucks). In Forklift Trucks, theDepartment noted that the foreignrespondents ‘‘made substantialinvestments in plant and equipment’’(55 FR at 6029), and that the ‘‘level ofproduction operations is too great tocharacterize these operations ascompletion or assembly operationsestablished for the purpose of evadingthe antidumping duty order’’ (seeCertain Internal-Combustion, IndustrialForklift Trucks from Japan; PreliminaryDetermination of Circumvention ofAntidumping Duty Order, 54 FR 50260,50263 (December 5, 1989)). In ForkliftTrucks the Department determined that‘‘it is not necessary that respondent’sinvestments be comparable with thoseof (petitioners) * * * in order for theDepartment to decide if respondent’s

facilities are more than mere completionor assembly operations’ (55 FR at 6029).

In addition, there are factualdifferences between thesecircumvention inquiries of the lead barorders and the two cases cited by thepetitioners. In PTFE, the inquiryinvolved whether the Italian PTFEmanufacturer set up and operatedfacilities in the United States in order tocircumvent the PTFE order. The facilitywas newly established and performedonly a portion of the manufacturingprocess the company performed in Italy.Thus, in that case, a comparison of theItalian manufacturer’s operations in theUnited States with its operations in Italywas relevant to the inquiry because theallegation of circumvention in PTFEfocused on whether the Italianrespondent had set up a relatedsubsidiary in the United States in orderto circumvent the order. Given thenature of the allegation, it would havebeen extremely difficult to determinewhether the Italian company started itsU.S. processing in order to circumventthe order on PTFE without comparingthe nature of its processing facilities inthe United States with that company’soperations in Italy. This fact pattern isnot present in these circumventioninquiries on lead bar. For one thing, theU.S. rerollers are not related to the U.K.and German lead bar producers.Moreover, the U.S. rerollers existed atthe time that the lead bar orders wereissued.

In addition, the fact pattern in BrassSheet and Strip does not support thepetitioners’ argument that we shouldcompare the investments made by theU.S. re-rollers with the investmentsrequired of an integrated steelmanufacturer. In Brass Sheet and Strip,the Department compared the processesperformed by the importer’s facilitywith the operations normally performedby brass mills in the United States,because the importer’s operations werenot part of a separate, recognizedsegment of the brass sheet and stripindustry. In Brass Sheet and Strip, wefound that the importer’s small amountof cold-breakdown rolling wasinsufficient for us to consider it afabricator, but also that its operationswere not comparable to the brass re-rollers because the re-rollers purchasebrass sheet and strip and roll it into adifferent brass sheet and strip product.The purchased products already werewithin the scope of the order, as was thefinal product. In contrast, the importersubject to the circumvention inquiry,Great Lakes, purchased brass plate thathad been processed to the point of beingone rolling step short of constitutingsheet and strip. Because Great Lakes



performed some processing of the plate,the operations it performed did notrepresent the type of processing that hadbeen performed by a separate,recognized segment of the brass sheetand strip industry. Prior to Great Lakes,there were no ‘‘re-rollers’’ thatprocessed plate. Great Lakes’ operations,which were established after the orderwas issued, included an operationnormally performed by brass mills andnot by re-rollers. Thus, in Brass Sheetand Strip, we compared the U.S.importer’s processing to that of the brassmill, where the type of processing GreatLakes performed normally took place inthat industry. Again, the facts whichcaused us to compare Great Lakes’rolling facilities to integrated facilitiesin Brass Sheet and Strip are not presentin the hot-rolled lead bar circumventioninquiries. This case does not involve anew and different type of processor. TheU.S. lead bar industry is comprised ofboth integrated producers and re-rollers.This composition of the U.S. lead barindustry existed before the initiation ofthe original AD and CVD investigationsof lead bar from Germany and theUnited Kingdom. Because re-rollers area separate, recognized part of the U.S.lead bar industry, there is no need tocompare their investments and facilitiesto another segment of the U.S. steelindustry.

Comment 3: The Department ShouldCompare the Extent and Nature of Re-rolling Operations to Those of anIntegrated Steel Facility

The petitioners argue that using acomparative analysis between thenature and extent of a U.S. re-roller’sprocessing and that of an integratedfacility would demonstrate that thequality, inherent characteristics andmachinability of the final product areimparted at the steps taken in thecasting stage of an integrated producerand that the rolling of lead billets intohot-rolled lead bar is merely a shapingand sizing process which does not addto the value because the fundamentalchemical properties are imparted in theproduction of the semifinished leadedsteel. The petitioners contend that theproduction of the semifinished leadbillet is substantial in terms ofequipment required (i.e., specializedfacilities, including dedicatedequipment, such as bloom casters, leadinjection equipment, and fume controltechnology) and that the conversion ofthe semifinished steel into hot-rolledbar is ‘‘minor.’’

Further, the petitioners argue that theDepartment has failed to followprevious anticircumvention precedentwhere the Department made a

comparison of a segment of an industryto the entire industry as a whole. Thepetitioners argue that, in Brass Sheetand Strip, the Department evaluated asimilar industry via a relativecomparison, and that this comparisonrendered an affirmative determinationof circumvention. In Brass Sheet andStrip, the Department considered thatthe nature of the production processindicated that U.S. value added was‘‘small’’ because melting and castingoperations performed in integrated brassmills were the ‘‘primary operations forproduction of brass sheet and strip;whereas rolling operations add only thelast fraction of value.’’ The petitionerscontend that the U.S. re-rollers, in theinstant proceeding, perform the last ofthree stages in the manufacturingprocess for hot-rolled leaded bar andthat this process is similar to thefinishing processes of brass plate inBrass Sheet and Strip, where the rollingof brass plate into brass sheet entailedonly one process for turning asemifinished product into a singlefinished product.

Similarly, the petitioners assert that inPTFE the Department compared therespondent’s integrated facility in Italywith its affiliated U.S. productionfacility. The petitioners point out that inPTFE the Department concluded thatthe ‘‘post-treatment processes are notcomplex relative to the processesrequired to produce PTFE wet rawpolymer, and do not fundamentally alterthe nature of the product’’ (58 FR at26102). The petitioners argue that as inthe instant proceedings, the inherentcharacteristics of the lead billet areimparted at the melting stage, not therolling stage and that the rolling stageshould be considered similar to posttreatment.

The foreign respondents refute thepetitioners’ allegations that the natureand extent of processing lead billets intohot-rolled lead bar is ‘‘minor.’’ Inparticular, Thyssen points out thatInland argued to the ITC in the originallead bar investigations, that:[t]he rolling practice of injected steels is alsounique and with it come additionalproduction costs * * * must be heated up toan hour longer than SBQ (special bar quality)carbon steels to achieve the proper rollingtemperature; therefore adding extra heatingcost * * * [t]here is substantially more timeinvolved in producing a lead or bismuthproduct and therefore it becomes a morecostly process.

(See Thyssen’s July 21, 1997submission.) Further, the foreignrespondents and U.S. re-rollers contendthat the Department has the discretionto engage in a comparative analysis, andthat the use of a comparative analysis

would be nonsensical in the steelindustry context, because the integratedfacility produces a full range of productswith a different cost structure, differentproduction volumes and variousproduct mixes than that of a rollingmill. The foreign respondents argue thatunder the petitioners’ hypothesis, anyproduction process that takes place afterthe casting of the semifinished steel maybe characterized as ‘‘minor orinsignificant’’ by comparison, eventhough the further processing is verysignificant in absolute terms. The U.S.re-rollers contend that an examinationof their descriptions of the productionprocess reveal that the processing oflead billet into hot-rolled lead bar thatthey perform in the United States issubstantial. According to the U.S. re-rollers, the operations performed at theirrespective U.S. facilities requiresophisticated and complex machineryin order to adhere to strictenvironmental and process qualitycontrols.

The foreign respondents also refutethe petitioners’ assertions that themachinery at the melting and castingstages at an integrated facility isdedicated solely to the production oflead billets. The foreign respondentsargue that neither an integrated facility’snor the U.S. re-rollers’ equipment isused solely for the production of eitherleaded and nonleaded steel products,but rather a product mix involvingchemistries for both leaded andnonleaded products. The foreignrespondents argue that the smelting andcasting equipment at the integratedfacility (i.e., furnace and tundish) can beused to produce both leaded andnonleaded steel products.

Both the foreign respondents and U.S.re-rollers argue that, given the nature ofthe U.S. re-rollers operations, the factthat they do not add any materials to theimported lead billet is irrelevantbecause there is virtually no market forlead billet other than re-roller facilities.The U.S. re-rollers state that they mustsubstantially transform the lead billetinto a hot-rolled lead bar in order toproduce a saleable product. Foreignrespondents stress that a lead billet is asemifinished product that is used by theU.S. re-rollers to produce othersemifinished products (e.g., hot-rolledlead bar) and finished products, (i.e.,cold-finished lead bar).

Department’s Position: Thepetitioners’ main argument that theDepartment should compare a re-rollingfacility to an integrated steel facility indetermining whether the re-rollingoperations in the United States are‘‘minor’’ or ‘‘insignificant’’ and theircitations to Brass Sheet and Strip and



PTFE have been addressed in the‘‘Department’s Position’’ to ‘‘Comment2.’’ The issue present in thesecircumvention inquiries is not whetherthe production of steel is more complexthan the re-rolling and completion of asemifinished steel product but whetherthe rolling of lead billets into hot-rolledlead bar is a ‘‘minor’’ or ‘‘insignificant’’process being used to circumvent theAD and CVD orders on hot-rolled leadbar from Germany and the UnitedKingdom. For the reasons stated earlierin our response to ‘‘Comment 2,’’ we didnot compare the operations of the U.S.re-rollers to the production of steel byintegrated steel producers.

In our analysis of the process used bythe U.S. re-rollers’ operations, theDepartment thoroughly consideredmany factors, including the squarefootage of building space dedicated tohot-rolling, the number of employeesinvolved in hot-rolling, and the capitalequipment used in the production ofhot-rolled lead bar, as well as the ITC’sdescription of the re-rolling processcarried on by the U.S. industry. On thebasis of this analysis, the Departmentconcluded in the preliminarydeterminations that throughout theUnited States, the U.S. re-rollers haveextensive capital-intensive rollingfacilities staffed by skilled workerswhich are used to transform lead billetinto hot-rolled lead bar.

In making our final determinations,we again reviewed the records in theseinquiries. During verification, theDepartment toured AS&W’s rollingfacilities and Republic’s meltshop androlling facilities. We reviewed theproduction processes and facilities withrespect to the manufacture of leadbillets and the subsequent rolling of thelead billet into hot-rolled lead bar.While touring Republic’s meltshop, weverified that Republic employs workersresponsible for teeming, controlling, andinoculating the molten steel with leadwire. See Republic’s Verification Reportat 7. In addition, during our tour ofAS&W’s bar mill facility, companyofficials stated that while AS&W ‘‘doesnot have machinery dedicatedexclusively for the purpose of rollingleaded steel products, the bar mill wasdesigned specifically to roll high qualitylead and alloy products.’’ Further,AS&W provided documentation whichshowed that in comparison to its rodmill, its bar mill rolls at very hightolerances, and as such, normally willroll lead billets as opposed to nonleadbillets into hot-rolled products. SeeAS&W Verification Report at 6. Bothplant tours demonstrated that theproduction processes at the U.S. re-roller facilities require stringent quality

control, strict adherence to OSHA andenvironmental regulations, and specialtraining for employees.

Thus, we disagree with the petitionersthat the production of hot-rolled leadbar from lead billets is similar to theprocess examined in Brass Sheet andStrip. Based on our analysis of the re-rollers production process, we found thetransformation of lead billet into leadbar to be a more substantial undertakingthan the process used in Brass Sheetand Strip. For example, Great Lakes didnot perform hot-breakdown rolling, butmerely a small amount of cold-breakdown rolling; whereas, the re-rollers in these inquiries perform hot-breakdown rolling before the lead billetcan be transformed into a lead bar. Next,the Department found in Brass Sheetand Strip that the rerolling operationsthat Great Lakes performed, whichincluded all of the processes thatrerollers perform, with one additionalstep, namely that of cold-breakdownrolling, ‘‘add only the last fraction ofvalue’’ because Great Lakes’’ fabricationprocess turned a semifinished product(brass plate), a product which wasmerely one rolling step short ofconstituting a single finished product(brass sheet and strip). In contrast, theproduction of lead bar from lead billetsis a more involved multi-processoperation as we found on verificationand as described in the ITC’s report. SeeStatutory Analysis Section of this noticefor a discussion of the productionprocesses.

In Forklift Trucks, the Departmentexamined all of the facts andcircumstances surrounding therespondent’s domestic assemblyoperations and noted that all foreignrespondents ‘‘made substantialinvestments in plant and equipment,’’and that the ‘‘level of productionoperations is too great to characterizethese operations as completion orassembly operations established for thepurpose of evading the antidumpingorder.’’ Specifically, the Departmentdiscussed the manner in which itanalyzed the processing operationsperformed in the following manner:

We examined the nature of foreignrespondents’ U.S. production facilities inorder to determine whether such facilitieswere similar to the examples ofcircumvention cited in the legislative history.Since a major goal of the circumventionprovision is to prevent evasion of anantidumping duty order through ‘‘slightchanges’’ in the method of production orshipment * * * examination of foreignrespondents’ U.S. production processes is animportant part of our analysis.

55 FR at 6030. Forklift Trucks isinstructive for these final

determinations because the record inthese proceedings demonstrates that theoperations which the U.S. re-rollersundertake in order to produce hot-rolledlead bar from lead billets do not involveevasion of the orders through ‘‘slightchanges.’’

Comment 4: Valued-Added Calculatedfor U.S. Re-Rolling Process is ‘‘Minor’’

The petitioners contend that acomparison of the ranged value-addeddata in these inquiries to that found inBrass Sheet and Strip should have ledthe Department to conclude that theamount of value added by the U.S. re-rollers in rolling lead billet into hot-rolled lead bar is ‘‘minor’’ or‘‘insignificant.’’ In support of theirargument, the petitioners provided theDepartment with a weighted-averagecalculation of the value-added by the re-rollers which indicated that the valueadded in the instant inquiries is‘‘similar in amount’’ to the value-addedcalculated in Brass Sheet and Strip.Given this similarity, the petitionersargue that the weight-averaged value-added calculation is within the rangethat the Department previouslydetermined to be ‘‘small’’ under the pre-URAA statute.

Foreign respondents argue that thevalue-added that the Departmentcalculated in its preliminarydeterminations is not ‘‘small.’’ Theyargue that the Department candetermine whether the value-added in acircumvention inquiry is ‘‘significant’’on a case-by-case basis.

Department’s Position: The legislativehistory to section 781(a) establishes thatCongress intended the Department tomake determinations regardingcircumvention on a case-by-case basis inrecognition that the facts of individualcases and the nature of specificindustries vary widely. In particular,Congress directed the Department tofocus more on the nature of theproduction process and less on thedifference in value between the subjectmerchandise and the imported parts orcomponents. (See S. Rep. No. 103–412,81–82 (1994)). Thus, we believe that anyattempt to establish a numericalstandard would be contrary to theintentions of Congress.

The Department’s determination thatthe U.S. value-added in Brass Sheet andStrip was ‘‘small’’ is irrelevant to thepresent proceedings because thatdecision concerns the unique natureand extent of fabrication undertaken bya U.S. importer in an entirely differentindustry with different productionprocesses. In addition, that case wasdecided before 1995, i.e., before thechanges made in section 781 of the Act



by the URAA were effective. The URAA,which became effective on January 1,1995, redirected the focus of ancircumvention inquiry away from anumerical calculation of value-addedtowards a more qualitative focus on thenature of the production process. Underthe URAA, which provides the currentstatutory language for section 781 of theAct, the numerical calculation of value-added is just one of five factors theDepartment is to examine in ourdetermination of whether the processingundertaken in the United States isminor or insignificant.

We also note, in conclusion, that inBrass Sheet and Strip, which is cited bythe petitioners in support of theirargument, the Department explicitlystated in the ‘‘Affirmative FinalDetermination of Circumvention’’section of that final determination ‘‘thatour analysis of the difference in valueand resulting determination of ‘small’ inthis case are not necessarilysynonymous with such determinationsthat the Department will formulate infuture anti-circumvention inquiriessince Congress has directed us to makedeterminations regarding the differencein value on a case-by-case basis.’’

Comment 5: The Department’sPreliminary Determination of NoCircumvention Conflicts With Prior CasePrecedent

The petitioners argue that theDepartment’s preliminarydeterminations are incompatible withits previous finding of circumvention inBrass Sheet and Strip, which involvedsimilar fact patterns (i.e., value-addedcalculations, capital-intensiveindustries, production processes, etc.).

In their case briefs, the petitionersprovide the Department with acalculated weighted-average amount ofthe value-added in the instant inquiriesand argue that this weighted-averageamount is ‘‘similar’’ to the value-addedof 15% determined in Brass Sheet andStrip, where the Department foundcircumvention. The petitioners alsocontend that in Brass Sheet and Stripthe Department determined that the re-rolling of brass plate into brass sheetand strip neither adds additionalmaterials nor imparts essentiallyphysical characteristics to the rerolledbrass plate but rather ‘‘adds only the lastfraction of value’’ by shaping and sizingthe brass plate. The petitioners arguethat the Department in Brass Sheet andStrip considered that the nature of theproduction process was indicative thatthe U.S. value-added was ‘‘small,’’ sincemelting and casting operationsperformed in integrated brass mills werethe ‘‘primary operations for production

of brass sheet and strip; whereas re-rolling operations add only the lastfraction of value * * *’’ (58 FR at33614).

The foreign respondents argue thatthe brass sheet and strip industry (i.e.,producers and fabricators and itssubgroup, secondary mills) and the hot-rolled lead bar industry are vastlydifferent. They contend that in BrassSheet and Strip, the brass plate wasmerely ‘‘finished’’ into brass sheet andstrip. On the other hand, the U.S. re-rollers and foreign respondents arguethat the production of hot-rolled leadbar from lead billets is much moreinvolved than merely ‘‘finishing’’ thelead billet into hot-rolled bar. Theyassert that the record clearlydemonstrates that the production of leadbillets into hot-rolled lead bar involvesmore steps (i.e., hot-rolling, testing, andfinishing) than the mere conversion ofbrass sheet and strip from brass plate(i.e., finishing). In addition, the foreignrespondents and U.S. re-rollers arguethat the majority of hot-rolled lead barsold in the merchant market is still anintermediate good that must undergofurther processing (i.e., cold finishing,forming, and testing) before it can beconsidered a finished good. On theother hand, foreign respondents argue,brass sheet and/or strip are themselvesfinished goods.

Department’s Position: We agree withthe foreign respondents and U.S. re-rollers that the fact pattern of theseinquiries is different from Brass Sheetand Strip. As we have previously noted,the Department must determine whetheror not circumvention of an order hasoccurred based upon the nature of thespecific circumvention inquiry and thefacts surrounding that circumventioninquiry. Thus, the facts which arepresent in the instant circumventioninquiries and the nature of thecircumvention allegations differ fromthe facts which were present in BrassSheet and Strip. A review of Brass Sheetand Strip and a review of the allegationsand the facts surrounding these lead barcircumvention inquiries reveal that thepetitioners’ reliance on Brass Sheet andStrip to support their argument that theDepartment has erred in finding nocircumvention of the lead bar orders ismisplaced.

In order to determine whether thevalue added by Great Lakes, a secondarymill, specifically a brass plate re-roller,in Brass Sheet and Strip was ‘‘small,’’the Department examined theoperations of Great Lakes’ re-rolling ofbrass plate into brass sheet and strip.We compared Great Lakes’ operations tothe operations performed by fabricatorsin the U.S. brass sheet and strip

industry, otherwise known as brassmills, which perform fabricationprocesses such as casting, melting andsome re-rolling. Since Great Lakes re-rolled thicker brass plate, whilesecondary mills normally re-roll thethinner gauge brass sheet and strip, theDepartment determined that acomparison of the Great Lakes’operations to the operations normallyperformed by a brass mill waswarranted, and upon examination,determined that the value added byGreat Lakes indicated that theprocessing performed was minor. Thisdecision was essentially based upon thefact that Great Lakes was founded in1990, more than three years after theissuance of the antidumping order andthe fact that, at the time of the originalinvestigation, brass plate re-rollers werenot considered a separate andrecognized segment of the U.S. brasssheet and strip industry because theestablished re-rollers began the re-rolling process with brass sheet andstrip, which itself was already withinthe scope of the investigation andsubsequent order. See the‘‘Department’s Position’’ to ‘‘Comment2’’ in Brass Sheet and Strip. In otherwords, because there was no brass platere-roller industry segment with which tocompare Great Lakes’ activities duringthe POI, the Department compared GreatLakes’ operations to that of a fabricator.

As we stated in Brass Sheet and Strip,the U.S. importer, Great Lakes, importedbrass plate, a product which was onerolling step short of constituting sheetand strip prior to importation. In thebrass sheet and strip industry, theprimary fabrication process is hot-breakdown rolling, whereby brass ingotsare heated, rolled, and coiled, thenfurther reduced through cold-breakdown rolling. The relatively smallamount of Great Lakes’ cold-breakdownrolling was insufficient to considerGreat Lakes a fabricator; however, sinceGreat Lakes re-rolled brass plate, not thethinner brass sheet and strip re-rolled bythe recognized secondary brass sheetand strip mills, the Departmentcompared Great Lakes operations to theoperations of brass fabricators andconcluded that the re-rolling of brassplate into brass sheet and strip relativeto a fabricator’s processes was ‘‘small.’’The petitioners’ arguments that weshould compare the hot rolling processin these inquiries to the process of anintegrated steel facility because such acomparison was conducted in BrassSheet and Strip is misplaced, becausethe rolling mills which subsequentlyroll lead billets into hot-rolled lead barpredate the order and have always been



considered a distinct part of theindustry. In contrast, brass plate re-rollers were not considered a separateand recognized segment of the brasssheet and strip industry but one createdby a foreign exporter in an attempt toevade the order on brass sheet and strip.

Since the date of the determination ofcircumvention in Brass Sheet and Strip,there were also changes in the statuterelating to the determination of theamount of value added in the UnitedStates and the place that this has in theDepartment’s analysis. Whereas underthe statute applicable in Brass Sheet andStrip a determination of circumventionrequired a finding that the value addedto the imported parts or componentswas ‘‘small,’’ under the current statutethe amount of value added is but onefactor to be considered in determiningwhether the processing or assembly inthe United States is ‘‘minor orinsignificant.’’ Accordingly, whether ornot the value added is a ‘‘smallproportion,’’ we must consider otherfactors in determining whether theprocessing is ‘‘minor or insignificant.’’Thus, while case precedent prior to theenactment of the URAA, which becameeffective January 1, 1995, can provideuseful guidance to the Department inpost-URAA circumvention inquiries,certain changes in the Act expanded thefactors to be considered by theDepartment in determining whethercircumvention of an order has occurred.

For example, in Brass Sheet and Strip,our circumvention determination didnot address level of investment. Withthe changes to the Act under the URAA,the Department must consider the levelof investment by the U.S. re-rollers indetermining whether the processing inthe United States is minor orinsignificant. As stated earlier, some ofthe U.S. re-rollers have invested over100 million dollars in their rollingfacilities. These facts must beconsidered by the Department inreaching determinations in these hot-rolled lead bar inquiries, while thesefactors were not addressed in BrassSheet and Strip.

In both these hot-rolled lead barcircumvention inquiries and in BrassSheet and Strip, the Department didexamine patterns of trade to determinewhether there were increases in importsof the alleged circumventing product. InBrass Sheet and Strip, the facilities ofGreat Lakes, an affiliated importer, wereintroduced into production in 1990,more than three years after issuance ofthe antidumping duty order, andimports of Canadian brass plateincreased ten-fold from 1990 to 1991 (58FR at 33610, 33615). This massiveincrease in imports of brass plate

following the establishment of thisfacility contrasts markedly with the factpattern in these hot-rolled lead barinquiries, where there was no dramaticincrease in the importation of leadbillets connected with the establishmentof an affiliated rolling mill in the UnitedStates before and after the issuance ofthese orders (see the ‘‘Department’sPosition’’ to ‘‘Comment 1,’’ above). Inthese inquiries, while there was someincrease in imports of lead billets, theproduct alleged to be circumventing therespective orders, after the initiation ofthese investigations, the circumstanceswere quite different. In particular, theU.S. re-rolling facilities existed priorthese investigations, the re-rollers thatimported the lead billets are notaffiliated with any foreign producer orexporter of the lead billets, and at leastone of these re-rollers imported leadbillets before the initiation of theinvestigations. Thus, this pattern oftrade in these inquiries is different fromthe pattern of trade in Brass Sheet andStrip.

In addition, the history and nature ofthe production process at issue in BrassSheet and Strip bears no relationship tothe history and nature of the processingperformed by the U.S. re-rollers in theseinquiries. In Brass Sheet and Strip thetype of processing performed by theU.S. importer was not in existence at thetime of the original AD investigation.Indeed, the U.S. importer and brassfinisher in Brass Sheet and Strip wasnot established, and did not beginoperations, until more than three yearsafter the issuance of the antidumpingorder on brass sheet and strip. Thiscontrasts with the facts in these lead barcircumvention inquiries, where most ofthe U.S. re-rollers were in existence,importing lead billets and processingthem into lead bar, before the AD andCVD petitions on lead bar were filedwith the Department.

In conclusion, the facts in Brass Sheetand Strip which caused the Departmentto find circumvention in that inquiry arenot present in the circumventioninquiries on lead bar. Based on the factspresent in these inquiries and thecurrent statute, we find thatcircumvention of the lead bar orders isnot occurring. Additional informationwith respect to the petitioners’ commentregarding the similar value-added foundin our preliminary determinations andthe value-added determined in BrassSheet and Strip can be found in ourposition in ‘‘Comment 4.’’

Comment 6: Most of the MerchandiseSold in the United States is a DifferentClass or Kind From That Under the ADand CVD Orders

The foreign respondents argue thatthe vast majority of the merchandisesold in the United States from thepurchase of lead billets is not the sameclass or kind of merchandise that issubject to the leaded bar order. Theystate that the majority of the importedlead billet further processed into hotrolled bar is subsequently cold finishedby the U.S. re-roller before it is sold tounaffiliated customers or is sold to colddrawers. Thus, much of themerchandise sold in the United States,i.e., cold finished leaded bar, is not thesame class or kind of merchandisesubject to the orders. Foreignrespondents argue that in recognition ofthe fact that the circumventionprovision only applies to componentmaterials used to produce subjectmerchandise sold in the United States,the Department has previously excludedfrom its circumvention findingscomponent materials used to producenonsubject merchandise. The foreignrespondents argue that in Brass Sheetand Strip, the Department excludedfrom its final affirmative determinationbrass plate used to produce productssold as something other than brass sheetand strip. Further, Republic has statedthat if the Department issues anaffirmative final determination, at thevery least, the Department would needto adopt an importer/exporter certificateprogram so that lead billets purchasedby Republic for conversion to cold-finished bars are excluded from thescope of the hot-rolled lead bar orders.

The petitioners argue that the foreignrespondents’ argument ignores the factthat hot-rolled lead bar has beenhistorically sold to unaffiliated andaffiliated cold finishers for furtherprocessing and suggests that sales ofmerchandise for further manufacturingare not ‘‘sales’’ within the meaning ofthe statute. This would be inconsistentwith the Department’s previousprecedent in circumvention cases suchas Brass Sheet and Strip and PTFE. Inboth of those cases, the Departmentfound that products sold in the UnitedStates were of the same class or kind asthe merchandise subject to unfair tradeorders even though the items that wereproduced from parts or componentswere subject to further processing beforereaching the ultimate consumer.

Department’s Position: Because theDepartment has determined that importsof lead billets from Germany and theUnited Kingdom are not circumventingthe respective AD and CVD orders on



hot-rolled lead bar, we are addressingarguments concerning the coverage of acircumvention finding.

Comment 7: Lead Billets Are Not Partsor Components

The foreign respondents argue thatthe anticircumvention statute requiresthat the merchandise sold in the UnitedStates be completed or assembled in theUnited States from parts or componentsfrom the country subject to the orders.The foreign respondents assert that theDepartment’s preliminarydeterminations merely stated that all ofthe U.S. re-rollers purchased lead billetfrom one or more of the foreignrespondents and that the re-rollers ‘‘usethe lead billet to produce hot-rolled leadbar in the United States.’’ They arguethat the use of a lead billet in theproduction of hot-rolled lead bar in theUnited States does not establish afinding that the process of rolling leadbillets into hot-rolled lead barconstitutes ‘‘completion.’’ The foreignrespondents further argue that thepetitioners recognized in theirmethodological comments that leadbillets are a complete product uponimportation when the petitionersdescribed the hot-rolling of lead billetsinto bars as a ‘‘conversion’’ process,rather than a process of completion.

Further, the foreign respondents arguethat broadening the scope of an orderbeyond the like product examined inthe ITC’s injury determination in theoriginal AD and CVD investigations isinconsistent with the anticircumventionstatute. The foreign respondents assertthat lead billets and hot-rolled lead barconstitute separate and distinct likeproducts produced by separate anddistinct domestic industries, asdetermined by both the ITC and theDepartment in the initial investigations.They also argue that because thepetitioners in the initial hot-rolled leadbar investigations made the strategicdecision to limit their petition to hot-rolled lead bar (rather than includinglead billets within its scope), theDepartment must now conclude, as amatter of law, that circumvention doesnot exist.

The petitioners argue theanticircumvention statute does notrequire a finding that the parts orcomponents fall within the same likeproduct category as the finished productand certainly does not require a separatefinding that the products subject to ananticircumvention inquiry must fallwithin the ITC’s prior like product andinjury determinations. The petitionersalso note that in previousanticircumvention inquiries, Steel WireRope from Mexico and Brass Sheet and

Strip, the Department correctly includedmerchandise in the scope ofantidumping order that had previouslybeen excluded from the ITC’s likeproduct and injury determinations.

The petitioners note that theDepartment stated in its notice ofinitiation of these inquiries that thisinvestigation is analogous to theanticircumvention inquiry in Steel WireRope from Mexico, where theDepartment made an affirmative findingof circumvention and expanded thescope of an order to include acomponent that the petitioners hadexpressly excluded from the originalinvestigation. Even though the expresslyexcluded merchandise was not part ofthe ITC’s like product determination orinjury determination, the petitionersargue in the instant case that theDepartment should follow the plainmeaning of the statute (i.e., that theanticircumvention statute permittedexpansion of the scope beyond theoriginal like product) and make anaffirmative finding. The petitioners notethat in Brass Sheet and Strip theDepartment included brass plate withinthe order on brass sheet and strip eventhough the brass plate was not includedwithin the scope of the originalinvestigation.

Department’s Position: We disagreewith the respondents’ first argumentthat a so-called ‘‘completed’’ productcannot be a ‘‘part or component’’ of leadbar for purposes of section 781(a) of theAct. Indeed, it is difficult to imaginethat many ‘‘parts and components’’ usedto produce or assemble subjectmerchandise could not be considered‘‘complete’’ in and of themselves. Forexample, an engine is a ‘‘completed’’product, but it can still be imported inthe United States and ‘‘assembled’’ intoa forklift truck. Accordingly, the engine,although a completed product, can stillbe a part or component of another item.Thus, whether a part or component is oris not characterized as ‘‘completed’’ isirrelevant to the circumvention sectionof the statute. The question is whetherthat item becomes part of the productsold in the United States that is of thesame class or kind of merchandisesubject to an order.

Because the Department hasdetermined that imports of lead billetsfrom Germany and the United Kingdomare not circumventing the respective ADand CVD orders on hot-rolled lead bar,we are not addressing the argumentsconcerning the ITC’s injurydetermination.

Comment 8: Because There Is MinimalR&D in the Re-rolling Process, the Re-rolling Process Must Be Minor orInsignificant

The petitioners contend that theDepartment’s findings on the lack ofR&D in the U.S. re-rollers’ facilities areconsistent with the petition, where thepetitioners demonstrated that R&Dexpenditures are typically concentratedin the relatively more complex meltshop facility and that the Department’sfinding that ‘‘R&D into the process ofrolling bar is not a significant factor inthis industry’’ demonstrates that foreignproducers can easily shift from sellingbars and rod to selling billets, and, thus,circumvent the order. Therefore, thepetitioners argue that the Department’sfinding that little, if any, R&D is evidentat the rolling stage means that theproduction process is ‘‘minor’’ or‘‘insignificant.’’

The foreign respondents agree in partwith the petitioners that the amount ofR&D expenditures related to the rollingof lead billets into hot-rolled bar isminimal. However, they argue that,because the production of leaded steelsis technically a mature process, theDepartment properly gave little weightto the level of R&D in the United Statesin determining whether the conversionof leaded billet into hot-rolled lead baris ‘‘minor’’ or ‘‘insignificant.’’ Further,the foreign respondents argue that theanticircumvention statute does notrequire an analysis of R&D when theDepartment finds that it is not ameaningful factor with respect to theindustry and merchandise underreview.

Department’s Position: We disagreewith the petitioners that a lack of R&Din the production of hot-rolled lead barmeans that the foreign respondents canreadily shift from the sale of hot-rolledlead bars to the sale of lead billets incircumvention of the orders. While R&Dmay be a significant factor in someindustries, it is not in others. Further,the significance of its presence orabsence depends on the industry andproduct under investigation. Forexample, changes in technology occurvery rapidly in the electronics industry.This requires significant amounts forR&D. Thus, R&D might be a significantfactor in a circumvention inquiry of thatindustry. In other industries, such asthis one R&D is not a significant factorbecause of the maturity of theproduction process. However, a lack ofR&D does not necessarily mean thatcircumvention is more easilyaccomplished. Where R&D is almostnon-existent in the industry in general,whether that industry is located in the



respondent’s country or in the UnitedStates, the absence of such expendituresdoes not automatically equate with easeof circumvention. As we have explainedabove, the re-rolling of lead billet intolead bar is not accomplished intemporary, transitory facilities. The lackof R&D in this industry does not changethat fact. Accordingly, the Departmentgave little weight to R&D as aninformative factor in its determinationas to whether the lead bar orders werebeing circumvented.

Comment 9: The Department PlacedToo Much Emphasis on the Fact that theU.S. Re-rollers and ForeignManufacturers are Unaffiliated

The petitioners argue that theDepartment has placed greater weighton the fact that the respondents and theU.S. re-rollers are unaffiliated thancontemplated by the statute or previouscircumvention decisions. Specifically,the petitioners cite to the Department’sobservation in the preliminarydetermination that ‘‘these unaffiliatedre-rollers invested a substantial amountin their re-rolling facilities both beforeand after the AD and CVD orders to rollboth lead and nonlead billets into hot-rolled bar.’’ 63 FR at 24162. They alsonote that affiliation is not necessary inorder for the Department to make anaffirmative finding of circumvention.

The foreign respondents argue thatwhile the absence of affiliation does notmandate a negative determination, thearm’s length nature of the businessrelationships between the foreignrespondents and the U.S. re-rollerscannot be ignored in the Department’sanalysis.

Department’s Position: The secondfactor the Department is required toconsider under section 781(a)(3) of theAct is whether the manufacturer orexporter of the parts or components (inthis instance, the foreign respondentswhich produce and export the leadbillets) is affiliated with the personswhich assemble or complete themerchandise in the United States (here,the U.S. re-rollers). In its preliminarydetermination, the Department set outthe facts which lead it to find that noaffiliation of any kind existed betweenthe foreign respondents and the U.S. re-rollers.

Neither the statute, the SAA, nor therelevant legislative history provide anyguidance as to how the Department is toconsider this particular factor.Accordingly, the Department mayreasonably determine how to evaluatethat factor on a case-by-case basis inlight of the pertinent facts particular toa specific circumvention inquiry. Weagree with the petitioners that, as a

general proposition, affiliation is notnecessary for a finding ofcircumvention. However, a finding of noaffiliation cannot be dismissed ashaving no relevance to the Department’sdetermination, particularly when thestatute mandates that this factor beconsidered. Thus, we disagree with thepetitioners that we have elevatedaffiliation beyond that contemplated bythe statute or previous circumventiondeterminations. Indeed, in several priorcircumvention determinations, theDepartment has explicitly stated that weconsider circumvention to be morelikely when the manufacturer/exporterof the parts and components is relatedto the party completing or assemblingmerchandise in the United States usingthe imported components. See, e.g.,PTFE and Brass Sheet and Strip.

In these circumvention inquiries, wefound that the U.S. re-rollers acted onbehalf of their respective commercialinterests, independently of the foreignrespondents’ interests. The lack of anyaffiliation between the foreignrespondents and the U.S. re-rollers wasa contributing factor in the U.S. re-rollers’ decisions on how best to protectand advance their own economicinterests given, in particular, thesourcing problems for domestic leadedbillet they encountered in the marketplace. However, as we explained in thepreliminary determination and in thisfinal determination, as well, affiliationis only one of several factors theDepartment considered in reaching adetermination that circumvention doesnot exist.

Conclusion

Based on the analysis under section781(a) of the Act, detailed above, wedetermine that circumvention of the ADand CVD orders on hot-rolled lead baris not occurring by reason of imports oflead billets from Germany and theUnited Kingdom.

These negative final circumventiondeterminations and notice are inaccordance with section 781(a) of theAct and 19 C.F.R. 353.29(e) and 19C.F.R. 355.29(e).


Robert S. LaRussa,Assistant Secretary for ImportAdministration.[FR Doc. 99–19019 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P



[A–122–833]

Notice of Postponement of FinalAntidumping Determination: LiveCattle from Canada.

AGENCY: Import Administration,International Trade Administration,Department of Commerce.EFFECTIVE DATE: July 26, 1999.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Gabriel Adler or Kris Campbell, AD/CVD Enforcement, Group II, Office 5,Import Administration, InternationalTrade Administration, U.S. Departmentof Commerce, 14th Street andConstitution Avenue NW, Washington,DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–1442 or(202) 482–3813, respectively.

Postponement of Final Determination

The Department of Commerce (theDepartment) is postponing the finaldetermination in the antidumpinginvestigation of live cattle from Canada.The deadline for issuing the finaldetermination in this investigation isnow no later than October 4, 1999.

On June 30, 1999, the Departmentissued its affirmative preliminarydetermination in this proceeding. Thenotice stated we would issue our finaldetermination by September 13, 1999.See Notice of Preliminary Determinationof Sales at Less Than Fair Value: LiveCattle from Canada, 64 FR 36847 (July8, 1999).

On July 2, 1999, pursuant to section735(a)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, asamended, the Canadian Cattlemen’sAssociation and the named respondentsin this investigation requested that theDepartment postpone the issuance ofthe final determination in thisinvestigation for 21 days. They alsorequested an extension of theprovisional measures (i.e., suspension ofliquidation) period from four months tofour months and three weeks, inaccordance with the Department’sregulations (19 CFR 351.210(e)(2)).

The respondents’ request was timely,and the Department finds no compellingreason to deny the request. Therefore,we are extending this finaldetermination until October 4, 1999.Suspension of liquidation will beextended accordingly.

In addition, because thecountervailing duty investigation of livecattle from Canada has been alignedwith this investigation under section705(a)(1) of the Act, the time limit forcompletion of the final determination inthe countervailing duty investigation



will be the same date, October 4, 1999,as the final determination of theconcurrent antidumping investigation.

This notice of postponement ispublished pursuant to section 735(a) ofthe Act and 19 CFR 351.210(g).

Dated: July 19, 1999.Robert S. LaRussa,Assistant Secretary for ImportAdministration.[FR Doc. 99–19021 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P



[A–570–601]

Tapered Roller Bearings From thePeople’s Republic of China: Extensionof Time Limit for Preliminary Results ofFive-Year Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,International Trade Administration,Department of Commerce.ACTION: Notice of extension of time limitfor final result of five-year (‘‘sunset’’)review.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce(‘‘the Department’’) is extending thetime limit for the preliminary results ofthe sunset review on the antidumpingduty order on tapered roller bearingsfrom the People’s Republic of China.Based on adequate responses fromdomestic and respondent interestedparties, the Department is conducting afull sunset review to determine whetherrevocation of the order would be likelyto lead to continuation or recurrence ofdumping. As a result of this extension,the Department intends to issue itspreliminary results not later thanOctober 18, 1999.EFFECTIVE DATE: July 26, 1999.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Scott E. Smith, Martha V. Douthit orMelissa G. Skinner, ImportAdministration, International TradeAdministration, U.S. Department ofCommerce, Pennsylvania Avenue and14th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.20230; telephone (202) 482–6397, (202)482–3207 or (202) 482–1560respectively.

Extension of Final Results

The Department has determined thatthe sunset review of the antidumpingduty order on tapered roller bearingsfrom the People’s Republic of China isextraordinarily complicated. Inaccordance with section 751(c)(5)(C)(v)of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended(‘‘the Act’’), the Department may treat a

review as extraordinarily complicated ifit is a review of a transition order (i.e,an order in effect on January 1, 1995).See section 751(c)(6)(C) of the Act. Theantidumping duty order on taperedroller bearings from the People’sRepublic of China was issued on June15, 1987 (52 FR 22667) and, as such, isa transition order. Accordingly, theDepartment is extending the time limitfor completion of the preliminaryresults of this review until not later thanOctober 18, 1999, in accordance withsection 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act. TheDepartment will, therefore, issue thefinal results of this review not later thanFebruary 25, 2000.

Dated: July 20, 1999.Robert S. LaRussa,Assistant Secretary for ImportAdministration.[FR Doc. 99–19020 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M



[Docket No. 980608149–8149–01]

RIN 0648–ZA44

Use of Satellite Data for Studying Localand Regional Phenomena

AGENCY: National EnvironmentalSatellite, Data, and Information Service,National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration, Department ofCommerce.ACTION: Notice of availability of Federalassistance.

SUMMARY: The Office of Research andApplications announces the availabilityof Federal assistance for fiscal year 2000to expand the use of satellite data for thestudy of scientific phenomena in localand regional areas. This announcementprovides detailed guidelines for thetechnical program, evaluation criteria,and selection procedures. The standardNOAA Grant Application can beobtained from the Office of Researchand Applications (301–763–8127). Eachfunded project will establish a grant.DATES: Proposals will be acceptedthrough 5:00 p.m. EST on November 15,1999. Final selection will occurapproximately December 31, 1999.ADDRESSES: Office of Research andApplications; NOAA/NESDIS; 5200Auth Road; Rm 701; Camp Springs, MD20746–4304.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.James Purdom, 301–763–8127 [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:Authority: Statutory authority for this

program is provided under 49 U.S.C. 44720,33 U.S.C. 833a, 833d, 833e.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance(CFDA)

This program is listed in the CFDAunder Number 11.440.

Program Description. NOAA’sNational Environmental Satellite, Data,and Information Service (NESDIS)Office of Research and Applications(ORA) is establishing a program whichwill provide free real-time satellite datato academic institutions for their use instudying local and regional phenomena.The emphasis of the program is toexpand the use of satellite data withinthe academic community. In order to doso, ORA will: (1) Provide free access tosatellite data for use in ongoing projects;(2) provide data and funds for thepurchase of basic equipment requiredfor analysis as part of an existingprogram or teaching laboratory; and (3)provide data to support students forresearch purposes.

The purpose of these guidelines is toidentify eligibility criteria, roles andresponsibilities, milestones, andselected criteria associated with theaward. Each funded project willestablish a 1-year grant between ORAand the grantee. Most projects will befunded from $0 plus free data to $22,000for equipment and personnel plus freedata. No cost sharing is required.

BackgroundORA provides overall guidance and

direction to the research and applicationactivities of NESDIS. ORA providesexpert service to other NESDIS officesrelating to sensor development,instrument problems, or systemshardware components. It coordinateswith NESDIS, other appropriate NOAAunits, and U.S. Government agencies inthe implementation and evaluation ofoperational and research satellite dataand products that result from researchactivities. It coordinates researchactivities of mutual interest with theacademic community, NASAlaboratories, and with foreignlaboratories, particularly those insatellite operating countries. ORAprovides advice to the AssistantAdministrator concerning interfacesamong centers and offices of NESDISand among the major NOAA elements inrelation to broad scale scientificprojects. It produces and providesspecific programmatic studies andstatistics as needed. ORA providessupport and coordination on NOAA’sactivities in the Strategic Plan and theU.S. Global Change Research Program.

VerDate 18-JUN-99 17:54 Jul 23, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26JYN1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 26JYN1


Roles and Responsibilities

ORA: ORA will have primaryresponsibility for the followingactivities: Provide satellite data neededfor the project. (The original data are theproperty of ORA and cannot be used forpurposes other than stated in theproposals, i.e., the data cannot be soldor used for commercial purposes, withthe exception of use in academic text.)Provide technical guidance for imageprocessing and analysis. Monitorprogress and evaluate progress reports.

Grantee: The grantee shall haveprimary responsibility for the followingactivities associated with the project:

Organize and manage grant activities.Identify Principal Investigator that

will take the lead for all technicalaspects of the grant and be responsiblefor using satellite data as a key tool inthe activity.

Submit a progress report every 4months and a final report at the end ofthe 1-year project period.

Submit scientific findings for thisactivity.

Project Proposals

All project proposals should includethe following sections for a total of 6–8 pages maximum. Multi-year proposalswill be accepted; however, futurefunding will be dependent uponsatisfactory performance and theavailability of funds. The annual awardsmust have scopes of work that areclearly severable that can be easilyseparated into annual increments ofmeaningful work which represent solidaccomplishments if prospective fundingis not made available to the Applicant.

Goals and Objectives—identify broadproject goals and quantifiable objectives.

Background/Introduction—state theproblem and summary of existingfederal/state/local efforts.

Audience—identify explicitly theaudience and describe specifics of howthe project will contribute to improvethe use of satellite data with the primarytarget audience.

Project Description/Methodology—describe the specifics of the activity (3pages maximum), with a complete andexplicit description of the project area.

Expected Results—list desiredoutcomes in terms of products orservices.

Project Budget—provide a detailedbudget breakdown by category andprovide a brief narrative budgetjustification.

Selection Process

Applicants will submit projectproposals to the Office of Research andApplications by the published due date.

A project selection panel will beconvened to review and recommendselection using the criteria published inthese guidelines. Each proposal will bereviewed by three internal reviewers.This selection panel will present itsrecommendations to the Director, ORA,for final selection. In addition to therankings assigned by the panel, theDirector may consider program policyfactors such as geographic location andbalance of technical areas in making hisfinal decision.

Selection Criteria (With Weights)

NOAA Relevance

Will the activity foster broaderknowledge concerning the use ofsatellite data in meteorological and/oroceanographic research at yourinstitution? (40 points)

Technical Merit

Is the proposed activity scientificallysound and relevant. (60 points)

Selection Schedule

Proposals due—November 15, 1999.Final Selection—Approximately

December 31, 1999.Grant start date—Approximately

March 1, 2000.Note: All deadlines are for receipt by 5:00

p.m. EST on the dates identified. Allapplicants are required to submit one originaland two copies of a completed and signedNOAA Grants Application Package. Theapplication package may be obtained bycalling (301) 763–8127 or accessed on-linefrom the NOAA Grants Home Page at http://www.rdc.noaa.gov/∼grants/index/html.

Project Reporting/EvaluationRequirements

The Grantee will be asked to provideprogress reports every 4 months and afinal report.

Funding Availability

There is no guarantee that sufficientfunds will be available to make awardsfor all approved projects. Publication ofthis notice does not obligate NOAA toaward any specific grant or cooperativeagreement or to obligate all or any partof the available funds. NOAA expectsthat approximately $100,000 will beavailable in FY 2000 for this program.

Cost Sharing

None.

Eligibility Criteria

The emphasis of this program is tofoster new uses of satellite data withinthe academic community. Any stateuniversity, college, institute orlaboratory, any public or privatenonprofit institution or consortium may

apply. Ongoing activities that use thisprogram solely as a source of free datawith no other costs encumbered areencouraged to do so.

Indirect Costs

The total dollar amount of the indirectcosts proposed in an application underthis program must not exceed thecurrent indirect cost rate negotiated andapproved by the Applicant’s cognizantFederal agency, prior to the proposedeffective date of the award or 100percent of the total proposed direct costdollar amount in the application,whichever is less.

Federal Policies and Procedures

Recipients and sub-recipients aresubject to all Federal laws and Federaland DOC policies, regulations, andprocedures applicable to Federalassistance awards.

Name Check Review

All non-profit and for-profitapplicants are subject to a name checkreview process. Name checks areintended to reveal, if any, keyindividuals associated with therecipient have been convicted of, or arepresently facing, criminal charges suchas fraud, theft, perjury, or other mattersthat significantly reflect on therecipient’s management, honesty, orfinancial integrity.

Past Performance

Unsatisfactory performance underprior Federal awards may result in anapplication not being considered forfunding.

Pre-Award Activities

If applicants incur any costs prior toan award being made, they do so solelyat their own risk of not beingreimbursed by the Government.Notwithstanding any verbal or writtenassurance that may have been received,there is no obligation on the part of DOCto cover pre-award costs.

No Obligation for Future Funding

If the application is selected forfunding, DOC has no obligation toprovide any additional future funding inconnection with that award. Renewal ofan award to increase funding or extendthe period of performance is at the totaldiscretion of DOC.

Delinquent Federal Debts

No award of Federal funds shall bemade to an applicant who has anoutstanding delinquent Federal debtunder either:

(i) The delinquent account is paid infull,



(ii) A negotiated repayment scheduleis established and at least one paymentis received, or

(iii) Other arrangements satisfactory toDOC are made.

Primary Applicant Certifications

All organizations or individualspreparing grant applications mustsubmit a completed Form CD–511‘‘Certifications Regarding Debarment,Suspension, and Other ResponsibilityMatters: Drug-Free WorkplaceRequirements and Lobbying,’’ andexplanations are hereby provided.

Non-Procurement Debarment andSuspension

Prospective participants (as defined at15 CFR part 26, Section 105) are subjectto 15 CFR part 26, ‘‘NonprocurementDebarment and Suspension’’ and therelated section of the certification formprescribed above applies.

Drug-Free Workplace

Grantees (as defined at 15 CFR, part26, Section 605) are subject to 15 CFRpart 26, subpart f, ‘‘Government-wideRequirements for Drug-Free Workplace(Grants)’’ and the related section of thecertification form prescribed aboveapplies.

Anti-Lobbying

Persons (as defined at 15 CFR part 28,Section 105) are subject to the lobbyingprovisions of 31 U.S.C. 1352,‘‘Limitations on use of appropriatedfunds to influence certain Federalcontracting and financial transactions,’’and the lobbying section of thecertification form prescribed aboveapplies to application/bids for grants,cooperative agreements, and contractsfor more than $100,000, and loans andloan guarantees for more than $150,000,or the single family maximum mortgagelimit for affected programs, whichever isgreater.

Anti-Lobbying Disclosures

Any applicant that has paid or willpay for lobbying using any funds mustsubmit an SF–LLL, ‘‘Disclosure ofLobbying Activities,’’ as required under15 CFR Part 28, Appendix B.

Lower-Tier Certifications

Recipients shall require applicants/bidders for sub-grants, contracts,subcontracts, or other lower-tier coveredtransactions at any tier under the awardto submit, if applicable, a completedForm CD–512, ‘‘Certifications RegardingDebarment, Suspension, Ineligibilityand Voluntary Exclusion-Lower TierCovered Transactions and Lobbying’’and disclosure form, SF–LLL,

‘‘Disclosure of Lobbying Activities.’’Form CD–512 is intended for the use ofrecipients and should not be transmittedto DOC. SF–LLL submitted by any tierrecipient or sub-recipient should besubmitted to DOC in accordance withthe instructions contained in the awarddocument.

False Statements

A false statement on an application isgrounds for denial or termination offunds and grounds for possiblepunishment by a fine or imprisonmentas provided in 18 U.S.C. 1001.

Intergovernmental Review

Applications under this program aresubject to Executive Order 12372,‘‘Intergovernmental Review of FederalPrograms.’’

Buy American-Made Equipment orProducts

Applicants are hereby notified thatthey will be encouraged, to the greatestextent practicable, to purchaseAmerican-made equipment andproducts with funding provided underthis program in accordance withCongressional intent.

Classification

This action has been determined to benot significant for purposes of ExecutiveOrder 12866.

Prior notice and an opportunity forpublic comment are not required by theAdministrative Procedure Act of anyother law for this notice concerninggrants, cooperative agreements, benefits,and contracts. Therefore, a regulatoryflexibility analysis is not required forpurposes of the Regulatory FlexibilityAct. Notwithstanding any otherprovision of law, no person is requiredto respond to, nor shall a person besubject to, a penalty for failure tocomply with a collection of informationsubject to the requirements of thePaperwork Reduction Act (PRA) unlessthat collection of information displays acurrently valid OMB control number.This Notice involves a collection ofinformation requirement subject to PRAwhich has been approved under OMBControl Number 0348–0046.


Gregory W. Withee,Assistant Administrator for Satellite andInformation Services.[FR Doc. 99–18920 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–HR–P



[I.D. 070799H]

New England Fishery ManagementCouncil; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine FisheriesService (NMFS), National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA),CommerceACTION: Notice of cancellation of apublic meeting.

SUMMARY: The New England FisheryManagement Council (Council) iscancelling the meeting of its ResearchSteering and Experimental FisheriesCommittee scheduled for July 29, 1999at 9:30 a.m. The meeting wasannounced in the Federal Register onJuly 13, 1999.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: PaulJ. Howard, Executive Director, NewEngland Fishery Management Council;(781) 231–0422.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The initialnotice published on July 13, 1999 (64FR 37751). Because of schedulingconflicts, the meeting of the ResearchSteering and Experimental FisheriesCommittee will be cancelled. Analternative date will be announced assoon as possible.

Dated: July 20, 1999.Richard W. Surdi,Acting Director, Office of SustainableFisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.[FR Doc. 99–18998 Filed 7–21–99; 3:52 pm]BILLING CODE 3510–22–F



[I.D. 071599C]

Marine Mammals; File No. 77–1#70

AGENCY: National Marine FisheriesService (NMFS), National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA),Commerce.ACTION: Issuance of permit amendment.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given thatPermit No. 925, issued to The NationalMarine Mammal Laboratory, Northwestand Alaska Fisheries Science Center,National Marine Fisheries Service, 7600Sand Point Way, NE. Seattle,Washington 98115, was amended toextend the expiration date to September30, 1999.ADDRESSES: The amendment and relateddocuments are available for review



upon written request or by appointment(See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Ruth Johnson, 301/713–2289.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Thesubject amendment has been issuedunder the authority of the MarineMammal Protection Act of 1972, asamended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), theprovisions of § 216.39 of the RegulationsGoverning the Taking and Importing ofMarine Mammals (50 CFR part 216), theEndangered Species Act of 1973, asamended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.),and the provisions of § 222.25 of theregulations governing the taking,importing, and exporting of endangeredand threatened species (50 CFR part222–226).

Issuance of this permit, as required bythe ESA, was based on a finding thatsuch permit (1) was applied for in goodfaith, (2) will not operate to thedisadvantage of the endangered specieswhich is the subject of this permit, and(3) is consistent with the purposes andpolicies set forth in section 2 of theESA.

Application and documentation areavailable in the following locations:

Permits and Documentation Division,Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705,Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301/713–2289);

Regional Administrator, AlaskaRegion, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau,AK 99802–1668 (907/586–7221);

Regional Administrator, NorthwestRegion, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way,NE, BIN C15700, Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA,98115–0070 (206/526–6150); and

Regional Administrator, SouthwestRegion, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd.,Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802–4213(562/980–4001).

Dated: July 19, 1999.Ann D. Terbush,Chief, Permits and Documentation Division,Office of Protected Resources, NationalMarine Fisheries Service.[FR Doc. 99–19012 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETYCOMMISSION

Sunshine Meeting Notice

AGENCY: U.S. Consumer Product SafetyCommission Washington, DC 20207.‘‘FEDERAL REGISTER’’ CITATION OFPREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: Volume 64,No. 138, 38896, July 20, 1999.PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OFMEETING: 10:00 a.m., Tuesday, July 27,1999.

CHANGES IN MEETING: The meetingconcerning the decision on issuesrelated to the Commission’s budget forFiscal Year 2001 has been canceled.

For a recorded message containing thelatest agenda information, call (301)504–0709.CONTACT PERSON FOR ADDITIONALINFORMATION: Sadye E. Dunn, Office ofthe Secretary, 4330 East West Highway.,Bethesda, MD 20207 (301) 504–0800.

Dated: July 22, 1999.Sadye E. Dunn,Secretary.[FR Doc. 99–19134 Filed 7–22–99; 2:06 pm]BILLING CODE 6355–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

Special Panel on Military Operationson Vieques; Notice

AGENCY: Special Panel on MilitaryOperations on Vieques; Notice.SUMMARY: The Panel will conduct threepublic meetings to receive and discussinformation associated with militaryoperations at Vieques, Puerto Rico andin the adjoining ocean range complex.The panel will receive information fromthe Mayor of Vieques, the HonorableManuela Santiago and fromrepresentative residents of Vieques onJuly 24. Because of the short timeframeof the panel’s review, and theaccelerated pace of the meetingschedule, this announcement must bemade less than 15 days before themeetings will take place.DATES: July 24, 1999 from 12:30 to 2p.m.ADDRESSES: 449 Carlos Lebraum Street,City Hall, Vieques, Puerto Rico 00765.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Contact Dr. Hector O. Nevarez, theDesignated Federal Officer, 1401 WilsonBoulevard, Suite 400, Arlington, VA22209, phone (703) 696–9456, fax (703)696–9482, or via Email [email protected] of the draft meeting agenda canbe obtained by contacting DebraCrnkovic at (703) 695–5493.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Seating inthe panel meeting room is limited, andspaces will be reserved only for panelmembers and invited representatives.The remaining seating is available on afirst-come, first-served basis. Noteleconference lines will be available.Written comments for the record may bemailed to the Panel and will bedistributed to the Panel members afterthe adjournment of the July 24, 1999meeting.

Dated: July 21, 1999.Patricia L. Toppings,Alternate OSD Federal Register LiaisonOfficer, Department of Defense.[FR Doc. 99–19044 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 5001–10–M


Department of the Air Force

Notice of Intent To Revise and Reissuethe Draft Environmental ImpactStatement (EIS) on the Proposal ToRelease Federal Funds to theUniversity of New Mexico To ConstructEnchanted Skies Park andObservatory, Near Grants, NM

The United States Air Force prepareda draft Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) to assess the potentialenvironmental impacts of the AirForce’s decision to issue Department ofDefense (DoD) grant funds to theUniversity of New Mexico to constructan astronomical observatory on HoraceMesa, near Grants. In May 1997 the AirForce began preparation of anEnvironmental Assessment (EA) toanalyze this proposal. Preliminaryresults from the EA indicated thepotential for significant impacts tocultural resources. In accordance withthe National Environmental Policy Act,the Air Force continued the analysis ofthis proposal through the preparation ofa draft EIS that was released in July1998. A public hearing was held inAugust 1998. Based on commentsreceived by the public, the Air Forcewill revise and reissue the draft EIS. Inaddition to addressing issues raised bythe public, the Air Force will analyzeadditional siting alternatives located onHorace Mesa and at a site referred to asthe Bibo site. The revised draft EIS willbe used by the Air Force in consideringwhether, and under what conditions, toapprove the release of federal funds toconstruct the observatory on HoraceMesa or at the Bibo site and todocument the Air Force’s decision in aRecord of Decision.

The Air Force will accept publicinput regarding the Enchanted SkiesPark and Observatory throughout thepreparation of the revised draft EIS.Written and oral comments receivedfrom meetings and correspondenceduring the preparation of the originaldraft EIS will be considered inpreparation of the revised draft EIS, aswill comments received by the AirForce throughout the process. To ensurethe Air Force has sufficient time toconsider public input in the preparationof the revised draft EIS, comments



should be submitted to the addressbelow: HQ AFCEE/EXX, ATTN: Ms JuliaCantrell, 3207 North Road, Brooks AFB,TX 78235–5363.Janet A. Long,Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.[FR Doc. 99–18945 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 5001–05–P

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Submission for OMB Review;Comment Request

AGENCY: Department of Education.SUMMARY: The Leader, InformationManagement Group, Office of the ChiefInformation Officer invites commentson the submission for OMB review asrequired by the Paperwork ReductionAct of 1995.DATES: Interested persons are invited tosubmit comments on or before August25, 1999.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] 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 Information Officer,publishes that notice containingproposed information collectionrequests prior to submission of theserequests to OMB. Each proposedinformation collection, grouped byoffice, contains the following: (1) Typeof review requested, e.g. new, revision,extension, existing or reinstatement; (2)Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4)Description of the need for, andproposed use of, the information; (5)Respondents and frequency ofcollection; and (6) Reporting and/or

Recordkeeping burden. OMB invitespublic comment.

Dated: July 20, 1999.William E. Burrow,Leader, Information Management Group,Office of the Chief Information Officer.

Office of the Under SecretaryType of Review: Extension.Title: Evaluation of School-to-Work

Implementation.Frequency: Annually.Affected Public: Individuals or

households; State, local or Tribal Gov’t,SEAs or LEAs.

Reporting and Recordkeeping HourBurden:

Responses: 3,375.Burden Hours: 33,828.

Abstract: This congressionallymandated five-year study examines theimplementation of School-to-Workprograms in states and localcommunities. The evaluation involvessurveys of local STW partnerships, in-depth case studies in eight states and 40communities, and study of students’experiences in high school andpostsecondary education.

Requests for copies of thisinformation collection should beaddressed to Vivian Reese, U.S.Department of Education, 400 MarylandAvenue, S.W., Room 5624, RegionalOffice Building 3, Washington, D.C.20202–4651, or should be electronicallymailed to the Internet [email protected], or should befaxed to 202–708–9346.

For questions regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements,contact Jacqueline Montague at 202–708–5359 or electronically at herinternet [email protected]. Individualswho use a telecommunications devicefor the deaf (TDD) may call the FederalInformation Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339.

[FR Doc. 99–18936 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4000–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

National Assessment GoverningBoard; Meeting

AGENCY: National AssessmentGoverning Board; Education.ACTION: Notice of partially closedmeeting.

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth theschedule and proposed agenda of aforthcoming meeting of the NationalAssessment Governing Board. Thisnotice also describes the functions ofthe Board. Notice of this meeting is

required under section 10 (a) (2) of theFederal Advisory Committee Act. Thisdocument is intended to notify thegeneral public of their opportunity toattend.DATES: August 5–7, 1999.TIME: August 5—Subject AreaCommittee #2, 11:30 a.m.–2:30 p.m.,(closed) 2:30–3:00 p.m., (open); Designand Methodology Committee, 1:00–3:00p.m., (open)’ Joint Meeting of the Designand Methodology Committee and theReporting and DisseminationCommittee, 3:00–4:00 p.m., (open);Executive Committee, 4:00–5:00 p.m.,(open), 5:00–6:00 p.m., (closed). August6—Full Board, 8:00–10:30 a.m., (open),Subject Area Committee #1, 10:30 a.m.–12:30 p.m., (open), Achievement LevelsCommittee, 10:30 a.m.–12:30 p.m.,(open); Reporting and Dissemination,10:30 a.m.–12:30 p.m. (open); FullBoard, 12:30–2:00 p.m., (closed); 2:00–4:00 p.m. (open). August 7—Full Board,8:30–adjournment, approximately 11:30a.m. (open).LOCATION: Ritz Carlton Hotel, PentagonCity, 1250 South Hayes Street,Arlington, VA.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Mary Ann Wilmer, Operations Officer,National Assessment Governing Board,Suite 825, 800 North Capitol Street, NW,Washington, DC, 20002–4233,Telephone: (202) 357–6938.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: TheNational Assessment Governing Boardis established under section 412 of theNational Education Statistics Act of1994 (Title IV of the ImprovingAmerica’s Schools Act of 1994) (Pub. L.103–382).

The Board is established to formulatepolicy guidelines for the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress.The Board is responsible for selectingsubject areas to be assessed, developingassessment objectives, identifyingappropriate achievement goals for eachgrade and subject tested, andestablishing standards and proceduresfor interstate and national comparisons.Under Pub. L. 105–78, the NationalAssessment Governing Board is alsogranted exclusive authority overdeveloping the Voluntary National Testspursuant to contract numberRJ97153001.

On August 5, the Subject AreaCommittee #2 will meet in closedsession from 11:30 a.m.–2:30 p.m toreview proposed items for the math andscience tests to be administered in theyear 2000. This meeting must be closedbecause references will be made tospecific items from the assessment andpremature disclosure of the informationpresented for review would be likely to



significantly frustrate implementation ofa proposed agency action if conductedin open session. Such matters areprotected by exemption 9(B) of section552b(c) of Title 5 U.S.C. The Committeewill meet in open session from 2:30–3:00 p.m. to discuss plans for the 2004NAEP mathematics framework and VNTmath items.

The Design and MethodologyCommittee will meet in open sessionfrom 1:00–3:00 p.m. The Committee willbe taking action on the pilot test designand analysis plans, and the validityresearch agenda for the proposedVoluntary National Tests. TheCommittee will hear reports on theprovisions that might be made forincluding special needs students in theVoluntary National Tests, and hear anupdate on the NAEP evaluations.

From 3:00–4:00 p.m., there will be ajoint meeting of the Design andMethodology Committee and theReporting and DisseminationCommittees to review and discuss thesampling and reporting plans for NAEP2000 assessments in mathematics andscience.

Also on August 5, there will be apartially closed meeting of theExecutive Committee. In open sessionfrom 4:00–5:000 p.m. the Committeewill review the NAEP and NAGBreauthorizations preparations, and heara report on the briefings that were givento Congress and the Secretary.

During the closed portion, 5:00–6:00p.m., the Executive Committee willdiscuss the development of costestimates for the NAEP and futurecontract initiatives. Public disclosure ofthis information would likely have anadverse financial affect on the NAEPprogram. The discussion of thisinformation would be likely tosignificantly frustrate implementation ofa proposed agency action if conductedin open session. Such matters areprotected by exemption (9)(B) of section552b(c) of Title 5 U.S.C.

Also in closed session, the ExecutiveCommittee will discuss thequalifications of current Board membersto serve as Chairman and Vice Chairmanof NAGB. Based upon these discussions,the Board will elect a Vice Chairmanand recommend a Chairman to theSecretary. This portion of the meetingwill relate solely to the internalpersonnel rules and practices of anagency and will disclose information ofa personal nature where disclosurewould constitute a clearly unwarrantedinvasion of personal privacy and, assuch, is protected by exemptions (2) and(6) of section 552b(c) of title 5 U.S.C.

On August 5, the full Board willconvene in open session from 8:00 to

10:30 a.m. The agenda for this sessionincludes approval of the agenda, thereport of the Executive Director, NAEPUpdate, discussion on MathematicsFramework for Year 2004 Assessment,and NAEP and NAGB reauthorization.

Between 10:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.,there will be open meetings of SubjectArea #1, Achievement Levels, and theReporting and Disseminationcommittees.

Subject Area Committee #1 will meetto discuss issues related to the NAEPForeign Language FrameworkConsensus Project, and the readingassessment issues in the proposedVoluntary National Tests.

The Achievement Levels Committeewill hear briefings on three items:Preliminary results of the bookletclassification and the similaritiesclassification studies; findings of aresearch study designed to observe theimpact of using different responseprobability criteria for settingachievement levels; and a report whichsummarizes the different methods thathave been used to set achievementlevels on NAEP.

The Reporting and DisseminationCommittee agenda includes a series ofreviews for the NAEP assessments:Review of plans for releasing results ofthe 1998 writing and civics assessments;review of the schedule for release offuture NAEP reports; and review of thebackground questionnaires for NAEP2000 in math and science. For theproposed Voluntary National Tests, theCommittee will consider the workplanfor score reporting, 4:00 p.m. The Boardwill hear the results of a research studyconcerned with the participation ratesof special needs students in NAEP;receive a briefings on the current statusof the NAEP redesign and therecommendations for NAGP and NAEPreauthorization.

On August 7, the full Board will be insession from 8:30—adjournment,approximately 11:30 a.m. The agendaincludes a briefing on a report titledIncreasing Participation of SpecialNeeds Students in NAEP: Results of the1996 Research Study; and an update onthe planning for the foreign languageframework. Also, the Board will hearreports from its standing committeesand, where appropriate, take action ontheir work.

Summaries of the activities of theclosed sessions and related matters,which are informative to the public andconsistent with the policy of section 5U.S.C. 552b(c), will be available to thepublic within 14 days of the meeting.Records are kept of all Boardproceedings and are available for publicinspection at the U.S. Department of

Education, National AssessmentGoverning Board, Suite #825, 800 NorthCapitol Street, NW, Washington, DC,from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.Roy Truby,Executive Director, National AssessmentGovernment Board.[FR Doc. 99–18932 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4000–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Docket No. EA–122–A]

Application To Export Electric Energy;Electric Clearinghouse, Inc.

AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, DOE.ACTION: Notice of application.

SUMMARY: Electric Clearinghouse, Inc.(ECI) has applied for renewal of itsauthority to transmit electric energyfrom the United States to Canadapursuant to section 202(e) of the FederalPower Act.DATES: Comments, protests or requeststo intervene must be submitted on orbefore August 25, 1999.ADDRESSES: Comments, protests orrequests to intervene should beaddressed as follows: Office of Coal &Power Im/Ex (FE–27), Office of FossilEnergy, U.S. Department of Energy,1000 Independence Avenue, SW,Washington, DC 20585–0350 (FAX 202–287–5736).FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Rosalind Carter (Program Office) 202–586-7983 or Michael Skinker (ProgramAttorney) 202–586–6667.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August8, 1997, the Office of Fossil Energy (FE)of the Department of Energy (DOE)authorized ECI to transmit electricenergy from the United States to Canadaas a power marketer using theinternational electric transmissionfacilities owned and operated by BasinElectric Power Cooperative, BonnevillePower Administration, CitizensUtilities, Detroit Edison, Eastern MaineElectric Cooperative, Joint Owners ofthe Highgate Project, Long Sault, Inc.,Maine Electric Power Company, MainePublic Service Company, MinnesotaPower and Light Co., Inc., MinnkotaPower, New York Power Authority,Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., NorthernStates Power, and Vermont ElectricTransmission Company. That two-yearauthorization will expire on August 8,1999. On June 28, 1999, ECI filed anapplication with FE for renewal of thisexport authority and requested that theOrder be issued for an additional five-year term.



Procedural Matters

Any person desiring to become aparty to this proceeding or to be heardby filing comments or protests to thisapplication should file a petition tointervene, comment or protest at theaddress provided above in accordancewith §§ 385.211 or 385.214 of theFERC’s Rules of Practice and Procedures(18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Fifteencopies of each petition and protestshould be filed with the DOE on orbefore the date listed above.

Comments on the ECI request toexport to Canada should be clearlymarked with Docket EA–122–A.Additional copies are to be filed directlywith Mr. Daniel A. King, Esq., ElectricClearinghouse, Inc., 805 15th Street,N.W., Suite 510–A, Washington, D.C.20005–2207, AND Kathryn L. Patton,Esq., Electric Clearinghouse, Inc., 1000Louisiana, Suite 5800, Houston, TX77002–5050.

DOE notes that the circumstancesdescribed in this application arevirtually identical to those for whichexport authority had previously beengranted in FE Order EA–122.Consequently, DOE believes that it hasadequately satisfied its responsibilitiesunder the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act of 1969 through thedocumentation of a categoricalexclusion in the FE Docket EA–122–Aproceeding.

Copies of this application will bemade available, upon request, for publicinspection and copying at the addressprovided above or by accessing theFossil Energy Home Page at http://www.fe.doe.gov. Upon reaching theFossil Energy Home page, select‘‘Regulatory Programs,’’ then‘‘Electricity Regulation,’’ and then‘‘Pending Proceedings’’ from the optionsmenus.

Issued in Washington, D.C., on July 16,1999.Anthony J. Como,Deputy Director, Electric Power Regulation,Office of Coal & Power Im/Ex, Office of Coal& Power Systems, Office of Fossil Energy.[FR Doc. 99–18976 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6450–01–P


[Docket No. EA–131–A]

Application To Export Electric Energy;Sonat Power Marketing L.P.

AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, DOE.ACTION: Notice of application.

SUMMARY: Sonat Power Marketing L.P.(Sonat) has applied for renewal of its

authority to transmit electric energyfrom the United States to Canadapursuant to section 202(e) of the FederalPower Act.DATES: Comments, protests or requeststo intervene must be submitted on orbefore August 25, 1999.ADDRESSES: Comments, protests orrequests to intervene should beaddressed as follows: Office of Coal &Power Im/Ex (FE–27), Office of FossilEnergy, U.S. Department of Energy,1000 Independence Avenue, SW,Washington, DC 20585–0350 (FAX 202–287–5736).FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Steven Mintz (Program Office) 202–586–9506 or Michael Skinker (ProgramAttorney) 202–586–6667.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July31, 1997, the Office of Fossil Energy(FE) of the Department of Energy (DOE)authorized Sonat to transmit electricenergy from the United States to Canadaas a power marketer using theinternational electric transmissionfacilities owned and operated by BasinElectric Power Cooperative, BonnevillePower Administration, CitizensUtilities, Detroit Edison, Eastern MaineElectric Coop., Joint Owners of theHighgate Project, Maine Electric PowerCo., Maine Public Service, MinnesotaPower, Inc., Minnkota Power, New YorkPower Authority, Niagara MohawkPower Corp., Northern States Power,and Vermont Electric Transmission Co.That two-year authorization will expireon July 30, 1999. On July 8, 1999, Sonatfiled an application with FE for renewalof this export authority and requestedthat the Order be issued for anadditional two-year term.

Procedural MattersAny person desiring to become a

party to this proceeding or to be heardby filing comments or protests to thisapplication should file a petition tointervene, comment or protest at theaddress provided above in accordancewith §§ 385.211 or 385.214 of theFERC’s Rules of Practice and Procedures(18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Fifteencopies of each petition and protestshould be filed with the DOE on orbefore the date listed above.

Comments on the Sonat request toexport to Canada should be clearlymarked with Docket EA–131–A.Additional copies are to be filed directlywith S. Chris Still, Attorney, SonatPower Marketing L.P., 1900 FifthAvenue North (35203), P.O. Box 2563,Birmingham, AL 35202–2563.

DOE notes that the circumstancesdescribed in this application arevirtually identical to those for which

export authority had previously beengranted in FE Order EA–131.Consequently, DOE believes that it hasadequately satisfied its responsibilitiesunder the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act of 1969 through thedocumentation of a categoricalexclusion in the FE Docket EA–131proceeding.

Copies of this application will bemade available, upon request, for publicinspection and copying at the addressprovided above or by accessing theFossil Energy Home Page at http://www.fe.doe.gov. Upon reaching theFossil Energy Home page, select‘‘Regulatory Programs,’’ then‘‘Electricity Regulation,’’ and then‘‘Pending Proceedings’’ from the optionsmenus.

Issued in Washington, D.C., on July 16,1999.Anthony J. Como,Deputy Director, Electric Power Regulation,Office of Coal & Power Im/Ex, Office of Coal& Power Systems, Office of Fossil Energy.[FR Doc. 99–18977 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6450–01–U


Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Rocky Flats

AGENCY: Department of Energy.ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

SUMMARY: This notice announces ameeting of the EnvironmentalManagement Site-Specific AdvisoryBoard (EM SSAB), Rocky Flats. TheFederal Advisory Committee Act (Pub.L. 92–463, 86 Stat. 770) requires thatpublic notice of these meetings beannounced in the Federal Register.DATES: Thursday, August 5, 1999: 6:00p.m.–9:30 p.m.ADDRESSES: College Hill Library, (FrontRange Community College), 3705 West112th Avenue, Westminster, CO 80021.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: KenKorkia, Board/Staff Coordinator, RockyFlats Citizens Advisory Board, 9035North Wadsworth Parkway, Suite 2250,Westminster, CO 80021; telephone (303)420–7855; fax (303) 420–7579.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose ofthe Board: The purpose of the Board isto make recommendations to DOE andits regulators in the areas ofenvironmental restoration, wastemanagement, and related activities.

Tentative Agenda

1. Update on projects and issues beingtracked by the Defense NuclearFacilities Safety Board



2. Discuss and approverecommendations on the BuildingRubble, Rocky Flats Clean-upAgreement Standard OperatingProtocol (RFCA), RFCA StandardOperating Protocol (RSOP) document

3. Finalize discussion of cleanup phasesend-states

4. Review and discuss the next draft of‘‘Vision’’ document

5. Other Board business may beconducted as necessary.Public Participation: The meeting is

open to the public. Written statementsmay be filed with the Board 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 at least fivedays prior to the meeting and reasonableprovision will be made to include thepresentation in the agenda. The DeputyDesignated Federal Officer isempowered to conduct the meting in afashion that will facilitate the orderlyconduct of business. Each individualwishing to make public comment willbe provided a maximum of five minutesto present their comments. This noticeis being published less than 15 daysbefore the date of the meeting due toprogrammatic issues that had to beresolved prior to publication.

Minutes: The minutes of this meetingwill be available for public review andcopying at the Freedom of InformationPublic Reading Room, 1E–190, ForrestalBuilding, 1000 Independence Avenue,SW, Washington, DC 20585 between9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday—Friday, except Federal holidays.Minutes will also be available at thePublic Reading Room located at theBoard’s office at 9035 North WadsworthParkway, Suite 2250, Westminster, CO80021; telephone (303) 420–7855. Hoursof operation for the Public ReadingRoom are 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Mondaythrough Friday. Minutes will also bemade available by writing or calling DebThompson at the address or telephonenumber listed above.

Issued at Washington, DC on July 21, 1999.Rachel M. Samuel,Deputy Advisory Committee ManagementOfficer.[FR Doc. 99–18978 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6450–01–P


Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Pantex Plant

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

SUMMARY: This notice announces ameeting of the EnvironmentalManagement Site-Specific AdvisoryBoard (EM SSAB), Pantex Plant,Amarillo, Texas. The Federal AdvisoryCommittee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, 86 Stat.770) requires that public notice of thesemeetings be announced in the FederalRegister.DATE AND TIME: Tuesday, July 27, 1999:8:00 a.m.–7:00 p.m.ADDRESS: Carson County Square HouseMuseum, Hwy 207, Panhandle, TX.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: JerryS. Johnson, Assistant Area Manager,Department of Energy, Amarillo AreaOffice, P.O. Box 30030, Amarillo, TX79120 (806) 477-3125.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose ofthe Board: The purpose of the Board isto advise the Department of Energy andits regulators in the areas ofenvironmental restoration, wastemanagement, and related activities.

Tentative Agenda

8:00 a.m.–12:00 p.m. A Water 101Seminar will be conducted for thepublic by Texas Natural ResourcesConservation Committee, Bureau ofEconomic Geology, and the AttorneyGeneral’s offices

1:00 p.m. Welcome—AgendaReview—Approval of Minutes

1:15 p.m. Co-Chair Comments1:30 p.m. Ex-Officio Reports1:45 p.m. Task Force/Subcommittee

minutes2:30 p.m. Updates—Occurrence

Reports—DOE3:00 p.m. Presentation (TBA)4:00 p.m. Question and Answer4:20 p.m. Closing Remarks4:30 p.m. Public Comments4:45 p.m. Adjourn5:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m.—Environmental

Restoration Program Update—PosterSessionPublic Participation: The meeting is

open 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 Jerry Johnson’s office at theaddress or telephone number listedabove. Requests must be received 5 daysprior to the meeting and everyreasonable provision will be made toaccommodate the request in the agenda.The Deputy Designated Federal Officialis empowered to conduct the meeting ina fashion that will facilitate the orderlyconduct of business. Each individualwishing to make public comment willbe provided a maximum of 5 minutes to

present their comments. This notice isbeing published less than 15 days beforethe date of the meeting due toprogrammatic issues that had to beresolved prior to publication.

Minutes: The minutes of this meetingwill be available for public review andcopying at the Pantex Public ReadingRooms located at the Amarillo CollegeLynn Library and Learning Center, 2201South Washington, Amarillo, TX phone(806) 371–5400. Hours of operation arefrom 7:45 am to 10:00 pm, Mondaythrough Thursday; 7:45 am to 5:00 pmon Friday; 8:30 am to 12:00 noon onSaturday; and 2:00 pm to 6:00 pm onSunday, except for Federal holidays.Additionally, there is a Public ReadingRoom located at the Carson CountyPublic Library, 401 Main Street,Panhandle, TX phone (806) 537–3742.Hours of operation are from 9:00 am to7:00 pm on Monday; 9:00 am to 5:00pm, Tuesday through Friday; and closedSaturday and Sunday as well as FederalHolidays. Minutes will also be availableby writing or calling Jerry S. Johnson atthe address or telephone number listedabove.

Issued at Washington, DC on July 21, 1999.Rachel M. Samuel,Deputy Advisory Committee ManagementOfficer.[FR Doc. 99–18979 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6450–01–U


Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission

[Docket No. RP99–438–000]

Algonquin Gas TransmissionCompany; Request for Waiver

July 20, 1999.Take notice that on July 14, 1999,

Algonquin Gas Transmission Company(Algonquin) tendered for filing a requestfor waivers to permit a change incontract conversion election underOrder No. 636.

Algonquin states that underAlgonquin’s Order No. 636 restructuringproceeding, qualifying small customerscould make contract conversionelections for small customer no-noticefirm transportation under Rate ScheduleAFT–1S and small customer firmtransportation under Rate ScheduleAFT–1S. Algonquin states that theTown of Middleborough, Massachusetts,Municipal Gas and Electric Department(Middleborough) did not make itsoriginal contract conversion election forthe small customer options, even thoughit qualifies for small customer status.



Algonquin also states thatMiddleborough has requested thatAlgonquin permit Middleborough toconvert its firm service to service underAlgonquin’s small customer rateschedules. Algonquin states that goodcause exists for the Commission to grantthe waiver requested herein.

Algonquin states that copies of thefiling were served on all affected partiesand interested state commissions.

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 on or beforeJuly 27, 1999. Protests will beconsidered by the Commission indetermining the appropriate action to betaken, but will not serve to makeprotestants parties to the proceedings.Any person wishing to become a partymust file a motion to intervene. Copiesof this filing are on file with theCommission and are available for publicinspection in the Public ReferenceRoom. This filing may be viewed on theweb at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call (202) 208–2222 forassistance).David P. Boergers,Secretary.[FR Doc. 99–18972 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–M



[Docket No. RP–440–000]

Black Marlin Pipeline Company;Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff


Black Marlin Pipeline Company (BlackMarlin) tendered for filing as part of itsFERC Gas Tariff, First Revised VolumeNo. 1, the following tariff sheets tobecome effective August 14, 1999:Second Revised Sheet No. 202First Revised Sheet No. 204

Black Marlin states that in view ofnew gas discoveries in its area andcorresponding changes in the needs ofshippers, Black Marlin has discussedquality of gas standards with itsshippers and has agreed to file toimplement a change to the GeneralTerms and Conditions (GT&C) of itsTariff to allow for the delivery of non-conforming gas into the Black Marlin

system. The proposed change isintended to provide shippers with theincreased flexibility that they desire,while preserving the integrity of BlackMarlin’s system and the commingledgas stream it transports.

Black Marlin states that Section 2.1 ofthe GT&C of Black Marlin’s Tariffrequires that gas tendered to BlackMarlin by a shipper must meet thequality specifications set forth in thetariff. Section 2.1 further provides thatfailure to meet such qualityspecifications shall relive Black Marlinof an obligation to take receipt of suchgas. With recent changes in productionoccurring in its vicinity, however, BlackMarlin has determined that it canprovide shippers with limitedadditional flexibility with respect toquality specifications, withoutimpairing Black Marlin’s ability tooperate its system.

Black Marlin states that specifically,the overall mix of gas being transportedis changing, especially in light ofdifferent product coming on line. BlackMarlin has determined that, because gasof different quality specifications maybe commingled without impairing BlackMarlin’s ability to provide service, ashipper may be permitted to delivernon-conforming gas into the BlackMarlin system as long as the safety andreliability of the system are notimpaired. Therefore to provide shipperswith the increased flexibility they bothneed and desire, Black Marlin proposesto modify Section 2.1 of its Tariff toprovide that it will accept offspecifications gas as long as deliveries atall delivery points meet the qualityspecifications set forth in the Tariff, andthe safety and reliability of BlackMarlin’s system is not impaired.

Further, Black Marlin states that inthe event that the quality specificationsat all delivery points are not met, theTariff has been modified to state that,after the shipper has been providednotice and an opportunity to remedy thedeficiency, the gas at receipt pointsmost out of compliance with the qualityspecifications will be the first to berejected for acceptance into the BlackMarlin system.

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 be

taken, but will not serve to makeprotestants parties to the proceedings.Any person wishing to become a partymust file a motion to intervene. Copiesof this filing are on file with theCommission and are available for publicinspection in the Public ReferenceRoom. This filing may be viewed on theweb at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202–208–2222 forassistance).David P. Boegers,Secretary.[FR Doc. 99–18973 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–M




CNG Transmission Corporation;Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff


CNG Transmission Corporation (CNG)tendered for filing as part of its FERCGas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No.1, the following tariff sheets with aneffective date of August 1, 1999:Third Revised Sheet No. 289Third Revised Sheet No. 386A

CNG states that the purpose of thisfiling is to modify CNG’s FERC GasTariff as required to reflect CNG’simplementation of additional businesspractice standards that have beenestablished by the Gas IndustryStandards Board (GISB). In particular,the instant revision reflects theCommission’s adoption of Version 1.3GISB standards, as incorporated byreference in the Commission’sregulations under Order No. 587–K.CNG states that it has enclosed in itsfiling an updated chart, detailing CNG’scompliance with each GISB BusinessPractice standard adopted by theCommission.

CNG states that copies of its letter oftransmittal and enclosures are beingmailed to its customers and to interestedstate commissions.

Any person desiring to be heard or toprotest said filing should file a motionto intervene or a protest with theFederal Energy Regulatory Commission,888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC20426, in accordance with Sections385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission’sRules and Regulations. All such motionsor protests must be filed in accordancewith Section 154.210 of theCommission’s Regulations. Protests willbe considered by the Commission in



determining the appropriate action to betaken, but will not serve to makeprotestants parties to the proceedings.Any person wishing to become a partymust file a motion to intervene. Copiesof this filing are on file with theCommission and are available for publicinspection in the Public ReferenceRoom. This filing may be viewed on theweb at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202–208–2222 forassistance).David P. Boergers,Secretary.[FR Doc. 99–18974 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–M




Dauphin Island Gathering Partners;Proposed Change in FERC Gas Tariff


Dauphin Island Gathering Partners(DIGP) tendered for filing as part of itsFERC Gas Tariff, First Revised VolumeNo. 1, the following tariff sheets tobecome effective August 1, 1999:First Revised Sheet No. 170First Revised Sheet No. 225Original Sheet No. 255A

DIGP states that the purpose of thisfiling is to comply with Order No. 587–K, Final Rule issued on April 2, 1999,in Docket No. RM96–1–011. The revisedtariff sheets reflect certain Version 1.3standards promulgated by the GasIndustry Standards Board which wereadopted by the Commission andincorporated by reference in theCommission’s regulations.

Any person desiring to be heard or toprotest said filing should file a motionto intervene or a protest with theFederal Energy Regulatory Commission,888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC20426, in accordance with Sections385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission’sRules and Regulations. All such motionsor protests must be filed in accordancewith Section 154.210 of theCommission’s Regulations. Protests willbe considered by the Commission indetermining the appropriate action to betaken, but will not serve to makeprotestants parties to the proceedings.Any person wishing to become a partymust file a motion to intervene. Copiesof this filing are on file with theCommission and are available for publicinspection in the Public ReferenceRoom. This filing may be viewed on the

web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202–208–2222 forassistance).David P. Boergers,Secretary.[FR Doc. 99–18971 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–M




Destin Pipeline Company, L.L.C.; TariffFiling


Destin Pipeline Company, L.L.C.(Destin) tendered for filing to becomepart of its FERC Gas Tariff, OriginalVolume No. 1, First Revised Sheet Nos.71a and 76b, to become effective onAugust 1, 1999.

Destin states that the purpose of thisfiling is to correct a pagination error inDestin’s July 1, 1999, filing.

Any person desiring to protest thisfiling should file a protest with theFederal Energy Regulatory Commission,888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.20426, in accordance with Section385.211 of the Commission’s Rules andRegulations. All such protests must befiled as provided in Section 154.210 ofthe Commission’s Regulations. Protestswill be considered by the Commissionin determining the approprite action tobe taken, but will not serve to makeprotestants parties to the proceedings.Copies of this filing are on file with theCommission and are avaiable for publicinspection in the Public ReferenceRoom. This filing may be viewed on theweb at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202–208–2222 forassistance).David P. Boergers,Secretary.[FR Doc. 99–18970 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–M



[Docket No. CP99–577–000]

Duke Energy Field Services Inc.;Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order

July 20, 1999.Take notice that, on July 13, 1999,

Duke Energy Field Services Inc. (Duke)370 Seventeenth Street, Suite 900,

Denver, Colorado 80202, filed a petitionpursuant to Section 1(b) of the NaturalGas Act (NGA), and Rule 207 of theCommission’s Rules of Practice andProcedure (18 CFR 385.207). Dukerequests a declaratory order finding thatits proposed acquisition of certainfacilities currently owned by TexasEastern Transmission Corporation(Tetco) will not subject Duke to thejurisdiction of the Federal EnergyRegulatory Commission under theprovisions of the natural Gas Act. All ofthis is more fully set forth in theapplication, which is one file with theCommission and open to publicinspection. The application may also beviewed on the web at www.ferc.fed.us.Call (202) 208–2222 for assistance.

The name address, and telephonenumber of the person to whomcorrespondence and communicationsconcerning this petition should beaddressed is: David E. Williams, SeniorAttorney, Duke Energy Field Services,Inc. 370 17th Street—Suite 900, Denver,Colorado 80202, (303) 595–3331.

The facilities which Duke hopes topurchase include Tetco’s KenedyRanch, Humble-Sarita and BennettRanch pipelines located in Kenedy,Brooks and Jim Hogg Counties, Texas.Duke states that it will use the facilitiesfor gathering and will arrange for thepurchase of production currentlyattached to the laterals, or in thealternative will enter into gas gatheringagreements with no adverse rate impactfor producers and shippers currentlyusing the line.

Any person desiring to be heard ormake any protest with reference to saidapplication should on or before August20, 1999, file with the Federal EnergyRegulatory Commission, 888 FirstStreet, NE, Washington DC 20426, amotion to intervene or a protest inaccordance with the requirements of theCommission’s Rules of Practice andProcedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211)and the regulations under the NaturalGas Act (18 CFR 157.10). All protestsfiled with the Commission will beconsidered by it in determining theappropriate action to be taken but willnot serve to make the Protesters 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.

Take further notice that, pursuant tothe authority contained in and subject tothe jurisdiction conferred upon theFederal Energy Regulatory Commissionby Sections 7 and 15 of the Natural GasAct and the Commission’s Rules ofPractice and Procedure, a hearing will



be held without further notice before theCommission or its designee on thisapplication if no motion to intervene isfiled within the time required, or if theCommission on its own review of thematter finds that a grant of thecertificate is required by the publicconvenience and necessity. If a motionfor leave to intervene is timely filed, orif the Commission on its own motionbelieves that a formal hearing isrequired, further notice of such hearingwill be duly given.

Under the procedure herein providedfor, unless otherwise advised, it will beunnecessary for the Duke to appear orbe represented at the hearing.David P. Boergers,Secretary.[FR Doc. 99–18964 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–M



[Docket No. GT99–62–000]

Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc.;Notice of Refund Report


Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc.(Granite State) tendered for filing withthe Commission a report of GasResearch Institute (GRI) refunds made toits customers.

Granite State states that it received atotal refund of $335,102.00 from GRI forover collections during 1998. GraniteState says that it allocated the refundproportionately to its firm customers,Bay State Gas Company and NorthernUtilities and made the refunds to themon July 7, 1999 by credit to thecustomers accounts.

Granite State also states that its reporthas been served on its customers and onthe regulatory agencies of the states ofMaine, Massachusetts and NewHampshire.

Any person desiring to be heard or toprotest said filing should file a motionto intervene or a protest with theFederal Energy Regulatory Commission,888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC20426, in accordance with Sections385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission’srules and Regulations. All such motionsor protests must be filed on or beforeJuly 27, 1999. Protests will beconsidered 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. Copies

of this filing are on file with theCommission and are available for publicinspection in the Public ReferenceRoom. This filing may be viewed on theweb at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202–208–2222 forassistance).David P. Boergers,Secretary.[FR Doc. 99–18967 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M




Koch Gateway Pipeline Company;Tariff Filing

July 20, 1999.

Take notice that on July 16, 1999,Koch Gateway Pipeline Company(Koch) tendered for filing as part of itsFERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised VolumeNo. 1, the following tariff sheets, tobecome effective August 1, 1999:

Twenty-eighth Revised Sheet No. 20Twenty-fifth Revised Sheet No. 21Twenty-sixth Revised Sheet No. 22Twenty-eighth Revised Sheet No. 24First Revised Sheet No. 24A

Koch states that the purpose of thisfiling is to place the rates into effectrelated to the Offer of Settlement andStipulation and Agreement resolving allaspects of Koch’s costs of service andrate design in Docket No. RP99–111which was approved by an Order issuedJuly 14, 1999.

Koch also states that it has servedcopies of the instant filing upon eachaffected customer, interested statecommissions, and other parties.

Any person desiring to protest thisfiling should file a protest with theFederal Energy Regulatory Commission,888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC20426, in accordance with Section385.211 of the Commission’s Rules andRegulations. All such protests must befiled 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. This filing may be viewed on theweb at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/

rims.htm (call 202–208–2222 forassistance).David P. Boergers,Secretary.[FR Doc. 99–18969 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–M




Portland Natural Gas TransmissionSystem; Notice of Request UnderBlanket Authorization


Portland Natural Gas TransmissionSystem (Portland Natural Gas), OneHarbour Place, Portsmouth, NewHampshire 03801, filed in Docket No.CP99–583–000 a request pursuant toSections 157.205 and 157.211 of theCommission’s Regulations under theNatural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205 and157.211) for authorization to add adelivery point near mile post 0.48 onthe Newington lateral, for G–P GypsumCorporation (G–P Gypsum) inNewington, New Hampshire. PortlandNatural Gas makes such request underits blanket certificate issued in DocketNo. CP96–249–000 pursuant to Section7 of the Natural Gas Act, all as morefully set forth in the request on file withthe Commission. The filing may beviewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call202–208–2222 for assistance).

Communications concerning thisfiling should be addressed to: J. MarcTeixiera, Vice President of Engineeringand Operations, Portland Natural GasTransmission System Operations Co.,LLC, 603–427–2410.

Specifically, the proposed facilitieswill consist of approximately 235 feet of4-inch pipe and a metering facility, thatwill extend from the existing tap at theNewington lateral to a meter station tobe built by G–P Gypsum, which willhouse the proposed metering facility.Portland Natural Gas indicates that itstariff does not prohibit the installationof the proposed facilities, and that G–PCypsum is providing all funding for thefacilities required for the proposeddelivery point, so there will be no costto Portland Natural Gas or its existingcustomers. It is averred that G–PGypsum, who is presently served byNorthern Utilities, Inc., a localdistribution company, has constructedfor 4,000 Dt of IT service from PortlandNatural Gas.



It is stated that the Newington lateralis part of the Joint Facilities owned byboth Portland Natural Gas andMaritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C.(Maritimes). Portland Natural Gasindicates that it has already constructedthe facilities necessary for a tie-in to theNewington lateral pursuant toCommission authorization in DocketNo. CP99–110–000, issued on December31, 1998. It is therefore indicated thatPortland Natural Gas will own theproposed delivery point and thatMaritimes, as the operator of the JointFacilities, will be the operator of theproposed delivery point.

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 therefore,the proposed activity shall be deemed tobe authorized effective the day after thetime allowed for filing a protest. If aprotest is filed a protest, the instantrequest shall be treated as anapplication for authorization pursuantto Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.David P. Boergers,Secretary.[FR Doc. 99–18966 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–M




Texas Eastern TransmissionCorporation; Notice of Application ToAbandon


Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation(Tetco), 5400 Westheimer Court,Houston Texas 77056–5310, filed underSection 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act, forauthority to abandon by sale to DukeEnergy Field Services Inc., (Duke) theBennet Ranch line, the Kenedy RanchLateral and the Humble Sarita Lateral.These facilities are located in Brooks,Jim Hogg and Kenedy Counties, Texas,all as more fully described in theapplication which is on file with theCommission and open to publicinspection. This filing may be viewedon the web at http://www.ferc.us/online/rims.htm. Call 202–208–2222 forassistance.

The name, address, and telephonenumber of the person to whomcorrespondence and communicationsconcerning this Application should beaddressed is: S.E. Tillman, Director ofRegulatory Affairs, Texas EasternTransmission Corporation, P.O. Box1642 Houston, Texas 77251–1642, (713)627–5113, (713) 627–5947 (Fax).

The facilities proposed for sale accesssupplies of natural gas from productionfields in Kenedy, Jim Hogg and BrooksCounties Texas. Tetco states that thefacilities are underutilized and thatDuke proposes to sell them at a net bookvalue of $395,975, plus incidental costsof transfer not to exceed $25,000. Dukeproposes to use the facilities to gatherproduction and has advised Tetco thatit will either arrange to purchaseproduction from wells currentlyattached to the facilities or enter intogather arrangements with ratescomparable to those currently beingcharged by Tetco.

Any person desiring to be heard ormake any protest with reference to saidapplication should on or before August10, 1999, file with the Federal EnergyRegulatory Commission, 888 FirstStreet, NE, Washington, DC 20426, amotion to intervene or a protest inaccordance with the requirements of theCommission’s Rules of Practice andProcedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211)and the regulations under the NaturalGas Act (18 CFR 157.10). All protestsfiled with the Commission will beconsidered by it in determining theappropriate action to be taken but willnot serve to make the Protesters 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.

Take further notice that, pursuant tothe authority contained in and subject tothe jurisdiction conferred upon theFederal Energy Regulatory Commissionby Sections 7 and 15 of the Natural GasAct and the Commission’s Rules ofPractice and Procedure, a hearing willbe held without further notice before theCommission or its designee on thisapplication if no motion to intervene isfiled within the time required, or if theCommission on its own review of thematter finds that permission andapproval of the proposed abandonmentare required by the public convenienceand necessity. If a motion for leave tointervene it timely filed, or if theCommission on its own motion believesthat a formal hearing is required, furthernotice of such hearing will be dulygiven.

Under the procedure herein providedfor, unless otherwise advised, it will beunnecessary for Tetco to appear or berepresented at the hearing.David P. Boergers,Secretary.[FR Doc. 99–18965 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]





Williston Basin Interstate PipelineCompany; Notice of Tariff Filing

July 20, 1999.

Take notice that on July 16, 1999,Williston Basin Interstate PipelineCompany (Williston Basin), tendered forfiling as part of its FERC Gas Tariff,Second Revised Volume No. 1, thefollowing revised tariff sheets to becomeeffective July 16, 1999:

Sixth Revised Sheet No. 3; Sixth RevisedSheet No. 203; Third Revised Sheet No.225; Sixth Revised Sheet No. 234; SecondRevised Sheet No. 277; Second RevisedSheet No. 278; Second Revised Sheet No.279; Second Revised Sheet No. 509; FourthRevised Sheet No. 510; Second RevisedSheet No. 559; Fourth Revised Sheet No.560; Fourth Revised Sheet No. 608; SheetNos. 775–778; Sheet Nos. 825–835

Williston Basin respectfully requeststhat it be granted a permanent waiverfrom the requirement to report itsMaster Receipt/Delivery Point Lists inits tariff and instead, to maintain suchonly on its EBB web site.

Any person desiring to be heard or toprotest said filing should file a motionto intervene or a protest with theFederal Energy Regulatory Commission,888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC20426, in accordance with sections385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission’srules and regulations. All such motionsor protests must be filed in accordancewith section 154.210 of theCommission’s Regulations. Protests willbe considered by the Commission indetermining in the appropriate action tobe taken, but will not serve to makeprotestants parties to the proceedings.Any person wishing to become a partymust file a motion to intervene. Copiesof this filing are on file with theCommission and are available for publicinspection in the Public ReferenceRoom. This filing may be viewed on theweb at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/



rims.htm (call 202–208–2222 forassistance).David P. Boergers,Secretary.[FR Doc. 99–18975 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–M



[Docket No. EC99–92–000, et al.]

Texas-New Mexico Power Companyand SW Acquisition, L.P., et al.;Electric Rate and Corporate RegulationFilings

July 19, 1999.Take notice that the following filings

have been made with the Commission:

1. Texas-New Mexico Power Companyand SW Acquisition, L.P.

[Docket No. EC99–92–000]Take notice that on July 9, 1999,

Texas-New Mexico Power Company(TNMP) and SW Acquisition, L.P.(together, Joint Applicants) tendered forfiling a request that the Commissionapprove a disposition of facilities and/or grant any other authorization theCommission may deem to be neededunder Section 203 of the Federal PowerAct as a result of the forthcomingmerger between TNP Enterprises, Inc.(TNP), TNMP’s parent, and SWAcquisition, L.P. Joint Applicantssubmit that the planned merger of TNPwith SW Acquisition, L.P., will have noeffect on the jurisdictional facilities,rates or services of TNMP and will beconsistent with the public interest.

Joint Applicants request expeditiousaction on the application in order thatthere be no delay in the merger of TNPand SW Acquisition, L.P.

Comment date: August 9, 1999, inaccordance with Standard Paragraph Eat the end of this notice.

2. Energy Atlantic, LLC

[Docket No. ER98–4381–003]Take notice that on July 14, 1999, the

above-mentioned power marketer filed aquarterly report with the Commission inthe above-mentioned proceeding forinformation only. This filing is availablefor public inspection and copying in thePublic Reference Room or on the web atwww.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm forviewing and downloading (call 202–208–2222 for assistance).

3. Tampa Electric Company

[Docket No. ER99–3559–000]Take notice that on July 14, 1999,

Tampa Electric Company (Tampa

Electric) tendered for filing serviceagreements with The Energy Authority,Inc. (TEA) for firm and non-firm point-to-point transmission service underTampa Electric’s open accesstransmission tariff. Tampa Electric alsotendered for filing notices oftermination of the existing serviceagreements with InterCoast PowerMarketing Company (InterCoast) andSonat Power Marketing L.P. (Sonat)under the tariff.

Tampa Electric proposes an effectivedate of July 14, 1999, for the tenderedservice agreements and terminations,and therefore requests waiver of theCommission’s notice requirements.

Copies of the filing have been servedon TEA, InterCoast, Sonat, and theFlorida Public Service Commission.


4. Puget Sound Energy, Inc.


Puget Sound Energy, Inc. (PSE), asTransmission Provider, tendered forfiling a Service Agreement for FirmPoint-To-Point Transmission Service(Firm Point-To-Point ServiceAgreement) and a Service Agreement forNon-Firm Point-To-Point TransmissionService (Non-Firm Point-To-PointService Agreement) with ABBInformation Systems (ABB), asTransmission Customer.

A copy of the filing was served uponABB.

PSE respectfully requests that thesefilings become effective as of July 15,1999.


5. Yadkin, Inc.


Yadkin, Inc. (Yadkin) tendered for filinga service agreement between Yadkinand Allegheny Power ServiceCorporation (as agent for MonongahelaPower Company, The Potomac EdisonCompany, and West Penn PowerCompany, collectively d/b/a AllghenyPower) under Yadkin’s FERC ElectricTariff Original Volume No. 2—Market-Based Rate Tariff. This Tariff wasaccepted for filing by the Commissionon September 30, 1996, effective as ofOctober 1, 1996, in Docket No. ER96–2603–000.

The service agreement is proposed tobe effective July 1, 1999.


6. Virginia Electric and PowerCompany

[Docket No. ER99–3562–000]

Take notice that on July 14, 1999,Virginia Electric and Power Company(Virginia Power), filed a letter agreementamending the provisions of a rateschedule of Virginia Power for service toNorthern Virginia Electric Cooperative(NOVEC), a member cooperative of OldDominion Electric Cooperative (OldDominion). The amendment is a letteragreement dated April 29, 1999,establishing the terms and conditionsfor modifying the existing monthlyexcess facilities charge for NOVECassociated with NOVEC’s Godwindelivery point. Virginia Power requestswaiver of the Commission’s noticerequirements for an effective date ofJanuary 1, 1999.

Copies of the filing were served uponOld Dominion, NOVEC, the VirginiaState Corporation Commission and theNorth Carolina Utilities Commission.


7. Puget Sound Energy, Inc.

[Docket No. ER99–3563–000]

Take notice that on July 14, 1999,Puget Sound Energy, Inc., asTransmission Provider, tendered forfiling a Service Agreement for FirmPoint-To-Point Transmission Service(Firm Point-To-Point ServiceAgreement) and a Service Agreement forNon-Firm Point-To-Point TransmissionService (Non-Firm Point-To-PointService Agreement) with the LosAngeles Department of Water and PowerWholesale Marketing Group (LAWM), asTransmission Customer. A copy of thefiling was served upon LAWM.


8. Idaho Power Company

[Docket No. ER99–3564–000]

Take notice that on July 14, 1999,Idaho Power Company (IPC), tenderedfor filing with the Federal EnergyRegulatory Commission ServiceAgreements for Non-Firm Point-to-PointTransmission Service and Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service betweenIdaho Power Company and Los AngelesDepartment of Water and PowerWholesale Marketing.




9. Louisville Gas and Electric Company/Kentucky Utilities Company

[Docket No. ER99–3565–000]

Take notice that on July 14, 1999,Louisville Gas and Electric Company/KentuckyUtilities (LG&E/KU), tenderedfor filing an executed ServiceAgreement for Firm Point-To-PointTransmission Service between LG&E/KU and TXU Energy Trading Companyunder LG&E/KU’s Open AccessTransmission Tariff.


10. Duke Power, a division of DukeEnergy Corporation

[Docket No. ER99–3566–000]

Take notice that on July 14, 1999,Duke Power (Duke), a division of DukeEnergy Corporation, tendered for filinga Service Agreement with SempraEnergy Trading Corp. (Sempra) forpower sales at market-based rates. Dukerequests that the proposed ServiceAgreement be permitted to becomeeffective on June 18, 1999. Duke statesthat this filing is in accordance withPart 35 of the Commission’s Regulationsand a copy has been served on the NorthCarolina Utilities Commission.


11. Commonwealth Edison Company

[Docket No. ER99–3567–000]

Take notice that on July 14, 1999,Commonwealth Edison Company(ComEd), submitted for filing anunexecuted Service Agreement,establishing Western Resources, Inc.(WRI), as a customer under the terms ofComEd’s Power Sales and Reassignmentof Transmission Rights Tariff PSRT–1(PSRT–1 Tariff). The Commission haspreviously designated the PSRT–1 Tariffas FERC Electric Tariff, First RevisedVolume No. 2.

ComEd also submits for filing arevised Index of Customers reflectingthe addition of WRI, and name changefor current customer NP Energy, Inc.,renamed Duke Energy Trading andMarketing, L.L.C. (DETM).

ComEd requests an effective date ofJuly 1, 1999, and accordingly seekswaiver of the Commission’s noticerequirements. Copies of this filing wereserved upon WRI and DETM.


12. Allegheny Power ServiceCorporation, On Behalf of West PennPower Company

[Docket No. ER99–3568–000]

Take notice that on July 14, 1999,Allegheny Power Service Corporationon behalf of West Penn Power Company(Allegheny Energy), filed AmendmentNo. 1 to Supplement No. 10 to theMarket Rate Tariff to incorporate aNetting Agreement with DTE EnergyTrading, Inc. into the tariff provisions.Allegheny Energy requests a waiver ofnotice requirements to make theAmendment effective as of the effectivedate therein, June 18, 1999. Copies ofthe filing have been provided to thePublic Utilities Commission of Ohio, thePennsylvania Public UtilityCommission, the Maryland PublicService Commission, the Virginia StateCorporation Commission, the WestVirginia Public Service Commission,and all parties of record.


13. Arizona Public Service Company

[Docket No. ER99–3569–000]

Take notice that on July 19, 1999,Arizona Public Service Company (APS),tendered for filing umbrella ServiceAgreements to provide short-term Non-Firm and Firm Point-to-PointTransmission Service to TXU EnergyTrading Company under APS OpenAccess Transmission Tariff.

A copy of this filing has been servedTXU Energy Trading Company and theArizona Corporation Commission.


Standard Paragraphs

E. Any person desiring to be heard orto protest such filing should file amotion to intervene or protest with theFederal Energy Regulatory Commission,888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC20426, in accordance with Rules 211and 214 of the Commission’s Rules ofPractice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211and 385.214). All such motions orprotests should be filed on or before thecomment date. Protests will beconsidered by the Commission indetermining the appropriate action to betaken, but will not serve to makeprotestants parties to the proceeding.Any person wishing to become a partymust file a motion to intervene. Copiesof these filings are on file with theCommission and are available for publicinspection. This filing may also beviewed on the Internet at http://

www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call202–208–2222 for assistance).David P. Boergers,Secretary.[FR Doc. 99–18933 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–P



Notice of Application Filed With theCommission and Soliciting Commentsand Recommendations, Motions ToIntervene, and Protests and Notice ofPublic Meeting To Discuss Application

July 20,1999.Take notice that the following

hydroelectric application has been filedwith the Commission and is availablefor public inspection:

a. Application Type: RequestedVariance to License Requirement(Article 50).

b. Project No.: 2146–081.c. Date Filed: June 30, 1999.d. Applicant: Alabama Power

Company.e. Name of Project: Coosa River

Hydroelectric Project.f. Location: The Coosa River

Hydroelectric Project includes thefollowing dams on the Coosa River inAlabama: Weiss, H. Neely Henry, LoganMartin and Lay. The H. Neely Henrydam is about 3 miles west of the city ofOhatchee and about 15 miles south ofthe city of Gadsden. The H. Neely HenryReservoir is located within Calhoun, St.Clair and Etowah Counties, Alabama.The dam and reservoir do not occupyany federal or tribal lands.

g. Filed Pursuant to: Federla PowerAct, 18 CFR 4.200.

h. Applicant Contact: Mr. JamesSchauer, Alabama Power Company, 600North 18th Street, P.O. Box 2641,Birmingham, AL 35291; (205) 257–1401.

i. FERC Contact: Questions about thisapplication can be answered by SteveHocking, E-mail [email protected], or telephone(202) 219–2656.

j. Deadline for filing comments andrecommendations, motions to intervene,and protests: August 23, 1999.

All documents (original and eightcopies) should be filed with: David P.Boergers, Secretary, Federal EnergyRegulatory Commission, 888 First StreetNE, Washington, DC 20426.

Please include the project number(2146–081) on any comments andrecommendations, motions to interveneand protests.

k. Description of Application:Alabama Power Company (APC)



requests a variance to temporarilychange lake levels at H. Neely HenryReservoir, part of the Coosa RiverHydroelectric Project. Currently, lakelevels must be maintained at elevation508 msl from May 1 to October 31;drawn down to elevation 505 msl byabout November 7 and maintained atthis level until about April 15; thenraised to elevation 508 msl by May 1.APC proposes to change H. Neely HenryReservoir so it is maintained atelevation 508 msl from May 1 toSeptember 30; drawn down to elevation507 msl by December 1 and maintainedat this level until April 1; then raised toelevation 508 masl by May 1. APCwould change lake levels as describedabove for up to three years during a trialperiod. At the end of the trial, APCwould decide whether to file anapplication to make the above lakelevels permanent.

The Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission (FERC) will be the leadagency in preparing an environmentalassessment (EA) for this proposedaction. The U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers (Corps) will be a cooperatingagency in the preparation of the EA. TheFERC and Corps along with APC willjointly host a public meeting to explainAPC’s proposal and answer anyquestions. The public meeting will be at7:00 p.m. on August 24, 1999, at theElliott Community Center, 2827 WestMeighan Blvd., Gadsden, AL 35904,(256) 549–4674).

l. Locations of the Application: Acopy of the application is available forinspection and reproduction at theCommission’s Public Reference Room,located at 888 First Street, NE, Room2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling(202) 208–1371. This filing may beviewed on the web at www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm. Call (202) 208–2222for assistance. A copy is also availablefor inspection and reproduction at theaddress in item h above.

m. Individuals desiring to be includedon the Commission’s mailing list shouldso indicate by writing to the Secretaryof the Commission.

Comments, Protests, or Motions toIntervene—Anyone may submitcomments, a protest, or a motion tointervene in accordance with therequirements of Rules of Practice andProcedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214.In determining the appropriate action totake, the Commission will consider allprotests or other comments filed, butonly those who file a motion tointervene in accordance with theCommission’s Rules may become aparty to the proceeding. Any comments,protests, or motions to intervene mustbe received on or before the specified

comment date for the particularapplication.

Filing and Service of ResponsiveDocuments—Any filings must bear inall capital letters the title‘‘COMMENTS’’,‘‘RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERMSAND CONDITIONS’’, ‘‘ PROTEST’’, OR‘‘MOTION TO INTERVENE’’, asapplicable, and the Project Number ofthe particular application to which thefiling refers. Any of the above-nameddocuments must be filed by providingthe original and the number of copiesprovided by the Commission’sregulations to: The Secretary, FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission, 888first Street, NE., Washington DC 20426.A copy of any motion to intervene mustalso be served upon each representativeof the Applicant specified in theparticular application.

Agency Comments—Federal, state,and local agencies are invited to filecomments on the described application.A copy of the application may beobtained by agencies directly from theApplicant. If an agency does not filecomments within the time specified forfiling comments, it will be presumed tohave no comments. One copy of anagency’s comments must also be sent tothe Applicant’s representatives.Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,Acting Secretary.[FR Doc. 99–18963 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–M



Recreation Plan Amendment andSoliciting Comments, Motions ToIntervene, and Protests

July 20, 1999.Take notice that the following

application has been filed with theCommission and is available for publicinspection:

a. Application Type: Amendment ofRecreation Plan.

b. Project No.: 271–056.c. Date Filed: June 1, 1999.d. Applicant: Entergy, Arkansas, Inc.e. Name of Project: Carpenter-Remmel

Hydroelectric Project.f. Location: The application will affect

access to the overlook area adjacent tothe Remmel Dam. The project is locatedin the Ouachita River in Hot Springsand Garland Counties, Arkansas. Theproject partially occupied federal landsadministered by the U.S. Forest Service,Army Corps of Engineers, and Bureau ofLand Management.

g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal PowerAct, 16 U.S.C. § 791(a)–825(r).

h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Douglas R.Sikes, Entergy Arkansas, Inc., P.O. Box218, Jones Mills, AR 72105, (501) 844–2197.

i. FERC Contact: Any questions onthis notice should be addressed to JonCofranesco at (202) 219–0079, or e-mailaddress: [email protected].

j. Deadline for filing comments and ormotions: August 30, 1999.

All documents (original and eightcopies) should be filed with: David P.Boergers, Secretary, Federal EnergyRegulatory Commission, 888 FirstStreet, N.E., Washington, DC 20426.

Please include the project number(271–056) on any comments or motionsfiled.

k. Description of Proposal: EntergyArkansas, Inc. (licensee) proposes toamend the approved recreation plan forthe Carpenter-Remmel Project. Theproposed amendment would involveclosing the overlook area immediatelyadjacent to Remmel Dam. The licenseeindicates this closure is necessary toensure safety at the project after RemmelDam is converted to remote operation.No alternate facility or access areproposed in lieu of this closure.

l. Locations of the Application: Acopy of the application is available forinspection and reproduction at theCommission’s Public Reference Room,located at 888 First Street, NE, Room2A, Washington, D.C. 20426, or bycalling (202) 208–1371. This filing maybe viewed on http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call (202) 208–2222 forassistance). A copy is also available forinspection and reproduction at theaddress in item h above.

m. Individuals desiring to be includedon the Commission’s mailing list shouldso indicate by writing to the Secretaryof the Commission.

Comments, Protests, or Motions toIntervene—Anyone may submitcomments, a protest, or a motion tointervene in accordance with therequirements of Rules of Practice andProcedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214.In determining the appropriate action totake, the Commission will consider allprotests or other comments filed, butonly those who file a motion tointervene in accordance with theCommission’s Rules may become aparty to the proceeding. Any comments,protests, or motions to intervene mustbe received on or before the specifiedcomment date for the particularapplication.

Filing and Service of ResponsiveDocument—Any filings must bear in allcapital letters the title ‘‘COMMENTS’’,‘‘RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERMS



AND CONDITIONS’’, ‘‘PROTEST’’, OR‘‘MOTION TO INTERVENE’’, asapplicable, and the Project Number ofthe particular application to which thefiling refers. Any of the above-nameddocuments must be filed by providingthe original and the number of copiesprovided by the Commission’sregulations to: The Secretary, FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission, 888First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.20426. A copy of any motion tointervene must also be served upon eachrepresentative of the Applicantspecified in the particular application.

Agency Comments—Federal, state,and local agencies are invited to filecomments on the described application.A copy of the application may beobtained by agencies from theApplicant. If an agency does not filecomments within the time specified forfiling comments, it will be presumed tohave no comments. One copy of anagency’s comments must also be sent tothe Applicant’s representatives.David P. Boergers,Secretary.[FR Doc. 99–18968 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–M



Sunshine Act Meeting

July 21, 1999.THE FOLLOWING NOTICE OF

MEETING IS PUBLISHED PURSUANTTO SECTION 3(A) OF THEGOVERNMENT IN THE SUNSHINEACT (PUB. L. NO. 94–409), 5 U.S.C.552B:AGENCY HOLDING MEETING: FEDERALENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSIONDATE AND TIME: JULY 28, 1999, 10:00A.M.PLACE: ROOM 2C, 888 FIRST STREET,NE, WASHINGTON, DC 20426STATUS: OPENMATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: AGENDA *NOTE—ITEMS LISTED ON THEAGENDA MAY BE DELETEDWITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE.CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:DAVID P. BOERGERS, SECRETARY,TELEPHONE (202) 208–0400, FOR ARECORDING LISTING ITEMSSTRICKEN FROM OR ADDED TO THEMEETING, CALL (202) 208–1627.

THIS IS A LIST OF MATTERS TO BECONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSION.IT DOES NOT INCLUDE A LISTING OFALL PAPERS RELEVANT TO THEITEMS ON THE AGENDA; HOWEVER,

ALL PUBLIC DOCUMENTS MAY BEEXAMINED IN THE REFERENCE ANDINFORMATION CENTER.

Consent Agenda—Hydro; 724th Meeting—July 28, 1999; Regular Meeting (10:00 A.M.)

CAH–1.OMITTED

CAH–2.DOCKET# P–2325, 022, FPL ENERGY

MAINE HYDRO LLCOTHER#S P–2329, 019, FPL ENERGY

MAINE HYDRO LLCP–2552, 025, FPL ENERGY MAINE

HYDRO LLCP–2671, 007, KENNEBEC WATER POWER

COMPANYCAH–3.

DOCKET# UL96–7, 004, KENNEBECWATER DISTRICT

OTHER#S P–2555, 007, KENNEBECWATER DISTRICT

P–2556, 013, FPL ENERGY MAINEHYDRO LLC



UUL96–8, 004, FPL ENERGY MAINEHYDRO LLC

UL96–9, 004, FPL ENERGY MAINEHYDRO LLC

UL96–10, 004, FPL ENERGY MAINEHYDRO LLC

CAH–4.DOCKET# P–2004, 073, HOLYOKE

WATER POWER COMPANYOTHER#S P–11607, 000, HOLYOKE GAS &

ELECTRIC DEPARTMENT,ASHBURNHAM MUNICIPAL LIGHTPLANT AND MASSACHUSETTSMUNICIPAL WHOLE-SALE ELECTRICCOMPANY

CAH–5.DOCKET# P–2555, 001, KENNEBEC

WATER DISTRICTCAH–6.

DOCKET# P–2556, 004, FPL ENERGYMAINE HYDRO LLC

OTHER#S P–2557, 004, FPL ENERGYMAINE HYDRO LLC


CAH–7. OMITTEDCAH–8.

DOCKET# P–9690, 047, ORANGE ANDROCKLAND UTILITIES INC.

OTHER#S P–10481, 025, ORANGE ANDROCKLAND UTILITIES INC.

P–10482, 038, ORANGE AND ROCKLANDUTILITIES INC.

CAH–9.DOCKET# P–2494, 028, PUGET SOUND

ENERGY, INC.

Consent Agenda—Electric

CAE–1.DOCKET# ER93–540, 006, AMERICAN

ELECTRIC POWER SERVICECORPORATION

CAE–2.DOCKET# ER99–3119, 000, ALLIANT

ENERGY CORPORATE SERVICES, INC.CAE–3.

DOCKET # ER99–3301, 000, CALIFORNIAINDEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERATORCORPORATION

CAE–4.OMITTED,

CAE–5.DOCKET # ER99–3163, 000, UTILICORP

UNITED, INC.OTHER #S EL99–78, 000, UTILICORP

UNITED, INC.CAE–6.

DOCKET # ER99–3206, 000, ISO NEWENGLAND, INC.

CAE–7.DOCKET # ER99–3148, 000, CALIFORNIA

POWER EXCHANGE CORPORATIONCAE–8.

DOCKET # ER99–3150, 000,COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANYAND COMMONWEALTH EDISONCOMPANY OF INDIANA

CAE–9.DOCKET # ER99–3129, 000,

FIRSTENERGY OPERATINGCOMPANIES

CAE–10.DOCKET # ER99–3196, 000, NORTHEAST

UTILITIES SERVICE COMPANYCAE–11.

DOCKET # OA96–64, 004, DAYTONPOWER AND LIGHT COMPANY

OTHER #S ER96–1552, 001, DAYTONPOWER AND LIGHT COMPANY

CAE–12.DOCKET # TX99–2, 000, PRAIRIELAND

ENERGY, INC.CAE–13.

DOCKET # ER99–1414, 003, NEWENGLAND POWER POOL AND ISONEW ENGLAND INC.

CAE–14.DOCKET # OA97–237, 007, NEW

ENGLAND POWER POOLOTHER #S ER97–1079, 006, NEW

ENGLAND POWER POOLER97–3574, 005, NEW ENGLAND POWER

POOLER97–4421, 005, NEW ENGLAND POWER

POOLER98–499, 004, NEW ENGLAND POWER

POOLOA97–608, 005, NEW ENGLAND POWER

POOLCAE–15.

DOCKET # ER99–2335, 000, NEWENGLAND POWER POOL

CAE–16.OMITTED,


POWER EXCHANGE CORPORATIONCAE–18.

DOCKET # OA97–163, 003, MID-CONTINENT AREA POWER POOL

OTHER #S ER97–1162, 002, MID-CONTINENT AREA POWER POOL

OA97–658, 003, MID-CONTINENT AREAPOWER POOL

CAE–19.DOCKET # ER99–3145, 000, PACIFIC GAS

AND ELECTRIC COMPANYOTHER #S EL98–46, 000, LAGUNA

IRRIGATION DISTRICTCAE–20.

DOCKET # EL95–71, 003, PUBLICSERVICE COMPANY OF NEW



HAMPSHIRE V. NEW HAMPSHIREELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.


INDEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERATORCORPORATION

CAE–22.DOCKET # ER97–1523, 003, CENTRAL

HUDSON GAS & ELECTRICCORPORATION, CONSOLIDATEDEDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK,INC. AND LONG ISLAND LIGHTINGCOMPANY, ET AL.

OTHER #S ER97–1523, 004, CENTRALHUDSON GAS & ELECTRICCORPORATION, CONSOLIDATEDEDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK,INC. AND LONG ISLAND LIGHTINGCOMPANY, ET AL.

ER97–4234, 002, CENTRAL HUDSON GAS& ELECTRIC CORPORATION,CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANYOF NEW YORK, INC. AND LONGISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY, ET AL.

ER97–4234, 003, CENTRAL HUDSON GAS& ELECTRIC CORPORATION,CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANYOF NEW YORK, INC. AND LONGISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY, ET AL.

OA97–470, 004, CENTRAL HUDSON GAS& ELECTRIC CORPORATION,CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANYOF NEW YORK, INC. AND LONGSLAND LIGHTING COMPANY, ET AL.

OA97–470, 005, CENTRAL HUDSON GAS& ELECTRIC CORPORATION,CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANYOF NEW YORK, INC. AND LONGISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY, ET AL.

CAE–23.DOCKET # EL99–46, 000, CAPACITY

BENEFIT MARGIN IN COMPUTINGAVAILABLE TRANSMISSIONCAPACITY

CAE–24.DOCKET # EL99–57, 000, ENTERGY

SERVICES, INC.CAE–25.

DOCKET # EL98–71, 000, PJMINTERCONNECTION, L.L.C.

CAE–26.DOCKET # RM99–7, 000, DEPRECIATION

ACCOUNTINGCAE–27.

DOCKET # RM95–9, 007, OPEN ACCESSSAME-TIME INFORMATION SYSTEM(OASIS) AND STANDARDS OFCONDUCT

CAE–28.DOCKET # OA97–520, 003, CITIZENS

UTILITIES COMPANYOTHER #S OA97–610, 003, CITIZENS

UTILITIES COMPANYCAE–29.

DOCKET # ER99–3125, 000, MINERGYNEENAH, L.L.C.

OTHER #S ER99–3118, 000, DUKEENERGY ST. FRANCIS L.L.C.

ER99–3143, 000, RELIANT ENERGYINDIAN RIVER, LLC

ER99–3165, 000, TENASKA GEORGIAPARTNERS, L.P.

ER99–3168, 000, ASTORIA GENERATINGCOMPANY, L.P.

ER99–3197, 000, BIV GENERATINGCOMPANY, L.L.C.

ER99–3207, 000, CAPITAL CENTERGENERATING COMPANY, LLC

ER99–3208, 000, ILLINOVA POWERMARKETING, INC.

ER99–3248, 000, CONSOLIDATEDEDISON ENERGY MASSACHUSETTS,INC.

CAE–30.DOCKET # ER99–34, 002, SIERRA PACIFIC

POWER COMPANYOTHER #S ER99–2339, 001, SIERRA

PACIFIC POWER COMPANY

Consent Agenda—Miscellaneous

CAM–1.DOCKET # RM98–13, 001, COMPLAINT

PROCEDURES

Consent Agenda—Gas and Oil

CAG–1.DOCKET # PR99–11, 000, CINCINNATI

GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANYCAG–2.

DOCKET # RP98–99, 006, TENNESSEEGAS PIPELINE COMPANY

CAG–3.DOCKET # RP98–206, 005, ATLANTA

GAS LIGHT COMPANYCAG–4.

DOCKET # RP99–355, 000, BALTIMOREGAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

CAG–5.OMITTED

CAG–6.OMITTED

CAG–7.DOCKET # RP99–424, 000, TEXAS-OHIO

PIPELINE, INC.CAG–8.

DOCKET # RP99–238, 000, SEA ROBINPIPELINE COMPANY

CAG–9.OMITTED

CAG–10.DOCKET # RP99–381, 000, WYOMING

INTERSTATE COMPANY, LTD.CAG–11.

OMITTEDCAG–12.

OMITTEDCAG–13.

DOCKET # RP99–422, 000, WESTGASINTERSTATE, INC.

CAG–14.OMITTED

CAG–15.DOCKET # RP98–324, 002, BLUE LAKE

GAS STORAGE COMPANYCAG–16.

DOCKET # RP98–326, 001, STEUBEN GASSTORAGE COMPANY

CAG–17.DOCKET # RP99–159, 000, SOUTHERN

NATURAL GAS COMPANYOTHER #S RP99–159, 001, SOUTHERN

NATURAL GAS COMPANYCAG–18.

DOCKET # RP95–408, 000, COLUMBIAGAS TRANSMISSION CORPORATION

CAG–19.DOCKET # RP97–156, 008, VIKING GAS

TRANSMISSION COMPANYCAG–20.

DOCKET # RP99–427, 000, GULF STATESTRANSMISSION CORPORATION

CAG–21.

DOCKET # GP98–23, 000, LAJOLLAPROPERTIES, INC.

CAG–22.DOCKET # RP97–307, 004, ANR PIPELINE

COMPANYOTHER #S RP97–367, 002, ANR PIPELINE

COMPANYCAG–23.

DOCKET # RP98–381, 002,TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS PIPE LINECORPORATION

OTHER #S RP98–381, 003,TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS PIPE LINECORPORATION

CAG–24.DOCKET # RP99–294, 002, TEXAS

EASTERN TRANSMISSIONCORPORATION

CAG–25.OMITTED

CAG–26.DOCKET # RP98–284, 001,

TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS PIPE LINECORPORATION

OTHER #S RP97–71 011TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS PIPE LINECORPORATION

CAG–27.OMITTED

CAG–28.DOCKET # RP97–408, 008, TRAILBLAZER

PIPELINE COMPANYCAG–29.

DOCKET # RP99–278, 001,TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS PIPE LINECORPORATION

CAG–30.DOCKET # RP97–287, 021, EL PASO

NATURAL GAS COMPANYOTHER #S RP97–287, 019, EL PASO

NATURAL GAS COMPANYRP97–287, 024, EL PASO NATURAL GAS

COMPANYRP97–287, 025, EL PASO NATURAL GAS

COMPANYRP97–287, 026, EL PASO NATURAL GAS

COMPANYCAG–31.

DOCKET # RP99–248, 002, PG&E GASTRANSMISSION, NORTHWESTCORPORATION

CAG–32.DOCKET # RP99–249, 001, WILLISTON

BASIN INTERSTATE PIPELINECOMPANY

CAG–33.DOCKET # RP98–54, 027, COLORADO

INTERSTATE GAS COMPANYOTHER #S RP98–38, 000, NATURAL GAS

PIPELINE COMPANY OF AMERICARP98–39, 000, NORTHERN NATURAL

GAS COMPANYRP98–52, 000, WILLIAMS NATURAL GAS

COMPANYRP98–53, 000, KN INTERSTATE GAS


DOCKET # RP98–54, 024, COLORADOINTERSTATE GAS COMPANY

CAG–35.DOCKET # RP99–330, 000, CONSUMER

SERVICES ASSOCIATION, INC. D/B/AUNITED GAS SERVICES, INC. V. KNINTERSTATE GAS TRANSMISSIONCOMPANY AND KN ENERGY, INC.

CAG–36.



DOCKET # RM99–1, 000, REVISIONS TOOIL PIPELINE REGULATIONS

CAG–37.DOCKET # MG99–18, 000, NORTHERN

NATURAL GAS COMPANYCAG–38.

DOCKET # MG99–20, 000, NATIONALFUEL GAS SUPPLY CORPORATION

CAG–39.OMITTED

CAG–40.DOCKET# CP98–238, 002, DESTIN

PIPELINE COMPANY, L.L.C.CAG–41.

DOCKET# CP99–564, 000, CORALMEXICO PIPELINE, LLC

CAG–42.DOCKET# CP99–94, 000, FLORIDA GAS

TRANSMISSION COMPANYOTHER#S CP99–94, 001, FLORIDA GAS

TRANSMISSION COMPANYRP96–366, 011, FLORIDA GAS


DOCKET# CP98–648, 000, NATIONALFUEL GAS SUPPLY CORPORATION

CAG–44.DOCKET# CP99–218, 000, ANR PIPELINE

COMPANYCAG–45.

DOCKET# CP99–321, 000, KENTUCKYWEST VIRGINIA GAS COMPANYL.L.C., NORA TRANSMISSIONCOMPANY AND EQUITABLEPRODUCTION COMPANY

CAG–46.OMITTED

CAG–47.OMITTED

CAG–48.DOCKET# CP99–102, 000, WYOMING

INTERSTATE COMPANY, LTD.CAG–49.

DOCKET# RM99–9, 000, DESIGNATIONOF CORPORATE OFFICIALS OF OTHERPERSONS TO RECEIVE SERVICE

Hydro AgendaH–1.

RESERVED

Electric AgendaE–1.

RESERVED

Regular Agenda—MiscellaneousM–1. OMITTED

Oil and Gas AgendaI.

PIPELINE RATE MATTERSPR–1.

OMITTEDPR–2.

OMITTEDII.

PIPELINE CERTIFICATE MATTERSPC–1.

DOCKET# PL99–3, 000, DETERMININGTHE NEED FOR NEW INTERSTATENATURAL GAS PIPELINE FACILITIES

STATEMENT OF POLICYDavid P. Boergers,Secretary.[FR Doc. 99–19100 Filed 7–22–99; 11:34 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–P


[FRL–6408–1]

Draft Toxicological Review ofCadmium and Compounds and IRISSummaries for Cadmium andCompounds

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency.ACTION: Notice of peer-review panelworkshop and public comment period.

SUMMARY: The U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) is announcingan external peer-review workshop toreview the external review draftdocument entitled, ToxicologicalReview of Cadmium and Compounds(CAS No. 7440–43–9) (NCEA–99–0734),and the companion draft IRIS(Integrated Risk Information System)Summaries for Cadmium andCompounds. The peer-review workshopwill be organized, convened, andconducted by the Syracuse ResearchCorporation, an EPA contractor forexternal scientific peer review.

The EPA is also announcing a thirty-day public comment period for thesesame documents. The documents wereprepared by the EPA’s National Centerfor Environmental Assessment—Research Triangle Park, NC, Office(NCEA–RTP) within the Office ofResearch and Development. NCEA–RTPwill consider the peer-review adviceand public comment submissions inrevising all of the documents.DATES: The peer-review panel workshopwill begin on Tuesday, August 3, 1999,at 8:30 a.m. and end at 5:30 p.m.Members of the public may attend asobservers, and there will be a limitedtime for comments from the public inthe afternoon. The thirty-day publiccomment period begins July 27, 1999,and ends August 27, 1999.ADDRESSES: The external peer-reviewpanel workshop will be held inClassroom #3 at the EPA’sEnvironmental Research Center, 86 T.W.Alexander Drive, Research TrianglePark, NC. The Syracuse ResearchCorporation, an EPA contractor, isorganizing, convening, and conductingthe peer-review workshop. To attend theworkshop, register by July 29, 1999, bycalling Tara Childs, Syracuse ResearchCorporation, 1215 Jefferson DavisHighway, Arlington, VA 22202 at 703–413–9364, or send a facsimile to 703–418–1044. Space is limited, andreservations will be accepted on a first-come, first-served basis. Please informSyracuse Research Corporation if youwish to make comments during thedesignated time in the afternoon.

The draft Toxicological Review anddraft IRIS Summaries are available onthe Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ncea/ under the ‘‘What’s New’’ and‘‘Publications’’ menus. The documentsare identified as ‘‘Cadmium andCompounds External Review Draft’’ andconsist of two groups of files,downloadable in .pdf format. The firstgroup contains only the ToxicologicalReview, while the second groupcontains this document and the IRISSummaries in five files. A limitednumber of paper copies are available bywriting to the Technical InformationManager, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, National Center forEnvironmental Assessment—RTPOffice, MD–52, Research Triangle Park,NC 27711. The facsimile number is 919–541–1818. Or, you may send an e-mailto [email protected]. Regardless of themethod you choose to request a papercopy, please provide your name,mailing address, and the documenttitles, Toxicological Review of Cadmiumand Compounds and IRIS Summariesfor Cadmium and Compounds.

Comments may be mailed to theProject Manager for Cadmium, U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,National Center for EnvironmentalAssessment, MD–52, Research TrianglePark, NC 27711. Comments should be inwriting and must be postmarked byAugust 27, 1999. Please submit oneunbound original with pages numberedconsecutively, and three copies of thecomments. For attachments, provide anindex, number pages consecutively withthe comments, and submit an unboundoriginal and three copies. Electroniccomments may be sent by e-mail [email protected].

Please note that all technicalcomments received in response to thisnotice will be placed in a public record.For that reason, commenters should notsubmit personal information (such asmedical data or home addresses),Confidential Business Information, orinformation protected by copyright. Dueto limited resources, acknowledgmentswill not be sent.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Forworkshop information, registration, andlogistics, contact Tara Childs, SyracuseResearch Corporation, 1215 JeffersonDavis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202;telephone: 703–413–9364; facsimile:703–418–1044.

For further information on the publiccomment period, contact Gary L.Foureman, NCEA–RTP, telephone: 919–541–1183; facsimile: 919–541–1818; orsend an e-mail to:[email protected].



SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: TheToxicological Review for Cadmium andCompounds will provide the scientificbasis for classifying the weight-of-evidence for the carcinogenicity ofcadmium, deriving a potency cancerestimate for the inhalation route, andderiving the IRIS Summaries for thenon-cancer health risk from exposure tocadmium including an oral referencedose (RfD) and an inhalation referenceconcentration (RfC).

Dated: July 21, 1999.William H. Farland,Director, National Center for EnvironmentalAssessment.[FR Doc. 99–19000 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560–50–U


[OPP–00606; FRL–6087–4]

Certain Chemicals; Completion ofComment Period for ReregistrationEligibility Decision Documents

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

SUMMARY: This notice, pursuant tosection 4(g)(2) of the Federal Insecticide,Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act(FIFRA), concludes the comment periodfor the Reregistration EligibilityDecision (RED) documents for severalchemical cases.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Technical questions on the REDdocuments should be directed to theappropriate Chemical Review Managerslisted in the table under‘‘SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.’’SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Notice Apply to MeThis notice is directed to the public

in general. As such, the Agency has notattempted to describe all the specificentities that may be affected by thisaction. If you have any questionsregarding the information in this notice,consult the appropriate chemical reviewmanager listed in the table in Unit II. ofthis document.

B. How Can I Get AdditionalInformation, Including Copies of thisDocument and the REDs?

You may obtain copies of thisdocument from the EPA Internet HomePage at http://www.epa.gov/. On theHome Page select ‘‘Laws andRegulations’’ and then look up the entryfor this document under the ‘‘FederalRegister - Environmental Documents.’’You can also go directly to the ‘‘FederalRegister’’ listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

Copies of these REDs are availablefrom the National Technical InformationService (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road,Springfield, VA 22161, ATTN: OrderDesk; telephone number 1–800–553–6847. To obtain copies you must

provide the publication number that hasbeen assigned to the RED listed in thetable in Unit II. of this document.

Electronic copies of the REDs andRED Fact sheets can be downloadedfrom the internet via EPA’s website at:http//www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs.

II. Background

During fiscal years 1990–1998, EPApublished Notices in the FederalRegister announcing the availability ofRED documents for the listed pesticideactive ingredients. These REDs wereissued as final documents, with a 60–day comment period. In these REDs,EPA provided its regulatory position onthe current registered uses of thesepesticides and set forth certainrequirements for product reregistrationeligibility. No comments weresubmitted for the following REDs:Acetic acid and salts, aliphatic alcohols,fosetyl-al, asulam,bis(trichloromethyl)sulfon, M-cresol,dacthal, difenzoquat, ethalfluralin,fosamine ammonium, HPMTS,methomyl, Na and Ca hypochlorites,terbuthylazine, thiodicarb, andtriclopyr. Comments were submitted forthe following RED documents but didnot significantly affect EPA’s regulatoryposition: Furanone, hexazinone,methylisothiazolinone, metribuzin,telone, propachlor, and terbacil.

The NTIS publication number for theREDs subject to this notice are presentedbelow.

Chemical Name Chemical Review Manager Case Number RED Date RED NTIS Number

Acetic acid and salts Leonard [email protected]

4001 3/92 738-R-91-108

Aliphatic alcohols Leonard [email protected]

4003 8/95 738-R-95-013

Asulam Emily [email protected]

0265 9/95 738-R-95-024

Bis(trichloromethyl)sulfon Lorilyn [email protected]

2055 11/96 738-R-96-028

Dacthal (DCPA) Jill [email protected]

0270 11/98 738-R-98-005

1,3-Dichloropropene(Telone)

Lisa [email protected]

0328 12/98 738-R-98-002

Difenzoquat Leonard [email protected]

0223 1-95 738-R-94-018



Chemical Name Chemical Review Manager Case Number RED Date RED NTIS Number

Ethalfluralin Laura [email protected]

2260 3/95 738-R-95-001

Fosamine ammonium Beth [email protected]

2355 3/95 738-R-95-004

Fosetyl-al (Aliette) Leonard [email protected]

0646 12/90 738-R-90-100

Furanone Emily [email protected]

3138 3/96 738-R-96-009

Hexazinone Michael [email protected]

0266 9/94 738-R-94-022

HPMTS Pat [email protected]

3033 12/95 738-R-95-035

M-Cresol Beth [email protected]

4027 11/94 738-R-94-025

Methomyl Tom [email protected]

0028 12/98 738-R-98-021

Methylisothiazolinone(Kathon)

Deanna [email protected]

3092 11/98 738-R-98-008

Metribuzin Michael [email protected]

0181 4/98 738-R-97-006

Na and Ca Hypochlorites Diane [email protected]

0029 2/92 738-R-91-107

Propachlor Anne [email protected]

0177 9/98 738-R-98-015

Terbacil Emily [email protected]

0039 1/98 738-R-97-011

Terbuthylazine Diane [email protected]

2645 3/95 738-R-95-005

Thiodicarb Tom [email protected]

2675 12/98 738-R-98-022

Triclopyr Dean [email protected]

2710 10/98 738-R-98-007



List of SubjectsEnvironmental protection.Dated: June 28, 1999.

Lois Rossi,Director, Special Review and ReregistrationDivision, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. 99–19002 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560–50–F


[FRL–6402–7]

Proposed Settlement Under Section122(g) of the ComprehensiveEnvironmental Response,Compensation, and Liability Act; In theMatter of Lakeland Disposal Service,Inc., Claypool, IN

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA).ACTION: Notice; request for publiccomment.

SUMMARY: Notice of de minimisSettlement: In accordance with section112(i)(1) of the ComprehensiveEnvironmental Response,Compensation, and Liability Act of1980, as amended (CERCLA), EPA givesnotice of a proposed administrativesettlement concerning the remedialaction at the Lakeland Disposal Service,Inc., Superfund Site, Claypool, Countyat Kosciusko, Indiana (the Site). Theproposed agreement will resolve issuesconcerning one individual de minimislandowner at the site. EPA haspreviously submitted the proposedagreement to the U.S. Department ofJustice for review and has received itsapproval for the proposed agreement vialetter dated June 6, 1997.DATES: Comments must be provided onor before August 25, 1999.ADDRESSES: Barbara Wester (C–14J),Office of Regional Counsel, U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Boulevard,Chicago, Illinois 60605–3590. Includethe following name of the matter in thecomment: In the Matter of LakelandDisposal Service Inc., Claypool, Indiana,U.S. EPA Docket No. V–W–97–C–397.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Barbara Wester (C–14J), Office ofRegional Counsel, U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Region 5, 77 W,Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois60604–3590.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Thefollowing parties have executed bindingcertifications of their consent toparticipate in the settlement: DanaCorporation; Eaton Corporation; General

Motors Corporation; UnitedTechnologies Automotive, Inc.; andWarsaw Black Oxide, Inc. (collectively,the UAO Group); David W. Poage, anindividual; and the Director, SuperfundDivision, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Region 5, 77 W. JacksonBoulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604–3590. Summary of the settlement: DavidW. Poage owns approximately sevenand one-half (7.5) acres of propertylocated entirely within the boundariesof the Site and did not himselfcontribute any wastes to the Site. TheRecord of Decision (ROD) for the Site,issued on September 28, 1993,contemplated that deed restrictions andinstitutional controls would be animportant part of the remedy.

The Settlement provides: that theUAO Group will compensate Mr. Poagefor the loss of use of his property; thatMr. Poage will establish the contractualaccess provisions and deed restrictionsnecessary to effect the on-goingremediation of the Site proscribed bythe ROD; and that Mr. Poage willconvert these contractual promises tothe form of an environmental easement,if EPA requests that he do so.

EPA will receive written commentsrelating to this settlement agreement fora period of thirty (30) days from the dateof publication of this document. UnderCERCLA section 122(i)(3), EPA willconsider any comments filed during thispublic comment period in ‘‘determiningwhether or not to consent to theproposed settlement and may withdrawor withhold consent to the proposedsettlement if such comments disclosefacts or considerations which indicatethe proposed settlement isinappropriate, improper, orinadequate.’’

Copies of the proposed administrativesettlement agreement and of additionalbackground information relating to thesettlement are available for review.These may be obtained in person at theSuperfund Division’s public recordscenter, 7th Floor, U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Region 5, 77 W.Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois60604–3590, or by mail from BarbaraWester (C–14J), Office of RegionalCounsel, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Region 5, 77 W. JacksonBoulevard, Chicago Illinois 60604–3590.

Authority: The ComprehensiveEnvironmental Response, Compensation, andLiability Act of 1980, as amended, 42 U.S.C.9601–9675.William E. Muno,Director, Superfund Division, Region 5.[FR Doc. 99–18999 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560–50–M


Notice of Public InformationCollection(s) Being Reviewed by theFederal Communications Commissionfor Extension Under DelegatedAuthority, Comments Requested

July 20, 1999.SUMMARY: The Federal CommunicationsCommission, as part of its continuingeffort to reduce paperwork burdeninvites the general public and otherFederal agencies to take thisopportunity to comment on thefollowing information collection(s), asrequired by the Paperwork ReductionAct of 1995, Public Law 104–13. Anagency may not conduct or sponsor acollection of information unless itdisplays a currently valid controlnumber. No person shall be subject toany penalty for failing to comply witha collection of information subject to thePaperwork Reduction Act (PRA) thatdoes not display a valid control number.Comments are requested concerning (a)whether the proposed collection ofinformation is necessary for the properperformance of the functions of theCommission, including whether theinformation shall have practical utility;(b) the accuracy of the Commission’sburden estimate; (c) ways to enhancethe quality, utility, and clarity of theinformation collected; and (d) ways tominimize the burden of the collection ofinformation on the respondents,including the use of automatedcollection techniques or other forms ofinformation technology.DATES: Written comments should besubmitted on or before September 24,1999. If you anticipate that you will besubmitting comments, but find itdifficult to do so within the period oftime allowed by this notice, you shouldadvise the contact listed below as soonas possible.ADDRESSES: Direct all comments to LesSmith, Federal CommunicationsCommission, Room 1 A–804, 445Twelfth Street, SW, Washington, DC20554 or via the Internet [email protected] FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Foradditional information or copies of theinformation collections contact LesSmith at (202) 418–0217 or via theInternet at [email protected] INFORMATION:

OMB Control Number: 3060–0175.Title: Section 73.1250 Broadcasting

emergency information.Form Number: None.Type of Review: Extension of

currently approved collection.



Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents: 50.Estimated time per response: 1 hour.Frequency of Response: Reporting, on

occasion.Total annual burden: 50 hours.Total Annual Costs: None.Needs and Uses: Emergency

situations in which the broadcasting ofinformation is considered as furtheringthe safety of life and property include,but are not limited to, tornadoes,hurricanes, floods, tidal waves,earthquakes, and school closings.Section 73.1250(e) requires thatimmediately upon cessation of anemergency during which broadcastfacilities were used for the transmissionof point-to-point messages or whendaytime facilities were used duringnighttime hours by an AM station, areport in letter form shall be forwardedto the FCC in Washington, DC, settingforth the nature of the emergency, thedates and hours of the broadcasting ofemergency information and a briefdescription of the material carriedduring the emergency. A certification ofcompliance with thenoncommercialization provision mustaccompany the report where daytimefacilities are used during nighttimehours by an AM station.

The report is used by FCC staff toevaluate the need and nature of theemergency broadcast to confirm that anactual emergency existed.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,Deputy Secretary.[FR Doc. 99–18961 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]


FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE BOARD

Sunshine Act Meeting; Announcing anOpen Meeting of the Board

TIME AND DATE: 10 a.m., July 28, 1999.

PLACE: Board Room, Second Floor,Federal Housing Finance Board, 1777 FStreet, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006.

STATUS: The entire meeting will be opento the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED DURINGPORTIONS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC:

• Proposed Rules: FinancialManagement and MissionAchievement and the Reorganizationof Finance Board Regulations

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:Elaine L. Baker, Secretary to the Board,(202) 408–2837.William W. Ginsberg,Managing Director.[FR Doc. 99–19082 Filed 7–22–99; 9:52 am]BILLING CODE 6725–01–P

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Formations of, Acquisitions by, andMergers of Bank Holding Companies

The companies listed in this noticehave applied to the Board for approval,pursuant to the Bank Holding CompanyAct of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.)(BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part225), and all other applicable statutesand regulations to become a bankholding company and/or to acquire theassets or the ownership of, control of, orthe power to vote shares of a bank orbank holding company and all of thebanks and nonbanking 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(12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwisenoted, nonbanking activities will beconducted throughout the 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 August 19,1999.

A. Federal Reserve Bank ofRichmond (A. Linwood Gill III,Assistant Vice President) 701 East ByrdStreet, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528:

1. Cornerstone Bancorp, Easley, SouthCarolina; to become a bank holdingcompany by acquiring 100 percent ofthe voting shares of CornerstoneNational Bank, Easley, South Carolina(in organization).

B. Federal Reserve Bank of SanFrancisco (Maria Villanueva, Managerof Analytical Support, ConsumerRegulation Group) 101 Market Street,San Francisco, California 94105-1579:

1. Wells Fargo & Company, SanFrancisco, California; to acquire 100

percent of the voting shares of TexasBancshares Inc., San Antonio, Texas,and thereby indirectly acquire FirstNational Bank of South Texas, SanAntonio, Texas, and Bank of SouthTexas, Floresville, Texas.

Board of Governors of the Federal ReserveSystem, July 20, 1999.Robert deV. Frierson,Associate Secretary of the Board.[FR Doc. 99–18923 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6210–01–F

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

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 thequestion 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 August 9, 1999.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston(Richard Walker, Community AffairsOfficer) 600 Atlantic Avenue, Boston,Massachusetts 02106-2204:

1. Westbank Corporation, WestSpringfield, Massachusetts; to acquirecertain assets and liabilities of NewLondon Trust, FSB, New London, NewHampshire, pursuant to § 225.28(b)(4) ofRegulation Y.

B. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta(Lois Berthaume, Vice President) 104Marietta Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia30303-2713:

1. SunTrust Banks, Inc., Atlanta,Georgia; to acquire Atlantic Financial



Group, Ltd., Arlington, Texas, andthereby engage in extending credit andservicing loans, pursuant to §225.28(b)(1) of Regulation Y; activitiesrelated to extending credit, pursuant to§ 225.28(b)(2) of Regulation Y; andleasing personal or real property,pursuant to § 225.28(b)(3) of RegulationY.

Board of Governors of the Federal ReserveSystem, July 20, 1999.Robert deV. Frierson,Associate Secretary of the Board.[FR Doc. 99–18924 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6210–01–F


Centers for Disease Control andPrevention

[Program Announcement 99148]

Program To Establish/Operate HealthPromotion and Disease PreventionInitiative Program for AfricanAmericans Notice of Availability ofFunds

A. PurposeThe Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention (CDC) announces theavailability of fiscal year FY 1999 fundsfor a cooperative agreement program toestablish a health promotion anddisease prevention initiative programfor African Americans. ‘‘This programaddresses the ‘Healthy People 2000’priority area Education and Community-Based Programs.’’ The program relatesas well to recommendations of the 1985Secretary’s Task Force Report on Blackand Minority Health, and theDepartment of Health and HumanServices’ (DHHS) initiatives to eliminatedisparities in health status among racialand ethnic minorities. The purpose ofthe cooperative agreement is to assist aNational or Regional MinorityOrganization (NRMO) to establish oroperate the following three components:a Health Program Unit, a SpeakersBureau, and a National Health Network.The cooperative agreement will enablethe grantee to use the three componentsfor the following:

Health Program Unit to implementprevention strategies to improve thehealth of African Americans by targetingthe leading causes of excess deaths inthis population, and to increase theutilization of health care resources byAfrican Americans.

Speakers Bureau consisting of healthprofessionals and other professionals toprovide oral presentations on salienthealth promotion and disease

prevention topics relating to AfricanAmericans at national, State, and localmeetings. Other organizations,including community-based andnational/regional organizations whichserve primarily African Americansshould have ready access to theSpeakers Bureau to assist in improvingdisease prevention and healthpromotion in their areas.

National Health Network to assistminority organizations to expand theirinternal and external organizationalnetworks, and to facilitate thedissemination of health promotion anddisease prevention information toAfrican Americans.

B. Eligible ApplicantsEligible applicants are NRMOs which

principally serve the African Americanpopulation. The African Americancommunity is targeted with this activitybecause of a critical need to eliminatedisparities in health that currently existamong African Americans. Consistentwith the findings of the President’sInitiative to Eliminating HealthDisparities and Healthy People 2000and 2010 program initiatives, excessmorbidity and mortality continues todisproportionately impact AfricanAmericans. Eligible applicants mustmeet the following criteria:

1. Have been granted tax-exemptstatus under Section 501(c)(3), asevidenced by an Internal RevenueService (IRS) determination letter.

2. Have a governing body or boardthat is composed of more than 50%African American.

3. Have a minimum of 12 monthsdocumented experience in operatingand centrally administering acoordinated public health or relatedprogram serving the African Americanpopulation within a major portion orregion (multi-state or multi-territory) ofthe United States through its ownoffices, organizational affiliates, or theparticipation of other minorityorganizations.

4. Have a specific charge from theArticles of Incorporation or Bylaws or aresolution from its governing body orboard to operate nationally or regionally(multi-state or multi-territory) withinthe United States and its territories, i.e,Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Guam.

5. Have agreements with theirparticipating affiliates and chapters thattheir respective governing body or boardis composed of 50% or greater AfricanAmerican membership.

Note: Public Law 104–65 states that anorganization described in section 501(c)(4) ofthe Internal Revenue Code of 1986 thatengages in lobbying activities is not eligibleto receive Federal funds constituting an

award, grant, cooperative agreement,contract, loan, or any other form.

C. Availability of Funds

It is anticipated that a minimum of$100,000 will be available in FY 1999 tofund one award. It is expected that theaward will begin on or about September30, 1999, and will be made for a 12-month budget period within a projectperiod of up to five years. Fundingestimates may vary and are subject tochange. Continuation awards within theproject period will be made on the basisof satisfactory progress and theavailability of funds.

D. Program Requirements

In conducting activities to achieve thepurpose of this program, the recipientshall be responsible for the activitiesunder 1. (Recipient Activities), and CDCwill be responsible for the activitieslisted under 2. (CDC Activities).

1. Recipient Activities

A. The Health Program Unit

(1) Communicate science-based healthpromotion and disease preventionstrategies throughout the AfricanAmerican communities to improve theenvironment and personal healthbehaviors of those living in thesecommunities.

(2) Assess ongoing health relatedactivities in various communities todetermine if African Americans areinvolved, and to determine if theactivities (i.e., immunization, STD/HIVprevention) are appropriate for thetarget audience.

(3) Develop and implement strategiesto improve the utilization of communityhealth resources by African Americans.

(4) Focus on the major risk categoriesfor disease and death in the AfricanAmerican community, and consult withCDC and other federal agencies on thedevelopment of strategies to raiseawareness within the African Americancommunity to reduce health risks andimprove the quality of life.

(5) Develop informational resourcesthat provide the African Americancommunity with recommendations forthe improvement of health and access torelated services.

(6) Identify specific quality of lifemeasures and focus these forcommunity members through aconsensus building process (e.g., oralhealth, physical activity, nutrition).Inform the target group about healthpromotion and disease preventionactivities related to the seven leadingcauses of deaths among AfricanAmericans that were found in thecommunity.



B. The National Speakers Bureau

(1) Establish access to a nationalSpeakers Bureau that will improve theinformation available to minorityorganizations concerning healthpromotion and disease preventionactivities among African Americans.

(2) Develop/enhance a strategy toaccess and/or create a cadre ofprofessional speakers to address local,State and national audiences on healthpromotion and disease prevention needsand practices among African Americans.

(3) Utilize culturally specificmeasures to encourage AfricanAmericans to improve their health.

(4) Identify subject area experts whowill address and integrate the structuralunits of health, i.e., physical, social andpsychological well-being. Develop aconsensus building strategy to educatethe community about the overlappinginfluence of these three healthcomponents.

(5) Develop and deliver effectivemechanisms through community basedorganizations (CBOs), radio, television,or open forums to communicate current/updated information on healthpromotion and disease prevention toindividuals and groups in AfricanAmerican communities.

(6) Develop and deliver mechanismsto advance health promotion anddisease prevention activities amongmembers of community groups, healthpractitioners, educators, consumergroups, health professionals, healthprofessions schools, and public schools.Share the information at nationalconventions and meetings.

C. The National Health Network

(1) Identify national, State/district andlocal African American groups withdirectly related links to collaborate withthe CDC and State and local healthdepartments.

(2) Establish a distributionmethodology in a minimum of 10 citieswith predominate African Americanpopulation to disseminate healthpromotion and disease preventioninformation.

(3) Collaborate with national minorityhealth professional associations,community based organizations, HHSagencies to develop an effective plan toimplement health promotion anddisease prevention activities (e.g.,immunization, tobacco control,diabetes, etc.) in the African Americancommunity.

D. Evaluate the Effectiveness of theProgram in Achieving Goals andObjectives.

2. CDC Activities

A. As requested, provide consultation,assistance and support to the recipientin planning, implementing andevaluating activities undertaken underthe cooperative agreement.

B. As needed, assist the recipient inidentifying areas of the project that needevaluation.

C. As needed or requested, assist therecipient in identifying priority areas offocus for public health programs at thenational, State and local levels.

D. As needed, assist the recipient indeveloping, testing and validating moreeffective and efficient diseaseprevention and health promotionmodels for African Americans.

E. Collaborate with the grantee andother concerned parties in developingworkshops and conferences to exchangecurrent information, opinions andfindings in fields of public health andminority health.

E. Application Content

Use the information in the ProgramRequirements, Other Requirements, andEvaluation Criteria sections to developthe application content. Yourapplication will be evaluated on thecriteria listed, so it is important tofollow them in laying out your programplan. The narrative should be no morethan 40 double-spaced pages, printed onone side, with one inch margins, andunreduced font.

F. Submission and Deadline

Application

Submit the original and two copies ofthe application (PHS Form 5161–1).Forms are available at the followingInternet address: www.cdc.gov/...Forms,or in the application kit. On or beforeSeptember 7, 1999 submit theapplication to: Albertha Carey, GrantsManagement Specialist, GrantsManagement Branch, Procurement andGrants Office, [Program Announcement99148], Centers for Disease Control andPrevention, 2920 Brandywine Road,Room 3000, Atlanta, GA 30341–4146.

Deadline

Applications shall be considered asmeeting the deadline if they are either:(a) Received on or before the deadlinedate; or (b) sent on or before thedeadline date and received in time forsubmission to the independent reviewgroup. (Applicants must request alegibly dated receipt from a commercialcarrier or U.S. Postal Service. Private

metered postmarks will not beacceptable as proof of timely mailing.)

Late Applications

Applications which do not meet thecriteria in (a) or (b) above are consideredlate applications, will not beconsidered, and will be returned to theapplicant.

G. Evaluation Criteria

Each application will be evaluatedindividually against the followingcriteria by an independent review groupappointed by CDC.:

1. Applicant’s Understanding of theProblem (15%)

The extent to which the applicant hasa clear, concise understanding of therequirements, objectives, and purpose ofthe cooperative agreement. The extent towhich the application reflects anunderstanding of the complexitiessurrounding health promotion, healthdisparities and health promotion issues,that have an impact in the AfricanAmerican community.

2. Organizational Experience (25%)

The extent to which the applicant hasdemonstrated skill and experience inworking effectively with communitybased projects, and has the ability toestablish meaningful relationships withvarious community based organizations.The applicant must demonstrateexperience in providing leadership forcommunity projects at the national,State and local levels. The applicantmust provide proof of experience insharing financial or technical resourceswith CBOs, affiliates, and chapters thatprovide a variety of services directly toracial and ethnic minority populations.

3. Approach and Capability (35%)

The extent to which the applicant hasincluded a description of their approachand track record on developing anetwork which includes the varioussegments of the African Americancommunity at national, State and locallevels.

4. Project Management and Staffing(15%)

The adequacy of the description forpresent or proposed staff andcapabilities of the organization toassemble culturally competent andtrained staff to conduct all threecomponents proposed in this healthpromotion and disease preventioninitiative. The applicant shall identifyall current and potential personnel whowill be utilized to work on thiscooperative agreement, includingqualifications and specific experience as



it relates to the requirements set forth inthis request. The organization mustprovide proof that their program andadministrative staff and the programand administrative staff of affiliates andparticipating organizations involved inthe project are representative of thecommunities and populations to beserved.

5. Evaluation (10%)

The extent and method by which theapplicant proposes to measure progressin meeting objectives and programeffectiveness, and presents a reasonableplan for: (1) Establishing the threeprogram components and measuringtheir effectiveness; (2) Utilizing thethree program components to shareinformation on health promotion anddisease prevention activities with theAfrican American community. Forexample, how will information sharingbe increased as a result of the program?What type of databases or materials willbe created to facilitate informationsharing? How will the program handlereferrals? (3) Evaluating theeffectiveness of collaborative processes,i.e., developing partnerships and typesof organizations involved, providingtraining, continuity, and involvemente.g., frequency of meetings,participation of group members, etc.; (4)Obtaining, reporting and sharingprogrammatic results.

6. Budget (Not Scored)

The budget will be evaluated for theextent to which it is reasonable, clearlyjustified, and consistent with theintended use of cooperative agreementfunds.

H. Other Requirements

Technical Reporting Requirements

The recipient is required to provideCDC with an original plus two copies ofsemi-annual progress reports 30 daysafter the end of each semi-annual timeperiod. An original and two copies of aprogress report and financial statusreport are required no later than 90 daysafter the end of each budget period.Final financial status and performancereports are required no later than 90days after the end of the project period.

The following additionalrequirements are applicable to thisprogram. For a complete description ofeach, see Attachment (List all applicablerequirements by number and title. TheGrants Management Branch will includethe applicable descriptions in theapplication kit.)

AR98–4 HIV/AIDS ConfidentialityProvisions

AR98–9 Paperwork Reduction ActRequirements

AR98–10 Smoke-Free WorkplaceRequirements

AR98–11 Healthy People 2000AR98–12 Lobbying RestrictionsAR98–14 Accounting System

Requirements

I. Authority and Catalog of FederalDomestic Assistance Number

This program is authorized underSections 301(a) and 317(k)(2) of thePublic Health Service Act [42 U.S.C.241(a) and 247b(k)(2), as amended. TheCatalog of Federal Domestic Assistancenumber is 93.283.

J. Where To Obtain AdditionalInformation

To receive additional writteninformation and to request anapplication kit, call toll-free 1–888–GRANTS4 (1–888–472–6874). You willbe asked to leave your name andaddress and will be instructed toidentify the Announcement number ofinterest.

If you have questions after reviewingthe contents of all the documents,business management technicalassistance may be obtained from:Albertha Carey, Grants ManagementSpecialist, Grants Management Branch,Procurement and Grants Office [ProgramAnnouncement 99148], Centers forDisease Control and Prevention 2920Brandywine Road, Room 3000, Atlanta,GA 30341–4146, Telephone: 770–488–2735, Email: [email protected].

For program technical assistance,contact: Yvonne H. Lewis, MinorityHealth Program Specialist, Centers forDisease Control and Prevention, Room4326, 1600 Clifton Road, N.E., M/S D39,Atlanta, GA 30333, Telephone: 404–639–7220, Email: [email protected].

See also the CDC home page on theInternet. You may view and/ordownload the program announcementand application forms here: http://www.cdc.gov.


John L. Williams,Director, Procurement and Grants Office,Centers for Disease Control and Prevention(CDC).[FR Doc. 99–18941 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]




Disease, Disability and InjuryPrevention and Control SpecialEmphasis Panel: Mechanistic-BasedCancer Risk Assessment Methods.

In accordance with section 10(a)(2) ofthe Federal Advisory Committee Act(Pub. L. 92–463), the Centers for DiseaseControl and Prevention (CDC)announces the following meeting.

Name: Disease, Disability and InjuryPrevention and Control Special EmphasisPanel: Mechanistic-Based Cancer RiskAssessment Methods, RFA OH–99–003.

Time and Dates: 8 a.m.—8:30 a.m., August24, 1999 (Open); 8:30 a.m.—5 p.m., August24, 1999 (Closed).

Place: Embassy Suites Hotel, 1900Diagonal Rd., Alexandria, Va. 22134.

Status: Portions of the meeting will beclosed to the public in accordance withprovisions set forth in section 552b(c)(4) and(6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination ofthe Associate Director for Management andOperations, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92–463.

Matters To Be Discussed: The meeting willinclude the review, discussion, andevaluation of applications received inresponse to the RFA OH–99–003.

Contact Person for More Information:Michael J. Galvin, Jr., Ph.D., Health ScientistAdministrator, Office of ExtramuralCoordination and Special Projects, NIOSH,CDC, 1600 Clifton Rd., Atlanta, Ga. 30333.Telephone 404/639–3525, [email protected].

The Director, Management Analysis andServices Office, has been delegated theauthority to sign Federal Register Noticespertaining to announcements of meetings andother committee management activities, forboth the Centers for Disease Control andPrevention and the Agency for ToxicSubstances and Disease Registry.

Dated: July 20, 1999.John C. Burckhardt,Acting Director, Management Analysis andServices Office, Centers for Disease Controland Prevention (CDC).[FR Doc. 99–18940 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4163–19–P



Advisory Committee for InjuryPrevention and Control: Meeting

In accordance with section 10(a)(2) ofthe Federal Advisory Committee Act(Pub. L. 92–463), the Centers for DiseaseControl and Prevention (CDC)



announces the following committeemeeting.

Name: Advisory Committee for InjuryPrevention and Control (ACIPC).

Times and Dates: 1:30 p.m.–4:30 p.m.,August 3, 1999. 8:30 a.m.–3:00 p.m., August4, 1999.

Place: JW Marriott Hotel at Lenox, 3300Lenox Road, NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30326.

Status: Closed: 1:30 p.m.–2:30 p.m.,August 3, 1999, and 8:30 a.m.–9 a.m., August4, 1999; Open: 2:30 p.m.–4:30 p.m., August3, 1999, and 9 a.m.–3:00 p.m., August 4,1999.

Purpose: The Committee advises andmakes recommendations to the Secretary, theAssistant Secretary for Health, and theDirector, CDC, regarding feasible goals for theprevention and control of injury. TheCommittee makes recommendationsregarding policies, strategies, objectives, andpriorities, and reviews progress toward injuryprevention and control. The Committeeprovides advice on the appropriate balanceand mix of intramural and extramuralresearch, including laboratory research, andprovides guidance on intramural andextramural scientific program matters, bothpresent and future, particularly from a long-range viewpoint. The Committee providessecond-level scientific and programmaticreview for applications for research grants,cooperative agreements, and training grantsrelated to injury control and violenceprevention, and recommends approval ofprojects that merit further consideration forfunding support. The Committeerecommends areas of research to besupported by contracts and provides conceptreview of program proposals andannouncements.

Matters to be Discussed: The meeting willconvene in closed session from 1:30 p.m. to2:30 p.m. on August 3, 1999. The purpose ofthis closed session is for the Science and

Program Review Work Group (SPRWG) toconsider individual injury control researchgrant applications recommended for furtherconsideration by the CDC Injury ResearchGrant Review Committee. On August 4, 1999,from 8:30 a.m. to 9 a.m., the ACIPC votingmembers will convene in closed session tovote on a funding recommendation. Theseportions of the meeting will be closed to thepublic in accordance with provisions setforth in section 552(c)(4) and (6) title 5U.S.C., and the Determination of theAssociate Director for Management andOperations, CDC, pursuant to Pub. L. 92–463.

Following the SPRWG closed session, therewill be a program oversight session whichwill include discussion of a biomechanicsreview update, status of programannouncements for fiscal year 2000,whiplash project, research agenda for theNational Center for Injury Prevention andControl (NCIPC), and progress on standingWork Group issues. The Committee will alsodiscuss (1) an update from the Director,National Center for Injury Prevention andControl (NCIPC); (2) strategic planningupdate and (3) SPRWG report on the resultsof their August 3 meeting.

Agenda items are subject to change aspriorities dictate.

Due to programmatic issues that hadto be resolved, the Federal Registernotice is being published less thanfifteen days before the date of themeeting.

Contact Person for More Information:Mr. Wayne Stephens, ExecutiveSecretary, ACIPC, NCIPC, CDC, 4770Buford Highway, NE, M/S K61, Atlanta,Georgia 30341–3724, telephone 770/488–1465.

The Director, Management Analysisand Services Office, has been delegatedthe authority to sign Federal Register

notices pertaining to announcements ofmeetings and other committeemanagement activities, for both theCenters for Disease Control andPrevention and the Agency for ToxicSubstances and Disease Registry.

Dated: July 21, 1999.John C. Burckhardt,Acting Director, Management Analysis andServices Office, Centers for Disease Controland Prevention.[FR Doc. 99–19083 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4163–18–P


Administration for Children andFamilies

Submission for OMB Review;Comment Request

Title: Child Care Development FundFinancial Reporting Form.

OMB No.: 0970–0163.Description: The form provides

specific data regarding claims andprovides a mechanism for States torequest grant awards and certify theavailability of State matching funds.Failure to collect this data wouldseriously compromise ACF’s ability tomonitor expenditures. This informationis also used to estimate outlays and maybe used to prepare ACF budgetsubmissions to Congress.

Respondents: State, Local or TribalGovernment.

ANNUAL BURDEN ESTIMATES

Instrument Number ofrespondents

Number ofresponses per

respondent

Average bur-den hours per

response

Total burdenhours

ACF–696 .......................................................................................................... 54 4 8 1,728

Estimated Total Annual BurdenHours: 1,728.

Additional Information: Copies of theproposed collection may be obtained bywriting to the Administration forChildren and Families, Office ofInformation Services, Division ofInformation Resource ManagementServices, 370 L’Enfant Promenade, SW,Washington DC 20447, Attn: ACFReports Clearance Officer.

OMB Comment: OMB is required tomake a decision concerning thecollection of information between 30 to60 days after publication of thisdocument in the Federal Register.Therefore, a comment is best assured ofhaving its full effect if OMB receives it

within 30 days of publication. Writtencomments and recommendations for theproposed information collection shouldbe sent directly to the following: Officeof Management and Budget, PaperworkReduction Project, 725 17th Street, NW,Attn: ACF Desk Officer.


Bob Sargis,Reports Clearance Officer.[FR Doc. 99–18986 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]





Agency Information CollectionActivities; Submission for OMBReview; Comment Request; FoodCanning Establishment Registration,Process Filing and Recordkeeping forAcidified Foods and ThermallyProcessed Low-Acid Foods inHermetically Sealed Containers

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 August 25,1999.ADDRESSES: Submit written commentson the collection of information to theOffice of Information and RegulatoryAffairs, OMB, New Executive OfficeBldg., 725 17th St. NW., rm. 10235,Washington, DC 20503, Attn: WendyTaylor, Desk Officer for FDA.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Peggy Schlosburg, Office of InformationResources Management (HFA–250),Food and Drug Administration, 5600Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857,301–827–1223.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.

Food Canning EstablishmentRegistration, Process Filing andRecordkeeping for Acidified Foods andThermally Processed Low-Acid Foodsin Hermetically Sealed Containers (21CFR 108.25(c)(1) and (c)(2), (d), (e), (g);108.35(c)(1), (c)(2), (d), (e), (f), (h);113.60(c); 113.83; 113.87; 113.89;113.100; 114.80(b); 114.89; 114.100(a)through (d)) (OMB Control Number0910–0037—Extension)

Under section 402 of the FederalFood, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act)

(21 U.S.C. 342), FDA is authorized toprevent the interstate distribution offood products that may be injurious tohealth or that are otherwise adulterated.Under the authority granted to FDA bysection 404 of the act (21 U.S.C. 344),FDA’s regulations require registration offood processing establishments, filing ofprocess or other data, and maintenanceof processing and production records foracidified foods and thermally processedlow-acid foods in hermetically sealedcontainers. These requirements areintended to ensure safe manufacturing,processing, and packing procedures andto permit FDA to verify that theseprocedures are being followed.Improperly processed low-acid foodspresent life-threatening hazards ifcontaminated with foodbornemicroorganisms, especially Clostridiumbotulinum. The spores of C. botulinummust be destroyed or inhibited to avoidproduction of the deadly toxin thatcauses botulism. This is accomplishedwith good manufacturing procedures,which must include the use of adequateheat processes or other means ofpreservation.

To protect the public health, FDA’sregulations require that each firm thatmanufactures, processes or packsacidified foods or thermally processedlow-acid foods in hermetically sealedcontainers for introduction intointerstate commerce register theestablishment with the agency usingForm FDA 2541 (§§ 108.25(c)(1) and108.35(c)(2)) (21 CFR 108.25(c)(1) and108.35(c)(2))). In addition to registeringthe plant, each firm is required toprovide data on the processes used toproduce these foods, using Form FDA2541a for all methods except asepticprocessing, or Form FDA 2541c foraseptic processing of low-acid foods in

hermetically sealed containers§§ 108.25(c)(2) and 108.35(c)(2)). Plantregistration and process filing may beaccomplished simultaneously. Processdata must be filed prior to packing anynew product and operating processesand procedures must be posted near theprocessing equipment or made availableto the operator (21 CFR 113.87(a)).

Regulations in parts 108, 113, and 114(21 CFR parts 108, 113, and 114) requirefirms to maintain records showingadherence to the substantiverequirements of the regulations. Theserecords must be made available to FDAon request. Firms are also required todocument corrective actions whenprocess controls and procedures do notfall within specified limits (§§ 113.89,114.89, and 114.100(c)); to report anyinstance of potential health-endangeringspoilage, process deviation, orcontamination with microorganismswhere any lot of the food has entereddistribution in commerce (§§ 108.25(d)and 108.35(d) and (e)); and to developand keep on file plans for recallingproducts that may endanger the publichealth (§§ 108.25(e) and 108.35(f)). Topermit lots to be traced afterdistribution, acidified foods andthermally processed low-acid foods inhermetically sealed containers must bemarked with an identifying code(§§ 113.60(c) (thermally processedfoods) and 114.80(b) (acidified foods)).

In the Federal Register of April 30,1999 (64 FR 23334), the agencyrequested comments on the proposedcollections of information. Nocomments were received.

FDA estimates the burden of 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 2541 (Reg-istration)

108.25(c)(1) and108.35(c)(1)

300 1 300 .17 51

Form FDA 2541a (Proc-ess Filing)

108.25(c)(2) and108.35(c)(2)

1,000 6.5 6,500 .333 2,165

Form FDA 2541(c)(Process Filing)

108.35(c)(2) 1,000 .50 500 .75 375

Total 2,591

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 AnnualRecords

Hours perRecordkeeper Total Hours

108, 113, and 114 5,865 1 5,865 250 1,466,250

1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.



The reporting burden for §§ 108.25(d)and 108.35(d) and (e) is insignificantbecause notification of spoilage, processdeviation, or contamination of productin distribution occurs less than once ayear. Most firms discover theseproblems before the product isdistributed and, therefore, are notrequired to report the occurrence. Toavoid double counting, estimates for§§ 108.25(g) and 108.35(h) have notbeen included because they merelycross-reference recordkeepingrequirements contained in parts 113 and114.

Dated: July 19, 1999William K. Hubbard,Senior Associate Commissioner for Policy,Planning and Legislation.[FR Doc. 99–18925 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4160–01–F




Agency Information CollectionActivities; Submission for OMBReview; Comment Request;Regulations Under the Federal ImportMilk Act

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 August 25,1999.ADDRESSES: Submit written commentson the collection of information to theOffice of Information and RegulatoryAffairs, OMB, New Executive OfficeBldg., 725 17th St. NW., rm. 10235,Washington, DC 20503, Attn: WendyTaylor, Desk Officer for FDA.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Peggy Schlosburg, Office of InformationResources Management (HFA–250),Food and Drug Administration, 5600Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857,301–827–1223.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.

Regulations Under the Federal ImportMilk Act—21 CFR Part 1210 (OMBControl Number 0910–021)—Extension

Under the regulations (part 1210 (21CFR part 1210)) implementing the

Federal Import Milk Act (21 U.S.C. 141–149), milk or cream may be importedinto the United States only by theholder of a valid import milk permit.Before such permit is issued: (1) Allcows from which import milk or creamis produced must be physicallyexamined and found healthy; (2) if themilk or cream is imported raw, all suchcows must pass a tuberculin test; (3) thedairy farm and each plant in which themilk or cream is processed or handledmust be inspected and found to meetcertain sanitary requirements; (4)bacterial counts of the milk at the timeof importation must not exceedspecified limits; and (5) the temperatureof the milk or cream at time ofimportation must not exceed 50 °F. Inaddition, the regulations require thatdairy farmers and plants maintainpasteurization records (§ 1210.15) andthat each container of milk or creamimported into the United States bear atag with the product type, permitnumber, and shipper’s name andaddress.

In the Federal Register of April 30,1999 (64 FR 23333), the agencyrequested comments on the proposedcollections of information. Nocomments were received.

FDA estimates the burden of thiscollection of information as follows:

TABLE 1.—ESTIMATED ANNUAL REPORTING BURDEN1

Form 21 CFR Section No. of Re-spondents

Annual Fre-quency per Re-

sponse

Total AnnualResponses

Hours per Re-sponse Total Hours

FDA 1815/Permits granted oncertificates 1210.23 4 1 4 0.5 2.0

FDA 1993/Applicant of permit 1210.20 4 4 4 0.5 2.0FDA 1994/Tuberculin test2 1210.13FDA 1995/Physical examination

of cows2 1210.12FDA 1996/Sanitary inspection of

dairy farms 1210.11 4 2003 800 1.5 1200.0FDA 1997/Sanitary inspection of

plants 1210.14 4 1 4 2.0 8.0Total 1212.0

1There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.2No burden has been estimated for Forms FDA 1994 and 1995 because they are not currently being used.3Due to a clerical error, the reporting burden hours for FDA 1996/Sanitary inspection of daily farms that appeared in a notice issued in the

FEDERAL REGISTER of April 30, 1999 (64 FR 23333) were incorrect. Table 1 of this document contains the correct estimates.

TABLE 2.—ESTIMATED ANNUAL RECORDKEEPING BURDEN1

21 CFR Section No. ofRecordkeepers

AnnualFrequency perRecordkeeping

Total AnnualRecords

Hours perRecordkeeper Total Hours

1210.15 4 1 4 0.05 0.20

1There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.



No burden has been estimated for thetagging requirement in § 1210.22because the information on the tag iseither supplied by FDA (permit number)or is disclosed to third parties as a usualand customary part of the shipper’snormal business activities (type ofproduct, shipper’s name and address).No burden has been estimated for FormsFDA 1994 and 1995 because they arenot currently being used. The Secretaryof Health and Human Services has thediscretion to allow Form FDA 1815, aduly certified statement signed by anaccredited official of a foreignGovernment, to be submitted in lieu ofForms FDA 1994 and 1995. To date,Form FDA 1815 has been submitted inlieu of these forms.

Dated: July 19, 1999.William K. Hubbard,Senior Associate Commissioner for Policy,Planning and Legislation.[FR Doc. 99–18927 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4160–01–F



Cooperative Agreement to Support theJoint Institute for Food Safety andApplied Nutrition; Notice of Intent toSupplement

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration,HHS.ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Food and DrugAdministration (FDA) is announcing itsintention to noncompetitivelysupplement the cooperative agreementwith the University of Maryland,College Park (UMCP) for up to anestimated $2 million per annum. Thesefunds will provide additional support tothe UMCP’s Joint Institute for FoodSafety and Applied Nutrition (JIFSAN)for the purpose of addressing emerginghealth issues and crises that are relatedto food safety and applied nutrition andanimal health sciences, and expandingthe current scope to include otheragency programs such as cosmetics.DATES: Submit the application byAugust 25, 1999. If this date falls on aweekend, it will be extended toMonday; if this date falls on a holiday,it will be extended to the followingworkday.ADDRESSES: An application is availablefrom and should be submitted to: MauraC. Stephanos, Office of RegulatoryAffairs Support and AssistanceManagement Branch (HFA–520), Foodand Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers

Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301–827–7183. If the application is hand carriedor commercially delivered, it should beaddressed to Maura C. Stephanos, 5630Fishers Lane, rm. 2129, Rockville, MD20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Regarding the administrative and

financial management aspects ofthis notice: Maura C. Stephanos(address above).

Regarding the programmatic aspects:Elizabeth M. Calvey, Center forFood Safety and Applied Nutrition(HFS–6), Food and DrugAdministration, 200 C St. SW.,Washington, DC 20204, 202–205–4716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Thisproject is authorized under section 301of the Public Health Service Act (thePHS Act) (42 U.S.C. 241). This activityis generally described in the Catalog ofFederal Domestic Assistance at No.93.103. The application will not besubject to review as governed byExecutive Order 12372,Intergovernmental Review of FederalProgram (45 CFR part 100).

I. Restricted Eligibility

In the Federal Register of May 22,1997 (62 FR 28049), FDA announcedthat a single source application for acooperative agreement to support theJIFSAN at the UMCP would beaccepted. Supplemental fundingreferenced herein will provide for theimplementation and enhancement ofactivities associated with the JIFSANprojects described and authorized underthe original award (FD–U–001418–01)dated September 29, 1997.

II. Availability of Funds

FDA will provide supplementalfunding up to an estimated $2 millionper annum to the cooperativeagreement, which is at a level greaterthan the 25 percent of the originalaward currently provided under agencypolicy. Supplemental funding willprovide support of the JIFSAN programsprimarily through available Food SafetyInitiative funds and funds from othergovernment agencies.

The original cooperative agreementwas approved for 5 years of funding andcurrently has 3 years of noncompetitivesupport remaining, which is contingentupon the availability of fiscal yearappropriations and successfulperformance. FDA anticipates thatsupplemental funding of the cooperativeagreement will commence on or beforeSeptember 30, 1999.

III. Background

JIFSAN was established between FDAand the UMCP in April 1996, through aformal Memorandum of Understanding(MOU), to create a partnership thatallows for more efficient use of researchresources, thereby enhancing overallpublic health by expanding andimproving food safety and nutritionresearch as well as research in otherprogram areas that impact on publichealth policy. As the role of FDAresearch scientists in regulatoryactivities increases (e.g., petition review,rulemaking, enforcement compliancestandards, hazard analysis criticalcontrol point performance standards), itis vital that these same scientists haveready access to very specializedresearch facilities and expertise that arein close proximity to FDA’sadministrative offices. The uniqueneeds for research in support ofregulatory programs has been one of thekey reasons for maintaining a strongFDA research program. JIFSAN is ajointly administered, multi-disciplinaryresearch and outreach program. JIFSANwas established as part of FDA’sconsolidation project affecting FDA’sCenter for Food Safety and AppliedNutrition and Center for VeterinaryMedicine. The primary focus of JIFSANis food safety and nutrition, specificallyas related to risk analysis, appliedmicrobiology, natural toxins, chemicalcontaminants, animal health sciences,and food composition and nutrition.JIFSAN also encompasses other agencyprograms such as cosmetics, dietarysupplements, and food labeling.

IV. Purpose

Supplemental funding to FDA’scurrent cooperative agreement willprovide the UMCP with the necessaryresources to conduct further researchrelated to the goals of the National FoodSafety Initiative and to leverageadditional resources for appliednutrition, animal health scienceactivities, and other agency programs.These resources would: (1) Expand theexpertise for public health research andrisk assessment initiatives, (2) supportthe Risk Assessment Consortium, and(3) increase innovative public/privateresearch and education partnerships.Because international safety regulationsmust be founded on science-based riskassessments, FDA’s scientists must havea lead role in their development.

Additionally, supplemental fundingwill provide resources to identify gapsin risk analysis to: (1) Minimize/reduceuncertainty in risk managementdecisions; (2) improve the quality of riskassessments applied to agency



programs, principally but not limited tofood safety and applied nutrition (e.g.,microbial pathogens, natural toxins,chemical contaminants, and foodcomposition and nutrition); and (3)enhance risk communication, throughoutreach and public informationprograms, that will help the mass mediaand consumers understand and act onpublic health concerns. Innovativeresearch and outreach efforts, madepossible by the supplemental funding,will complement existing efforts underFDA’s current cooperative agreementwith the UMCP and will provide publichealth officials with the appropriateknowledge to formulate regulatorydecisions and enhanced capabilities tocommunicate with their stakeholders.

V. Substantive Involvement by FDA

All terms and conditions of thecurrent award shall remain in full forceand effect for the supplemental awards.

VI. Review Procedure

The application submitted by theUMCP will undergo a noncompetitive,dual peer review. The application willbe reviewed for scientific and technicalmerit by a panel of experts based onapplicable evaluation criteria. If theapplication is recommended forapproval it will then be presented to theNational Advisory EnvironmentalHealth Sciences Council.

VII. Reporting Requirement

All terms and conditions of thecurrent award shall remain in full forceand effect for the supplemental awards.

VIII. Mechanism of Support

Support will be in the form ofsupplements to FDA’s cooperativeagreement with the UMCP. Thisagreement will be subject to all policiesand requirements that govern theresearch grant program of the PublicHealth Service, including provisions of42 CFR part 52 and 45 CFR part 74.


William K. Hubbard,Senior Associate Commissioner for Policy,Planning and Legislation.[FR Doc. 99–18929 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160–01–F



[Docket No. 99D–2096]

Draft ‘‘Guidance for Industry:Interpreting Sameness of MonoclonalAntibody Products Under the OrphanDrug Regulations;’’ Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration,HHS.ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Food and DrugAdministration (FDA) is announcing theavailability of a draft document entitled‘‘Guidance for Industry: InterpretingSameness of Monoclonal AntibodyProducts Under the Orphan DrugRegulations.’’ The draft guidancedocument is intended to providesponsors and manufacturers FDA’scurrent thinking on the criteria bywhich two monoclonal antibodyproducts would be considered the sameunder the Orphan Drug Act andimplementing regulations.DATES: Written comments may besubmitted at any time, however,comments should be submitted byOctober 25, 1999, to ensure theiradequate consideration in preparation ofthe final document.ADDRESSES: Submit written requests forsingle copies of ‘‘Guidance for Industry:Interpreting Sameness of MonoclonalAntibody Products Under the OrphanDrug Regulations’’ to the Office ofCommunication, Training, andManufacturers Assistance (HFM–940),Center for Biologics Evaluation andResearch (CBER), Food and DrugAdministration, 1401 Rockville Pike,Rockville, MD 20852–1448. Send oneself-addressed adhesive label to assistthe office in processing your requests.The document may also be obtained bymail by calling the CBER VoiceInformation System at 1–800–835–4709or 301–827–1800, or by fax by callingthe FAX Information System at 1–888–CBER–FAX or 301–827–3844. See theSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section forelectronic access to the draft guidance.Submit written comments on thedocument to the Dockets ManagementBranch (HFA–305), Food and DrugAdministration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm.1061, Rockville, MD 20852.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Stephen M. Ripley, Center for BiologicsEvaluation and Research (HFM–17),Food and Drug Administration, 1401Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852–1448, 301–827–6210.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

FDA is announcing the availability ofa draft document entitled ‘‘Guidance forIndustry: Interpreting Sameness ofMonoclonal Antibody Products Underthe Orphan Drug Regulations.’’

In the Federal Register of December29, 1992 (57 FR 62076), FDA publishedthe orphan drug regulations final rule.The final rule established in part 316(21 CFR part 316) regulations thatprescribe certain incentives for thedevelopment of ‘‘orphan drugs,’’ drugswhich are intended for use in rarediseases or conditions. One of theincentives for orphan drug developmentis to obtain exclusive approval for thepioneer product for a period of 7 yearsduring which no approval will be givento a subsequent sponsor of the samedrug product for the same indicationunless it proves to be clinicallysuperior, as defined in § 316.3(b)(3). Indetermining whether or not twoproducts would be considered the same,FDA recognized that different criteriawere necessary for macromoleculesversus small molecules (§ 316.3(b)(13)).Macromolecules include a variety ofstructures including proteins, nucleicacids, carbohydrates and closely related,complex, partly definable drugs such asvaccines or surfactants. The currentdefinition of sameness for protein drugs(§ 316.3(b)(13)(ii)(A)) however, does notconsider the unique nature ofantibodies. The draft document isintended to describe FDA’s thinking onthe criteria by which two monoclonalantibody products would be consideredthe same under the Orphan Drug Actand its implementing regulations.

This draft guidance documentrepresents the agency’s current thinkingon the interpretation of the orphan drugregulations as they pertain tomonoclonal antibodies. It does notcreate or confer any rights for or on anyperson and does not operate to bindFDA or the public. An alternativeapproach may be used if such approachsatisfies the requirement of theapplicable statute, regulations, or both.As with other guidance documents,FDA does not intend this document tobe all-inclusive and cautions that not allinformation may be applicable to allsituations. The document is intended toprovide information and does not setforth requirements.

II. Comments

This draft document is beingdistributed for comment purposes onlyand is not intended for implementationat this time. Interested persons maysubmit to the Dockets ManagementBranch (address above) written



comments regarding this draft guidancedocument. Written comments may besubmitted at any time, however,comments should be submitted byOctober 25, 1999, to ensure adequateconsideration in preparation of the finaldocument. Two copies of any commentsare to be submitted, except individualsmay submit one copy. Commentsshould be identified with the docketnumber found in brackets in theheading of this document. A copy of thedocument and received comments areavailable for public examination in theDockets Management Branch between 9a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday throughFriday.

III. Electronic Access

Persons with access to the Internetmay obtain the document using theWorld Wide Web (WWW). For WWWaccess, connect to CBER at ‘‘http://www.fda.gov/cber/guidelines.htm’’.


Margaret M. Dotzel,Acting Associate Commissioner for Policy.[FR Doc. 99–18928 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160–01–F


National Institutes of Health

Proposed Collection; CommentRequest; National Institutes of HealthUndergraduate Scholarship Programfor Individuals From DisadvantagedBackgrounds

SUMMARY: In compliance with therequirements of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,for opportunity for public comment onproposed data collection projects, theOffice of the Director (OD), the NationalInstitutes of Health (NIH) will publishperiodic summaries of proposedprojects to be submitted to the Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) forreview and approval.

Proposed CollectionTitle: The National Institutes of

Health Undergraduate ScholarshipProgram for Individuals fromDisadvantaged Backgrounds (UGSP).Type of Information Collection Request:Extension of OMB No. 0925–0438,expiration date of November 30, 1999.Need and Use of Information Collection:The UGSP is authorized by § 487D ofthe Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42U.S.C. 288–2), as amended by the NIHRevitalization Act of 1993 (Pub. L. 103–43). This program intends to providescholarships, in an amount not toexceed $20,000 per academic year,toward expenses associated with full-time attendance at an accreditedundergraduate institution, includingtuition and reasonable educational and

living expenses. For each year ofscholarship support from the NIH, therecipient agrees to two serviceobligations or pay-back requirements:(1) ten consecutive weeks of pay-back asa full-time NIH employee during themonths of June–August during theacademic year (in-school serviceobligation) and (2) one year (12 months)of pay-back as a full-time NIH employeeafter graduation from the undergraduateinstitution (post-graduation serviceobligation. The post-graduation serviceobligation or pay-back requirement maybe deferred, at the request of thescholarship recipient and with theapproval of the Secretary, Department ofHealth and Human Services, duringcontinuous period of graduate ormedical/dental/veterinarian schooltraining. The UGSP is designed toprovide an incentive to undergraduatestudents from disadvantagedbackgrounds to pursue studies whichwill prepare them for careers inbiomedical research at the NIH. Theinformation proposed for collection willbe used to determine an applicant’seligibility for participation in the UGSP.Frequency of Response: Initialapplication and annual renewalapplication. Affected Public: Applicants(High School or undergraduate levelstudents), Undergraduate Institutions.Type of Respondents: The UGSPapplication consists of two parts: Part I(Information About the Applicant) iscompleted by the applicant; and Part II(Verification) is completed by theUndergraduate Institution. The annualreporting burden estimates are asfollows:

Type of respondent Number ofrespondents

Numbr of re-sponses perrespondent

Average bur-den per

response (Hrs)

Applicant ...................................................................................................................................... 500 1 3.0Undergraduate Institution ............................................................................................................ 500 1 0.5

An agency may not conduct orsponsor, and a person is not required torespond to, a collection of informationunless it displays a currently valid OMBcontrol number.

Request for CommentsWritten comments and/or suggestions

from the public and affected agenciesshould address one or more of thefollowing points: (1) Evaluate whetherthe proposed collection of informationis necessary for the proper performanceof the function of the agency, includingwhether the information will havepractical utility; (2) Evaluate theaccuracy of the agency’s estimate of theburden of the proposed collection of

information, including the validity ofthe methodology and assumptions used;(3) Enhance the quality, utility, andclarity of the information to becollected; and (4) Minimize the burdenof the collection of information on thosewho are to respond, including the useof appropriate automated, electronic,mechanical, or other technologicalcollection techniques or other forms ofinformation technology.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Torequest more information on theproposed project or to obtain a copy ofthe data collection plans andinstruments, contact: Marc S. Horowitz,J.D., Director, Office of Loan Repayment

and Scholarship, Office of IntramuralResearch, OD, NIH, 7550 WisconsinAvenue, Room 604, Bethesda, MD20814–9121, or call non-toll-freenumber (301) 402–5666 or E-mail yourrequest, including your address to:[email protected].

Comments Due Date

Comments regarding this informationcollection are best assured of havingtheir full effect if received on or beforeSeptember 24, 1999.




Ruth L. Kirschstein,Deputy Director, National Institutes of Health.[FR Doc. 99–19038 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]




National Institute on Deafness andOther Communication Disorders;Notice of Closed Meeting

Pursuant to section 10(d) of theFederal Advisory Committee Act, asamended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), noticeis hereby given of the followingmeeting.

The meeting will be closed to thepublic in accordance with theprovisions set forth in sections552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C.,as amended. The grant applications andthe discussions could discloseconfidential trade secrets or commercialproperty such as patentable material,and personal information concerningindividuals associated with the grantapplications, the disclosure of whichwould constitute a clearly unwarrantedinvasion of personal privacy.

Name of Committee: National Institute onDeafness and Other CommunicationsDisorders Special Emphasis Panel.

Date: August 13, 1999.Time: 10:30 AM to 12:00 PM.Agenda: To review and evaluate grant

applications.Place: Executive Plaza South, Room 400C,

6120 Executive Blvd., Rockville, MD 20852,(Telephone Conference Call).

Contact Person: Melissa Stick, PHD, MPH,Scientific Review Administrator, ScientificReview Branch, Division of ExtramuralActivities, NIDCD/NIH, 6120 ExecutiveBlvd., Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–496–8683.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic AssistanceProgram Nos. 93.173, Biological ResearchRelated to Deafness and CommunicativeDisorders, National Institutes of Health, HHS)


LaVerne Y. Stringfield,Director, Office of Federal AdvisoryCommittee Policy.[FR Doc. 99–19035 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]




National Institute of EnvironmentalHealth Sciences; Notice of ClosedMeeting


The meeting will be closed to thepublic in accordance with theprovisions set forth in sections552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C.,as amended. The contract proposals andthe discussions could discloseconfidential trade secrets or commercialproperty such as patentable material,and personal information concerningindividuals associated with the contractproposals, the disclosure of whichwould constitute a clearly unwarrantedinvasion of personal privacy.

Name of Committee: National Institute ofEnvironmental Health Sciences SpecialEmphasis Panel RFP–NIH–HG–99–30Contract Review.

Date: July 27, 1999.Time: 1 PM to 2 PM.Agenda: To review and evaluate contract

proposals.Place: NIEHS–East Campus, 79 TW

Alexander Drive, Building 4401, Room 3446,Research Triangle Park, Research TrianglePark, NC 27709, (Telephone ConferenceCall).

Contact Person: J. Patrick Mastin, PHD,Scientific Review Administrator, NIEHS, P.O.Box 12233 MD EC–24, Research TrianglePark, NC 27709 (919) 541–1446.

This notice is being published less than 15days prior to the meeting due to the timinglimitations imposed by the review andfunding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic AssistanceProgram Nos. 93.113, Biological Response toEnvironmental Health Hazard; 93.114,Applied Toxicological Research and Testing;93.115, Biometry and Risk Estimation—Health Risks from Environmental Exposures;93.142, NIEHS Hazardous Waste WorkerHealth and Safety Training; 93.143, NIEHSSuperfund Hazardous Substances—BasicResearch and Education; 93.894, Resourcesand Manpower Development in theEnvironmental Health Sciences, NationalInstitutes of Health, HHS)


LaVerne Y. Stringfield,Committee Management Officer, NIH.[FR Doc. 99–19036 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]




National Institute of Dental &Craniofacial Research; Cancellation ofMeeting

Notice is hereby given of thecancellation of the National Institute ofDental Research Special EmphasisPanel, August 15, 1999, 8:30 a.m. toAugust 16, 1999, 5:00 p.m., Ritz-CarltonHotel at Pentagon City, 1250 SouthHayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202which was published in the FederalRegister on July 1, 1999, FR 35674.

The meeting is cancelled due toapplication withdrawn by applicant.

Dated: July 20, 1999.Anna Snouffer,Acting Director, Office of Federal AdvisoryCommittee Policy, NIH.[FR Doc. 99–19037 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4140–01–M



National Library of Medicine; Notice ofClosed Meeting


The meeting will be closed to thepublic in accordance with theprovisions set forth in sections552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C.,as amended. The contract proposals andthe discussions could discloseconfidential trade secrets or commercialproperty such as patentable material,and personal information concerningindividuals associated with the contractproposals, the disclosure of whichwould constitute a clearly unwarrantedinvasion of personal privacy.

Name of Committee: National Library ofMedicine Special Emphasis Panel, NationalHeart Attack Alert Program Phase II.

Date: July 29, 1999.Time: 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.Agenda: To review and evaluate contract

proposals.Place: National Library of Medicine, 6705

Rockledge Drive, Suite 301, Bethesda, MD20892.

Contact Person: Peter Clepper, ProgramOfficer, National Library of Medicine,Extramural Programs, Rockledge One, 6705Rockledge Drive, Suite 301, Bethesda, MD20892.

This notice is being published less than 15days prior to the meeting due to the timing



limitations imposed by the review andfunding cycle.(Catalogue of Federal Domestic AssistanceProgram Nos. 93.879, Medical LibraryAssistance, National Institutes of Health,HHS)

Dated: July 20, 1999.LaVerne Y. Stringfield,Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy,NIH.[FR Doc. 99–19034 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4140–01–M



Center for Scientific Review; Notice ofClosed Meetings

Pursuant to section 10(d) of theFederal Advisory Committee Act, asamended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), noticeis hereby given of the followingmeetings.

The meetings will be closed to thepublic in accordance with theprovisions set forth in sections552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C.,as amended. The grant applications andthe discussions could discloseconfidential trade secrets or commercialproperty such as patentable material,and personal information concerningindividuals associated with the grantapplications, the disclosure of whichwould constitute a clearly unwarrantedinvasion of personal privacy.

Name of Committee: Center for ScientificReview Special Emphasis Panel.

Date: July 29, 1999.Time: 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.Agenda: To review and evaluate grant

applications.Place: NIH, Rockledge 2, Bethesda, MD

20892, (Telephone Conference Call).Contact Person: Camilla E. Day, PhD,

Scientific Review Administrator, Center forScientific Review, National Institutes ofHealth, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6152,MSC 7840, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435–1037, [email protected].



Date: August 2, 1999.Time: 11 a.m. to 3 p.m.Agenda: To review and evaluate grant

applications.Place: NIH, 6701 Rockledge Drive,

Conference Room 3087, Bethesda, MD 20892.Contact Person: David M. Monsees, PhD,

Scientific Review Administrator, Center forScientific Review, National institutes ofHealth, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3199,MSC 7770, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435–0684, [email protected].



Date: August 2, 1999.Time: 3 p.m. to 4 p.m.Agenda: To review and evaluate grant


20892, (Telephone Conference Call).Contact Person: Cheri Wiggs, PhD,

Scientific Review Administrator, Center forScientific Review, National Institutes ofHealth, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3180,MSC 7848, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435–8367.



Date: August 2, 1999.Time: 3 PM to 4 PM.Agenda: To review and evaluate grant


20892, (Telephone Conference Call).Contact Person: Nancy Pearson, PhD,

Chief, Genetic Sciences Initial Review Group,Center for Scientific Review, NationalInstitutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive,Room 6178, MSC 7890, Bethesda, MD 20892,(301) 435–1047.



Date: August 2–4, 1999.Time: 5 PM to 3 PM.Agenda: To review and evaluate grant

applications.Place: Edgewater Hotel, 666 Wisconsin

Avenue, Madison, WI 53703.Contact Person: Nancy Lamontagne, PhD,




Date: August 3–4, 1999.Time: 8:30 AM to 5 PM.Agenda: To review and evaluate grant

applications.Place: Georgetown Holiday Inn, 2101

Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Washington, DC20007.

Contact Person: N. Krish Krishnan, PhD,Scientific Review Administrator, Center forScientific Review, National Institutes ofHealth, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6164,MSC 7892, Bethesda, MD 20892.



Date: August 3–4, 1999.Time: 8:30 AM to 12:30 PM.Agenda: To review and evaluate grant

applications.Place: Georgetown Holiday Inn,

Kaleidoscope Room, 2101 Wisconsin Ave.,N.W. Washington, DC 20007.

Contact Person: Syed Amir, PhD, ScientificReview Administrator, Center for ScientificReview, National Institutes of Health, 6701Rockledge Drive, Room 6168, MSC 7892,Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435–1043.



Date: August 3, 1999.Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.Agenda: To review and evaluate grant

applications.Place: Holiday Inn, Bethesda, MD 20814.Contact Person: Carole L. Jelsema, PhD,



Name of Committee: Center for ScientificReview Special Emphasis Panel, ZRG1–IFCN5–03.

Date: August 3, 1999.Time: 10 a.m. to 11 a.m.Agenda: To review and evaluate grant


20892, (Telephone Conference Call).Contact Person: John Bishop, PhD,




Date: August 3, 1999.Time: 10 a.m. to 12 p.m.Agenda: To review and evaluate grant


20892, (Telephone Conference Call.Contact Person: Sami A. Mayyasi, PhD.,




Date: August 3, 1999.



Time: 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.Agenda: To review and evaluate grant


20892, (Telephone Conference Call).Contact Person: Anita Corman Weinblatt,

PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Centerfor Scientific Review, National Institutes ofHealth, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3110,MSC 7778, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435–1124.




applications.Place: NIH, Rockledge II, Bethesda, MD

20892, (Telephone Conference Call).Contact Person: Eugene Zimmerman, PhD,




Date: August 4, 1999.Time: 1 PM to 2:30 PM.Agenda: To review and evaluate grant


20892, (Telephone Conference Call).Contact Person: David M. Monsees, PhD,






20892, (Telephone Conference Call).Contact Person: Larry Pinkus, PhD,





applications.

Place: NIH, Rockledge II, Bethesda, MD20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

Contact Person: Syed Quadri, ScientificReview Administrator, Center for ScientificReview, National Institutes of Health, 6701Rockledge Drive, Room 4144, MSC 7804,Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435–1211.

This notice is being published less than 15days prior to the meeting due to the timinglimitations imposed by the review andfunding cycle.(Catalogue of Federal Domestic AssistanceProgram Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine,93.306; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.333,93.337, 93.393–93.396, 93.837–93.844,93.846–93.878, 93.892, 93.893, NationalInstitutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: July 20, 1999.LaVerne Y. Stringfield,Committee Management Officer, NIH.[FR Doc. 99–19033 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4140–01–M



Endangered Species PermitApplications

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,Department of the Interior.ACTION: Notice of receipt of permitapplications.

SUMMARY: The following applicants haveapplied for a scientific research permitto conduct certain activities withendangered species pursuant to section10 (a)(1)(A) of the Endangered SpeciesAct of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531et seq.).Permit No. TE–014844–0

Applicant: John A. Ebrey, Jacksonville,Illinois.

The applicant requests a permit topurchase, in interstate commerce, twofemale and two male captive bredHawaiian (=nene) geese (Nesochen[=Branta] sandvicensis) for the purposeof enhancing its propagation andsurvival.DATES: Written comments on thesepermit applications must be received onor before August 25, 1999.ADDRESSES: Written data or commentsshould be submitted to the Chief-Endangered Species, EcologicalServices, Fish and Wildlife Service, 911N.E. 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon97232–4181; Fax: (503) 231–6243.Please refer to the respective permitnumber for each application whensubmitting comments. All commentsreceived, including names andaddresses, will become part of theofficial administrative record and maybe made available to the public.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Documents and other informationsubmitted with these applications areavailable for review, subject to therequirements of the Privacy Act andFreedom of Information Act, by anyparty who submits a written request fora copy of such documents within 20days of the date of publication of thisnotice to the address above; telephone:(503) 231–2063. Please refer to therespective permit number for eachapplication when requesting copies ofdocuments.

Dated: July 16, 1999.Thomas Dwyer,Acting Regional Director, Region 1, Portland,Oregon.[FR Doc. 99–18942 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310–55–P



Notice of Receipt of Applications forPermit

The following applicants haveapplied for a permit to conduct certainactivities with endangered species. Thisnotice is provided pursuant to Section10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531, etseq.):PRT–014711

Applicant: Betty Ann Weintraub, Poolesville,MD

The applicant requests a permit toimport the sport-hunted trophy of onemale bontebok (Damaliscus pygargusdorcas) culled from a captive herdmaintained under the managementprogram of the Republic of South Africa,for the purpose of enhancement of thesurvival of the species.PRT–014959

Applicant: James Alan Sojka, Canterbury, NJ

The applicant requests a permit toimport the sport-hunted trophy of onemale bontebok (Damaliscus pygargusdorcas) culled from a captive herdmaintained under the managementprogram of the Republic of South Africa,for the purpose of enhancement of thesurvival of the species.Applicant: Barbara Dicely, dba Leopards,

Etc., Occidental, CA

PRT–013568The applicant requests a permit to

import 1.1 captive-born cheetah(Acinonyx jubatas) from DeWildt’sCheetah Research and Breeding Center,DeWildt, South Africa, for the purposeof enhancement of the survival of thespecies through conservation education.



PRT–14918

Applicant: Alexandria Zoological Park,Alexandria, LA

The applicant requests a permit toexport two captive bred Ringtail Lemur(Lemur catta) to the Calgary Zoo,Calgary, Alberta, Canada for breedingpurposes.PRT–013951

Applicant: Henry Doorly Zoo, Omaha,Nebraska

The applicant requests a permit toimport blood, skin biopsy, hair and fecalsamples from Asian Elephant (Elephusmaximus) collected in the wild inThailand and Indonesia, and fromcaptive held specimens removed fromthe wild in Indonesia, for scientificresearch.PRT–013445

Applicant: Henry Doorly Zoo, Omaha,Nebraska

The applicant requests a permit toimport blood samples from Hicatee(Dermatemys mawii), collected in thewild in Belize for scientific research.PRT–014861

Applicant: Wayne Pocius, Pennsburg, PA

The applicant requests a permit toimport a sport-hunted cheetah(Acinonyx jubatus) from Namibia for thepurpose of enhancement of the survivalof the species.

The public is invited to comment onthe following application for a permit toconduct certain activities with marinemammals. The application wassubmitted to satisfy requirements of theMarine Mammal Protection Act of 1972,as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) andthe regulations governing marinemammals (50 CFR 18).PRT–012337

Applicant: Aquarium of the Americas

Permit Type: Public Display of MarineMammals.

Name and Number of Animals:Northern Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris) 3.

Summary of Activity to beAuthorized: The applicant requests apermit for public display of 3 sea otterpelts.

Source of Marine Mammals: Seizedgoods.

Period of Activity: Up to 5 years, ifissued.

Concurrent with the publication ofthis notice in the Federal Register, theOffice of Management Authority isforwarding copies of this application tothe Marine Mammal Commission andthe Committee of Scientific Advisors fortheir review.

Written data or comments should besubmitted to the Director, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Office of ManagementAuthority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive,Room 700, Arlington, Virginia 22203and must be received by the Directorwithin 30 days of the date of thispublication.

Documents and other informationsubmitted with these applications areavailable for review, subject to therequirements of the Privacy Act andFreedom of Information Act, by anyparty who submits a written request fora copy of such documents to thefollowing office within 30 days of thedate of publication of this notice: U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, Office ofManagement Authority, 4401 NorthFairfax Drive, Room 700, Arlington,Virginia 22203. Phone: (703/358–2104);FAX: (703/358–2281).

Dated: July 21, 1999.Kristen Nelson,Acting Chief, Branch of Permits, Office ofManagement Authority.[FR Doc. 99–19039 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310–55–P



Cancellation of Federal Aid in SportFish and Wildlife RestorationAdministrative Project Funding

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,Interior.ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Service is cancelingfunding for Federal Aid in WildlifeRestoration and Sport Fish Restorationadministrative projects. Existing grantsfor projects approved for funding inFiscal Year 1999, or prior years, will notbe affected by this notice.DATES: This action takes effect July 26,1999.ADDRESSES: U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, Chief, Division of Federal Aid.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.Robert E. Lange, Jr., Chief, Division ofFederal Aid, U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, MS 140 ARLSQ, 4401 NorthFairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia,22203: (703) 358–2156.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:Administrative funds are authorized bythe Federal Aid in Wildlife Restorationand Federal Aid in Sport FishRestoration Acts to pay expensesincurred by the Fish and WildlifeService in administering theseprograms. We may deduct up to eightpercent for the Wildlife Restorationprogram and up to six percent for theSport Fish Restoration program, with

remaining funds apportioned to Statefish and wildlife agencies for fish andwildlife restoration and managementprojects. We have used ourdiscretionary authority to disperse someof the funds deducted for administrationto support important national fish andwildlife projects, within the scope of theActs, that provide collective benefits fora majority of the States.

In the past, we have published anannual notice in the Federal Registerannouncing a deadline for projectproposals, the amount of administrativefunds available for Sport Fish andWildlife Restoration projects, andprocedures to be followed forsubmitting proposals. States, localgovernments, charitable organizations,educational institutions, and otherauthorized groups have applied forgrants according to those procedures.

On September 16, 1998, we publishedalternatives to Federal AidAdministrative Grants in the FederalRegister. That notice identified fivealternative procedures for administeringthose grants. Public comments wereinvited through November 16, 1998.Twenty-two of the twenty-fivecomments received identifiedAlternative 3 (enhance existing programwithout Federal Register Notice) as thepreferred alternative. However,subsequent to the analysis of comments,we determined that increased costs foradministering the Wildlife Restorationand Sport Fish Restoration programsprecludes further funding ofadministrative grants. The increasedcosts arise from three pressing needs.First, the costs of automating the grantsdelivery system are more thanexpected—much greater than two yearsago when the process began. Second,the audits of State systems by theDefense Contract Audit Agency are asubstantial cost that was not presentseveral years ago. Third, the cost ofadministering the small grantsprograms, created by amendments to theSport Fish Restoration Act (Clean VesselAct Pumpout Program, the BoatingInfrastructure Program, and the CoastalWetlands Planning, Protection andRestoration Program) must be assessedagainst the Sport Fish RestorationProgram. One of the actions being takento balance the administrative expensesbudget is to cancel the Federal Aid inSport Fish and Wildlife Restorationadministrative project funding effectivein Fiscal Year 2000. Projects approvedfor funding in Fiscal 1999 will not beaffected by this decision.



Dated: July 19, 1999.John G. Rogers,Acting, Director.[FR Doc. 99–19040 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310–55–M


Bureau of Indian Affairs

Operation and Maintenance RateAdjustment: Colorado River IrrigationProject, Arizona

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs,Interior.ACTION: Notice of proposed irrigationoperation and maintenance rateadjustment.

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Indian Affairsproposes to adjust the assessment ratesfor operating and maintaining theColorado River Irrigation Project for theCY 2000 irrigation season.DATES: Interested parties may submitcomments on the proposed rateadjustment. Comments must besubmitted on or before September 24,1999.ADDRESSES: All comments concerningthe proposed rate adjustment must be inwriting and addressed to: Director,Office of Trust Responsibilities, Attn.:Irrigation and Power, MS 4513–MIB,Code 210, 1849 C Street, NW,Washington, DC 20240; Telephone (202)208–5480.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: AreaDirector, Bureau of Indian Affairs,Phoenix Area Office, P.O. Box 10,Phoenix, Arizona 85001; Telephone(602) 379–6956.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Theauthority to issue this document isvested in the Secretary of the Interior by5 U.S.C. 301 and the Act of August 14,1914 (38 Stat. 583, 25 U.S.C. 385). TheSecretary has delegated this authority tothe Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairspursuant to part 209 DepartmentalManual, Chapter 8.1A andMemorandum dated January 25, 1994,from Chief of Staff, Department of theInterior, to Assistant Secretaries, andHeads of Bureaus and Offices.

This notice is given in accordancewith §§ 171.1(e) and 171.1(g) of part171, Subchapter H, Chapter 1, of Title25 of the Code of Federal Regulations,which provides for fixing andannouncing the rates for annualoperation and maintenance assessmentsand related information of Bureau ofIndian Affairs irrigation projects.

The assessment rates are based on aprepared estimate of the cost of normaloperation and maintenance of the

irrigation project. Normal operation andmaintenance mean the expenses weincur to provide direct support orbenefit to the project’s activities foradministration, operation, maintenance,and rehabilitation. We must include atleast:

(a) Personnel salary and benefits forthe project engineer/manager and ouremployees under his management/control;

(b) Materials and supplies;(c) Major and minor vehicle and

equipment repairs;(d) Equipment, including

transportation, fuel, oil, grease, leaseand replacement;

(e) Capitalization expenses;(f) Acquisition expenses; and(g) Other expenses we determine

necessary to properly perform theactivities and functions characteristic ofan irrigation project.

Payments

The irrigation operation andmaintenance assessments become duebased on locally established paymentrequirements. No water shall bedelivered to any of these lands until allirrigation charges have been paid.

Interest and Penalty Fees

Interest, penalty, and administrativefees will be assessed, where required bylaw, on all delinquent operation andmaintenance assessment charges asprescribed in the Code of FederalRegulations, Title 4, part 102, FederalClaims Collection Standards and 42BIAM Supplement 3, part 3.8 DebtCollection Procedures. Beginning 30days after the due date, interest will beassessed at the rate of the current valueof funds to the U.S. Treasury. Anadministrative fee of $12.50 will beassessed each time an effort is made tocollect a delinquent debt; a penaltycharge of 6 percent per year will becharged on delinquent debts over 90days old and will accrue from the datethe debt became delinquent. No watershall be delivered to any farm unit untilall irrigation charges have been paid.After 180 days a delinquent debt will beforwarded to the United States Treasuryfor further action in accordance withDebt Collection Improvement Act of1996 (Pub. L. 104–134).

Rate Adjustment

The following table illustrates theimpact of the rate adjustment:

COLORADO RIVER IRRIGATIONPROJECT, IRRIGATION RATE PER AS-SESSABLE ACRE

Present1999

Proposed2000

Up to 5 acre-feet/acre.

$36.00 $38.50.

Excess Water/acre-foot.

$17.00 Unchanged.

Executive Order 12988

The Department has certified to theOffice of Management and Budget(OMB) that this rate adjustment meetsthe applicable standards provided insections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of ExecutiveOrder 12988.


This rate adjustment is not asignificant regulatory action and hasbeen reviewed by the Office ofManagement and Budget underExecutive Order 12866.


This rate making is not a rule for thepurposes of the Regulatory FlexibilityAct because it is ‘‘a rule of particularapplicability relating to rates.’’ 5 U.S.C.601(2).


The Department has determined thatthis rate adjustment does not havesignificant ‘‘takings’’ implications.


The Department has determined thatthis rate adjustment does not havesignificant Federalism effects because itpertains solely to Federal-tribal relationsand will not interfere with the roles,rights, and responsibilities of states.

NEPA Compliance

The Department has determined thatthis rate adjustment does not constitutea major Federal action significantlyaffecting the quality of the humanenvironment and that no detailedstatement is required under the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act of 1969.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

This rate adjustment does not containcollections of information requiringapproval under the PaperworkReduction Act of 1995.

Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995

This rate adjustment imposes nounfunded mandates on anygovernmental or private entity and is incompliance with the provisions of theUnfunded Mandates Act of 1995.



Dated: July 15, 1999.Kevin Gover,Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.[FR Doc. 99–19023 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310–02–P


Bureau of Land Management

[WO–320–1990–02–24 1A; OMB ApprovalNumber 1004–0169]

Information Collection Submitted tothe Office of Management and Budgetfor Review Under the PaperworkReduction Act

The Bureau of Land Management(BLM) has submitted the proposedcollection of information listed below tothe Office of Management and Budget(OMB) for approval under theprovisions of the Paperwork ReductionAct (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) On April 27,1999, BLM published a notice in theFederal Register (64 FR 22639)requesting comment on this proposedcollection. The comment period endedon June 28, 1999. BLM received nocomments from the public in responseto that notice. Copies of the proposedcollection of information and relatedforms and explanatory material may beobtained by contacting the BLMclearance officer at the telephonenumber listed below.

OMB is required to respond to thisrequest within 60 days but may respondafter 30 days. For maximumconsideration your comments andsuggestions on the requirement shouldbe made within 30 days directly to theOffice of Management and Budget,Interior Department Desk Officer (1004–0169), Office of Information andRegulatory Affairs, Washington, DC20503, telephone (202) 395–7340. Pleaseprovide a copy of your comments to theBureau Clearance Officer (WO–630),

1849 C St., NW, Mail Stop 401 LS,Washington, DC 20240.

Nature of Comments: We specificallyrequest your comments on thefollowing:

1. Whether the collection ofinformation is necessary for the properfunctioning of BLM, including whetherthe information will have practicalutility;

2. The accuracy of BLM’s estimate ofthe burden of collecting the information,including the validity of themethodology and assumptions used;

3. The quality, utility and clarity ofthe information to be collected; and

4. How to minimize the burden ofcollecting the information on those whoare to respond, including the use ofappropriate automated electronic,mechanical, or other forms ofinformation technology.

Title: Use and Occupancy (43 CFR3715, OMB approval number: 1004–0169.

Abstract: The Bureau of LandManagement is proposing to renew theapproval of an information collectionfor an existing rule at 43 CFR 3715. Itdefines acceptable, reasonably incidentuse and occupancy of unpatentedmining claims and mill sites on Federallands. The rule provides field managerswith the tools necessary to manageexisting and proposed use andoccupancy. The rule defines thoseactivities that are reasonably incident toprospecting, mining, or processingoperations. The rule establishesconditions for determining whetherthese criteria are met, procedures forinitiation of occupancy, standards forthe use or occupancy, prohibited acts,procedures for inspection andenforcement. It established proceduresfor recognizing and managing existingoccupancies. It would also provide forpenalties and appeals procedures. Therules only applies to public land under

the administration of the Bureau ofLand Management.

Bureau Form Number: None.Frequency of Response: Once.Description of Respondents:

Respondents are mining claimants andoperators of prospecting, exploration,mining, and processing operations.

Estimated completion time: 2 hour(s).Annual Responses: 280.Annual Burden Hours: 560.Collection Clearance Officer: Carole

Smith, 202–452–0367.Dated: July 9, 1999.

Carole Smith,Bureau of Land Management InformationClearance Officer.[FR Doc. 99–19005 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310–84–M


Minerals Management Service

Environmental Documents Preparedfor Proposed Oil and Gas Operationsin the Gulf of Mexico Outer ContinentalShelf (OCS)

AGENCY: Minerals Management Service,Interior.ACTION: Publication of revised OuterContinental Shelf leasing maps andofficial protraction diagrams.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given thateffective with this publication, thefollowing Louisiana and Texas LeasingMaps and Protraction Diagrams lastrevised on the date indicated, are on fileand available for information only, inthe Gulf of Mexico OCS Regional Office,New Orleans, Louisiana. In accordancewith Title 43, Code of FederalRegulations, these official ProtractionDiagrams are the basic record for thedescription of mineral and oil and gaslease sales in the geographic areas theyrepresent.

REVISED MAPS

Latest revision date

Leasing maps:1 West Cameron Area West Addition, LA1A ................................................................................................................... May 30, 1997.1 West Cameron Area South Addition, LA1B .................................................................................................................. May 30, 1997.2 South Timbalier Area, LA6 ............................................................................................................................................ December 30, 1994.2 Bay Marchand Area, LA6C ........................................................................................................................................... December 30, 1994.1, 2 Sabine Pass Area, LA12 ........................................................................................................................................... May 30, 1997.4 South Padre Island Area East Addition, TX1A ............................................................................................................. September 9, 1998.1 High Island Area East Addition, TX7A .......................................................................................................................... May 30, 1997.1, 3 High Island Area South Addition, TX7B ................................................................................................................... March 15, 1999.1, 3 High Island Area East Addition South Extension, TX7C .......................................................................................... March 15, 1999.1, 2 Sabine pass Area, TX8 ............................................................................................................................................. May 30, 1997.

Official protraction diagrams:4 Port Isabel, NG14–06 .................................................................................................................................................... September 9, 1998.1, 3 Garden Banks, NG15–02 .......................................................................................................................................... March 15, 1999.4 Aliminos Canyon, NG15–04 .......................................................................................................................................... September 9, 1998.



Revisions

1. Revised to digital format andcorrect or clarify the depiction of theLouisiana/Texas Lateral AdministrativeBoundary.

2. Revised to digital format andseparated into a single map.

3. Revised to digital format anddepicts Flower Garden Banks NationalMaritime Sanctuary.

4. Revised to digital format and reflectthe ratification of the United States-Mexico Maritime Boundary.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Copies of Leasing Maps and OfficialProtraction are $2.00 each. Completesets of Louisiana maps are $32.00, andTexas map sets are $18.00. These maybe purchased from our PublicInformation Unit, Information ServicesSection, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region,Minerals Management Service, 1201Elmwood Park Boulevard, New Orleans,Louisiana 70123–2394, Telephone (504)736–2519.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Technicalcomments or questions pertaining tothese maps should be directed to theOffice of Leasing and Environment,Supervisor, Sales and Support Unit at(504) 736–2768.

Dated: July 19, 1999.Chris C. Oynes,Regional Director, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region.[FR Doc. 99–18943 Filed 7–23–99 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310–MR–M


Bureau of Reclamation

Bay-Delta Advisory Council’sEcosystem Roundatable Meeting

AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation,Interior.ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: The Bay-Delta AdvisoryCouncil’s (BDAC) EcosystemRoundtable will meet on August 10,1999, to discuss several issues includinga process for setting priorities for FY2000, a report from the RoundtableIssues Subcommittee, and a long-termstrategy for environmental wateracquisition. This meeting is open to thepublic. Interested persons may makeoral statements to the EcosystemRoundtable or may file writtenstatements for consideration.DATES: The Ecosystem Roundtable willbe held from 9:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. onAugust 10, 1999.ADDRESSES: This meeting will meet atthe Resources Building, Room 1131,

1416 Ninth Street, Sacramento, CA95814.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Wendy Halverson Martin, CALFED Bay-Delta Program, at (916) 657–2666. Ifreasonable accommodation is neededdue to a disability, please contact theEqual Employment Opportunity Officeat (916) 653–6952 or TDD (916) 653–6934 at least one week prior to themeeting.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The SanFrancisco Bay/Sacramento-San JoaquinDelta Estuary (Bay-Delta system) is acritically important part of California’snatural environment and economy. Inrecognition of the serious problemsfacing the region and the complexresource management decisions thatmust be made, the state of Californiaand the Federal government are workingtogether to stabilize, protect, restore,and enhance the Bay-Delta system. TheState and Federal agencies withmanagement and regulatoryresponsibilities in the Bay-Delta systemare working together as CALFED toprovide policy direction and oversightfor the process.

One area of Bay-Delta managementincludes the establishment of a jointState-Federal process to develop long-term solutions to problems in the Bay-Delta system related to fish and wildlife,water supply reliability, naturaldisasters, and water quality. The intentis to develop a comprehensive andbalanced plan which addresses all of theresource problems. This effort, theCALFED Bay-Delta Program (Program),is being carried out under the policydirection of CALFED. The Program isexploring and developing a long-termsolution for a cooperative planningprocess that will determine the mostappropriate strategy and actionsnecessary to improve water quality,restore health to the Bay-Deltaecosystem, provide for a variety ofbeneficial uses, and minimize Bay-Deltasystem vulnerability. A group of citizenadvisors representing California’sagricultural, environmental, urban,business, fishing, and other interestswho have a stake in finding long-termsolutions for the problems affecting theBay-Delta system has been charteredunder the Federal Advisory CommitteeAct (FACA). The BDAC provides adviceto CALFED on the program mission,problems to be addressed, andobjectives for the Program. BDACprovides a forum to help ensure publicparticipation, and will review reportsand other materials prepared byCALFED staff. BDAC has established asubcommittee called the EcosystemRoundtable to provide input on annual

workplans to implement ecosystemrestoration projects and programs.

Minutes of the meeting will bemaintained by the Program, Suite 1155,Ninth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814,and will be available for publicinspection regular business hours,Monday through Friday, within 30 daysfollowing the meeting.

Dated: June 20, 1999.Kirk Rodgers,Acting Regional Director, Mid-Pacific Region.[FR Doc. 99–18949 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 8025–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Executive Office for ImmigrationReview

[AG Order No. 2234–99]

RIN 1125–AA23

Motion To Reopen: Suspension ofDeportation and Cancellation ofRemoval

AGENCY: Executive Office forImmigration Review, Justice.ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice relates to certainaliens who filed an abbreviated motionto reopen their cases, on or beforeSeptember 11, 1998, in order to applyfor benefits under section 203(c) of theNicaraguan Adjustment and CentralAmerican Relief Act (NACARA). Adeadline to complete the motion toreopen has been set. The 150-day periodfor the submission of an application ofsuspension of deportation orcancellation of removal began June 21,1999, and ends (150 days from the June21, 1999, effective date of INS Rule No.1915–98, RIN 1115–AF14).FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Formatters relating to the Executive Officefor Immigration Review—CharlesAdkins-Blanch, Acting General Counsel,Executive Office for ImmigrationReview, Suite 2400, 5107 Leesburg Pike,Falls Church, Virginia 22041, telephone(703) 305–0470. For matters relating tothe Immigration and NaturalizationService—Mary Giovagnolia, AssociateGeneral Counsel, Immigration andNaturalization Service, 425 I Street, NW,Washington, DC 20536, telephone (202)514–2895.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

To Whom Does This Notice Apply?This notice applies to those aliens

who filed an abbreviated NACARAmotion to reopen by September 11,1998, as provided in 63 FR 31890 (June11, 1998).



What Does This Notice Do?

This notice clarifies the deadline tosubmit an application for suspension ofdeportation or special rule cancellationof removal and supportingdocumentation to complete a NACARAmotion to reopen. Initially, theDepartment established a February 8,1999, deadline for eligible aliens tosubmit the application for suspension ofdeportation or special rule cancellationof removal and all the accompanyingdocumentation in support of theNACARA motion to reopen. See 63 FR31890, 31895 (June 11, 1998). In thefinal NACARA motion to reopen rule,the Department extended the deadlineto complete a NACARA motion toreopen to 150 days after the ruleimplementing section 203 of NACARAbecomes effective. See 64 FR 13663(March 22, 1999). The ruleimplementing section 203 of NACARAwas published on May 21, 1999, and theeffective date is June 21, 1999. Thisnotice will alert those eligible aliensthat the 150-day period to complete theNACARA motion to reopen has startedto run.

When Is the Deadline to Complete aNACARA Motion To Reopen?

The final motion to reopen rulerequires an applicant to submit his orher application and accompanyingdocumentation no later than 150 daysafter the rule implementing section 203of NACARA becomes effective. The ruleimplementing section 203 of NACARAbecame effective June 21, 1999.Accordingly, all suspension ofdeportation and special rulecancellation of removal applicationsand accompanying documentationneeded to complete a properly filedNACARA motion to reopen must befiled by (150 days from the June 21,1999, effective date of INS Rule No.1915–98, RIN 1115–AF14).

Dated: July 15, 1999.Janey Reno,Attorney General.[FR Doc. 99–18930 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4410–10–M


Notice of Lodging of Consent DecreeUnder the ComprehensiveEnvironmental Response,Compensation and Liability Act

Pursuant to Section 122(d)(2) of theComprehensive EnvironmentalResponse, Compensation and LiabilityAct, 42 U.S.C. 9622(d)(2), and 28 CFR50.7, notice is hereby given that on June

30, 1999, a proposed Consent Decree inUnited States v. Bronson PlatingCompany, et al. Civil Action No. 1:99–CV–490, was lodged with the UnitedStates District Court for the WesternDistrict of Michigan for a period ofthirty days to facilitate public comment.

The settlement embodied in theproposed Consent Decree requires thesettling defendants, Bronson PlatingCompany, the City of Bronson, ITTAutomotive, Inc., L.A. DarlingCompany, and The Scott FetzerCompany (the ‘‘Settling Defendants’’), toimplement the estimated $4 millionremedy selected by EPA for the first oftwo operable units for the NorthBronson Industrial Area Site (‘‘Site’’),located in Branch County, MichiganSite. The Settling Defendants also agreeto pay the United States $1,629,114.88for past response costs through March31, 1997, as well as future costs ofoverseeing the implementation of theremedial action. The remedy for the firstoperable unit includes excavatingcontaminated eastern lagoon soil andsludge and covering this area with cleansoil; dredging sediment from CountyDrain #30; consolidating contaminatedwaste from the eastern lagoons andCounty Drain #30 in the westernlagoons; covering the western lagoons;installing a French Drain between thewestern lagoons and county Drain #30to capture contaminated groundwater;and treating contaminated groundwaterin a treatment wetland beforedischarging the water into County Drain#30. The selected remedy also includesmonitoring groundwater and surfacewater quality; placing institutionalcontrols on the western lagoon area andthe treatment wetland; and placingrestrictions on future groundwater usethroughout the Site.

The past cost payment includes asettlement with the City of Bronson(‘‘the City’’) based on its ability to pay,which will pay $118,074 plus interestover a three-year period. The ConsentDecree further includes a settlement ofa natural resource damages claim of theU.S. Department of the Interior (‘‘DOI’’),for either a cash payment of $100,000,plus DOI’s assessment costs, or anagreement to conduct compensatoryrestoration by acquiring replacementhabitat of at least 20 acres within theState of Michigan, and to pay DOI’soversight assessment costs.

The Department of Justice will receivefor a period of thirty (30) days from thedate of this publication commentsrelating to the proposed Consent Decree.Comments should be addressed to theAssistant Attorney General of theEnvironment and Natural ResourcesDivision, Department of Justice,

Washington, DC 20530, and should referto United States v. Bronson Plating, etal., DOJ No. 90–11–2–1311.

The Consent Decree may be examinedat the Office of the United StatesAttorney, Western District of Michigan,330 Ionia Avenue, Grand Rapids,Michigan 49503, at the Region 5 Officeof the United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency, 77 West JacksonBoulevard, Chicago, IL 60604–3590, andat the Consent Decree Library, 1120 GStreet, NW, 3rd Floor, Washington, DC20005. A copy of the Consent Decreemay be obtained in person or by mailfrom the Consent Decree Library, 1120G Street, NW, 3rd Floor, Washington,DC 20005. In requesting a copy, pleaserefer to the above-referenced case andenclose a check in the amount of $22.00(25 cents per page reproduction cost,without exhibits) payable to the ConsentDecree Library.Bruce S. Gelber,Deputy Chief, Environmental EnforcementSection, Environment and Natural ResourcesDivision.[FR Doc. 99–19006 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4410–15–M


Notice of Lodging of SettlementAgreement in Re Continental Airlines,Inc. Under the ComprehensiveEnvironmental Response,Compensation, and Liability Act

Notice is hereby given that aSettlement Agreement (‘‘Agreement’’) inIn re Continental Airlines, Inc., et al.,Nos. 90–932 through 984. (Bankr. D.Del.,), has been entered into by theUnited States on behalf of U.S. EPA andContinental Airlines, Inc. and certain ofits subsidiaries (collectively the‘‘Debtors’’) and was lodged with theUnited States Bankruptcy Court for theUnited States Bankruptcy Court for theDistrict of Delaware on June 30, 1999.The Agreement relates to liabilitiesunder the ComprehensiveEnvironmental Response, Compensationand Liability Act (‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C.9601 et seq. The Agreement resolvesCERCLA claims against the Debtors forthe following six hazardous waste sites,denominated as ‘‘Liquidated Sites’’under the Agreement: The OperatingIndustries, Inc. Site in Monterey Park,CA; the Lowry Landfill Site in Denver,CO; the Rocky Flats Industrial Park Sitein Jefferson County, CO; the ChemicalHandling Corp. Site in Broomfield, CO;the Omega Chemical Corp. Site inWhittier, CA; and the EnvironmentalPacific Corp. Site in Amity, OR.



Under the Agreement, Continental hasagreed to allowed general unsecuredclaims in the total amount of $1,290,000and allowed claims to be paid in full asadministrative expense claims in thetotal amount of $229,084.37 as specifiedin the Agreement. The Agreement alsocontains provisions pertaining to thetreatment of Debtor-Owned Sites andAdditional Sites.

The Department of Justice will receivecomments relating to the proposedAgreement for 30 days following thepublication of this Notice. Commentsshould be addressed to the AssistantAttorney General of the Environmentand Natural Resources Division,Department of Justice, Washington, DC20530, and should refer to In reContinental Airlines, Inc., D.J. Ref. No.90–11–2–1231.

The proposed Agreement may beexamined at the Office of the UnitedStates Attorney for the District ofDelaware, 1201 Market Street, Suite1100, Chemical Bank Plaza,Wilmington, DE 19899–2046; the UnitedStates Environmental ProtectionAgency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington,DC 20460; and at the Consent DecreeLibrary, 1120 G Street, NW, 3rd Floor,Washington, DC 20005 (202–624–0892).A copy of the proposed Agreement maybe obtained in person or by mail fromthe Consent Decree Library, 1120 GStreet, NW, 3rd Floor, Washington, DC20005. In requesting a copy of theproposed Amended SettlementAgreement, please enclose a check inthe amount of $6.75 (25 cents per pagefor reproduction costs), payable to theConsent Decree Library.Joel M. Gross,Section Chief, Environmental EnforcementSection, Environment and Natural ResourcesDivision.[FR Doc. 99–19009 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4410–15–M


Notice of Lodging of Consent DecreePursuant to the ComprehensiveEnvironmental ResponseCompensation and Liability Act

Notice is hereby given that a proposedconsent decree in United States v. CoonRefrigeration, et al., Civil Action No.90–212 (W.D. Pa.), was lodged on July1, 1999 with the United States DistrictCourt for the Western District ofPennsylvania. The United States filedits action pursuant to theComprehensive EnvironmentalResponse, Compensation, and LiabilityAct to recover costs incurred and to be

incurred in cleaning up the Pagan RoadSuperfund Site in westernPennsylvania. The proposed consentdecree requires Marlin Coon and CoonRefrigeration to pay a minimum of$1,002 in reimbursement of pastresponse costs incurred at the Site. TheConsent Decree also requires MarlinCoon and Coon Refrigeration to sell thePagan Road Site and pay seventy-fivepercent of the proceeds of that sale tothe United States in furtherreimbursement of past response costs.

The Department of Justice willreceive, for a period of thirty (30) daysfrom the date of this publication,comments relating to the proposedconsent decree. Comments should beaddressed to the Assistant AttorneyGeneral for the Environment andNatural Resources Division, Departmentof Justice, Washington, DC 20530, andshould refer to United States v. CoonRefrigeration, et al., DOJ Ref. #90–11–2–619.

The proposed consent decree may beexamined at the office of the UnitedStates Attorney, 100 State Street, Suite302, Erie, PA 16507, the Regional Officeof the Environmental ProtectionAgency, 615 Arch Street, Philadelphia,PA 19103, and at the Consent DecreeLibrary, 1120 G Street, NW, 3rd Floor,Washington, DC 20005, (202) 624–0892.A copy of the proposed consent decreemay be obtained in person or by mailfrom the Consent Decree Library, 1120G Street, NW, 3rd Floor, Washington,DC 20005. In requesting a copy pleaserefer to the referenced case and enclosea check in the amount of $4.00 for theconsent decree (25 cents per pagereproduction costs), payable to theConsent Decree Library.Joel M. Gross,Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section,Environment and Natural Resources Division.[FR Doc. 99–19007 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4410–15–M


Notice of Lodging of Consent DecreeUnder the Clean Water Act

Under 28 CFR 50.7, notice is herebygiven that on July 9, 1999, a proposedConsent Decree in United States and theState of Ohio v. City of Port Clinton,Civil Action Nos. 3:99CV7434 and3:99CV7435, was lodged with theUnited States District Court for theNorthern District of Ohio, WesternDivision.

In these consolidated actions, theUnited States and the State of Ohiosought injunctive relief and penalties

against the City of Port Clinton (‘‘PortClinton’’) for claims arising inconnection with Port Clinton’swastewater treatment plant in PortClinton, Ohio, under the Clean WaterAct, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. Under theConsent Decree, Port Clinton willengage in short-term compliancemeasures that include inspecting andsampling a primary bypass outfallduring periods of operation, sampling ata public beach, and permanentlyimproving or closing all combinedsewer overflow stations. Port Clinton’slong-term compliance measures includesubmitting plans and constructionschedules to eliminate primarybypassing, to disinfect and dechlorinateall secondary bypasses, and to assurethat effluent limitations will continue tobe met. Port Clinton also must submitsa plan to study the feasibility ofeliminating secondary bypassing. PortClinton will pay a civil penalty of$60,000, one-half of which will be paidto the United States,and the other halfof which will be paid to Ohio.

The Department of Justice will receivefor a period of thirty (30) days from thedate of this publication commentsrelating to the Consent Decree.Comments should be addressed to theAssistant Attorney General of theEnvironment and Natural ResourcesDivision, Department of Justice,Washington, DC 20530, and should referto United States and State of Ohio v.City of Port Clinton, D.J. No. 90–5–1–1–4501.

The Consent Decree may be examinedat the Office of the United StatesAttorney, Four Seagate, Suite 308,Toledo, Ohio, 43604–2624, at theRegion 5 Office of the United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency, 77West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL60604–3590, and at the Consent DecreeLibrary, 1120 G Street, NW, 3rd Floor,Washington, DC 20005. A copy of theConsent Decree may be obtained inperson or by mail from the ConsentDecree Library, 1120 G Street, NW, 3rdFloor, Washington, DC 20005. Inrequesting a copy, please refer to theabove-referenced case and enclose acheck in the amount of $24.50 (25 centsper page reproduction cost) payable tothe Consent Decree Library.Joel M. Gross,

Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section,Environment and Natural Resources Division.[FR Doc. 99–19008 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]





[AAG/A Order No. 169–99]

Privacy Act of 1974; Privacy ActSystem of Records

Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5U.S.C. 552a) and Office of Managementand Budget Circular No. A–130, theExecutive Office for United StatesTrustees (EOUST), U.S. Department ofJustice, has reviewed its Privacy Actsystems of records and identified minorchanges that will clarify, update, andmore accurately describe their systemsof records.

As result, the EOUST is reportingminor modifications to the system ofrecords JUSTICE/UST–003 U.S. TrusteeTimekeeping System, to reflect recordsstorage on computer disks and on paper.Any comments may be addressed toMary Cahill, Management and PlanningStaff, Justice Management Division,Department of Justice, Washington, DC20530 (Suite 1400, National PlaceBuilding).

Dated: July 9, 1999.Stephen R. Colgate,Assistant Attorney General forAdministration.

JUSTICE/UST–003

SYSTEM NAME:U.S. Trustee Timekeeping System.

SYSTEM LOCATION:The Executive Office for United States

Trustees (EOUST) and various offices ofthe United States Trustees dependingupon where an employee has beenassigned for duty. (Field offices can belocated on the Internet at http://www.usdoj.gov/ust).

CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THESYSTEM:

Nonclerical employees of the U.S.Trustees’ offices.

CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:The system includes employees’

names and a record of their work timeby program activity.

AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM.This system is established and

maintained pursuant to 11 U.S.C., and28 U.S.C. 586.

PURPOSE:This system consists of a record of the

work time, by program activity, ofnonclerical employees of the U.S.Trustee program. The system is used bythe EOUST to analyze workload as abasis for requesting and allocatingpersonnel and other resources. Thisinformation is compiled in each of the

field offices and forwarded to EOUSTfor analysis.

ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THESYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS ANDTHE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:

RELEASE OF INFORMATION TO MEMBERS OFCONGRESS:

Information contained in systems ofrecords maintained by the Departmentof Justice, not otherwise required to bereleased pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552, maybe made available to a Member ofCongress or staff acting upon theMember’s behalf when the Member orstaff requests the information on behalfof and at the request of the individualwho is the subject of the record.

RELEASE OF INFORMATION TO THE NATIONALACHIEVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION (NARA)AND THE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION(GSA):

A record from the system of recordsmay be disclosed to the NARA and GSAfor records management inspectionsconducted under the authority of 44U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING,RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, ANDDISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:

STORAGE:

Records are stored on computer disksand on paper.

RETREIVABILITY:

Information is maintainedalphabetically by the name of theemployee. In EOUST, duplicate recordsare maintained and organized byjudicial district.

SAFEGUARDS:

Information contained in the systemis unclassified. It is safeguarded andprotected in accordance withDepartmental rules and proceduresgoverning the handling of officialrecords. During duty hours access tothis system is monitored and controlledby U.S. Trustee office personnel. Duringnonduty hours offices are locked.

RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:

Time and Attendance Reports aredestroyed by shredding and burningafter GAO audit or when three years old.

SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS:

System Manager for the system ineach office, is the U.S. Trustee and inthe Executive Office, the DeputyDirector. (See appendix of addressesidentified as JUSTICE/UST–999.)

NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE:

Address inquiries to the SystemManager.

RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURE:

A request for access to a record fromthis system shall be made in writingwith the envelope and letter clearlymarked ‘‘Privacy Access Request’’.

Individuals desiring to contest oramend information maintained in thesystem should direct their request to theSystem Manager stating clearly andconcisely what information is beingcontested, the reasons for contesting it,and the proposed amendment(s) to theinformation.

RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:Nonclerical employees of the U.S.

Trustee’s offices.

SYSTEMS EXEMPTED FROM CERTAIN PROVISIONSOF THE ACT:

None.

[FR Doc. 99–19010 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4410–AR–M


Office of the Attorney General

[A.G. Order No. 2235–99]

Certification of the Attorney General,Leake County, Mississippi

In accordance with section 6 of theVoting Rights Act of 1965, as amended,42 U.S.C. 1973d, I hereby certify that inmy judgment the appointment ofexaminers is necessary to enforce theguarantees of the Fourteenth andFifteenth Amendments of theConstitution of the United States inLeake County, Mississippi. This countyis included within the scope of thedeterminations of the Attorney Generaland the Director of the Census made onAugust 6, 1965, under section 4(b) of theVoting Rights Act of 1965 and publishedin the Federal Register on August 7,1965 (30 FR 9897).

Dated: July 16, 1999.Janet Reno,Attorney General of the United States.[FR Doc. 99–18931 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4410–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Bureau of Labor Statistics

Proposed Collection; CommentRequest

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, aspart of its continuing effort to reducepaperwork and respondent burden,conducts a pre-clearance consultation



program to provide the general publicand Federal agencies an opportunity tocomment on proposed and/orcontinuing collections of information inaccordance with the PaperworkReduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This programhelps to ensure that requested data canbe provided in the desired format,reporting burden (time and financialresources) is minimized, collectioninstruments are clearly understood, andthe impact of collection requirements onrespondents can be properly assessed.

DATES: Written comments must besubmitted to the office listed in theAddresses section of this notice on orbefore September 24, 1999.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics isparticularly interested in commentswhich:

• Evaluate whether the proposedcollection of information is necessaryfor the proper performance of thefunctions of the agency, includingwhether the information will havepractical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of theagency’s estimate of the burden of theproposed collection of information,including the validity of themethodology and assumptions used;

• Enhance the quality, utility, andclarity of the information to becollected; and

• Minimize the burden of thecollection of information on those whoare to respond, including through theuse of appropriate automated,electronic, mechanical, or othertechnological collection techniques orother forms of information technology,e.g., permitting electronic submissionsof responses.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Karin G.Kurz, BLS Clearance Officer, Division ofManagement Systems, Bureau of LaborStatistics, Room 3255, 2 MassachusettsAvenue, N.E., Washington, DC 20212.Ms. Kurz can be reached on 202–606–7628 (this is not a toll free number).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Karin G. Kurz, BLS Clearance Officer.(See ADDRESSES section).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Proposed Collection

Currently, the Bureau of LaborStatistics (BLS) is soliciting commentsconcerning the proposed revision of the‘‘Cognitive and PsychologicalResearch.’’ A copy of the proposedinformation collection request (ICR) canbe obtained by contacting the individuallisted in the ADDRESSES section of thisnotice.

II. Background

The Bureau of Labor Statistics’Behavior Science Research Laboratory(BSRL) conducts theoretical, applied,and evaluative research aimed atimproving the quality of data collectedand published by the BLS. Since itscreation in 1988, the BSRL hasadvanced the study of survey methodsresearch, approaching issues of non-sampling error within a framework thatdraws heavily on the theories andmethods of the cognitive, statistical andsocial sciences. The BSRL researchfocuses primarily on the assessment ofsurvey instrument design and surveyadministration, as well as on issuesrelated to interviewer training and theinterview process. Improvements inthese areas result in better accuracy andresponse rates of BLS surveys,frequently reduce costs in training andsurvey administration, and furtherensure the effectiveness of the overallBLS mission.

III. Current Actions

The purpose of this request forclearance is to conduct cognitive andpsychological research designed toenhance the quality of BLS datacollection procedures and overall datamanagement. The BLS is committed toproducing the most accurate andcomplete data within the highest qualityassurance guidelines. The BSRL wascreated to aid in this effort, and over thepast decade it has demonstrated theeffectiveness and value of its approach.Over the next few years, demand forBSRL consultation is expected to rise, asinformation processing approaches tosurvey methods research become morecommon. Moreover, as the use ofcomputers and web-based surveyscontinues to grow, so too will the needfor careful tests of instrument designand usability, human-computerinteractions, and other potentialproblems in data quality that thesetechnologies bring. The BSRL isuniquely equipped to accommodatethese demands.

Much of the work done by the BSRLis conducted under controlledlaboratory conditions, and relies on theparticipation of volunteer subjectsrecruited from the general public.Retaining subjects as BSRL participantsfor multiple studies is necessary tominimize the costs of recruitment, andis often methodologically essential forstudies investigating temporal effects orthe effects of multiple treatments onsubject responses. Competition withprivate research establishments, aperceived high burden to compensationratio, and travel or scheduling

constraints often result in individualsdropping from BSRL rolls after only onestudy.

The revisions in this submissionreflect an effort to reverse recent trendsin BSRL subject attrition, and toaccommodate increasing interest by BLSstatistical program offices and otheragencies in the methods used andresults obtained by the BSRL. Thissubmission reflects planned researchand development activities for FiscalYear 2000 through Fiscal Year 2002; itsapproval will enable the continuedproductivity of a state-of-the-art, multi-disciplinary program of behavioralscience research to improve BLS surveymethodology.

Type of Review: Revision of acurrently approved collection.

Agency: Bureau of Labor Statistics.Title: Cognitive and Psychological

Research.OMB Number: 1220–0141.Affected Public: Individuals and

Households; business and other for-profit; not-for-profit institutions; State,Local, or Tribal Government.

Total Respondents: 4,000.Frequency: On occasion.Total Responses: 4,000.Average Time Per Response: 60

minutes.Estimated Total Burden Hours: 4,000

hours.Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):

$0Total Burden Cost (operating/

maintenance): $0.Comments submitted in response to

this notice will be summarized and/orincluded in the request for Office ofManagement and Budget approval of theinformation collection request; they alsowill become a matter of public record.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 20th day ofJuly 1999.W. Stuart Rust, Jr.,Chief, Division of Management Systems,Bureau of Labor Statistics.[FR Doc. 99–19003 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4510–24–M


[Docket No. 50–390]

Tennessee Valley Authority; Notice ofWithdrawal of Application forAmendment to Facility OperatingLicense

The U. S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (the Commission) hasgranted a request to the TennesseeValley Authority (the Licensee) towithdraw its December 23, 1998,



application for proposed amendment toFacility Operating License No. NPF–90for the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, locatedin Rhea County, Tennessee.

The proposed amendment wouldhave provided a temporary change, untilthe next time the unit entered Mode 3,to the ice condenser inlet door positionmonitoring system channel checkmethodology to account for the impactof an annunciator ground on theexisting channel check methods.

The Commission had previouslyissued a Notice of Consideration ofIssuance of Amendment published inthe Federal Register on December 31,1998 (63 FR 72339). However, by letterdated March 9, 1999, the licenseewithdrew the proposed change.

For further details with respect to thisaction, see the application foramendment dated December 23, 1998,and the licensee’s letter dated March 9,1999, which withdrew the applicationfor this license amendment. The abovedocuments are available for publicinspection at the Commission’s PublicDocument room, the Gelman Building,2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC andat the local public document roomlocated at the Chattanooga-HamiltonCounty Library, 1001 Broad Street,Chattanooga, TN 37402.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th dayof July, 1999.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Robert E. Martin,Senior Project Manager, Section 2, ProjectDirectorate II, Division of Licensing ProjectManagement, Office of Nuclear ReactorRegulation.[FR Doc. 99–18984 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 7590–01–P


Public Comment on the Pilot Programfor the New Regulatory OversightProgram

AGENCY: Nuclear RegulatoryCommission.ACTION: Request for public comment.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) is proposingsignificant revisions to its processes foroverseeing the safety performance ofcommercial nuclear power plants thatinclude integrating the inspection,assessment, and enforcement processes.As part of its proposal, the NRC staffestablished a new regulatory oversightframework with a set of performanceindicators and associated thresholds,developed a new baseline inspectionprogram that supplements and verifies

the performance indicators, and createda continuous assessment process thatincludes a method for consistentlydetermining the appropriate regulatoryactions in response to varying levels ofsafety performance. The changes are theresult of continuing work on concepts asdescribed in SECY–99–007,‘‘Recommendations for ReactorOversight’’ dated January 8, 1999, andSECY–99–007A, ‘‘Recommendations forReactor Oversight Improvements(Follow-Up to SECY–99–007)’’ datedMarch 22, 1999. In June 1999, the NRCbegan a six-month pilot program withtwo sites participating from each region.The purpose of the pilot program is toexercise the new oversight process,identify problems, develop lessonslearned, and make any necessarychanges before full implementation atall sites. The NRC is solicitingcomments from interested publicinterest groups, the regulated industry,States, and concerned citizens. The NRCstaff will consider comments it receivesfor further development and refinementof the new oversight process.DATES: The comment period expiresNovember 30, 1999. Comments receivedafter this date will be considered if it ispractical to do so, but the Commissionis able to ensure consideration only forcomments received on or before thisdate.ADDRESSES: Comments may besubmitted either electronically or viaU.S. mail.

Submit written comments to: Chief,Rules and Directives Branch, Division ofAdministrative Services, Office ofAdministration, Mail Stop: T–6 D59,U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,Washington, DC 20555–0001. Handdeliver comments to: 11545 RockvillePike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:45a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays.Copies of comments received may beexamined at the NRC’s Public DocumentRoom, 2120 L Street, NW (Lower Level),Washington, DC.

Comments may be submittedelectronically at the ‘‘NRC Initiatives1999’’ web page at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/COMMISSION/INITIATIVES/1999/COMMENTS/ 2alcmt.html

Copies of the Pilot ProgramGuidelines may be obtained at thefollowing web site: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/index.html

Additional information on the pilotprogram may be obtained from theNRC’s Public Document Room at 2120L St., NW, Washington, DC 20003–1527,telephone 202–634–3272.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Alan Madison, Mail Stop: O–5 H4,Inspection Program Branch, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission,Washington, DC 20555–0001, telephone301–415–1490.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

BackgroundIn September 1997, the NRC began an

integrated review of the process used forassessing safety performance bycommercial nuclear power plantlicensees. The NRC staff presented aconceptual design for a new integratedassessment process to the Commissionin Commission paper SECY–98–045,dated March 9, 1998.

In parallel with the staff’s work on theintegrated review of the assessmentprocesses (IRAP) and the developmentof other assessment tools, the nuclearpower industry independentlydeveloped a proposal for a newassessment and regulatory oversightprocess. This proposal, developed bythe Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), tooka risk-informed and performance-basedapproach to the inspection, assessment,and enforcement of licensee activitieson the basis of the results of a set ofperformance indicators.

The staff set out to develop a singleset of recommendations for makingimprovements to the regulatoryoversight processes in response to NEI’sproposal, the Commission’s commentson the IRAP proposal, comments madeat a Commission meeting on July 17,1998, with public and industrystakeholders and the hearing before theSenate on July 31, 1998. The IRAPpublic comment period (which ended inOctober 1998), during which the NRCconducted a four day public workshopin the Fall of 1998, was used to facilitateinternal and external input into thedevelopment of these recommendations.

Following the public workshop, theNRC staff formed three task groups tocomplete the work begun at theworkshop and to develop therecommendations for the integratedoversight processes: A technicalframework task group, an inspectiontask group, and an assessment processtask group. The technical frameworktask group was responsible forcompleting the assessment frameworkand for identifying the performanceindicators (PIs) and appropriatethresholds that could be used tomeasure safety performance. Theinspection task group was responsiblefor developing the scope, the depth, andthe frequency of a risk-informedbaseline inspection program that wouldbe used to supplement and verify thePIs. The assessment process task groupdeveloped methods for integrating PIdata and inspection data, determining



NRC action on the basis of assessmentresults, and communicating results tolicensees and the public. Other staffactivities to improve the enforcementprocess were coordinated with thesethree task groups to ensure that changesto the enforcement process wereproperly evaluated in the frameworkstructure and that changes to theinspection and assessment programswere integrated with the changes to theenforcement program.

The task groups completed their workbetween October and December 1998,and developed recommendations to bepresented to the Commission. OnJanuary 20, 1999, the staff briefed theCommission on the staff’s proposal asdescribed in SECY–99–007,‘‘Recommendations for ReactorOversight Improvements.’’

The follow-up recommendations foran integrated oversight process arepresented in SECY–99–007A,‘‘Recommendation for Reactor OversightProcess Improvements (Follow-Up toSECY–99-007)’’ dated March 22, 1999,and its attachments. This paper includesfurther information on the developmentof the Significance DeterminationProcess (SDP) and the revisedenforcement policy.

Scope of the Public Comment PeriodThis public comment period will

focus on obtaining industry and publicviews on the new oversight process asimplemented during the Pilot Programand any additional issues that need tobe addressed prior to fullimplementation of the new oversightprocess. To assist respondents thefollowing questions are included as aguide. Comments should be as specificas possible and the use of examples isencouraged.

1. Does the new oversight processprovide adequate assurance that plantsare being operated safely?

2. Does the new oversight processenhance public confidence byincreasing the predictability,consistency, clarity and objectivity ofthe NRC’s oversight process?

3. Does the new oversight processimprove the efficiency and effectivenessof the regulatory process focusingagency resources on those issues withthe most safety significance?

4. Does the new oversight processreduce unnecessary regulatory burdenon licensees?

5. The new oversight process does notcurrently provide an overall assessmentof performance of an individual safetycornerstone other than a determinationthat the cornerstone objectives have orhave not been met. However, it doesidentify regulatory actions to be taken

for degraded performance within thesafety cornerstones. Is an overall safetycornerstone assessment warranted orappropriate?

6. Licensee findings as well as NRCinspection findings are candidates forbeing evaluated by the significancedetermination process. Does this serveto discourage licensees from having anaggressive problem identificationprocess?

7. In the new oversight program,positive inspection observations are notincluded in NRC inspection reports andthe plant issues matrix (PIM) due to alack of criteria and past inconsistenciesand subjectivity in identifying suchissues. Previous feedback on this issueindicated that the vast majority ofcommenters believed positiveinspection findings should not befactored into the assessment process.Does the available public informationassociated with the revised reactoroversight process, including the NRC’sweb page which includes informationon performance indicators andinspection findings, provide anappropriately balanced view of licenseeperformance? If not, should positiveinspection findings be captured andincorporated into a process to reach anoverall inspection indicator for eachcornerstone?

8. The staff has established severalmechanisms such as public meetingsheld in the vicinity of the plants, thisFederal Register Notice, and the NRC’swebsite to solicit public feedback on thePilot Program. Are there any otherappropriate means by which the agencycould solicit stakeholder feedback, in astructured and consistent manner, onthe Pilot Program?

9. Are there any additional issues thatthe agency needs to address prior to fullimplementation of the new oversightprocess at all sites?

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th dayof July 1999.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.William M. Dean,Chief, Inspection Program Branch, Divisionof Inspection Program Management, Officeof Nuclear Reactor Regulation.[FR Doc. 99–18983 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 7590–01–P


Advisory Committee on ReactorSafeguards Subcommittee Meeting onSevere Accident Management; Noticeof Meeting

The ACRS Subcommittee on SevereAccident Management will hold a

meeting on August 9–10, 1999, Room T–2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville,Maryland.

The agenda for the subject meetingshall be as follows:Monday, August 9, 1999—8:30 a.m.

until the conclusion of businessTuesday, August 10, 1999—8:30 a.m.

until the conclusion of businessThe Subcommittee will review: (1)

The proposed final revision of theSource Term Rule and draft versions ofthe associated regulatory guide andStandard Review Plan Section; (2) theproposed revision to Regulatory Guide1.78, ‘‘Assumptions for Evaluating theHabitability of a Nuclear Power PlantControl Room During a PostulatedHazardous Chemical Release’’; and (3)the status of issues associated with theOffice of Nuclear Regulatory ResearchSevere Accident Research Program. Thepurpose of this meeting is to gatherinformation, analyze relevant issues andfacts, and to formulate proposedpositions and actions, as appropriate,for deliberation by the full Committee.

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 portionsof 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 engineernamed below five days prior to themeeting, if possible, so that appropriatearrangements can be made.

During the initial portion of themeeting, the Subcommittee, along withany of its consultants who may bepresent, may exchange preliminaryviews regarding matters to beconsidered during the balance of themeeting.

The Subcommittee will then hearpresentations by and hold discussionswith representatives of the NRC staff,and other interested persons regardingthis review. Further informationregarding topics to be discussed,whether the meeting has been canceledor rescheduled, the scheduling ofsessions which are open to the public,and the Chairman’s ruling on requestsfor the opportunity to present oralstatements and the time allottedtherefor, can be obtained by contactingthe cognizant ACRS staff engineer, Mr.Paul A. Boehnert (telephone 301/415–8065) between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m.(EDT). Persons planning to attend thismeeting are urged to contact the above



named individual one or two workingdays prior to the meeting to be advisedof any potential changes to the agenda,etc., that may have occurred.

Dated: July 20, 1999.Richard P. Savio,Associate Director for Technical Support,ACRS/ACNW.[FR Doc. 99–18982 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT ANDBUDGET

Cumulative Report on Rescissions andDeferrals

July 1, 1999.This report is submitted in fulfillment

of the requirement of Section 1014(e) ofthe Congressional Budget andImpoundment Control Act of 1974 (Pub.L. 93–344). Section 1014(e) requires amonthly report listing all budgetauthority for the current fiscal year forwhich, as of the first day of the month,a special message had been transmittedto Congress.

This report gives the status, as of July1, 1999, of three rescission proposalsand three deferrals contained in twospecial messages for FY 1999. Thesemessages were transmitted to Congresson October 22, 1998, and February 1,1999.

Recissions (Attachments A and C)

As of July 1, 1999, three rescissionproposals totaling $35 million havebeen transmitted to the Congress.Attachment C shows the status of the FY1999 rescission proposals.

Deferrals (Attachments B and D)

As of July 1, 1999, $682 million inbudget authority was being deferredfrom obligation. Attachment D showsthe status of each deferral reportedduring FY 1999.

Information from Special Messages

The special messages containinginformation on the rescission proposalsand deferrals that are covered by thiscumulative report are printed in theeditions of the Fedeal Register citedbelow:

63 FR 63949, Tuesday, November 17, 199864 FR 6721, Wednesday, February 10, 1999Jacob J. Lew,Director.

Attachment A

STATUS OF FY 1999 RESCISSIONS

[In millions of dollars]

Budgetaryresources

Recisions proposed by thePresident ............................... 35.0

STATUS OF FY 1999 RESCISSIONS—Continued


Budgetaryresources

Rejected by the Congress ........ ....................Amounts rescinded by P.L.

106–31, the FY 1999 Emer-gency Supplemental Appro-priations and Rescissions Act ¥16.8

Currently before the Congress 18.2

Attachment B

STATUS OF FY 1999 DEFERRALS


Budgetaryresources

Deferrals proposed by thePresident ............................... 1,680.7

Routine Executive releasesthrough June 1999 (OMB/Agency releases of $1,082.3million, partially offset by acumulative positive adjust-ment of $83.6 million) ........... ¥998.7

Overturned by the Congress .... * * * * * * * *

Currently before the Congress 682.0






[FR Doc. 99–18935 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3110–01–C



SECURITIES AND EXCHANGECOMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review;Comment Request;

Upon Written Request, Copies AvailableFrom: Securities and ExchangeCommission, Office of Filings andInformation Services, 450 5th Street,NW, Washington, DC 20549–0102

Extension:Rule 19b–1, SEC File No. 270–312, OMB

Control No. 3235–0354

Notice is hereby given that, pursuantto the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securitiesand Exchange Commission(‘‘Commission’’) has submitted to theOffice of Management and Budget(‘‘OMB’’) a request for extension of thepreviously approved collections ofinformation discussed below.

Rule 19b–1 is entitled ‘‘Frequency ofDistribution of Capital Gains.’’ The ruleprohibits registered investmentcompanies (‘‘funds’’) from distributinglong-term capital gains more than onceevery twelve months unless certainconditions are met. Rule 19b–1(c)permits unit investment trusts (‘‘UITs’’)engaged exclusively in the business ofinvesting in certain eligible fixed-income securities to distribute long-termcapital gains more than once everytwelve months, if (i) the capital gainsdistribution falls within one of severalcategories specified in the rule [rule19b–1(c)(1)] and (ii) the distribution isaccompanied by a report to theunitholder that clearly describes thedistribution as a capital gainsdistribution [rule 19b–1(c)(2)] (the‘‘notice requirement’’). The purpose ofthis notice requirement is to ensure thatunitholders understand that the sourceof the distribution is long-term capitalgains.

Rule 19b–1(e) permits a fund to applyfor permission to distribute long-termcapital gains more than once a year ifthe funds did not foresee thecircumstances that created the need forthe distribution. The application mustset forth the pertinent facts and explainthe circumstances that justify thedistribution. An application that meetsthose requirements is deemed to begranted unless the Commission deniesthe request within 15 days after theCommission receives the application.The Commission uses, the informationrequired by rule 19b–1(e) to facilitatethe processing of requests from fundsfor authorization to make a distributionthat would not otherwise be permittedby the rule.

The Commission staff estimates thetime required to comply with the noticerequirement of rule 19b–1(c) to be one

hour or less for each additionaldistribution of long-term capital gains.As of December 31, 1998, there wereapproximately 11,500 UIT portfoliosthat may be eligible to use the rule. Thestaff estimates that on average each UITmay be required to prepare a noticeunder the rule one time each year.Therefore, the estimated total annualmaximum reporting burden is 11,500hours.

The Commission staff estimates thatthe time required to prepare anapplication under rule 19b–1(e) ifapproximately four hours. The staffestimates that on average six funds eachfile one application per year under thisrule. Based on these estimates, the totalpaperwork burden is 24 hours forparagraph (e) of rule 19b–1.

Based on these calculations, the totalnumber of respondents for rule 19b–1 isestimated to be 11,506 (11,500 UITportfolios + 6 funds filing applications)and the total number of burden hours isestimated to be 11,524 (11,500 hours forthe notice requirement + 24 hours forapplications). This estimate of burdenhours represents a decrease of 2,651hours from the current allocation of14,175 burden hours. This decrease isattributable to a decrease in theestimated total number of respondentsto rule 19b–1.

These estimates of average burdenhours are made solely for purposes ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act. Theestimate is not derived from acomprehensive or even a representativesurvey or study of the costs ofCommission rules.

The collections of informationrequired by 19b–1(c) and 19b–1(e) arenecessary to obtain the benefitsdescribed above. Responses will not bekept confidential. An agency may notconduct or sponsor, and a person is notrequired to respond to, a collection ofinformation unless it displays acurrently valid control number.

Please direct general commentsregarding the above information to thefollowing persons: (i) Desk Officer forthe Securities and ExchangeCommission, Office of Information andRegulatory Affairs, Office ofManagement and Budget, NewExecutive Office Building, Washington,DC 20503; and (ii) Michael E. Bartell,Associate Executive Director, Office ofinformation Technology, Securities andExchange Commission, Mail Stop 0–4,450 5th Street, NW, Washington, DC20549. Comments must be submitted toOMB within 30 days of this notice.

Dated: July 16, 1999.Margaret H. McFarland,Deputy Secretary.[FR Doc. 99–18988 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 8010–01–M


[Release No. 35–27050]

Filings Under the Public Utility HoldingCompany Act of 1935, As Amended(‘‘Act’’)

July 16, 1999.

Notice is hereby given that thefollowing filing(s) has/have been madewith the Commission pursuant toprovisions of the Act and rulespromulgated under the Act. Allinterested persons are referred to theapplication(s) and/or declaration(s) forcomplete statements of the proposedtransactions(s) summarized below. Theapplication(s) and/or declarations(s) andany amendments is/are available forpublic inspection through theCommission’s Branch of PublicReference.

Interested persons wishing tocomment or request a hearing on theapplications(s) and/or declaration(s)should submit their views in writing byAugust 10, 1999, to the Secretary,Securities and Exchange Commission,Washington, DC 20549–0609, and servea copy on the relevant applicant(s) and/or declarant(s) at the address(es)specified below. Proof of service (byaffidavit or, in case of an attorney atlaw, by certificate) should be filed withthe request. Any request for hearingshould identify specifically the issues offacts or law that are disputed. A personwho so requests will be notified of anyhearing, if ordered, and will receive acopy of any notice or order issued in thematter. After August 10, 1999, theapplication(s) and/or declaration(s), asfiled or as amended, may be grantedand/or permitted to become effective.

West Penn Power Company

(70–7888)

West Penn Power Company (‘‘WestPenn’’), 800 Cabin Hill Drive,Greensburg, PA 15601, a wholly ownedelectric public utility subsidiary ofAllegheny Energy, Inc., a registeredholding company, has filed a post-effective amendment under sections 6(a)and 7 of the Act on an application-declaration originally filed undersections 6(a), 7, 9(a), 10 and 12(b) of theAct and rule 45 under the Act.

By orders dated January 29, 1992(HCAR No. 25462), February 28, 1992(HCAR No. 25481), July 14, 1992 (HCARNo. 25581), November 5, 1993 (HCAR



1 Under the Restructuring Order, Solutions is tobe merged into CSI.

2 Alliant’s other public utility subsidiariesinclude: Wisconsin Power & Light Company(‘‘WP&L’’); South Beloit Water, Gas and ElectricCompany; and Interstate Power Company(collectively, including IES (‘‘OperatingCompanies’’).

3 KNPP is a 532 megawatt pressurized waterreactor, operated by Wisconsin Public ServiceCorporation (‘‘WPSC’’), a subsidiary of WPSResources Corporation (‘‘WPS Resources’’) andjointly owned by WPSC, 41.2%, WP&L, 41.0%, andMadison Gas & Electric Company, 17.8%.

4 DAEC is a 535 megawatt boiling water reactor,operated and 70% owned by IES. The remaining30% ownership interest is held by two generationand transmission cooperatives.

5 Current members of NMC include: WEC NuclearCorp. a subsidiary of Wisconsin EnergyCorporation; WPS Nuclear Corporation, asubsidiary of WPS Resources and an affiliate ofWPSC; and Northern States Power Company(‘‘NSP’’).

6 NSP owns and operates the Prairie Island Units1 and 2, located near Red Wing, Minnesota. Both

units are pressurized water reactors having acombined net generating capacity of 1,003megawatts, and the Monticello generating station,located near Monticello, Minnesota, a boiling waterreactor with a net generating capacity of 536megawatts. Wisconsin Electric Power Company, asubsidiary of WEC, owns and operates two units atthe Point Beach nuclear generating station locatednear Two Rivers, Wisconsin. Both units arepressurized water reactors and have a combined netgenerating capacity of 970 megawatts. DAEC andKNPP comprise the remaining two units.

7 At present, NMC members are regulated by theIowa Utilities Board, the Minnesota Public ServiceCommission and the Public Service Commission ofWisconsin.

No. 25919), November 28, 1995 (HCARNo. 26418), April 18, 1996 (HCAR No.26506), and December 23, 1997 (HCARNo. 26804) (collectively ‘‘Prior Orders’’),West Penn was authorized, among otherthings, to issue up to $182 million inshort-term debt through December 31,2001. West Penn now proposes to: (1)Income the amount of short-term debtthat West Penn may issue from $182million up to $500 million under theterms and conditions stated in the PriorOrders; and (2) extend the period ofauthorization through December 31,2007.

West Penn states that the increase isnecessary to enhance its ability toparticipate in evolving energy marketsresulting from deregulation and, uponsubsequent application and approval, tosupport acquisition and diversificationplans.

Conectiv, et al. (70–9069)

Conectiv, a registered holdingcompany, and its nonutilitysubsidiaries, Conctiv Services, Inc.(‘‘CSI’’), a nonutility subsidiary ofConectiv engaged in energy-relatedservices, Delmarva Capital Investment,Inc. (‘‘DCI’’), and Conectiv Solutions,Inc. (‘‘Solutions’’), an energy marketingsubsidiary of Conectiv (together,‘‘Applicants’’), all located at 800 KingStreet, Wilmington, Delaware 19899,have filed a post effective amendment toan application previously filed undersections 9(a) and 10 of the Act, and rule54 under the Act.

Conectiv holds interests in certaindirect and indirect nonutility subsidiarycompanies, including ATE Investments,Inc. (‘‘ATE’’), a direct subsidiary ofConectiv. ATE owns equity interests inthree leveraged leases and a 94%limited partnership interest in EnerTechCapital Partners, L.P. (‘‘EnerTech’’), acompany that invests in companiesdeveloping energy-related technologies.By order dated December 16, 1998(HCAR No. 26953) (the ‘‘RestructuringOrder’’), the Commission authorizedConectiv to restructure its nonutilitysubsidiaries in two phases that wouldultimately result in, among other things,ATE being acquired by DCI (to berenamed Conectiv Property andInvestments, Inc. (‘‘CPI’’)). Conectivstates that it intended to use CPI to holdpassive investments. As a result of therestructuring, Conectiv would reduce itsactive direct nonutility subsidiaries tojust three companies: CPI, CSI, andConectiv Energy Supply, Inc., acompany directly and indirectlyengaged in the marketing of energy.

Conectiv now proposes for Solutionsor CSI,1 to acquire the common stock ofATE. Applicants state that thetechnology investments held by ATEthrough EnerTech are more directlyrelated to the energy-related servicesconducted by CSI and, therefore, shouldbe a CSI subsidiary.

Alliant Energy Corporation, et al. (70–9513)

Alliant Energy Corporation(‘‘Alliant’’), a registered holdingcompany, 222 West WashingtonAvenue, Madison, Wisconsin 53703 andits wholly owned public utilitysubsidiary, IES Utilities, Inc. (‘‘IES’’),2Alliant Tower, Cedar Rapids, Iowa52401, have filed an application-declaration under sections 6(a), 7, 9(a),10, 12(b) and 13(b) of the Act and rules45, 54, 90 and 91 under the Act.

Alliant indirectly owns undividedinterest in two nuclear power facilities,the Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant(‘‘KNPP’’),3 located in the Town ofCarlton, Wisconsin, and the DuaneArnold Energy Center (‘‘DAEC’’),4located in Palo, Iowa.

Alliant request authority to acquire allof the voting securities of a AlliantNuclear, a to-be-formed subsidiary thatwill be organized under Wisconsin law.Through Alliant Nuclear, Alliantproposes to acquire a 25% membershipinterest in Nuclear ManagementCompany, LLC (‘‘NMC’’),5 a Wisconsinlimited liability company, formed forthe purpose of consolidating specializedemployees and resources of IES andcertain other unaffiliated nuclear powerplant owners. The current members ofNMC or their utility affiliates and IES(collectively, ‘‘NMC Plant Owners’’),own interests and operate seven nucleargenerating units at five locations,6(collectively, ‘‘NMC Plants’’).

NMC will be managed by a board ofdirectors comprised of representativesof each of its members and will becapitalized with contributions fromeach of its members, as provided for inthe NMC Limited Liability CompanyOperating Agreement (‘‘OperatingAgreement’’). It is intended that thecapital contributions of members will beequal, the profits and losses of NMCwill be allocated to the members inaccordance with their percentageinterests and additional capitalcontributions will be made by capitalcalls, also in accordance withpercentage interests. The OperatingAgreement further contemplates theadmission of other utilities as members.The Operating Agreement requires asupermajority vote of members to makea capital call greater than $250,000annually per member and the rate ofreturn on NMC’s equity capital used toserve the NMC Plants will not exceedthe average of the most recent rates ofreturn allowed by the public servicecommissions that regulate the NMCmembers.7

NMC will provide certain services toNMC Plant Owners, including IES, asstated in a service agreement (‘‘ServiceAgreement’’). The services providedunder the Service Agreement includefuel management, procurement andwarehousing, licensing, outage support,quality assurance, records management,safety assessment and oversight,security, training and special projects(‘‘Services’’). The Service Agreementfurther allows for a period of time forService Development Teams todetermine whether Services or a groupof Services can be provided on acentralized basis. If it is determined thata Service or group of Services can beprovided by NMC on an integratedbasis, then an implementation plan fortransitioning these Services to NMC willbe developed. NMC Plant Owners willbe obligated to make good faith effortsto take Services from NMC. IEShowever, will not be obligated to takeServices if it believes that to do sowould jeopardize the safety, integrity, orreliability of DAEC or compliance with



8 The Employee Lease Agreement confirms thateach IMC Plant Owner will retain direction andcontrol over its employees and that employees shallcontinue to be employed by the respective NMCPlant Owners, not NMC. It also enumerates allemployee-related expenses which would beincluded in the determination of a fully loaded,fully allocated cost and incorporates various termsfrom the Service Agreement to coordinate theEmployee Lease Agreement with the ServiceAgreement.

9 To the extent that working capital is required,it is anticipated that NMC will borrow funds fromlenders as permitted under rule 52.

10 IES will have full access to NMC’s books andrecords.

1 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40112(June 23, 1998), 63 FR 35298 [File No. SR–DCC–600–24] (order approving DCC’s extension oftemporary registration).

2 15 U.S.C. 78q–1 and 78s(a).3 17 CFR 240.17Ab2–1(c).4 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 27611

(January 12, 1990), 55 FR 1890. Prior to a 1996name change, DCC was named Delta GovernmentOptions Corp.

5 See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 31856(February 11, 1993), 58 FR 9005 (order extending

Continued

government regulations, NMC may alsooffer other categories of services to NMCPlant Owners which NMC Plant Ownersmay choose to take, however, they willnot be obligated to do so.

IES’s commitments to purchaseservices from and provide personneland other resources to NMC are statedin the Service Agreement and anEmployee Lease Agreement 8 which willbe substantially identical to thosebetween NMC and each of the otherNMC Plant Owners.

In the near term, it is anticipated thatIES employees involved in the operationand management of DAEC will continueto devote most of their time to thoseduties, however, as NMC develops,service delivery will likely become moreintegrated among the NMC PlantOwners, and IES employees will devotemore of their time to the performance ofServices for other NMC Plant Owners.

NMC Plant Owners will be committedunder the Service Agreement to makeavailable to NMC personnel and otherresources as reasonably necessary toenable NMC to provide Services.Personnel resources may be providedunder employee leases, direct employeecharges to NMC or transfer of employeesto NMC. Other resources made availableto NMC may include the use of officespace, vehicles, furniture, equipment,informational systems and computertime. The NMC Plant Owners providingservices or other resources to NMC willbe reimbursed for the cost thereof inaccordance with rules 90 and 91.

All of the Services furnished by NMCto the NMC Plant Owners will be atcost, fairly and equitably allocated.NMC will submit monthly statements toeach NMC Plant Owners for the Servicesrendered during the previous month.The monthly payment and billingprocedure is expected to minimize theneed for substantial working capital byNMC.9 In the case of Services renderedby NMC in respect to DAEC and KNPP,both of which are jointly owned withother utility companies, costs will bereallocated among the plant owners inproportion to their respective ownershipshares in the manner provided in the

participation or ownership agreementamong the owners of those plants.

NMC will maintain its books, records,and system of accounts in substantialconformity with the Uniform System ofAccounts for Mutual Services andSubsidiary Service Companies, as ineffect from time to time.10

To the extent that costs incurred byNMC can be identified to a particularNMC Plant or Plants, these costs will bedirectly assigned to the owner or ownersof the respective NMC Plant or Plants asappropriate. Costs which cannot bedirectly assigned to a particular Plantwill be allocated through a loading ondirect labor costs charged to each of theNMC Plant Owners for Servicesperformed. The loading will be based onestimates of direct labor dollars made atthe beginning of each year and will beadjusted annually based on actualindirect charges for common costsincurred and actual labor dollarscharged for Services in that year. Certainother costs which provides benefits toall NMC Plant Owners will be allocatedequitably among the NMC PlantOwners. Subject to the availability ofresources and its commitment to theNMC Plant Owners, NMC may alsoprovide services to nonaffiliatedcompanies at rates other than cost,provided that the ultimate purchaser ofthe services is not an OperatingCompany.

For the Commission by the Division ofInvestment Management, under delegatedauthority.Margaret H. McFarland,Deputy Secretary.[FR Doc. 99–18989 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 8010–01–M


[File No. 500–1]

Uniprime Capital Acceptance, Inc.;Order of Suspension of Trading

July 21, 1999.It appears to the Securities and

Exchange Commission that there is alack of current and accurate informationconcerning the securities of UniprimeCapital Acceptance, Inc. (‘‘Uniprime’’)because of questions regarding theaccuracy of statements by Uniprime toinvestors concerning, among otherthings, a product developed by asubsidiary for treating humanimmunodeficiency virus (HIV).

The Commission is of the opinion thatthe public interest and the protection of

investors require a suspension of tradingin the securities of the above-listedcompany.

Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant tosection 12(k) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, that trading in the above-listed company is suspended for theperiod from 9:30 a.m. EDT, July 22,1999 through 11:59 p.m. EDT, onAugust 4, 1999.

By the Commission.Jonathan G. Katz,Secretary.[FR Doc. 99–19099 Filed 7–22–99; 11:21 am]BILLING CODE 8010–01–M


[Release No. 34–41627; File No. 600–24]

Self-Regulatory Organization; DeltaClearing Corp.; Notice of Expiration ofTemporary Registration as a ClearingAgency

July 20, 1999.Notice is hereby given that Delta

Clearing Corp’s (‘‘DCC’’) temporaryregistration as a clearing agency willexpire on July 31, 1999.1 DCC hasinformed the staff of the Securities andExchange Commission (‘‘Commission’’)that it will not file an applicationrequesting that the Commission extendits registration as a clearing agency.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: JerryW. Carpenter, Assistant Director, orSusan Petersen, Staff Attorney, at 202/942–4187, Division of MarketRegulation, Securities and ExchangeCommission, 450 Fifth Street, NW,Washington, DC 20549–1001.

Background

On January 12, 1990, pursuant toSections 17A and 19(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Act’’) 2 and Rule17Ab2–1(c) thereunder,3 theCommission granted DCC’s applicationfor registration as a clearing agency ona temporary basis for a period of thirty-six months.4 Since that time, theCommission has extended DCC’stemporary registration through July 31,1999.5



registration until January 12, 1995); 35198 (January6, 1995), 60 FR 3286 (order extending registrationuntil January 31, 1997); 38224 (January 31, 1997),62 FR 5869 (order extending registration until July31, 1997); 38869 (July 24, 1997), 62 FR 40871 (orderextending registration until July 31, 1998); and40112 (June 23, 1998) 63 FR 35298 (order extendingregistration until July 31, 1999).

6 Telephone conversation between Ronald H.Buckner, President, DCC, and Commission staff(October 26, 1998).

7 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(16).

On October 26, 1998, DCC informedthe Commission staff 6 that it would notaccept new transactions after October29, 1998, and would cease to carrytransactions on its books after June 30,1999. On October 29, 1998, DCC issueda notice to its participants to informthem of its decision to cease operations.DCC in fact ceased operations onJanuary 30, 1999.

For the Commission by the Division ofMarket Regulation, pursuant to delegatedauthority.7

Margaret H. McFarland,Deputy Secretary.[FR Doc. 99–18990 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 8010–01–M


[Declaration of Disaster #3196]

State of Georgia

Fulton County and the contiguouscounties of Carroll, Cherokee, Clayton,Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette,Forsyth, and Gwinnett in the State ofGeorgia constitute a disaster area as aresult of damages caused by severestorms and flooding, and resulting fires,that occurred on July 6, 1999.Applications for loans for physicaldamage as a result of this disaster maybe filed until the close of business onSept. 16, 1999 and for economic injuryuntil the close of business on April 16,2000 at the address listed below or otherlocally announced locations:U.S. Small Business Administration,

Disaster Area 2 Office, One BaltimorePlace, Suite 300, Atlanta, GA 30308The interest rates are:

Percent

For Physical Damage:HOMEOWNERS WITH CRED-

IT AVAILABLE ELSEWHERE 6.875HOMEOWNERS WITHOUT

CREDIT AVAILABLE ELSE-WHERE ................................. 3.437

BUSINESSES WITH CREDITAVAILABLE ELSEWHERE ... 8.000

BUSINESSES AND NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONSWITHOUT CREDIT AVAIL-ABLE ELSEWHERE .............. 4.000

Percent

OTHERS (INCLUDING NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS)WITH CREDIT AVAILABLEELSEWHERE ........................ 7.000

For Economic Injury:BUSINESSES AND SMALL

AGRICULTURAL COOPERA-TIVES WITHOUT CREDITAVAILABLE ELSEWHERE ... 4.000

The numbers assigned to this disasterare 319611 for physical damage and9D2300 for economic injury.(Catalog of Federal Domestic AssistanceProgram Nos. 59002 and 59008)

Dated: July 16, 1999.Michael D. Schattman,Acting Administrator.[FR Doc. 99–18950 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 8025–01–P


[Declaration of Disaster #3189, Amdt. 2]

State of North Dakota

In accordance with a notice receivedfrom the Federal EmergencyManagement Agency dated July 13,1999, the above-numbered Declarationis hereby amended to include thefollowing areas as a disaster area due todamages caused by severe storms,flooding, snow and ice, groundsaturation, landslides, mudslides, andtornadoes beginning on March 1, 1999and continuing: Cavalier, Eddy, andMorton Counties.

Any counties contiguous to the above-named primary counties and not listedherein have been previously declared.

All other information remains thesame, i.e., the deadline for filingapplications for physical damage isAugust 6, 1999, and for economic injurythe deadline is March 8, 2000.(Catalog of Federal Domestic AssistanceProgram Nos. 59002 and 59008)

Dated: July 13, 1999.Bernard Kulik,Associate Administrator for DisasterAssistance.[FR Doc. 99–18952 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 8025–01–P



State of North Dakota

In accordance with a notice receivedfrom the Federal EmergencyManagement Agency dated July 6, 1999,the above-numbered Declaration ishereby amended to include the

following areas as a disaster area due todamages caused by severe storms,flooding, snow and ice, groundsaturation, landslides, mudslides, andtornadoes beginning on March 1, 1999and continuing: Burke, Divide, Mercer,Sioux, and Williams Counties, and theIndian Reservation of the Standing RockSioux (that portion of the Reservationwithin the State of North Dakota).

In addition, applications for economicinjury loans from small businesseslocated in the following contiguousareas may be filed until the specifieddate at the previously designatedlocation: Adams, Grant, and StarkCounties in North Dakota; Richland,Roosevelt, and Sheridan Counties inMontana; and Corson and PerkinsCounties in South Dakota, as well asthat portion of the Standing Rock SiouxIndian Reservation located in SouthDakota.

All other information remains thesame, i.e., the deadline for filingapplications for physical damage isAugust 6, 1999, and for economic injurythe deadline is March 8, 2000.

The economic injury number for theState of Montana is 9D2200.(Catalog of Federal Domestic AssistanceProgram Nos. 59002 and 59008)




State of South Dakota

In accordance with a notice receivedfrom the Federal EmergencyManagement Agency, with an effectivedate of June 18, 1999, the above-numbered Declaration is herebyamended to establish the incidentperiod for this disaster as beginning onJune 4 and continuing through June 18,1999.

All other information remains thesame, i.e., the deadline for filingapplications for physical damage isAugust 7, 1999, and for economic injurythe deadline is March 9, 2000.(Catalog of Federal Domestic AssistanceProgram Nos. 59002 and 59008)




DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Delegation of Authority No. 235]

Delegation of Responsibility UnderSection 2106 of the Foreign AffairsReform and Restructuring Act of 1998,as Contained in the OmnibusConsolidated and EmergencySupplemental Appropriations Act, 1999(Pub. L. 105–277)

By virtue of the authority vested inme as Secretary of State, including theauthority of section 1 of the StateDepartment Basic Authorities Act of1956, (22 U.S.C. 2651a), as amended,and the authority of the PresidentialMemorandum of May 26, 1999, I herebydelegate to the Assistant Secretary forInternational Organization Affairs thefunctions of section 2106 of the ForeignAffairs Reform and Restructuring Act of1998, as contained in the OmnibusConsolidated and EmergencySupplemental Appropriations Act, 1999(Pub. L. 105–277) and vested in theSecretary of State by PresidentialMemorandum dated May 26, 1999.

Notwithstanding this delegation ofauthority, the Secretary of State may atany time exercise any functiondelegated by this Delegation.

This delegation of authority shall bepublished in the Federal Register.

Dated: July 7, 1999.Strobe Talbott,Acting Secretary, Department of State.[FR Doc. 99–19004 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4710–10–M



Agency Information Collection ActivityUnder OMB Review

AGENCY: Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), DOT.ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In compliance with thePaperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this noticeannounces that the InformationCollection Request (ICR) abstractedbelow has been forwarded to the Officeof Management and Budget (OMB) forextension of currently approvedcollections. The ICR describes thenature of the information collection andits expected burden. The FederalRegister Notice with a 60-day commentperiod soliciting comments on thefollowing collection of information waspublished on May 6, 1999, [FR 64, page24447].

DATES: Comments must be submitted onor before August 25, 1999. A commentto OMB is most effective if OMBreceives it within 30 days ofpublication.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: JudyStreet on (202) 267–9895.


Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

Title: Aviator Safety Studies.Type of Request: Extension of a

currently approved collection.OMB Control Number: 2120–0587.Forms(s): N/A.Affected Public: General aviation

pilots.Abstract: In order to develop effective

intervention programs to improveaviation safety, data are required on thetype and range of various pilot attributesrelated to their skill in making safety-related aeronautical divisions. Theinformation collected will be used todevelop new training methodsparticularly suited to general aviationpilots.

Estimated Annual Burden Hours:13,333 burden hours annually.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to theOffice of Information and RegulatoryAffairs, Office of Management andBudget, 725—17th Street, NW.,Washington, DC 20503, Attention FAADesk Officer.

Comments Are Invited On: Whetherthe proposed collection of informationis necessary for the proper performanceof the functions of the Department,including whether the information willhave practical utility; the accuracy ofthe Department’s estimate of the burdenof the proposed information collection;ways to enhance the quality, utility andclarity of the information to becollected; and ways to minimize theburden of the collection of informationon respondents, including the use ofautomated collection techniques orother forms of information technology.

Issued in Washington, DC, on July 20,1999.

Steve Hopkins,Manager, Standards and InformationDivision, APF–100.[FR Doc. 99–18994 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]




Notice of Intent To Rule on ApplicationTo Impose and Use the Revenue Froma Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) atFairbanks International Airport,Fairbanks, AK

AGENCY: Federal AviationAdministration (FAA) DOT.ACTION: Notice of intent to rule onapplication.

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule andinvites public comment on theapplication to impose and use therevenue from a PFC at FairbanksInternational 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 August 25, 1999.ADDRESSES: Comments on thisapplication may be mailed or deliveredin triplicate to the FAA at the followingaddress: Ronnie V. Simpson, Manager,Alaskan Region Airports Division,Federal Aviation Administration; 222West 7th, Box 14; Anchorage, AK99513–7587.

In addition, one copy of anycomments submitted to the FAA mustbe mailed or delivered to Bill O’Leary,Controller, Alaska International AirportSystem, at the following address: Stateof Alaska Department of Transportationand Public Facilities, P.O. Box 196960,Anchorage, AK 99519–6960.

Air carriers and foreign air carriersmay submit copies of written commentspreviously provided to the State ofAlaska Department of Transportationand Public Facilities under § 158.23 ofpart 158.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Debbie Roth, Program Specialist,Alaskan Region Airports Division,Planning and Programming Branch,AAL–611A, 222 W 7th, Box 14,Anchorage, AK, 99513–7578, (907) 271–5543. The application may be reviewedin person at this same location.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAAproposes to rule and invites publiccomment on the application (#99–01–C–00–FAI) to impose and use the revenuefrom a PFC at Fairbanks InternationalAirport under the provisions of theAviation Safety and Capacity ExpansionAct of 1990 (Title IX of the OmnibusBudget Reconciliation Act of 1990)(Pub. L. 101–508) and part 158 of the



Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFRpart 158).

On July 15, 1999, the FAA determinedthat the application to impose and usethe revenue from a PFC submitted byState of Alaska, Department ofTransportation and Public Facilities,was substantially complete within therequirements of § 158.25 of part 158.The FAA will approve or disapprove theapplication, in whole or in part, no laterthan October 28, 1999.

The following is a brief overview ofthe application.

Application number: 99–01–C–00–FAI.

Level of the proposed PFC: $3.00.Proposed charge effective date:

January 1, 2000.Proposed charge expiration date:

March 1, 2006.Total estimated PFC revenue:

$5,460,000.Brief description of proposed projects:

Terminal Improvements; Acquire SnowRemoval Equipment and Airport Rescueand Fire Fighting Vehicle; ConstructMaintenance Facility.

Class or classes of air carriers whichthe public agency has requested not berequired to collect PFCs: Passengersenplaned by any class of carriers orforeign air carrier if the passengers areenplaned on a flight to an airportserving a community which has apopulation of less than 10,000 and isnot connected by a land highway to theland-based National Highway System(as defined by section 103(b)(5) of Title23.

Any person may inspect theapplication in person at the FAA officelisted above under FOR FURTHERINFORMATION CONTACT at the FAA,Alaskan Region Airports Division,Anchorage, Alaska.

In addition, any person may, uponrequest, inspect the application, noticeand other documents germane to theapplication in person at the FairbanksInternational Airport. 6450 Airport Way#1, Fairbanks, Alaska, 99709.

Issued in Anchorage, Alaska on July 16,1999.

Ronnie V. Simpson,Manager, Airports Division, Alaskan Region.[FR Doc. 99–18993 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]



Federal Highway Administration

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA–99–5748]

Qualification of Drivers; ExemptionApplications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal HighwayAdministration (FHWA), DOT.ACTION: Notice of petitions and intent togrant applications for exemption;request for comments.

SUMMARY: This notice announces theFHWA’s preliminary determination togrant the applications of 33 individualsfor an exemption from the visionrequirements in the Federal MotorCarrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs).Granting the exemptions will enablethese individuals to qualify as drivers ofcommercial motor vehicles (CMVs) ininterstate commerce without meetingthe vision standard prescribed in 49CFR 391.41(b)(10).DATES: Comments must be received onor before August 25, 1999.ADDRESSES: Your written, signedcomments must refer to the docketnumber at the top of this document, andyou must submit the comments to theDocket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, RoomPL–401, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,Washington, DC 20590–0001. Allcomments will be available forexamination at the above addressbetween 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Mondaythrough Friday, except Federal holidays.Those desiring notification of receipt ofcomments must include a self-addressed, stamped envelope orpostcard.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Forinformation about the visionexemptions in this notice, Ms. SandraZywokarte, Office of Motor CarrierResearch and Standards, (202) 366–2987; for information about legal issuesrelated to this notice, Ms. JudithRutledge, Office of the Chief Counsel,(202) 366–0834, Federal HighwayAdministration, Department ofTransportation, 400 Seventh Street,SW., Washington, DC 20590. Officehours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.,e.t., Monday through Friday, exceptFederal holidays.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic AccessInternet users may access all

comments received by the U.S. DOTDockets, Room PL–401, by using theuniversal resource locator (URL): http://dms.dot.gov. It is available 24 hourseach day, 365 days each year. Pleasefollow the instructions online for moreinformation and help.

An electronic copy of this documentmay be downloaded using a modem andsuitable communications software fromthe Government Printing Office’sElectronic Bulletin Board Service at(202) 512–1661. Internet users mayreach the office of the Federal Register’shome page at: http://www.nara.gov/fedreg and the Government PrintingOffice’s database at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.

Background

Thirty-three individuals haverequested an exemption from the visionrequirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10),which applies to drivers of CMVs ininterstate commerce. Under 49 U.S.C.31315 and 31136(e), the FHWA maygrant an exemption for a renewable 2-year period if it finds ‘‘such exemptionwould likely achieve a level of safetythat is equivalent to, or greater than, thelevel that would be achieved absentsuch exemption.’’ Accordingly, theFHWA has evaluated each of the 33exemption requests on its merits, asrequired by 49 U.S.C. 31315 and31136(e), and preliminarily determinedthat exempting these 33 applicants fromthe vision requirement in 49 CFR391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a levelof safety equal to, or greater than, thelevel that would be achieved withoutthe exemption.

Qualifications of Applicants

1. Terry James Aldridge

Mr. Aldridge is a 35 year-oldindividual who has operated straighttrucks and tractor-trailer combinationsfor more than 10 years. Because his lefteye was removed at eight months of age,Mr. Aldridge is unable to meet thevision requirement in 49 CFR391.41(b)(10).

A 1999 examination by theoptometrist reveals Mr. Aldridge’s best-corrected vision in his right eye is 20/20, and no pathological conditions weredetected during this examination. In theoptometrist’s opinion, Mr. Aldridge hasadequate vision to operate a CMV safely.

Mr. Aldridge holds a Mississippicommercial driver’s license (CDL). Hehas driven more than one-million milesand his official driving record for thepast 3 years contains one accident andno traffic violations in a CMV. Mr.Aldridge was not issued a citation.

2. Jerry D. Bridges

Mr. Bridges, 41, has had amblyopia inhis left eye since early childhood. A1999 medical examination indicates thathe has 20/20 corrected acuity in hisright eye and 20/100 corrected acuity inhis left eye. According to his



optometrist, the condition in his left eyeis stable, visual fields are full andnormal in each eye, and no significantocular problems were discovered. In theoptometrist’s opinion, Mr. Bridges’‘‘visual condition should present nodifficulties in operating a commercialvehicle.’’

Mr. Bridges has been a professionaltruck driver for 20 years and has drivenstraight trucks and tractor-trailercombinations more than one-millionmiles. He holds a Texas CDL, and areview of his State driving recordindicates no moving violations and noaccidents in any vehicle in the last 3years.

3. Michael L. Brown

Mr. Brown is 51 years old and hasbeen employed as a commercial truckdriver for 25 years. He has 20/400 visionin his left eye and therefore cannot meetthe vision requirement of 49 CFR391.41(b)(10).

A 1999 examination indicates Mr.Brown injured the left eye at age 4, andthat he underwent cornealtransplantation and lens implantation in1988. Confrontational fields are withinnormal limits in both eyes. In hisophthalmologist’s opinion, Mr. Brown’s‘‘visual efficiency is adequate to operatea commercial vehicle.’’

Mr. Brown holds a Kansas CDL. Hehas driven straight trucks more than800,000 miles since 1973. His officialdriving record for the past 3 yearsreflects no traffic violations and noaccidents in any vehicle.

4. Duane D. Burger

Mr. Burger, 60, is blind in his righteye due to an accident in 1965. A 1999examination indicates the best correctedvision in his left eye is 20/20. Hisoptometrist says, ‘‘It is my impressionthat Mr. Burger’s ocular health andperipheral vision are normal’’ and‘‘considering Mr. Burger’s safety record,I feel there is no reason that he cannotsafely continue operating a tractor-trailer.’’

Mr. Berger has a Kansas CDL. He hasdriven straight trucks and tractor-trailercombinations for ConsolidatedIndustrial Services since 1985.According to the company safetydirector, ‘‘Mr. Burger has an excellentdriving record—an estimated 100,000accident free miles per year—and is avalued employee.’’ His official Statedriving record for the past 3 yearscontains no traffic violations and noaccidents in a CMV.

5. Charlie Frank Cook

Mr. Cook, 52, has been employed asa commercial truck driver for 30 years.

According to his ophthalmologist, Mr.Cook was treated from 1988 through1992 for an inflammation in his left eyewhich damaged his central vision. As aresult, he cannot meet the visionrequirement of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).

A 1999 medical report indicates Mr.Cook’s best corrected vision is 20/20 inthe right eye and 20/80 in his left eye.In the ophthalmologist’s opinion, Mr.Cook’s ‘‘vision deficiency is stable’’ and‘‘he has sufficient vision to perform thedriving tasks required to operate acommercial vehicle.’’

He has driven straight trucks andtractor-trailer combinations for morethan 3 million miles. Mr. Cook holds aGeorgia CDL, and his driving record forthe past 3 years reflects no trafficviolations and no accidents.

6. Greg L. DinsmoreMr. Dinsmore is 39 years old and has

been employed as a commercial truckdriver for 22 years, driving straighttrucks as well as tractor-trailercombinations. He has had limited visualperception in his left eye since the ageof two as a result of an injury. Mr.Dinsmore has 20/20 vision in his righteye. In the optometrist’s opinion, Mr.Dinsmore has sufficient vision tooperate a commercial vehicle. Mr.Dinsmore holds an Oklahoma CDL. Hehas driven commercial vehicles morethan 1 million miles since 1977. Hisofficial driving record for the past 3years reflects no traffic violations andno accidents in any vehicle.

7. Donald D. DunphyMr. Dunphy, 45, has amblyopia in his

right eye. A 1999 examination by anophthalmologist revealed the vision inhis right eye to be 20/200 with orwithout correction and the vision in hisleft eye to be 20/20 with correction. Theophthalmologist stated Mr. Dunphy has‘‘adapted very well to this level ofvision’’ and has ‘‘sufficient vision tooperate a commercial motor vehicle.’’

Mr. Dunphy holds a Virginia CDL. Hehas operated tractor-trailercombinations for 18 years and straighttrucks for 5 years. His official Statedriving record reflects no trafficcitations and no accidents in a CMV forthe past 3 years.

8. Ralph E. EckelsMr. Eckels, 55, has amblyopia in his

left eye. A 1999 examination indicatesMr. Eckels has 20/70 corrected vision inhis left eye and 20/20 corrected vison inhis right eye. According to theoptometrist, Mr. Eckels’ ‘‘eye conditionis considered stable’’ and he ‘‘hasacceptable vision for safe driving ofcommercial vehicles.’’

Mr. Eckels holds a Kentucky CDL. Hehas driven straight trucks during a 36-year career. For the last 18 years, he hasoperated a tandem-axle truck full timefor the Union County Road Department.His official State driving record revealsno traffic citations or accidents in anyvehicle in the last 3 years.

9. Jerald C. EyreMr. Eyre, 60, has amblyopia in his

right eye. Because of this eye condition,Mr. Eyre is unable to meet the Federalvision requirement. He has 20/20corrected vision in his left eye accordingto a 1999 examination. In hisoptometrist’s opinion, Mr. Eyre has‘‘sufficient vision and visual skills toperform the driving tasks required tooperate a commercial vehicle.’’

Jerald C. Eyre holds a Montana CDL.He has been a professional truck driverfor 40 years and has operated straighttrucks, tractor-trailer combinations andbuses. His official State driving recordcontains no moving violations and noaccidents in any vehicle in the last 3years.

10. Russell W. Foster

Mr. Foster, 61, has worn a prostheticdevice in his right eye since 1976. Hisvision in the left eye is 20/20 withcorrective lens, according to a 1999examination. His ophthalmologist states‘‘Mr. Foster is qualified for commercialdriving activities.’’

Russell Foster holds an Ohio CDLwith a tank vehicle endorsement. He hasdriven straight trucks and tractor-trailercombination vehicles during a 45-yearcareer. For the last 10 years, he hasoperated mainly tractor-trailers for atotal of approximately 45,000 to 60,000miles per year. His official State drivingrecord reveals no traffic citations oraccidents in any vehicle in the last 3years.

11. Arnold D. Gosser

Mr. Gosser, 58, has been employed asa commercial driver for 25 years. Hisright eye was injured in 1949, resultingin a traumatic cataract which wasremoved in 1993. The vision in his righteye is 20/200 with glasses. Therefore,Mr. Gosser is unable to meet the visionrequirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).

A 1999 examination revealed Mr.Gosser has 20/20 vision in his left eyewith glasses. According to theoptometrist, he has more than sufficientvision to perform the tasks required tooperate a CMV.

Arnold Gosser holds a Kansas CDLwith a tank vehicle endorsement. He hasdriven tractor-trailer combinationvehicles approximately 2.5 millionmiles and straight trucks approximately



150,000 miles. There are no movingviolations or accidents in any vehicle inthe past 3 years on his official drivingrecord. His employer states that ‘‘in my17 years spent in the trucking industry,I have never met a safer driver thanArnold Gosser.’’

12. Eddie GowensMr. Gowens, 48, has amblyopia in his

left eye. Because of this condition, he isunable to meet the Federal visionstandard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Anoptometrist examined Mr. Gowens in1999, and found his best correctedvision is 20/100 in the left eye and 20/20 in the right eye. According to theoptometrist, ‘‘Mr. Gowens’’ conditionwill not affect his driving because hehas always driven under theseconditions.’’

Eddie Gowens has operated tractor-trailer combinations for SpringIndustries, Inc. for 16 years. Hisemployer states Mr. Gowens has done a‘‘wonderful job driving for us andtraining new drivers.’’ He holds anAlabama CDL, and his official drivingrecord for the past 3 years reflects nomoving violations and no accidents in aCMV.

13. Gary R. GutschowMr. Gutschow, 40, has amblyopia in

his left eye. He has 20/20 vision in hisright eye without correction. Anoptometrist examined him in 1999 andstated Mr. Gutschow has sufficientvision to perform the driving tasksrequried to operate a CMV.

Gary Gutschow has 18 years ofexperience operating tractor-trailercombinations and 3 years’ experienceoperating straight trucks. He holds aWisconsin CDL with tank vehicle andhazardous materials endorsements andhas driven more than 1.6 million milesin commercial vehicles. His officialState driving record contains twoaccidents in a CMV; in each case, Mr.Gutschow was not issued a citation. Inone incident, Mr. Gutschow’s vehiclewas struck from behind when he had toabruptly stop to avoid colliding with avehicle whose operator had disregardeda red light. In the other incident, thedriver of the other vehicle made a lanechange into the side of Mr. Gutschow’svehicle. No other violations in anyvehicle are reflected in his officialdriving record for the past 3 years. BSVTransportation, his employer since1993, states Mr. Gutschow is ‘‘anexcellent and courteous driver with agood driving record.’’

14. Richard J. HannaMr. Hanna is a 58-year-old individual

who has amblyopia in his left eye. He

has 20/20 minus 2 corrected vision inhis right eye, according to a 1999examination. The optometrist whoconducted the examination indicatesMr. Hanna has sufficient vision to drivea CMV.

Mr. Hanna has a 30-year careeroperating tractor-trailer combinationsmore than 2 million miles. He holds anOregon CDL and has had no trafficviolations or accidents in any vehicle inthe past 3 years.

15. Jack L. Henson

Mr. Henson, 45, has been blind in hisleft eye since 1988 due to an accidentinvolving some tools. A 1999examination by an optometrist revealedthe vision in his right eye to be 20/20without correction. The optometriststated Mr. Henson has sufficient visionto perform the driving task required tooperate a CMV.

Mr. Henson holds a Texas CDL witha tank vehicle endorsement. He hasoperated straight trucks and tractor-trailer combinations during aprofessional driving career spanningmore than 20 years. His official Statedriving record reflects no trafficcitations and no accidents in anyvehicle for the past 3 years.

16. Richard K. Jensrud

Mr. Jensrud, 30, has operated CMVsfor 6 years. He has 20/100 vision in theright eye and therefore cannot meet thevision requirement in 49 CFR391.41(b)(10).

A 1999 examination indicates Mr.Jensrud suffered a traumatic macularhole in the right eye for which heunderwent vitrectomy surgery in 1994.His ophthalmologist states ‘‘the visionin his left eye had continued to beexcellent at 20/20’’ and ‘‘he [Mr.Jensrud] should have no problemsdriving a CMV.’’

Richard Jensrud has a Minnesota CDLwith tank vehicle and hazardousmaterials endorsements. He has driventractor-trailer combination vehicles forapproximately 1.8 million miles. Hisofficial State driving record for the past3 years reveals one accident and notraffic violations in a CMV. Mr.Jensrud’s CMV struck the right rear ofthe other vehicle as both vehicles wereleaving a gas station. Although Mr.Jensrud was initially cited forinattentive driving, the case wasdismissed. The accident resulted in noinjuries.

17. David R. Jesmain

Mr. Jesmain, 54, has amblyopia in hisleft eye. The vision in his right eye was20/20 with glasses in a 1999examination. His optometrist says Mr.

Jesmain has sufficient vision to performthe tasks necessary to operate a CMV.

David Jesmain holds a New York CDL.He has 17 years’ experience drivingstraight trucks. His official State drivingrecord contains no traffic violations andno accidents in any vehicle in the past3 years.

18. Albert E. Malley

Mr. Malley, 57, has glaucoma and anamblyopic left eye, conditions whichhave been present since birth. Becauseof these conditions, Mr. Malley isunable to meet the vision requirementin 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).

A 1999 examination at the MayoClinic indicates Mr. Malley had cataractand glaucoma surgery on June 30, 1998.According to the ophthalmologist, thevision in his left eye remains poor (20/400) due to amblyopia but ‘‘it is nowstable.’’ The vision in his right eye is 20/20 with glasses. The ophthalmologistsays Mr. Malley is able to perform thetasks required to operate a CMV.

Mr. Malley has a Minnesota CDL witha tank vehicle/hazardous materialsendorsement. He has been aprofessional truck driver for 35 yearsand has driven tractor-trailercombination vehicles approximately 4million miles and straight trucksapproximately 30,000 miles. There areno traffic violations or accidents in anyvehicle in the past 3 years on his officialdriving record.

19. Clifford E. Masink

Mr. Masink, 41, has had a maculardefect in his left eye for 32 years.Because of this condition, he is unableto meet the Federal vision standard in49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). An optometristexamined Mr. Masink in 1999, andfound his best corrected vision is 20/200in the left eye and 20/20 in the right eye.The optometrist states Mr. Masink ‘‘hassufficient vision to operate acommercial vehicle.’’

Clifford Masink has operated straighttrucks for 20 years and tractor-trailercombinations for 15 years. He holds anOhio CDL, and his official drivingrecord for the past 3 years reflects nomoving violations and no accidents in aCMV.

20. Tyrone O. Mayson

Mr. Mayson, 57, has been employedas a commercial truck driver for AikenCounty Roads and Bridges since 1993.He has driven straight trucks andtractor-trailer combinations more than 3million miles. Mr. Mayson has beenblind in his left eye since he was achild.

A 1999 medical report indicates Mr.Mayson has 20/30 corrected vision in



the right eye. His ophthalmologist statesMr. Mayson has ‘‘functioned as acommercial driver for many years beingmonocular’’ and recommended that‘‘Mr. Mayson be granted a renewal of hiscommercial driver’s license.’’

Tyrone Mayson holds a SouthCarolina CDL. His driving record for thepast 3 years reflects no traffic violationsand no accidents in a CMV.

21. Rodney M. Mimbs

Mr. Mimbs is a 33-year-old individualwho has amblyopia in his left eye andcannot meet the Federal visionrequirement. Mr. Mimbs’ best correctedvision in his left eye is 20/200 and 20/25 in his right eye, according to a 1999examination. According to theoptometrist who conducted theexamination, Mr. Mimbs’ ‘‘eyes arehealthy and stable’’ and ‘‘he hassufficient vision to perform the drivingtasks required to operate a commercialvehicle.’’

Mr. Mimbs holds a Georgia CDL withtank vehicle, hazardous materials andpassenger transportation endorsements.He has 5 years’ experience operatingstraight trucks and 4 years’ experienceoperating tractor-trailer combinations.He has driven these CMVs almost700,000 miles. His official State drivingrecord contains no traffic violations oraccidents in any vehicle for the past 3years. His employer reports Mr. Mimbsis a ‘‘safe, consistent and dependabledriver.’’

22. Charles E. O’Dell

Mr. O’Dell, 62, has amblyopia in hisright eye. Vision in the right eye is 20/200 and 20/20 in the left eye, accordingto a 1999 examination. His optometriststates Mr. O’Dell ‘‘has been drivinginterstate vehicles since at least 1980,’’and he does not ‘‘see any reason he [Mr.O’Dell] can not safely continue to doso.’’

Charles O’Dell has a Kansas CDL. Hehas 21 years’ experience operatingstraight trucks and tractor-trailercombinations. Since 1980, Mr. O’Dellhas driven a CMV over 2 million milesfor Keim TS, Inc., his employer. Hisofficial State driving record reveals notraffic citations or accidents in anyvehicle in the past 3 years.

23. Richard W. O’Neill

Mr. O’Neill is a 50-year-old individualwho has operated CMVs for 25 years. Hehas been blind in the right eye since age12 due to an accident. Because of thiscondition, Mr. O’Neill is unable to meetthe vision requirement in 49 CFR391.41(b)(10).

A 1999 examination reveals Mr.O’Neill has 20/20 corrected vision in his

left eye. The ophthalmologist whoconducted the examination states Mr.O’Neill has driven ‘‘monocularly formany years’’ and ‘‘he is totally qualifiedto drive a motor vehicle, commercially.’’

Mr. O’Neill holds a Washington CDL.He has driven straight trucks andtractor-trailer combinationsapproximately 2 million miles. Hisofficial driving record for the past 3years contains no moving violations andno accidents.

24. Jerry L. Reese

Mr. Reese, 41, has amblyopia in hisleft eye. His vision in the right eye is 20/20 with correction, according to a 1999examination. His optometrist states ‘‘Mr.Reese is an experienced truck driverwith a safe driving record’’ and ‘‘shouldbe allowed to operate a commercialvehicle.’’

Jerry Reese holds a Mississippi CDL.He is a self-employed owner-operatorwho has driven straight trucks andtractor-trailer combination vehiclesduring a 25 year career. His official Statedriving record reveals no trafficcitations or accidents in a CMV in thelast 3 years.

25. Frances C. Ruble

Ms. Ruble, 53, has amblyopia in herright eye. A 1999 medical examinationindicates she has 20/15 corrected visionin her left eye. In the optometrist’sopinion, there is ‘‘no ocular reason thatMs. Ruble cannot operate a commercialvehicle.’’

Frances Ruble holds an Iowa CDL.She has been operating a tractor-trailercombination for the same employersince 1995. Her official State drivingrecord reflects no moving violations andno accidents in any vehicle in the last3 years.

26. Johnny L. Stiff

Mr. Stiff is 56 years old and has beenemployed as a commercial truck driverfor 26 years. According to a 1999examination, Mr. Stiff’s central visualacuity in his left eye is limited to fingercounting due to an injury in 1986. Theperipheral vision in his left eye is intact.The vision in his right eye is 20/15 withglasses. According to his optometrist,Mr. Stiff’s vision is ‘‘stable in both eyes’’and he is ‘‘capable of performing thetask of driving a commercial vehicle.’’

Johnny Stiff holds an Illinois CDLwith a tank vehicle/hazardous materialsendorsement. He has driven CMVs morethan 1 million miles since 1973 and hisofficial driving record for the past 3years reflects no traffic violations andno accidents in a CMV.

27. Robert J. TownsleyMr. Townsley, 50, has 20/200 vision

in his left eye due to a retinaldetachment in 1963 and thereforecannot meet the vision requirement in49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).

He has 20/20 vision in his right eye,according to a 1999 examination.

The optometrist who conducted theexamination asserts Mr. Townsley hassufficient vision to drive a CMV.

Mr. Townsley has a Virginia CDL witha tank vehicle endorsement. He hasdriven straight trucks for 5 years andtractor-trailer combinations for 10 years.His official State driving record for thepast 3 years contains no trafficviolations and no accidents in anyvehicle.

28. Thomas R. TrumpeterMr. Trumpeter, 48, is blind in his left

eye due to an injury in 1961. Accordingto a 1999 examination, the vision in hisright eye was 20/15 with glasses. Hisoptometrist says Mr. Trumpeter hassufficient vision to perform the tasksnecessary to operate a CMV.

Mr. Trumpeter holds a WashingtonCDL with tank vehicle and hazardousmaterials endorsements. He has 20years’ experience driving tractor-trailercombinations and straight trucks. Hisofficial State driving record contains notraffic violations and no accidents inany vehicle in the past 3 years. Mr.Trumpeter has driven intrastate forUnited Motor Freight since 1992. Thecompany’s president says he has‘‘performed all assigned tasks with theutmost safety’’ and ‘‘never had anaccident or damaged any expensivemachinery.’’

29. Steven M. VelozMr. Veloz, 43, has amblyopia in his

left eye. A 1999 medical examinationindicates he has 20/20 vision in hisright eye. In the optometrist’s opinion,Mr. Veloz has sufficient vision tooperate a CMV.

Steve Veloz holds a California CDLwith a tank vehicle endorsement. He hasdriven tractor-trailer combinations morethan 1.4 million miles since 1981, andhis official driving record for the past 3years contains no accidents and oneconviction for violating weight limits fora commercial vehicle.

30. Thomas E. WalshMr. Walsh is a 43 year old individual

who has operated CMVs for 18 years. Hehas amblyopia in his right eye and isunable to meet the vision requirementin 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).

A 1999 examination by theoptometrist reveals Mr. Walsh has 20/20vision in his left eye with correction. In



the optometrist’s opinion, Mr. Walshhas sufficient vision to perform the tasksnecessary to operate a CMV.

Thomas Walsh holds a CaliforniaCDL. He has driven straight trucks andtractor-trailer combinations for a total of900,000 miles and his official drivingrecord for the past 3 years reveals oneaccident and no traffic violations in aCMV. The driver of the other vehicleinvolved in the accident failed to yieldto oncoming traffic when pulling ontothe roadway from private property. Mr.Walsh was not issued a citation for theaccident.

31. James T. WhiteMr. White, 58, has been driving a

tractor-trailer combinationapproximately 55,000 miles per year forthe past 25 years. Mr. White holds aGeorgia CDL. Blind since birth in theleft eye, Mr. White has visioncorrectable to 20/15 in the right eye.According to his optometrist, Mr. Whitehas sufficient vision to be a safecommercial driver. ‘‘His vision is goodand his driving record is clean due tothe fact that he has learned to live withhis lack of vision in the left eye over theyears.’’ His official driving recordcontains no traffic violations and noaccidents in the past 3 years.

32. Harry Ray LittlejohnMr. Littlejohn, 50, has amblyopia in

his right eye. The vision in his left eyeis 20/20 with correction according to a1998 examination. His ophthalmologistsays he has sufficient vision to operatea commercial vehicle.

Harry Littlejohn holds a LouisanaCDL. He is self-employed and hasdriven tractor-trailer combinations over1.3 million miles. His official drivingrecord contains no traffic violations andno accidents in a CMV in the past 3years.

33. Mark K. CheelyMr. Cheely, 35, has mild corneal

dystrophy and amblyopia in his left eye.A 1999 medical report indicates he has20/20 vision in his right eye withoutcorrection. In his optometrist’s opinion,Mr. Cheely’s condition is stable and heis capable of operating a CMV.

Mark Cheely has 9 years’ experienceoperating tractor-trailer combinationsand 2 years’ experience operatingstraight trucks, accumulating almost400,000 miles. His employer since 1991,Pecht Distributors, Inc., says Mr. Cheely‘‘maintains an excellent safety record’’and is a ‘‘superior performer.’’ He has aVirginia CDL and his official drivingrecord reveals no traffic citations in anyvehicle in the past 3 years. In 1997, hisCMV was involved in an accident.

There was property damage but noinjuries, and he did not receive acitation.

Basis for Preliminary Determination toGrant Exemptions

Independent studies support theprinciple that past driving performanceis a reliable indicator of an individual’sfuture safety record. The studies arefiled in FHWA Docket No. FHWA–97–2625 and discussed at 63 FR 1524, 1525(January 9, 1998). We believe we canproperly apply the principle tomonocular drivers because data fromthe vision waiver program clearlydemonstrate the driving performance ofmonocular drivers in the program isbetter than that of all CMV driverscollectively. (See 61 FR 13338, March26, 1996.) That monocular drivers in thewaiver program demonstrated theirability to drive safely supports aconclusion that other monoculardrivers, with qualifications similar tothose required by the waiver program,can also adapt to their vision deficiencyand operate safely.

The 33 applicants represented herehave qualifications similar to thosepossessed by drivers in the waiverprogram. Their experience and safedriving record operating CMVsdemonstrate that they have adaptedtheir driving skills to accommodatetheir vision deficiency. Since pastdriving records are reliable precursors ofthe future, there is no reason to expectthese individuals to drive less safelyafter receiving their exemptions. Indeed,there is every reason to expect at leastthe same level of safety, if not a greaterlevel, because the applicants can havetheir exemptions revoked if theycompile an unsafe driving record.

For these reasons, the FHWA believesexempting the individuals from 49 CFR391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a levelof safety equal to, or greater than, thelevel that would be achieved withoutthe exemption as long as vision in theirbetter eye continues to meet thestandard specified in § 391.41(b)(10). Asa condition of the exemption, therefore,the FHWA proposes to imposerequirements on the individuals similarto the grandfathering provisions in 49CFR 391.64(b) applied to drivers whoparticipated in the agency’s formervision waiver program.

These requirements are: (1) That eachindividual be physically examinedevery year (a) by an ophthalmologist oroptometrist who attests that vision inthe better eye meets the standard in 49CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a medicalexaminer who attests the individual isotherwise physically qualified under 49CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual

provide a copy of the ophthalmologist’sor optometrist’s report to the medicalexaminer at the time of the annualmedical examination; and (3) that eachindividual provide a copy of the annualmedical certification to his or heremployer for retention in its driverqualification file or keep a copy in hisor her driver qualification file if he orshe becomes self-employed. The drivermust also have a copy of thecertification when driving so it may bepresented to a duly authorized Federal,State, or local enforcement official.

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315and 31136(e), the proposed exemptionfor each person will be valid for 2 yearsunless revoked earlier by the FHWA.The exemption will be revoked if: (1)The person fails to comply with theterms and conditions of the exemption;(2) the exemption has resulted in alower level of safety than wasmaintained before it was granted; or (3)continuation of the exemption wouldnot be consistent with the goals andobjectives of 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136.If the exemption is effective at the endof the 2-year period, the person mayapply to the FHWA for a renewal underprocedures in effect at that time.

Request for Comments

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315and 31136(e), the FHWA is requestingpublic comment from all interestedpersons on the exemption petitions andthe matters discussed in this notice. Allcomments received before the close ofbusiness on the closing date indicatedabove will be considered and will beavailable for examination in the docketroom at the above address. Commentsreceived after the closing date will befiled in the docket and will beconsidered to the extent practicable, butthe FHWA may issue exemptions fromthe vision requirement to the 33applicants and publish in the FederalRegister a notice of final determinationat any time after the close of thecomment period. In addition to latecomments, the FHWA will alsocontinue to file in the docket relevantinformation which becomes availableafter the closing date. Interested personsshould continue to examine the docketfor new material.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315; 23U.S.C. 315; 49 CFR 1.48.

Issued on: July 16, 1999.

Kenneth R. Wykle,Federal Highway Administrator.[FR Doc. 99–18991 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]





Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA–1999–5102]

Notice of Public Hearing; TheSoutheastern PennsylvaniaTransportation Authority

The Southeastern PennsylvaniaTransportation Authority (SEPTA) haspetitioned the Federal RailroadAdministration (FRA) seeking a waiverof compliance with the requirements ofTitle 49 CFR 213.233(c). SEPTAproposes to substitute the operation ofa track geometry measuring car overmain track and sidings constructed withcontinuously welded rail in place of oneof the currently required twice weeklyvisual inspections.

The FRA issued a public noticeseeking comments of interested parties.After examining the railroad’s proposaland the available facts, FRA hasdetermined that a public hearing isnecessary before a final decision ismade on this proposal.

Accordingly, a public hearing ishereby set for 9:00 a.m. EDT, onWednesday, August 25, 1999 in theWanamaker Building, 100 Penn SquareEast, Tenth Floor Training Center, inPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania. Interestedparties are invited to present oralstatements at the hearing.

The hearing will be an informal oneand will be conducted in accordancewith Rule 25 of the FRA Rules ofPractice (Title 49 CFR Part 211.25), bya representative designated by the FRA.

Issued in Washington, DC on July 16, 1999.Edwards R. English,Director, Office of Safety Assurance andCompliance.[FR Doc. 99–19032 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–06–P



Notice of Application for Approval ofDiscontinuance or Modification of aRailroad Signal System or Relief Fromthe Requirements of Title 49 Code ofFederal Regulations Part 236

Pursuant to Title 49 Code of FederalRegulations (CFR) part 235 and 49U.S.C. App. 26, the following railroadshave petitioned the Federal RailroadAdministration (FRA) seeking approvalfor the discontinuance or modificationof the signal system or relief from therequirements of 49 CFR Part 236 asdetailed below.

Docket No.: FRA–1999–5628.

Applicant: Burlington Northern andSanta Fe Railway, Mr. William G.Peterson, Director Signal Engineering,4515 Kansas Avenue, Kansas City,Kansas 66106.

Burlington Northern and Santa FeRailway seeks approval of the proposedmodification of the signal systems, onthe single main track and sidings,between milepost 636.5, South Denison,Texas and milepost 650.9, near SouthSherman Junction, Texas, on the TexasDivision, Madill Subdivision, associatedwith the removal of the crossingdiamond and Tower 16 Interlocking atSherman, Texas. The proposed changesconsist of the following:

1. Conversion of the power-operatedswitches at South Sherman Junction,Hank, Old Frisco Main, and TNER tohand operation, including removal of allassociated signals;

2. Discontinuance and removal of thederails at existing TNER and SouthSherman siding;

3. Conversion of the power-operatedswitches at North Sherman and SouthSherman to spring switches;

4. Removal of the ‘‘Restricted Limits’’between mileposts 650.9 and 649.9, thetraffic control system between mileposts649.9 and 647.7, the ‘‘Restricted Limits’’between mileposts 647.7 and 645.6, andthe traffic control system betweenmileposts 645.6 and 644.2, associatedwith the conversion to a track warrantcontrol method of operation; and

5. Removal of the traffic controlsystem between mileposts 644.2 9 and637.1, and the ‘‘Restricted Limits’’between mileposts 637.1 and 636.5,associated with the conversion to a trackwarrant control, supplemented by anautomatic block signal system, methodof operation.

The reason given for the proposedchanges is that the switches involved inthe application are now controlled bythe interlocking operator at Tower 16,which will be retired with the removalof the crossing diamond.

Any interested party desiring toprotest the granting of an applicationshall set forth specifically the groundsupon which the protest is made, andcontain a concise statement of theinterest of the Protestant in theproceeding. Additionally, one copy ofthe protest shall be furnished to theapplicant at the address listed above.

All communications concerning thisproceeding should be identified by thedocket number and must be submittedto the Docket Clerk, DOT Central DocketManagement Facility, Room PI–401,Washington, DC 20590–0001.Communications received within 45days of the date of this notice will beconsidered by the FRA before final

action is taken. Comments received afterthat date will be considered as far aspracticable. All written communicationsconcerning these proceedings areavailable for examination during regularbusiness hours (9:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m.) atDOT Central Docket ManagementFacility, Room PI–401 (Plaza Level), 400Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC20590–0001. All documents in thepublic docket are also available forinspection and copying on the internetat the docket facility’s Web site athttp://dms.dot.gov.

FRA expects to be able to determinethese matters without an oral hearing.However, if a specific request for an oralhearing is accompanied by a showingthat the party is unable to adequatelypresent his or her position by writtenstatements, an application may be setfor public hearing.

Issued in Washington, DC on July 19, 1999.Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,Deputy Associate Administrator for SafetyStandards and Program Development.[FR Doc. 99–19031 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–06–P




Pursuant to Title 49 Code of FederalRegulations (CFR) Part 235 and 49U.S.C. App. 26, the following railroadshave petitioned the Federal RailroadAdministration (FRA) seeking approvalfor the discontinuance or modificationof the signal system or relief from therequirements of 49 CFR part 236 asdetailed below.

Docket No.: FRA–1999–5623.Applicant: CSX Transportation,

Incorporated, Mr. R.M. Kadlick, ChiefEngineer Train Control, 4901 BelfortRoad, Suite 130 (S/C J–350),Jacksonville, Florida 32256.

CSX Transportation Incorporatedseeks approval of the proposedmodification of the traffic controlsystem, on the two main tracks, at E.E.Hurricane, West Virginia, milepost CA–477.9, on the Kanawha Subdivision,C&O Business Unit, consisting of thefollowing:

1. Conversion of the power-operatedswitch to hand operation;

2. Discontinuance and removal ofabsolute controlled signals 40RA, 40RC,and 40L; and



3. Installation of new double track,back to back, automatic signals atmilepost CA–477.9.

The reasons given for the proposedchanges is to increase operatingefficiency.


All communications concerning thisproceeding should be identified by thedocket number and must be submittedto the Docket Clerk, DOT Central DocketManagement Facility, Room PI–401,Washington, DC 20590–0001.Communications received within 45days of the date of this notice will beconsidered by the FRA before finalaction is taken. Comments received afterthat date will be considered as far aspracticable. All written communicationsconcerning these proceedings areavailable for examination during regularbusiness hours (9:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m.) atDOT Central Docket ManagementFacility, Room PI–401 (Plaza Level), 400Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC20590–0001. All documents in thepublic docket are also available forinspection and copying on the internetat the docket facility’s Web site athttp://dms.dot.gov.


Issued in Washington, DC on July 19, 1999.Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,Deputy Associate Administrator for SafetyStandards and Program Development.[FR Doc. 99–19026 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–06–M




Pursuant to Title 49 Code of FederalRegulations (CFR) Part 235 and 49U.S.C. App. 26, the following railroadshave petitioned the Federal RailroadAdministration (FRA) seeking approval

for the discontinuance or modificationof the signal system or relief from therequirements of 49 CFR Part 236 asdetailed below.


Incorporated, Mr. E. G. Peterson,Assistant Chief Engineer, Signal Designand Construction, 4901 Belfort Road,Suite 130 (S/C J–370), Jacksonville,Florida 32256.

CSX Transportation Incorporatedseeks approval of the proposedmodification of the traffic controlsystem, on the two main tracks, betweenmilepost A487.7 and milepost A489.3,on the Charleston Subdivision, FlorenceService Lane, near Savannah, Georgia,consisting of the following:

1. Discontinuance and removal ofabsolute controlled signals 46R, 46L,44R, and 44L at Galatia, near milepostA487.75;

2. Discontinuance and removal ofintermediate signal 489–5, at milepostA489.44; and

3. Installation of double track, back toback, intermediate signals, at milepostA487.71.

The reason given for the proposedchanges is to eliminate facilities nolonger needed for present day operation.


All communications concerning thisproceeding should be identified by thedocket number and must be submittedto the Docket Clerk, DOT Central DocketManagement Facility, Room PI–401,Washington, DC 20590–0001.Communications received within 45days of the date of this notice will beconsidered by the FRA before finalaction is taken. Comments received afterthat date will be considered as far aspracticable. All written communicationsconcerning these proceedings areavailable for examination during regularbusiness hours (9 a.m.–5 p.m.) at DOTCentral Docket Management Facility,Room PI–401 (Plaza Level), 400 SeventhStreet, SW., Washington, DC 20590–0001. All documents in the publicdocket are also available for inspectionand copying on the internet at thedocket facility’s Web site at http://dms.dot.gov.

FRA expects to be able to determinethese matters without an oral hearing.However, if a specific request for an oralhearing is accompanied by a showingthat the party is unable to adequately

present his or her position by writtenstatements, an application may be setfor public hearing.





Pursuant to Title 49 Code of FederalRegulations (CFR) Part 235 and 49U.S.C. App. 26, the following railroadshave petitioned the Federal RailroadAdministration (FRA) seeking approvalfor the discontinuance or modificationof the signal system or relief from therequirements of 49 CFR Part 236 asdetailed below.


Incorporated, Mr. R. M. Kadlick, ChiefEngineer Train Control, 4901 BelfortRoad, Suite 130 (S/C J–350),Jacksonville, Florida 32256.

CSX Transportation Incorporatedseeks approval of the proposedmodification of the traffic controlsystem, on the side tracks, at KV Cabin,West Virginia, milepost CA–511.80, onthe Kanawha Subdivision, C&OBusiness Unit, consisting of theconversion of the No. 13 power-operated crossover switches to handoperation.

The reason given for the proposedchanges is the elimination of facilitiesno longer needed for present dayoperation.


All communications concerning thisproceeding should be identified by thedocket number and must be submittedto the Docket Clerk, DOT Central DocketManagement Facility, Room PI–401,Washington, DC 20590–0001.Communications received within 45days of the date of this notice will beconsidered by the FRA before finalaction is taken. Comments received after



that date will be considered as far aspracticable. All written communicationsconcerning these proceedings areavailable for examination during regularbusiness hours (9:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m.) atDOT Central Docket ManagementFacility, Room PI–401 (Plaza Level), 400Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC20590–0001. All documents in thepublic docket are also available forinspection and copying on the internetat the docket facility’s Web site at http://dms.dot.gov.








Incorporated, Mr. R. M. Kadlick, ChiefEngineer Train Control, 4901 BelfortRoad, Suite 130 (S/C J–350),Jacksonville, Florida 32256.

CSX Transportation Incorporatedseeks approval of the proposedmodification of the traffic controlsystem, on the single main track,between North Earlington, milepost H–272.4 and South Earlington, milepostH–270.7, near Earlington, Kentucky, onthe Henderson Subdivision, ChicagoService Lane, consisting of thefollowing:

1. Conversion of the power-operatedswitch at North Earlington to handoperation, equipped with an electriclock;

2. Discontinuance and removal ofabsolute controlled signals 99RA, 99RB,99L, 97L, and 97R; and

3. Installation of back to backintermediate signals 2721 and 2722 atmilepost H–272.4.

The reason given for the proposedchanges is to increase operatingefficiency.


All communications concerning thisproceeding should be identified by thedocket number and must be submittedto the Docket Clerk, DOT Central DocketManagement Facility, Room PI–401,Washington, DC 20590–0001.Communications received within 45days of the date of this notice will beconsidered by the FRA before finalaction is taken. Comments received afterthat date will be considered as far aspracticable. All written communicationsconcerning these proceedings areavailable for examination during regularbusiness hours (9 a.m.–5 p.m.) at DOTCentral Docket Management Facility,Room PI–401 (Plaza Level), 400 SeventhStreet, SW, Washington, DC 20590–0001. All documents in the publicdocket are also available for inspectionand copying on the internet at thedocket facility’s Web site at http://dms.dot.gov.






Pursuant to Title 49 Code of FederalRegulations (CFR) Part 235 and 49

U.S.C. App. 26, the following railroadshave petitioned the Federal RailroadAdministration (FRA) seeking approvalfor the discontinuance or modificationof the signal system or relief from therequirements of 49 CFR Part 236 asdetailed below.


Incorporated, Mr. E. G. Peterson,Assistant Chief Engineer, Signal Designand Construction, 4901 Belfort Road,Suite 130 (S/C J–370), Jacksonville,Florida 32256.

CSX Transportation Incorporatedseeks approval of the proposedmodification of the signal system, on thesingle main track, at Beach Island,South Carolina, milepost AK–455.4, onthe Augusta Subdivision, FlorenceService Lane, consisting of thediscontinuance and removal of absolutecontrolled signals 2R, 2LA, and 2LC,and conversion of the power-operatedswitch to hand operation.

The reason given for the proposedchanges is to improve operations andincrease efficiency.


All communications concerning thisproceeding should be identified by thedocket number and must be submittedto the Docket Clerk, DOT Central DocketManagement Facility, Room PI–401,Washington, DC 20590–0001.Communications received within 45days of the date of this notice will beconsidered by the FRA before finalaction is taken. Comments received afterthat date will be considered as far aspracticable. All written communicationsconcerning these proceedings areavailable for examination during regularbusiness hours (9:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m.) atDOT Central Docket ManagementFacility, Room PI–401 (Plaza Level), 400Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC20590–0001. All documents in thepublic docket are also available forinspection and copying on the internetat the docket facility’s Web site at http://dms.dot.gov.









Docket No.: FRA–1999–5629.Applicant: Norfolk Southern

Corporation, Mr. W.C. Johnson, ChiefEngineer-S&E Engineering, 99 SpringStreet, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.

Norfolk Southern Corporation seeksapproval of the proposed modificationof the traffic control system, on theAddison Siding, between CP Jack,milepost N88.2 and CP Addison,milepost N86.9, near Petersburg,Virginia, on the Virginia Division,Norfolk District, consisting of thediscontinuance and removal of theswitch point protection, on the hand-operated switches, associated withaspect modifications.

The reason given for the proposedchanges is that the modification of thesignal aspects to provided restrictingindications for train movements,through the OS’s at each end of thesiding, does not require switch pointprotection and will reduce maintenancecosts.


All communications concerning thisproceeding should be identified by thedocket number and must be submittedto the Docket Clerk, DOT Central DocketManagement Facility, Room PI–401,Washington, DC 20590–0001.Communications received within 45days of the date of this notice will be

considered by the FRA before finalaction is taken. Comments received afterthat date will be considered as far aspracticable. All written communicationsconcerning these proceedings areavailable for examination during regularbusiness hours (9:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m.) atDOT Central Docket ManagementFacility, Room PI–401(Plaza Level), 400Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC20590–0001. All documents in thepublic docket are also available forinspection and copying on the internetat the docket facility’s Web site athttp://dms.dot.gov.







Docket No.: FRA–1999–5621Applicant: Red River Valley and

Western Railroad Company, Mr. DennisW. McLeod, President, 501 MinnesotaAvenue, Breckenridge, Minnesota56520.

The Red River Valley and WesternRailroad Company (RRVW) seeksapproval of the proposeddiscontinuance and removal of theautomatic interlocking plant, nearDavenport, North Dakota, where a singlemain track of the RRVW SecondSubdivision, milepost 39.6, crosses atgrade, a single main track of the RRVWFourth Subdivision, milepost 18.2.

The reason given for the proposedchanges is the high cost of rehabilitationof the interlocking; the original signal

system was installed in 1906, and thepole line is old, worn, and in need ofmajor repair.


All communications concerning thisproceeding should be identified by thedocket number and must be submittedto the Docket Clerk, DOT Central DocketManagement Facility, Room PI–401,Washington, DC 20590–0001.Communications received within 45days of the date of this notice will beconsidered by the FRA before finalaction is taken. Comments received afterthat date will be considered as far aspracticable. All written communicationsconcerning these proceedings areavailable for examination during regularbusiness hours (9:00 a.m.—5:00 p.m.) atDOT Central Docket ManagementFacility, Room PI–401 (Plaza Level), 400Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC20590–0001. All documents in thepublic docket are also available forinspection and copying on the internetat the docket facility’s Web site athttp://dms.dot.gov.


Issued in Washington, DC on July 19, 1999.Grady C. Cothen, Jr.Deputy Associate Administrator for SafetyStandards and Program Development.[FR Doc. 99–19025 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–06–P


Surface Transportation Board

[STB Docket No. AB–6 (Sub–No. 383X)]

The Burlington Northern and Santa FeRailway Company—AbandonmentExemption—in Washington County,OR

The Burlington Northern and Santa FeRailway Company (BNSF) has filed anotice of exemption under 49 CFR 1152Subpart F—Exempt Abandonments toabandon a 0.38-mile line of its railroadbetween milepost 27.84 and milepost28.22 near Banks, in Washington



1 The Board will grant a stay if an informeddecision on environmental issues (whether raisedby a party or by the Board’s Section ofEnvironmental Analysis in its independentinvestigation) cannot be made before theexemption’s effective date. See Exemption of Out-of-Service Rail Lines, 5 I.C.C.2d 377 (1989). Anyrequest for a stay should be filed as soon as possibleso that the Board may take appropriate action beforethe exemption’s effective date.

2 Each offer of financial assistance must beaccompanied by the filing fee, which currently isset at $1000. See 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(25).

County, OR. The line traverses UnitedStates Postal Service Zip Code 97106.

BNSF has certified that: (1) No localtraffic has moved over the line for atleast 2 years; (2) there is no overheadtraffic to be rerouted; (3) no formalcomplaint filed by a user of rail serviceon the line (or by a state or localgovernment entity acting on behalf ofsuch user) regarding cessation of serviceover the line either is pending with theSurface Transportation Board (Board) orwith any U.S. District Court or has beendecided in favor of complainant withinthe 2-year period; and (4) therequirements at 49 CFR 1105.7(environmental reports), 49 CFR 1105.8(historic reports), 49 CFR 1105.11(transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12(newspaper publication), and 49 CFR1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmentalagencies) have been met.

As a condition to this exemption, anyemployee adversely affected by theabandonment shall be protected underOregon Short Line R. Co.—Abandonment— Goshen, 360 I.C.C. 91(1979). To address whether thiscondition adequately protects affectedemployees, a petition for partialrevocation under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d)must be filed. Provided no formalexpression of intent to file an offer offinancial assistance (OFA) has beenreceived, this exemption will beeffective on August 25, 1999, unlessstayed pending reconsideration.Petitions to stay that do not involve

environmental issues,1 formalexpressions of intent to file an OFAunder 49 CFR 1152.27(c)(2),2 and trailuse/rail banking requests under 49 CFR1152.29 must be filed by August 5,1999. Petitions to reopen or requests forpublic use conditions under 49 CFR1152.28 must be filed by August 16,1999, with: Surface TransportationBoard, Office of the Secretary, CaseControl Unit, 1925 K Street, N.W.,Washington, DC 20423.

A copy of any petition filed with theBoard should be sent to applicant’srepresentative: Sarah Whitley Bailiff,Senior General Attorney, TheBurlington Northern and Santa FeRailway Company, 3107 Lou MenkDrive, Fort Worth, TX 76131–2830.

If the verified notice contains false ormisleading information, the exemptionis void ab initio.

BNSF has filed an environmentalreport which addresses theabandonment’s effects, if any, on theenvironment and historic resources. The

Section of Environmental Analysis(SEA) will issue an environmentalassessment (EA) by July 30, 1999.Interested persons may obtain a copy ofthe EA by writing to SEA (Room 500,Surface Transportation Board,Washington, DC 20423) or by callingSEA, at (202) 565–1545. Comments onenvironmental and historic preservationmatters must be filed within 15 daysafter the EA becomes available to thepublic.

Environmental, historic preservation,public use, or trail use/rail bankingconditions will be imposed, whereappropriate, in a subsequent decision.

Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR1152.29(e)(2), BNSF shall file a notice ofconsummation with the Board to signifythat it has exercised the authoritygranted and fully abandoned the line. Ifconsummation has not been effected byBNSF’s filing of a notice ofconsummation by July 26, 2000, andthere are no legal or regulatory barriersto consummation, the authority toabandon will automatically expire.

Board decisions and notices areavailable on our website at‘‘WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.’’

Decided: July 19, 1999.By the Board, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.Vernon A. Williams,Secretary.[FR Doc. 99–18875 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4915–00–P


fede

ral r

egiste

r

40415

MondayJuly 26, 1999

Part II

Department ofCommerceInternational Trade Administration

Preliminary Affirmative CountervailingDuty Determination and Alignment ofFinal Countervailing Duty DeterminationWith Final Antidumping DutyDetermination: Certain Cut-to-LengthCarbon-Quality Steel Plate From Italy,France, India, Republic of Korea, andIndonesia; Notices





[C–475–827]

Preliminary Affirmative CountervailingDuty Determination and Alignment ofFinal Countervailing DutyDetermination With Final AntidumpingDuty Determination: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel PlateFrom Italy

AGENCY: Import Administration,International Trade Administration,Department of Commerce.EFFECTIVE DATE: July 26, 1999.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Kristen Johnson or Michael Grossman,Office of CVD/AD Enforcement II,Import Administration, U.S. Departmentof Commerce, Room 4012, 14th Streetand Constitution Avenue, NW,Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202)482–2786.PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION: TheDepartment of Commerce (theDepartment) preliminarily determinesthat countervailable subsidies are beingprovided to certain producers andexporters of certain cut-to-lengthcarbon-quality steel plate from Italy. Forinformation on the estimatedcountervailing duty rates, please see the‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section ofthis notice.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Petitioners

The petition in this investigation wasfiled by Bethlehem Steel Corporation,U.S. Steel Group, a Unit of USXCorporation, Gulf States, Inc., IPSCOSteel Inc., and the United Steelworkersof America (the petitioners).

Case History

Since the publication of the notice ofinitiation in the Federal Register (seeNotice of Initiation of CountervailingDuty Investigations: Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate fromFrance, India, Indonesia, Italy, and theRepublic of Korea, 64 FR 12996 (March16, 1999) (Initiation Notice)), thefollowing events have occurred: OnMarch 19, 1999, we issuedcountervailing duty questionnaires tothe Government of Italy (GOI), theEuropean Commission (EC), and theproducers/exporters of the subjectmerchandise (CTL plate). On April 21,1999, we postponed the preliminarydetermination of this investigation untilno later than July 16, 1999. See CertainCut-To-Length Carbon-Quality SteelPlate from France, India, Indonesia,Italy, and the Republic of Korea:

Postponement of Time Limit forPreliminary Determination ofCountervailing Duty Investigations, 64FR 23057 (April 29, 1999).

We received responses to our initialquestionnaires from the EC on May 6,1999, and the GOI on May 10 and 28,1999. Palini & Bertoli S.p.A. (Palini &Bertoli), a producer of the subjectmerchandise which had exports to theUnited States in 1998, submitted itsquestionnaire response on May 11,1999. ILVA Lamiere e Tubi S.p.A. andILVA S.p.A. (collectively referred to asILVA/ILT) submitted their jointquestionnaire response on May 13,1999. (ILT produced the subjectmerchandise which was exported to theUnited States by ILVA in 1998.) On May25, 1999, we issued a supplementalquestionnaire to Palini & Bertoli, andreceived the company’s response onJune 14, 1999. On June 1, 1999, weissued supplemental questionnaires tothe EC, GOI, and ILVA/ILT. Thesupplemental questionnaire responseswere submitted by the EC on June 15,1999, by ILVA/ILT on June 21, 1999,and by the GOI on June 22, 1999. Wealso issued supplemental questionnaireson June 22, 1999, to Palini & Bertoli,and June 29, 1999, to the EC, GOI, andILVA/ILT. The responses weresubmitted on July 6, 1999, by Palini &Bertoli and the EC, on July 8 and 9,1999, by the GOI, and July 9, 1999, byILVA/ILT. On July 13 and 14, 1999,ILVA/ILT submitted additionalinformation on the record.

In its supplemental response, Palini &Bertoli indicated that the companyreceived benefits under two regionalgovernment laws during the POI, i.e.,Law 25/65 and Law 30/84. TheDepartment did not receive a request bypetitioners to examine these potentialbenefits, hence we did not initiate onthese laws in the Initiation Notice. Law25/65, adopted by the RegionalGovernment of Friuli-Venezia Giulia,provides interest contributions on loanstaken by small- and medium-sizedenterprises for the construction,enlargement, or technical renovation ofindustrial plants throughout the region.Palini & Bertoli received interestcontributions during the POI on oneloan contracted in 1990. Palini & Bertolialso received a capital grant under Law30/84 of the Regional Government ofFriuli-Venezia Giulia. Regional Law 30/84 provides capital grants to industrialand handicraft enterprises intending toopen new productive sites or torestructure existing plants withincertain mountainous areas of the region.Due to the fact that this information wasbrought to the Department’s attentionjust prior to the preliminary

determination, the Department is unableto make a determination on thecountervailability of these programs atthis time. More specifically, theDepartment does not have sufficientinformation to perform an appropriatespecificity analysis of the abovementioned programs. We will requestadditional and clarifying informationwith regard to these programs fromPalini & Bertoli and the RegionalGovernment of Friuli-Venezia Giulia,and will present our findings in theFinal Determination of thisinvestigation.

Scope of InvestigationThe products covered by this scope

are certain hot-rolled carbon-qualitysteel: (1) universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four faces orin a closed box pass, of a widthexceeding 150 mm but not exceeding1250 mm, and of a nominal or actualthickness of not less than 4 mm, whichare cut-to-length (not in coils) andwithout patterns in relief), of iron ornon-alloy-quality steel; and (2) flat-rolled products, hot-rolled, of a nominalor actual thickness of 4.75 mm or moreand of a width which exceeds 150 mmand measures at least twice thethickness, and which are cut-to-length(not in coils).

Steel products to be included in thisscope are of rectangular, square, circularor other shape and of rectangular ornon-rectangular cross-section wheresuch non-rectangular cross-section isachieved subsequent to the rollingprocess (i.e., products which have been‘‘worked after rolling’’)—for example,products which have been beveled orrounded at the edges. Steel productsthat meet the noted physicalcharacteristics that are painted,varnished or coated with plastic or othernon-metallic substances are includedwithin this scope. Also, specificallyincluded in this scope are high strength,low alloy (HSLA) steels. HSLA steels arerecognized as steels with micro-alloyinglevels of elements such as chromium,copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium,and molybdenum.

Steel products to be included in thisscope, regardless of Harmonized TariffSchedule of the United States (HTSUS)definitions, are products in which: (1)Iron predominates, by weight, over eachof the other contained elements, (2) thecarbon content is two percent or less, byweight, and (3) none of the elementslisted below is equal to or exceeds thequantity, by weight, respectivelyindicated:1.80 percent of manganese, or1.50 percent of silicon, or1.00 percent of copper, or



0.50 percent of aluminum, or1.25 percent of chromium, or0.30 percent of cobalt, or0.40 percent of lead, or1.25 percent of nickel, or0.30 percent of tungsten, or0.10 percent of molybdenum, or0.10 percent of niobium, or0.41 percent of titanium, or0.15 percent of vanadium, or0.15 percent zirconium.

All products that meet the writtenphysical description, and in which thechemistry quantities do not equal orexceed any one of the levels listedabove, are within the scope of theseinvestigations unless otherwisespecifically excluded. The followingproducts are specifically excluded fromthese investigations: (1) Products clad,plated, or coated with metal, whether ornot painted, varnished or coated withplastic or other non-metallic substances;(2) SAE grades (formerly AISI grades) ofseries 2300 and above; (3) productsmade to ASTM A710 and A736 or theirproprietary equivalents; (4) abrasion-resistant steels (i.e., USS AR 400, USSAR 500); (5) products made to ASTMA202, A225, A514 grade S, A517 gradeS, or their proprietary equivalents; (6)ball bearing steels; (7) tool steels; and (8)silicon manganese steel or siliconelectric steel.

The merchandise subject to theseinvestigations is classified in theHTSUS under subheadings:7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060,7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045,7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000,7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000,7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000,7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030,7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000,7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000,7212.50.0000, 7225.40.3050,7225.40.7000, 7225.50.6000,7225.99.0090, 7226.91.5000,7226.91.7000, 7226.91.8000,7226.99.0000.

Although the HTSUS subheadings areprovided for convenience and Customspurposes, the written description of themerchandise under investigation isdispositive.

Scope Comments

As stated in our notice of initiation,we set aside a period for parties to raiseissues regarding product coverage. Inparticular, we sought comments on thespecific levels of alloying elements setout in the description below, the clarityof grades and specifications excludedfrom the scope, and the physical andchemical description of the productcoverage.

On March 29, 1999, Usinor, arespondent in the French antidumping

and countervailing duty investigationsand Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd. andPohang Iron and Steel Co., Ltd.,respondents in the Korean antidumpingand countervailing duty investigations(collectively the Korean respondents),filed comments regarding the scope ofthe investigations. On April 14, 1999,the petitioners responded to Usinor’sand the Korean respondents’ comments.In addition, on May 17, 1999, ILVA/ILT,a respondent in the Italian antidumpingand countervailing duty investigations,requested guidance on whether certainproducts are within the scope of theseinvestigations.

Usinor requested that the Departmentmodify the scope to exclude: (1) Platethat is cut to non-rectangular shapes orthat has a total final weight of less than200 kilograms; and (2) steel that is 4′′ orthicker and which is certified for use inhigh-pressure, nuclear or other technicalapplications; and (3) floor plate (i.e.,plate with ‘‘patterns in relief’’) madefrom hot-rolled coil. Further, Usinorrequested that the Department provideclarification of scope coverage withrespect to what it argues are over-inclusive HTSUS subheadings includedin the scope language.

The Department has not modified thescope of these investigations becausethe current language reflects the productcoverage requested by the petitioners,and Usinor’s products meet the productdescription. With respect to Usinor’sclarification request, we do not agreethat the scope language requires furtherelucidation with respect to productcoverage under the HTSUS. Asindicated in the scope section of everyDepartment antidumping andcountervailing duty proceeding, theHTSUS subheadings are provided forconvenience and Customs purposesonly; the written description of themerchandise under investigation orreview is dispositive.

The Korean respondents requestedconfirmation whether the maximumalloy percentages listed in the scopelanguage are definitive with respect tocovered HSLA steels.

At this time, no party has presentedany evidence to suggest that thesemaximum alloy percentages areinappropriate. Therefore, we have notadjusted the scope language. As in allproceedings, questions as to whether ornot a specific product is covered by thescope should be timely raised withDepartment officials.

ILVA/ILT requested guidance onwhether certain merchandise producedfrom billets is within the scope of thecurrent CTL plate investigations.According to ILVA/ILT, the billets areconverted into wide flats and bar

products (a type of long product). ILVA/ILT notes that one of the long products,when rolled, has a thickness range thatfalls within the scope of theseinvestigations. However, according toILVA/ILT, the greatest possible width ofthese long products would only slightlyoverlap the narrowest category of widthcovered by the scope of theinvestigations. Finally, ILVA/ILT statesthat these products have differentproduction processes and propertiesthan merchandise covered by the scopeof the investigations and therefore arenot covered by the scope of theinvestigations.

As ILVA/ILT itself acknowledges, theparticular products in question appearto fall within the parameters of thescope and, therefore, we are treatingthem as covered merchandise forpurposes of these investigations.

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 theDepartment’s regulations are to theregulations codified at 19 CFR part 351(1998) and to the substantivecountervailing duty regulationspublished in the Federal Register onNovember 25, 1998 (63 FR 65348) (CVDRegulations).

Injury TestBecause Italy is a ‘‘Subsidies

Agreement Country’’ within themeaning of section 701(b) of the Act, theInternational Trade Commission (ITC) isrequired to determine whether importsof the subject merchandise from Italymaterially injure, or threaten materialinjury to, a U.S. industry. On April 8,1999, the ITC published its preliminarydetermination that there is a reasonableindication that an industry in theUnited States is being materiallyinjured, or threatened with materialinjury, by reason of imports from Italyof the subject merchandise (see CertainCut-to-Length Steel Plate From theCzech Republic, France, India,Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, andMacedonia; Determinations, 64 FR17198 (April 8, 1999)).

Alignment With Final AntidumpingDuty Determination

On July 2, 1999, the petitionerssubmitted a letter requesting alignmentof the final determination in thisinvestigation with the finaldetermination in the companion



1 As discussed in this section, ILVA/ILT’s carbonsteel predecessor companies are: Nuova Italsider(1981–1987), Italsider (1987–1988), ILVA S.p.A.(1989–1993), and ILP (1994–1996).

antidumping duty investigation. SeeInitiation of Antidumping DutyInvestigations: Certain Cut-To-LengthCarbon-Quality Steel Plate from theCzech Republic, France, India,Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Republic ofKorea, and the Former YugoslavRepublic of Macedonia, 64 FR 12959(March 16, 1999). In accordance withsection 705(a)(1) of the Act, we arealigning the final determination in thisinvestigation with the finaldeterminations in the antidumpinginvestigations of certain cut-to-lengthcarbon-quality steel plate.

Period of InvestigationThe period of investigation for which

we are measuring subsidies (the POI) iscalendar year 1998.

Corporate History of ILVA/ ILT 1

Prior to 1981, the Italian governmentholding company Istituto per laRicostruzione Industriale (IRI),controlled Italy’s nationalized steelindustry through its wholly-ownedsubsidiary, Finsider S.p.A (Finsider).The steel operations of Finsider weresubdivided into three main companies:Italsider (carbon steel); Terni (stainlessand special steel); and Dalmine (pipeand tube). Italsider was the sector leaderand the primary producer of the subjectmerchandise. In 1981, the GOIimplemented a restructuring plan, andFinsider was restructured into severaloperating companies including NuovaItalsider (carbon steel flat products);Terni (speciality flat steels); Nuova Sias(special long products); and other steelproduct divisions. In the course of the1981 Restructuring Plan, Italsidertransferred all of its assets, with theexception of certain plants, to NuovaItalsider. Italsider became a one-company holding company with NuovaItalsider’s stock as its primary asset.

During 1987, Finsider restructuredthree of its main operating companies:Nuova Italsider, Deltasider, and Terni.Nuova Italsider spun-off its assets toItalsider and transferred its shares inItalsider to Finsider. Nuova Italsiderceased operations after this divestmentand Finsider had direct ownership ofItalsider. Upon completion of the 1987restructuring, Italsider re-emerged as thesteel sector’s carbon steel productsproducer.

Later in 1987, Finsider and its mainoperating companies (Italsider, TAS,and Nuova Deltasider) were placed inliquidation and the GOI subsequentlyimplemented the 1988 Restructuring

Plan. The goal of the 1988 RestructuringPlan was to restructure Finsider and itsoperating companies, assembling thegroup’s most productive assets into anew operating company, ILVA S.p.A.(ILVA S.p.A. or (old) ILVA), whichbegan operations on January 1, 1989.The 1988 Restructuring Plan, like the1981 plan, was submitted and approvedby the EC. In accordance with the plan,ILVA S.p.A. took over some of the assetsand liabilities of the liquidatingcompanies, and Finsider closed certainfacilities to comply with the EC’srequirements. With respect to Italsider,part of the company’s liabilities and themajority of its viable assets, includingall the assets associated with theproduction of carbon steel flat-rolledproducts, were transferred to ILVAS.p.A. on January 1, 1989. Non-productive assets and a substantialamount of liabilities were left behindwith Finsider and the liquidatingoperating companies.

The facilities retained by ILVA S.p.Awere organized into four primaryoperating groups: Carbon steel flatproducts, stainless steel flat products,stainless steel long products, andseamless pipe and tube. In 1992, ILVALamiere e Tubi (ILT), a carbon steel flatproducts operation, was created as awholly-owned subsidiary of ILVAS.p.A. ILVA S.p.A. was also the majorityowner of a large number of separatelyincorporated subsidiaries. Some of thesesubsidiaries produced various types ofsteel products. Others constitutedservice centers, trading companies, andan electric power company, amongothers. ILVA S.p.A., together with itssubsidiaries, constituted the ILVAGroup. The ILVA Group was wholly-owned by IRI.

Although, ILVA S.p.A. was profitablein 1989 and 1990, the companyencountered financial difficulties in1991, and became insolvent by 1993. InOctober 1993, ILVA S.p.A. entered intoliquidation and became known as ILVAResidua (a.k.a., ILVA in Liquidation). InDecember 1993, IRI initiated thesplitting of ILVA S.p.A.’s mainproductive assets into two newcompanies: ILVA Laminati Piani(carbon steel flat products) (ILP) andAcciai Speciali Terni (AST) (specialityand stainless steel flat products). OnDecember 31, 1993, ILP and ASTbecame separately incorporated firms inadvance of privatization. ILT, the carbonflat steel products operation, wastransferred to ILP as its wholly-ownedsubsidiary. The remainder of ILVAS.p.A.’s productive assets and existingliabilities, along with much of theredundant workforce, was placed inILVA Residua.

On January 1, 1994, ILP was formallyestablished as a separate corporation. In1995, 100 percent of ILP was soldthrough a competitive public tendermanaged by IRI with the assistance ofIstituto Mobiliare Italiano (IMI). Thesale of ILP was executed through a sharepurchase agreement between IRI and aconsortium of investors led by RivaAcciaio S.p.A. (RIVA) and investmentcompanies. The contract of sale wassigned on March 16, 1995, and allshares of ILP were transferred to theconsortium on April 28, 1995. As of thatdate, the GOI no longer maintained anyownership interest in ILP or had anyownership interest in any of ILP’s newowners.

On January 1, 1997, RIVA changed thename of ILP to ILVA S.p.A (creating the‘‘new’’ ILVA, referred to hereafter asILVA or (new) ILVA). ILVA continues towholly-own ILT. Within RIVA’scorporate structure, ILT, at its TarantoWorks facility, produces the subjectmerchandise, which is exported to theUnited States. ILVA, with the assistanceof ILVA Commerciale S.p.A. (ICO), asales company wholly-owned by ILVA,is responsible for selling and exportingthe subject merchandise to the UnitedStates and other markets.

As of 1998, RIVA owns and/orcontrols 82.0 percent of ILVA and twoforeign-incorporated investmentcompanies own the remaining 18.0percent of ILVA.

According to ILVA/ILT, SidercomitTaranto C.S. Lamiere S.r.l. (Sidercomit)was created in 1992, as an indirectsubsidiary of (old) ILVA. Sidercomitbecame an operating unit within (new)ILVA in 1997, and currently operatesservice centers for the distribution ofmerchandise, including the subjectmerchandise for ILVA/ILT. Any benefitsto Sidercomit under programs that havepreliminarily been foundcountervailable have been mentionedseparately within those programsections below.

Corporate History of Palini & BertoliPalini & Bertoli, a 100 percent

privately-owned corporation, wasincorporated in December 1963. Palini &Bertoli has never been part of the Italianstate-owned steel industry.

Change in OwnershipIn the General Issues Appendix (GIA),

appended to the Final AffirmativeCountervailing Duty Determination:Certain Steel Products from Austria, 58FR 37217, 37226 (July 9, 1993) (CertainSteel from Austria), we applied a newmethodology with respect to thetreatment of subsidies received prior tothe sale of a government-owned



company to a private entity (i.e.,privatization), or the spinning-off (i.e.,sale) of a productive unit from agovernment-owned company to aprivate entity.

Under this methodology, we estimatethe portion of the purchase priceattributable to prior subsidies. We dothis by first dividing the sold company’ssubsidies by the company’s net worthfor each year during the periodbeginning with the earliest point atwhich non-recurring subsidies would beattributable to the POI and ending oneyear prior to the sale of the company.We then take the simple average of theseratios. This averaged ratio serves as areasonable estimate of the percent thatsubsidies constitute of the overall valueof the company. Next, we multiply thisratio by the purchase price to derive theportion of the purchase priceattributable to the payment of priorsubsidies. Finally, we reduce the benefitstreams of the prior subsidies by theratio of the repayment amount to the netpresent value of all remaining benefitsat the time the company is sold.

With respect to the spin-off of aproductive unit, consistent with theDepartment’s methodology set outabove, we analyze the sale of aproductive unit to determine whatportion of the sales price of theproductive unit can be attributable tothe repayment of prior subsidies. Toperform this calculation, we firstdetermine the amount of the seller’ssubsidies that the spun-off productiveunit could potentially take with it. Tocalculate this amount, we divide thevalue of the assets of the spun-off unitby the value of the assets of thecompany selling the unit. We thenapply this ratio to the net present valueof the seller’s remaining subsidies. Theresult of this calculation yields theamount of remaining subsidiesattributable to the spun off productiveunit. We next estimate the portion of thepurchase price going towards repaymentof prior subsidies in accordance withthe methodology set out above, anddeduct it from the maximum amount ofsubsidies that could be attributable tothe spun-off productive unit.

Use of Facts AvailableBoth the GOI and ILVA/ILT failed to

fully respond to the Department’squestionnaires concerning the program‘‘Debt Forgiveness: 1981 RestructuringPlan.’’ Section 776(a)(2) of the Actrequires the use of facts available whenan interested party withholdsinformation that has been requested bythe Department, or when an interestedparty fails to provide the informationrequested in a timely manner and in the

form required. In such cases, theDepartment must use the facts otherwiseavailable in reaching the applicabledetermination. Because the GOI andILVA/ILT failed to submit theinformation that was specificallyrequested by the Department, we havebased our preliminary determination forthis program on the facts available. Inaddition, the Department finds that bynot providing the requestedinformation, respondents have failed tocooperate to the best of their abilities.

In accordance with section 776(b) ofthe Act, the Department may use aninference that is adverse to the interestsof that party in selecting from among thefacts otherwise available when the partyhas failed to cooperate by not acting tothe best of its ability to comply with arequest for information. Such adverseinference may include reliance oninformation derived from (1) thepetition; (2) a final determination in acountervailing duty or an antidumpinginvestigation; (3) any previousadministrative review, new shipperreview, expedited antidumping review,section 753 review, or section 762review; or (4) any other informationplaced on the record. See 19 CFR351.308(c). In the absence ofinformation from the GOI and ILVA/ILT, we consider the petition, as well asour findings from the finaldetermination of Certain Steel from Italyto be appropriate bases for a factsavailable countervailing duty ratecalculation.

The Statement of AdministrativeAction accompanying the URAAclarifies that information from thepetition and prior segments of theproceeding is ‘‘secondary information.’’See Statement of Administrative Action,accompanying H.R. 5110 (H.R. Doc. No.103–316) (1994) (SAA), at 870. If theDepartment relies on secondaryinformation as facts available, section776(c) of the Act provides that theDepartment shall, to the extentpracticable, corroborate suchinformation using independent sourcesreasonably at its disposal. The SAAfurther provides that to corroboratesecondary information means simplythat the Department will satisfy itselfthat the secondary information to beused has probative value. However,where corroboration is not practicable,the Department may use uncorroboratedinformation. With respect to theprogram for which we did not receivecomplete information from therespondents, the secondary informationwas corroborated through exhibits (i.e.,financial statements) attached to thepetition. The financial transactionsdiscussed within Finsider’s 1984 and

1985 financial statements confirm thatthe GOI engaged in transactions whichare tantamount to the assumption ofdebt and debt forgiveness. Based onsuch review of the transactionsdiscussed in the financial statements,we find that the secondary information(i.e., the petition and Certain Steel fromItaly) has probative value and, therefore,the information regarding the debtforgiveness provided under the 1981Restructuring Plan has beencorroborated.

Claims for ‘‘Green Light’’ SubsidyTreatment

Section 771(5B) of the Act describessubsidies that are non-countervailable,the so-called ‘‘green light’’ subsidies.Among these are subsidies todisadvantaged regions. The GOI hasrequested that certain of their regionalsubsidies be considered non-countervailable under the green lightprovisions of section 771(5B).

The GOI has maintained a system of‘‘extraordinary intervention’’ insouthern Italy since the 1950’s,authorizing aid to the disadvantagedregion. Over time, various laws werepassed, including Decree 218/78,relating to the extraordinaryintervention in the South. In 1986, Law64/86 was passed in order toconsolidate all laws relating to theextraordinary intervention in the southinto one development policy. Taxexemptions under Decree 218/78, forwhich the GOI has requested green lighttreatment, is considered part of Law 64/86 for this reason.

In determining whether a specificsubsidy should be accorded green lightstatus, section 771(5B)(C) of the Actestablishes the threshold that thesubsidy be provided pursuant to ageneral framework of regionaldevelopment, i.e., must be part of aninternally consistent and generallyapplicable regional development policy.The region must be considereddisadvantaged on the basis of neutraland objective criteria which do not favorcertain regions beyond what isappropriate for the elimination orreduction of regional disparities withinthis framework. In Certain Pasta fromItaly, 61 FR at 30307, the Departmentdetermined that the GOI did notperform a systematic analysis, usingneutral and objective criteria, in order toidentify the regions which wouldreceive regional development assistanceunder Law 64/86. There is no evidenceon the record of this investigation thatthe GOI performed this necessaryanalysis. While detailed analysis mayhave been done by the EC with respectto its own regional development policy



concerning Italy, there is no indicationthat the GOI undertook the same orsimilar efforts on a national level.

In addition, the Act outlines that asubsidy program cannot provide moreaid than is appropriate for reduction ofregional disparities and must includeceilings on the amount of assistance foreach project. There is no evidence onthe record that the GOI has given anyconsideration to a limit on the amountof assistance that could be awarded withregard to the program in question.Furthermore, there is no evidence thatthe GOI may have been concerned aboutawarding potentially disproportionateamounts to particular enterprises orindustries.

Based on this analysis, wepreliminarily determine that subsidiesreceived under this program do notmeet the standard for green lighttreatment. Our treatment of the benefitsprovided under this program isdiscussed below in the ‘‘ProgramsDetermined To Be Countervailable’’section of our notice.

Subsidies Valuation Information

Allocation Period

Section 351.524(d)(2) of the CVDRegulations states that we will presumethe allocation period for non-recurringsubsidies to be the average useful life(AUL) of renewable physical assets forthe industry concerned, as listed in theInternal Revenue Service’s (IRS) 1977Class Life Asset Depreciation RangeSystem and updated by the Departmentof Treasury. The presumption willapply unless a party claims andestablishes that these tables do notreasonably reflect the AUL of therenewable physical assets for thecompany or industry underinvestigation, and the party canestablish that the difference between thecompany-specific or country-wide AULfor the industry under investigation issignificant.

On June 21, 1999, ILVA/ILTsubmitted to the Department four tablesillustrating its company-specific AULcalculations for (old) ILVA, ILP, ILT,and (new) ILVA, both separately and incombination. Based upon our analysisof the data submitted by ILVA/ILTregarding the AUL of its assets, wepreliminarily determine that thecalculation which takes intoconsideration all producers of thesubject merchandise over the past 10years is the most appropriate AULcalculation. However, because thiscalculation does not yield a company-specific AUL which is significantlydifferent from the AUL listed in the IRStables, we are using the 15 year AUL as

reported in the IRS tables to allocatenon-recurring subsidies underinvestigation for ILVA/ILT in thepreliminary calculations.

EquityworthinessIn measuring the benefit from a

government equity infusion, inaccordance with § 351.507 (a)(2) of theDepartment’s CVD Regulations, theDepartment compares the price paid bythe government for the equity to actualprivate investor prices, if such pricesexist. According to § 351.507(a)(3) of theDepartment’s CVD Regulations, whereactual private investor prices areunavailable, the Department willdetermine whether the firm wasunequityworthy at the time of the equityinfusion. In this case, private investorprices were unavailable. Therefore, ourreview of the record has not led us tochange our finding from priorinvestigations, in which we foundILVA/ILT’s predecessor companies,Nuova Italsider and (old) ILVA,unequityworthy from 1984 through1988, and from 1991 through 1992. See,e.g., Final Affirmative CountervailingDuty Determinations: Certain SteelProducts from Italy, 58 FR 37327, 37328(July 9, 1993) (Certain Steel from Italy);Final Affirmative Countervailing DutyDetermination: Certain Stainless SteelWire Rod from Italy, 63 FR 40,474,40,477 (July 29, 1998) (Wire Rod fromItaly); and Final AffirmativeCountervailing Duty Determination:Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coilsfrom Italy, 64 FR 30624, 30627 (June 8,1999) (Sheet and Strip from Italy).

Section 351.507(a)(3) of theDepartment’s CVD Regulations providesthat a determination that a firm isunequityworthy constitutes adetermination that the equity infusionwas inconsistent with usual investmentpractices of private investors. TheDepartment will then apply themethodology described in§ 351.507(a)(6) of the regulations, andtreat the equity infusion as a grant. Useof the grant methodology for equityinfusions into an unequityworthycompany is based on the premise thatan unequityworthiness finding by theDepartment is tantamount to saying thatthe company could not have attractedinvestment capital from a reasonableinvestor in the infusion year based onthe available information.

CreditworthinessWhen the Department examines

whether a company is creditworthy, it isessentially attempting to determine ifthe company in question could obtaincommercial financing at commonlyavailable interest rates. See, e.g., Final

Affirmative Countervailing DutyDeterminations: Certain Steel Productsfrom France, 58 FR 37304 (July 9, 1993),and Final Affirmative CountervailingDuty Determination: Steel Wire Rodfrom Venezuela, 62 FR 55014 (October21, 1997). The Department will considera firm to be uncreditworthy if it isdetermined that, based on informationavailable at the time of the government-provided loan, the firm could not haveobtained a long-term loan fromconventional sources. See§ 351.505(a)(4)(i) of the CVDRegulations.

Italsider, Nuova Italsider, and (old)ILVA were found to be uncreditworthyfrom 1977 through 1993. See CertainSteel from Italy, 58 FR at 37328–29,Wire Rod from Italy, 63 FR at 40477, andSheet and Strip from Italy, 64 FR at30627. No new information has beenpresented in this investigation thatwould lead us to reconsider thesefindings. Therefore, consistent with ourpast practice, we continue to findItalsider, Nuova Italsider, and (old)ILVA uncreditworthy from 1977through 1993. We did not analyze ILP’s,(new) ILVA’s, or ILT’s creditworthinessin the years 1994 through 1998, becausethe companies did not negotiate newloans with the GOI or EC during theseyears.

Benchmarks for Long-Term Loans andDiscount Rates

Consistent with the Department’sfinding in Wire Rod from Italy, 63 FR at40477 and Sheet and Strip from Italy, 64FR at 30626–30627, we have based ourdiscount rates on the Italian Bankers’Association (ABI) rates. The ABI raterepresents a long-term interest rateprovided to a bank’s most preferredcustomers with established low-riskcredit histories. In calculating theinterest rate applicable to a borrower,commercial banks typically add aspread ranging from 0.55 percent to 4.0percent onto the ABI rate, which isdetermined by the company’s financialhealth.

Additionally, information on therecord indicates that the published ABIrates do not include amounts for fees,commissions, and other borrowingexpenses. While we do not haveinformation on the expenses that wouldbe applied to long-term commercialloans, the GOI supplied information onthe borrowing expenses on overdraftloans for 1997, as an approximation ofexpenses on long-term commercialloans. This information shows thatexpenses on overdraft loans range from6.0 to 11.0 percent of interest charged.Such expenses, along with the appliedspread, raise the effective interest rate



2 We note that since publication of the CVDRegulations, Moody’s Investors Service no longerreports default rates for Caa to C-rated category ofcompanies. Therefore for the calculation ofuncreditworthy interest rates, we will continue torely on the default rates as reported in MoodyInvestor Service’s publication dated February 1998(at Exhibit 28).

3 In the Initiation Notice, these equity infusionswere separately listed as ‘‘Equity Infusions intoItalsider/Nuova Italsider’’ and ‘‘Equity Infusionsinto ILVA.’’

that a company would pay. Because itis the Department’s practice to useeffective interest rates, where possible,we are including an amount for theseexpenses in the calculation of oureffective benchmark rates. See§ 351.505(a)(1) of the CVD Regulations.Therefore, we have added the average ofthe spread (i.e., 2.28 percent) andborrowing expenses (i.e., 8.5 percent ofthe interest charged) to the yearly ABIrates to calculate the effective discountrates.

For the years in which ILVA/ILT ortheir predecessor companies wereuncreditworthy (see Creditworthinesssection above), we calculated thediscount rates in accordance with theformula for constructing a long-terminterest rate benchmark foruncreditworthy companies as stated insection 351.505(a)(3)(iii) of the CVDRegulations. This formula requiresvalues for the probability of default byuncreditworthy and creditworthycompanies. For the probability ofdefault by an uncreditworthy company,we relied on the average cumulativedefault rates reported for the Caa to C-rated category of companies aspublished in Moody’s Investors Service,‘‘Historical Default Rates of CorporateBond Issuers, 1920–1997’’ (February1998). For the probability of default bya creditworthy company, we used theaverage cumulative default ratesreported for the Aaa to Baa-ratedcategories of companies as reported inthis study.2 For non-recurring subsidies,the average cumulative default rates forboth uncreditworthy and creditworthycompanies were based on a 15 yearterm, since all of ILVA/ILT’s allocablesubsidies were based on this allocationperiod.

In addition, ILVA/ILT had two long-term, fixed-rate loans under ECSCArticle 54 outstanding during the POI,each denominated in U.S. dollars.Therefore, we have selected a U.S.dollar-based interest rate as ourbenchmark. See § 351.505(a)(2)(i) of theCVD Regulations. Consistent with WireRod from Italy, 63 FR at 40486, we haveused as our benchmark the average yieldto maturity on selected long-termcorporate bonds as reported by the U.S.Federal Reserve, since both of theseloans were denominated in U.S. dollars.We used these rates since we wereunable to find a long-term borrowing

rate for loans denominated in U.S.dollars in Italy. Because ILVA wasuncreditworthy in the year these loanswere contracted, we calculated theuncreditworthy benchmark rates as per§ 351.505(a)(3)(iii) of the CVDRegulations.

I. Programs Determined To BeCountervailable

Government of Italy Programs

A. Equity Infusions to Nuova Italsiderand (old) ILVA 3

The GOI, through IRI, provided newequity capital to Nuova Italsider or (old)ILVA in every year from 1984 through1992, except in 1987, 1989, and 1990.We preliminarily determine that theseequity infusions constitutecountervailable subsidies within themeaning of section 771(5)(B)(i) of theAct. These equity infusions constitutefinancial contributions, as described insection 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act. Becausethey were not consistent with the usualinvestment practices of private investors(see Equityworthiness section above),the equity infusions confer a benefitwithin the meaning of section771(5)(E)(i) of the Act. Because theseequity infusions were limited toFinsider and its operating companies,Nuova Italsider and (old) ILVA, wepreliminarily determine that they arespecific within the meaning of section771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Act.

We have treated these equityinfusions as non-recurring subsidiesgiven in the year the infusion wasreceived because each required aseparate authorization. We allocated theequity infusions over a 15 year AUL.Because Nuova Italsider and (old) ILVAwere uncreditworthy in the years theequity infusions were received, weconstructed uncreditworthy discountrates to allocate the benefits over time.See ‘‘Subsidies Valuation Information’’section, above.

For equity infusions originallyprovided to Nuova Italsider, apredecessor company that producedcarbon steel plate, we examined theseequity infusions as though they hadflowed directly through (old) ILVA toILP when ILP took the carbon steel flatproduct assets out of (old) ILVA.Accordingly, we did not apportion tothe other operations of (old) ILVA anypart of the equity infusions originallyprovided directly to Nuova Italsider.While we acknowledge that it would beour preference to look at equityinfusions into (old) ILVA as a whole and

then apportion an amount to ILP whenit was spun-off from (old) ILVA, we findour approach in this case to be the mostfeasible since information on equityinfusions provided to the non-carbonsteel operations of (old) ILVA is notavailable. For the equity infusions to(old) ILVA, however, we did apportionthese by asset value to all (old) ILVAoperations in determining the amountapplicable to ILP.

We applied the repayment portion ofour change in ownership methodologyto all of the equity infusions describedabove to determine the subsidyallocable to ILP after its privatization.We divided this amount by ILVA/ILT’stotal consolidated sales during the POI.On this basis, we preliminarilydetermine the net countervailablesubsidy to be 2.76 percent ad valoremfor ILVA/ILT. Palini & Bertoli did notreceive any equity infusions from theGOI.

B. Debt Forgiveness: 1981 RestructuringPlan

The GOI reported that the objective ofthe 1981 Restructuring Plan was toredress the economic and financialdifficulties the iron and steel industrywas realizing in the early 1980’s. TheGOI stated that this plan, whichextended to 1985, due to the prolongedcrisis within the sector, envisagedfinancial interventions to aid in therecovery of the Finsider group. Asdiscussed above in the ‘‘Use of FactsAvailable’’ section, the GOI and ILVA/ILT failed to submit completeinformation in regard to the assistanceprovided under the 1981 RestructuringPlan. Therefore, based on the factsavailable, we preliminarily determinethat certain financial transactionsconducted in association with the 1981Restructuring Plan are countervailablesubsidies.

Following Italsider’s transfer of all itscompany facilities to Nuova Italsider inSeptember 1981, Italsider held 99.99percent of Nuova Italsider’s shares. In1983, Italsider was placed inliquidation. While in liquidation,Italsider sold its shares of NuovaItalsider to Finsider in December 1994.The sales price was 714.6 billion lire. Aspart of this payment, Finsider assumedItalsider’s debts owed to IRI of 696.4billion lire. The difference between the714.6 billion lire and 696.4 billion lirewas paid directly by Finsider toItalsider.

On December 31, 1984, Finsider alsogranted to Italsider a non-interestbearing loan of 563.5 billion lire tocover losses realized from theliquidation. A matching provision wasalso made to Finsider’s ‘‘Reserve for



4 The subject merchandise which ILT producedand (new) ILVA exported to the United States in1998, was produced at the Taranto facilities.

Losses on Investments and Securities,’’to cover the losses of the liquidation ofItalsider. Following a shareholders’meeting of Finsider on December 30,1985, the amount of 563.5 billion lirewas disbursed to cover the losses ofItalsider and Italsider’s state ofliquidation was revoked.

In Certain Steel from Italy, theDepartment determined that the 1981Restructuring Plan merely shifted assetsand debts within a family of companies,all of which were owned by Finsider,and ultimately, by the GOI. Therefore,we determined that both the 696.4billion lire assumption of debt and the563.5 billion lire debt forgiveness werespecifically limited to the steelcompanies and constitutecountervailable subsidies. See CertainSteel from Italy, 58 FR at 37330. No newfactual information or evidence ofchanged circumstances has beenprovided to the Department in thisinstant investigation to warrant areconsideration of the earlierdetermination that the debt assumptionand debt forgiveness are countervailablesubsidies. Therefore, consistent withour treatment of these transactions inCertain Steel from Italy, wepreliminarily determine that the 1984assumption of debt and 1985 debtforgiveness constitute countervailablesubsidies within the meaning of section771(5)(B)(i) of the Act. In accordancewith Certain Steel from Italy, debtassumption and debt forgiveness aretreated as grants which constitutefinancial contributions under section771(5)(D)(i) of the Act. The transactionsalso confer benefits to the recipientwithin the meaning of section771(5)(E)(i) of the Act, in the amount ofthe debt coverage. Because the debtassumption and debt forgiveness werelimited to Italsider, ILVA/ILT’spredecessor, we preliminarily determinethat these transactions are specificwithin the meaning of section771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Act.

To calculate the benefit, we havetreated the assumption of debt and debtforgiveness to Italsider as non-recurringsubsidies because each transaction wasa one-time, extraordinary event. Weallocated the 1984 debt assumption and1985 debt forgiveness over a 15 yearAUL. See the ‘‘Allocation Period’’section, above. In our grant formula, weused constructed uncreditworthydiscount rates based on ourdetermination that Italsider wasuncreditworthy in 1984 and 1985. See‘‘Benchmark for Long-Term Loans andDiscount Rates’’ and ‘‘Creditworthiness’’sections, above. As with the equityinfusions made into Nuova Italsider and(old) ILVA, we have treated the

assumption of debt and debt forgivenessas though the transactions had floweddirectly through (old) ILVA to ILP. Todetermine the amount appropriatelyallocated to ILP after its privatization,we followed the methodology describedin the ‘‘Change in Ownership’’ sectionabove. We divided this amount byILVA/ILT’s total consolidated salesduring the POI. On this basis, wepreliminarily determine the netcountervailable subsidy to be 1.10percent ad valorem for ILVA/ILT. Palini& Bertoli did not receive any benefitunder this program.

C. Debt Forgiveness: 1988 RestructuringPlan

As discussed above in the ‘‘CorporateHistory of ILVA/ILT’’ section of thisnotice, the GOI liquidated Finsider andits main operating companies in 1988,and assembled the group’s mostproductive assets into a new operatingcompany, ILVA S.p.A. (i.e., (old) ILVA).The Finsider restructuring plan wasdeveloped at the end of 1987, and wasapproved by the GOI on June 14, 1988,and by the EC on December 23, 1988.The objective of the plan was to restorethe industrial, financial, and economicbalance to the public iron and steel-making sector in Italy. The restructuringplan included the voluntary liquidationby IRI of Finsider, and IRI’s assumptionof the debts not covered by the sale ofassets of the companies beingliquidated. IRI was the sole owner ofFinsider, and therefore, the partyresponsible for payment of the debts ofFinsider’s liquidation.

A transfer of assets and liabilitiesfrom Finsider to (old) ILVA was to beaccomplished at the latest by March 31,1989. Upon completion of the 1988Restructuring Plan, (old) ILVA ownedFinsider’s productive assets and a smallportion of the group’s liabilities.Included in the transfer were theproductive portions of the flat-rolledfacilities located at Taranto, Genoa, andNovi Ligure.4 The liquidatingcompanies retained the non-productiveassets and the vast majority of theliabilities, which had to be repaid,assumed, or forgiven. Thus, while (old)ILVA emerged from the process with apositive net worth, the other companieswere left with capital structures inwhich their liabilities greatly exceededthe liquidation value of their assets.

We preliminarily determine thatcertain financial transactions associatedwith the 1988 Restructuring Planconstituted countervailable subsidies. In

1988, IRI established a fund of 2,943billion lire to cover losses whichFinsider would realize while inliquidation. As of December 31, 1988,Finsider had accumulated losses inexcess of its equity. In order to preventFinsider from becoming insolventduring 1989, IRI utilized 1,364 billionlire of the fund to forgive debts it wasowed by Finsider to cover the losses.

Later in 1990, IRI forgave debts it wasowed by Finsider when it purchased(old) ILVA’s stock from Finsider andTerni for 2,983 billion lire. The 2,983billion lire was used to pay off theliquidation companies’ debts whichexisted at the time of the sale.

In Certain Steel from Italy, we foundIRI’s purchase of ILVA’s stock to be acountervailable subsidy because iteffectively forgave Finsider’s debts.Though ILVA/ILT, in its July 8, 1999response, does not dispute that IRIpurchased (old) ILVA’s stock in 1990,the company disagrees with our earliercharacterization that the share purchasewas an act of debt forgiveness. Wedisagree with ILVA/ILT andpreliminarily find that IRI’s purchase of(old) ILVA’s stock to be tantamount todebt forgiveness; however, we will seekfurther clarification of the stockpurchase transaction from ILVA/ILTand the GOI.

In the February 16, 1999 petition,petitioners also alleged that IRI forgaveapproximately 1.9 trillion lire ofFinsider’s debt in 1991. They note thatthe Department countervailed such anamount in Certain Steel from Italy. Inthe instant investigation, both the GOIand ILVA/ILT reported that neitherparty has record information of suchdebt forgiven by IRI in 1991. Wereviewed the petitioners’ allegation andthe documentation submitted to supporttheir claim that IRI provided debtforgiveness of 1.9 trillion lire in 1991. Inparticular, we note that Finsider’s 1989Annual Report at page 12 states that:‘‘During the fiscal year, your company[Finsider] recorded losses totaling 1,568billion lire; therefore, the circumstancesreoccur for which the shareholder IRIlater renounced its own creditsnecessary to cover the difference.’’

Because Finsider realized a net loss of1,568 billion lire for fiscal year 1989, inorder to avoid insolvency of thecompany, as in 1988, IRI should haveforgiven the 1,568 billion lire it was duefrom Finsider to cover the company’slosses in excess of equity during 1990.However, according to IRI’s 1990Annual Report, IRI did not forgive the1,568 billion lire by drawing down fromthe fund it established in 1988, to coverFinsider’s losses while in liquidation.Since we cannot track with any degree



5 This program was referred to as ‘‘DebtForgiveness Given in the Course of Privatization inConnection with the 1993–1994 RestructuringPlan’’ in the Initiation Notice (see 64 FR at 13000).

of certainty what became of Finsider’sindebtedness to IRI in 1990, or insubsequent fiscal years, we will gatherinformation on what became of the1,568 billion lire of losses in the contextof seeking clarification of the assistanceprovided under the 1988 RestructuringPlan.

Also, in the GOI’s July 8, 1999response, the government reported that,in addition to the debt forgiveness IRIprovided to Finsider in 1989, IRIdisbursed 205 billion lire as authorizedby the EC, to cover losses before plantclosures. ILVA/ILT, however, in its July8, 1999 response, stated that IRIprovided 738 billion lire to cover lossesand expenditures during the liquidationprocess. For purposes of thispreliminary determination, weconclude, based on the informationprovided to the Department by ILVA/ILT, that IRI provided 738 billion lire toFinsider to cover losses in 1989.However, because the informationsubmitted on the record with respect tothe assistance IRI provided to coverlosses during the liquidation process isambiguous, we will seek furtherclarification of the assistance providedfrom the GOI and ILVA/ILT atverification.

Consistent with our determination inCertain Steel from Italy, wepreliminarily determine that the debtforgiveness and coverage of losses,which IRI provided in 1989 and 1990,constitute countervailable subsidieswithin the meaning of section771(5)(B)(i) of the Act. In accordancewith our practice, debt forgiveness andcoverage of losses are treated as grantswhich constitutes a financialcontribution under section 771(5)(D)(i)of the Act, and provides a benefit in theamount of the debt coverage. Becausethe debt forgiveness and coverage oflosses were received by only (old) ILVA,a predecessor company of ILVA/ILT, wepreliminarily determine that the debtcoverage is specific under section771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Act. See CertainSteel from Italy, 58 FR at 37330.

To determine the benefit from thesesubsidies, we have treated the amountof debt forgiveness and coverage oflosses provided under the 1988Restructuring Plan as non-recurringgrants because they were one-time,extraordinary events. In its July 8, 1999response, ILVA/ILT reported that (old)ILVA did not receive all of Finsider’sassets when the company wasestablished. ILVA/ILT provided an assetallocation table, which demonstratesthat only 68.4 percent of Finsider’sassets were transferred to (old) ILVA. Inperforming the preliminary calculations,we applied this percentage to the total

amount of debt forgiveness and coverageof losses provided to Finsider in 1989and 1990, to determine the amount ofdebt coverage attributable to (old) ILVA.Because (old) ILVA was uncreditworthyin 1989 and 1990, the years in whichthe assistance was provided, we usedconstructed uncreditworthy discountrates to allocate the benefits over time.We allocated the debt coverage providedin 1989 and 1990, over a 15 year AUL.See the ‘‘Subsidies ValuationInformation’’ section, above.

We also apportioned the debtcoverage by asset value to all (old) ILVAoperations in determining the amountapplicable to ILP. We next applied therepayment portion of our change inownership methodology to the debtforgiveness to determine the amount ofthe subsidy allocable to ILP after itsprivatization. We divided this amountby ILVA/ILT’s total consolidated salesduring the POI. On this basis, wepreliminarily determine the netcountervailable subsidy to be 3.64percent ad valorem for ILVA/ILT. Palini& Bertoli did not receive any benefitunder this program.

D. Debt Forgiveness: 1993–1994Restructuring Plan, ILVA-to-ILP 5

During 1992 and 1993, (old) ILVAincurred heavy financial losses, whichcompelled IRI to place the company intoliquidation. In December 1993, theItalian government proposed to the ECa plan to restructure and privatize (old)ILVA by the end of 1994. Thereorganization provided for splitting(old) ILVA’s main productive assets intotwo new companies, ILP and AST. ILPwould consist of the carbon steel flatproduction of (old) ILVA, receiving theTaranto facilities. AST would consist ofthe speciality and stainless steelproduction. The rest of (old) ILVA’sproductive assets (i.e., tubes, electricitygeneration, specialty steel longproducts, and sea transport), togetherwith the bulk of (old) ILVA’s existingdebt and redundant work force wereplaced in a third entity known as ILVAResidua. Under the restructuring plan,ILVA Residua would sell thoseproductive units it could and thenwould be liquidated, with IRI (i.e., theItalian government) absorbing the debt.

As of December 31, 1993, the majorityof (old) ILVA’s viable manufacturingactivities had been separatelyincorporated (or ‘‘demerged’’) intoeither AST or ILP; ILVA Residua wasprimarily a shell company with

liabilities far exceeding assets, althoughit did contain some operating assets thatwere later spun-off. In contrast, ASTand ILP, ready for sale, had operatingassets and relatively modest debt loads.The liabilities remaining with ILVAResidua had to be repaid, assumed, orforgiven. On April 12, 1994, the EC,through the 94/259/ECSC decision,approved the GOI’s restructuring andprivatization plan for (old) ILVA andIRI’s intention to cover ILVA Residua’sremaining liabilities.

We preliminarily determine that ILP(and consequently the subjectmerchandise) received a countervailablesubsidy in 1993, within the meaning ofsection 771(5)(B)(i) of the Act, when thebulk of (old) ILVA’s debt was placed inILVA Residua, rather than beingproportionately allocated to AST andILP. In addition to the debt that wasplaced in ILVA Residua, wepreliminarily determine that the assetwrite-downs which (old) ILVA took in1993, as part of the restructuring/privatization plan, are countervailablesubsidies under section 771(5)(B)(i) ofthe Act. The write-down of assets in1993 officially removed the assets from(old) ILVA’s books and, thus, increasedthe losses to be covered in liquidation.It is the Department’s position thatwhen losses, which are later covered bya government, can be tied to specificassets those assets bear the liability forthe losses that resulted from the write-downs. See Final AffirmativeCountervailing Duty Determination:Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel fromItaly, 59 FR 18357, 18359 (April 18,1994) (Electrical Steel from Italy). The1993 financial statement of (old) ILVAidentifies that the write-downs can betied to the specific assets.

We preliminarily determine that theamount of debt and losses resultingfrom the asset write-downs that shouldhave been attributable to ILP, but wereinstead placed with ILVA Residua, wasequivalent to debt forgiveness for ILP atthe time of its demerger. In accordancewith our practice, debt forgiveness istreated as a grant which constitutes afinancial contribution under section771(5)(D)(i) of the Act, and provides abenefit in the amount of the debtforgiveness.

We also preliminarily determine,based on record evidence, that theliquidation process of (old) ILVA didnot occur under the normal applicationof a provision of Italian law, andtherefore, the debt forgiveness is defacto specific under section771(5A)(D)(iii)(II) of the Act. As statedabove, the liquidation of (old) ILVA wasdone in the context of a massiverestructuring/privatization plan of the



Italian steel industry undertaken by theGOI and approved and monitored by theEC. Because (old) ILVA’s liquidationwas part of an extensive state-aidpackage to privatize the Italian state-owned steel industry, and the debtforgiveness was received by onlyprivatized (old) ILVA operations, wepreliminarily find that the assistanceprovided under the 1993–1994Restructuring Plan is de facto specific.In support of this preliminary finding,we note the EC’s 94/259/ECSC decision,in which the Commission identified therestructuring of (old) ILVA as a singleprogram, the basic objective of whichwas the privatization of the ILVA steelgroup by the end of 1994. As set forthin the EC’s decision, the 1993–1994Restructuring Plan was limited by itsterms to (old) ILVA and the benefits ofthe plan were received by only (old)ILVA’s successor companies.

Consistent with the methodology thatwe employed in the final determinationof Sheet and Strip from Italy, theamount of liabilities that we attributedto ILP is based on the gross liabilitiesleft behind in ILVA Residua, as reportedin the EC’s 10th Monitoring Report. See64 FR at 30628. In calculating theamount of unattributable liabilitiesremaining after the demerger of ILP, westarted with the most recent ‘‘totalcomparable indebtedness’’ amount fromthe 10th Monitoring Report, whichrepresents the indebtedness, net of debtstransferred in the privatization of ILVAResidua’s operations and residual assetsales, of a theoretically reconstituted,pre-liquidation (old) ILVA. In order tocalculate the total amount ofunattributed liabilities which amount tocountervailable debt forgiveness, wemade the following adjustments to thisfigure: for the residual assets that hadnot actually been liquidated as of the10th and final Monitoring Report; forassets that comprised SOFINPAR, a realestate company (because these assetswere sold prior to the demergers of ASTand ILP); for the liabilities transferred toAST and ILP; for income received fromthe privatization of ILVA Residua’soperations; for the amount of the assetwrite-downs specifically attributable toAST, ILP, and ILVA Residua companies;and for the amount of debts transferredto Cogne Acciai Speciali (CAS), an ILVAsubsidiary that was left behind in ILVAResidua and later spun off, as well asthe amount of (old) ILVA debt attributedto CAS and countervailed in Wire Rodfrom Italy, (see, 63 FR at 40478).

The amount of liabilities remainingrepresents the pool of liabilities thatwere not individually attributable tospecific (old) ILVA assets. Weapportioned this debt to AST, ILP, and

operations sold from ILVA Residuabased on their relative asset values. Weused the total consolidated asset valuesreported in AST’s and ILP’s financialstatements for the year ending December31, 1993. For ILVA Residua, we usedthe sum of the purchase price plus debtstransferred as a surrogate for the viableasset value of the operations sold fromILVA Residua. Because we subtracted aspecific amount of ILVA’s grossliabilities attributed to CAS in Wire Rodfrom Italy, we did not include its assetsin the amount of ILVA Residua’sprivatized assets. Also, we did notinclude in ILVA Residua’s viable assetsthose assets sold to IRI, because the saledoes not represent sales to a non-governmental entity. To the amount ofliabilities apportioned to ILP, we addedthe write-downs that were tied to theasset pool which ILP took when it wasseparately incorporated from (old)ILVA.

We have treated the debt forgivenessto ILP as a non-recurring subsidybecause it was a one-time, extraordinaryevent. The discount rate we used in ourgrant formula was a constructeduncreditworthy benchmark rate basedon our determination that (old) ILVAwas uncreditworthy in 1993. See‘‘Benchmarks for Long-Term Loans andDiscount Rates’’ and ‘‘Creditworthiness’’sections, above. We followed themethodology described in the ‘‘Changein Ownership’’ section above todetermine the amount appropriatelyallocated to ILP after its privatization.We divided this amount by ILVA/ILT’stotal consolidated sales during the POI.On this basis, we preliminarilydetermine the net countervailablesubsidy to be 12.40 percent ad valoremfor ILVA/ILT. Palini & Bertoli did notreceive any benefits under this program.

E. Capital Grants to Nuova ItalsiderUnder Law 675/77

The Department has investigated Law675/77 in prior investigations. See, e.g.,Certain Steel from Italy, 58 FR at 37330–31, and the Final AffirmativeCountervailing Duty Determination:Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Italy,64 FR 15508, 15513–14 (March 31,1999) (Plate in Coils from Italy). InCertain Steel from Italy, we learned thatLaw 675/77 created a framework forplanned intervention by the GOI in theeconomy. The law provided financialincentives to industrial firms in certainsectors that submitted development,restructuring, and conversion plans forproduction facilities. In total, elevensectors were identified as eligible forassistance. The types of fundingprovided under Law 675/77 included:(1) Interest payments on bank loans and

bond issues; (2) low interest loansgranted by the Ministry of Industry; (3)grants for companies located in theSouth; (4) grants for personnelretraining; and (5) increased VATreductions for firms located in theMezzogiorno area. In that priorinvestigation, we found that (old) ILVAand its predecessor companies receiveddirect mortgage loans, interestcontributions, and capital grantsbetween 1977 and 1991, under Law 675/77.

In Certain Steel from Italy, we verifiedthat of the ten sectors which receivedLaw 675/77 funding, steel accounted for36.4 percent of the total fundingprovided under Law 675/77. On thisbasis we determined that assistanceprovided to steel companies under Law675/77 is limited to a specific enterpriseor industry, or group of enterprises orindustries. We therefore foundcountervailable capital grants which(old) ILVA and its predecessorcompanies received under Law 675/77.

In the instant investigation, the GOIand ILVA/ILT reported that Italsiderapplied for a capital grant in 1981, foran investment project at the Tarantoplant. The GOI approved the applicationin 1982, and awarded a grant of 125,040million lire to Nuova Italsider. Thecapital grant was disbursed in fourtranches in the years 1985 and 1987.The GOI stated that the capital grantprogram was established in 1977, tosupport the development of regions inthe south of Italy. The only eligibilitycriterion for the receipt of this ‘‘one-time’’ assistance was the location offactories in the south of Italy.

Consistent with our finding in CertainSteel from Italy, we preliminarilydetermine that this program constitutesa countervailable subsidy within themeaning of section 771(5)(B)(i) of theAct. The capital grants constitute afinancial contribution under section771(5)(D)(i) of the Act providing abenefit in the amount of the grants.Because the steel sector was found to bethe dominant user of Law 675/77 andthe capital grants were limited toenterprises located in the south of Italy,we preliminarily determine that theprogram is specific under section771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Act.

To determine the benefit, we havetreated the capital grants as non-recurring subsidies because the receiptof the grants was a one-time,extraordinary event. Because the benefitto Nuova Italsider is greater than 0.5percent of the company’s sales for 1982(the year in which the grant wasapproved), we allocated the benefit overa 15 year AUL. See § 351.524(b)(2) of theCVD Regulations. We applied the



6 On December 31, 1993, (old) ILVA’s mainproductive assets were spun into two newcompanies: ILVA Laminati Piani (carbon steel flatproducts) (ILP) and Acciai Speciali Terni (specialityand stainless steel products) (AST).

change in ownership methodology tothe capital grant to determine thesubsidy allocable to ILP after itsprivatization. We divided this amountby ILVA/ILT’s total consolidated salesfor the POI. On this basis, wepreliminarily determine the netcountervailable subsidy to be 0.13percent ad valorem for ILVA/ILT. Palini& Bertoli did not use this program.

F. Early Retirement BenefitsLaw 451/94 was created to conform

with EC requirements of restructuringand capacity reduction of the Italiansteel industry. Law 451/94 was passedin 1994, and enabled the Italian steelindustry to implement workforcereductions by allowing steel workers toretire early. During the 1994–1996period, and into January 1997, Law 451/94 provided for the early retirement ofup to 17,100 Italian steel workers.Benefits applied for during this periodcontinue until the employee reacheshis/her natural retirement age, up to amaximum of ten years.

In the final determinations of Plate inCoils from Italy and Sheet and Stripfrom Italy, 64 FR at 15514–15 and 64 FRat 30629–30, respectively, theDepartment determined that earlyretirement benefits provided under Law451/94 are countervailable subsidiesunder section 771(5)(B)(i) of the Act.Law 451/94 provides a financialcontribution, as described in section771(5)(D)(i) of the Act, because Law451/94 relieves the company of costs itwould have normally incurred byhaving to employ individuals until thenormal age of retirement. Also, becauseLaw 451/94 was developed for, andexclusively used by, the steel industry,we determined that Law 451/94 isspecific within the meaning of section771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Act. No newfactual information or evidence in theinstant investigation has led us tochange our prior findings that earlyretirements under Law 451/94 arecountervailable.

As we have in the recent finaldeterminations of Plate in Coils fromItaly and Sheet and Strip from Italy, wetreated one-half of the amount paid bythe GOI as benefitting the company.Recognizing that ILP 6 would have beenrequired to enter into negotiations withthe unions before laying off workers, itis impossible for the Department todetermine the outcome of thosenegotiations absent Law 451/94. At oneextreme, the unions might have

succeeded in preventing any lay offs. Ifso, the benefit to ILP would be thedifference between what it would havecost to keep those workers on thepayroll and what ILP actually paidunder Law 451/94. At the other extreme,the negotiations might have failed andILP would have incurred only theminimal costs described under the so-called ‘‘Mobility’’ provision of Law 223/91, which identifies the minimumpayment the company would incurwhen laying off workers permanently.Then the benefit to ILP would have beenthe difference between what it wouldhave paid under Mobility and what thecompany actually paid under Law 451/94.

We have no basis for believing eitherof these extreme outcomes would haveoccurred. It is clear, given the ECregulations, that ILP would have laid offworkers. However, we do not believethat ILP would have simply fired theworkers without reachingaccommodation with the unions. TheGOI has indicated that failure tonegotiate a separation package with theunions would likely lead to strikes,lawsuits and general social unrest.Therefore, we have proceeded on theassumption that ILP’s early retireeswould have received some support fromILP.

In attempting to determine the level ofpost-employment support that ILPwould have negotiated with its unions,we examined the situation facing (old)ILVA before ILP and AST were spun off.By the end of 1993, (old) ILVA hadestablished an overall plan forterminating redundant workers—a planthat would ultimately affect both ILPand AST. Under this plan, early retireeswould first be placed on a temporaryworker assistance measure under Law223/91, Cassa Integrazione Guadagni—Extraordinario (CIG–E), while waitingfor the passage of Law 451/94, and thenwould receive benefits under Law 451/94 when implemented. During theverification of Plate in Coils from Italyand Sheet and Strip from Italy, theDepartment learned from AST officialsthat workers were indeed receivingtemporary benefits under CIG–E whilethey were awaiting the passage of Law451. See Results of AST Verification,Memorandum to the File, datedFebruary 3, 1999 (public version of thedocument is available on the public filein the Central Records Unit (CRU) of theDepartment, Room B–099). Thisindicates that, at the time an agreementwas being negotiated with the unionsand the labor ministry on the terms ofthe lay offs, (old) ILVA and its workerswere aware that governmentcontributions would ultimately be made

to workers’ benefits. In such situations,i.e., where the company and its workersare aware at the time of theirnegotiations that the government will bemaking contributions to the workers’benefits, the Department’s prior practicewas to treat half of the amount paid bythe government as benefitting thecompany. We have stated that when thegovernment’s willingness to provideassistance is known at the time thecontract is being negotiated, thisassistance is likely to have an effect onthe outcome of the negotiations. Whilewe continue to adhere to this logic inthe preamble to the CVD Regulations,we stated that we would examine thefacts of each case to determine theappropriate portion of the funds to beconsidered countervailable. See CVDRegulations, 63 FR at 65380.

With respect to ILP and its workers,we preliminarily determine that, underItalian Law 223, ILP would be requiredto negotiate with its unions about thelevel of benefits that would be made toworkers permanently separated from thecompany. Since (old) ILVA and itsunions were aware at the time of theirnegotiations that the GOI would bemaking payments to those workersunder Law 451/94, some portion of thepayment is countervailable. However,based on the record before us, we haveno basis for apportioning the benefit.Therefore, for the preliminarydetermination, we consider the benefitto ILVA/ILT to be one half of theamount paid to the workers by the GOIunder Law 451/94. We will verify thisprogram further to determine theappropriate benefit.

Consistent with the Department’spractice, we have treated benefits toILVA/ILT under Law 451/94 asrecurring grants expensed in the year ofreceipt. To calculate the benefit receivedby ILVA/ILT during the POI, wemultiplied the number of employees byemployee type (blue collar, white collar,and senior executive) who retired earlyby the average salary by employee type.Since the GOI was making payments tothese workers equaling 80 percent oftheir salary, we attributed one-half ofthat amount to ILVA/ILT. Therefore, wemultiplied the total wages of the earlyretirees by 40 percent. We then dividedthis total amount by ILVA/ILT’s totalconsolidated sales during the POI. Onthis basis, we preliminarily determine anet countervailable subsidy to be 1.41percent ad valorem for ILVA/ILT.

As mentioned in the ‘‘CorporateHistory of ILVA/ILT’’ section of thisnotice, in October 1993, (old) ILVAentered into liquidation and becameknown as ILVA Residua (a.k.a., ILVA inLiquidation). In December 1993, IRI



initiated the splitting of (old) ILVA’smain productive assets into two newcompanies, ILP and AST. On December31, 1993, ILP and AST becameseparately incorporated firms. Theremainder of (old) ILVA’s productiveassets and existing liabilities, along withmuch of the redundant workforce, wasplaced in ILVA Residua. By placingmuch of this redundant workforce inILVA Residua, ILP and AST were ableto begin their respective operations witha relatively ‘‘clean slate’’ in advance oftheir privatizations. ILP and AST wererelieved of having to assume theirrespective portions of those redundantworkers that were placed in ILVAResidua and received early retirementbenefits under Law 451/94. We have,therefore, determined that ILVA/ILT hasreceived a countervailable benefitduring the POI since it was relieved ofa financial obligation that wouldotherwise have been due.

In order to calculate the benefitreceived by ILVA/ILT during the POI,we first needed to determine theappropriate number of early retirees inILVA Residua that originally shouldhave been apportioned to ILP. Todetermine this number, we took theasset value of ILP in relation to the assetvalue of (old) ILVA at the time of thespin-off of ILP. We multiplied thispercentage by the total number of ILVAResidua early retirees. It was thennecessary to estimate the numbers andsalaries of early retirees by employeetype since the GOI did not provide thisinformation. To do this, we applied thesame ratios of workers by employee typeas ILP retired, and applied this to ILVAResidua. We also used the same salariesof ILVA/ILT employees by worker type.As we did with ILP early retirees, wethen multiplied the number ofemployees, by employee type, by theaverage salary by employee type. Sincethe GOI was making payments to theseworkers equaling 80 percent of theirsalary, we attributed one-half of thatamount to ILVA/ILT. Therefore, wemultiplied the total wages of the earlyretirees by 40 percent. We then dividedthis total amount by ILVA/ILT’s totalconsolidated sales during the POI. Onthis basis, we preliminarily determine anet countervailable subsidy to be 0.67percent ad valorem for ILVA/ILT.

The Sidercomit unit of ILVA/ILT alsoreceived early retirement benefits underLaw 451/94 separately from ILVA/ILT.As we did with ILVA/ILT, wemultiplied the total wages of the earlyretirees by 40 percent and then dividedthis amount by the total consolidatedsales of ILVA/ILT during the POI. Onthis basis, we preliminarily determinethe net countervailable subsidy to be

less than 0.005 percent ad valorem forILVA/ILT.

Upon consolidation of the abovedetermined rates, we preliminarilydetermine a total net countervailablesubsidy of 2.08 percent ad valorem forILVA/ILT under Law 451/94 for the POI.Palini & Bertoli did not use thisprogram.

G. Exemptions From TaxesPresidential Decree 218/1978

exempted firms operating in theMezzogiorno from the local income tax(ILOR) and the profits tax (IRPEG).Companies are eligible for fullexemption from the 16.2 percent ILORtax on profits arising from eligibleprojects in the Mezzogiorno and lessdeveloped regions of the center-northfor ten consecutive years after profitsfirst arise. New companies undertakingproductive activities in the Mezzogiornoare entitled to a full exemption from the37 percent IRPEG tax on profits for tenconsecutive years after the project iscompleted. We preliminarily determinethat exemptions from ILOR and IRPEGtaxes are countervailable subsidies inaccordance with section 771(5)(B)(i) ofthe Act. These tax exemptionsconstitute financial contributions undersection 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act sincerevenue that is otherwise due is beingforegone. Because these exemptions arelimited to a group of enterprises orindustries within a designatedgeographical region, they are specific inaccordance with section 771(5A)(D)(iv).Benefits resulting from ILOR and IRPEGtax exemptions were found to becountervailable in Certain Steel fromItaly, 58 FR at 37334–35.

ILT received an exemption from theIRPEG tax in 1998. In order to calculatethe benefit, we multiplied ILT’s totalprofits that would otherwise have beensubject to IRPEG by the IRPEG tax rateof 37 percent. We then divided theresult by ILVA/ILT’s total consolidatedsales during the POI to determine the advalorem benefit. On this basis, wepreliminarily determine the netcountervailable subsidy to be 1.07percent ad valorem for ILVA/ILT. Palini& Bertoli did not use this program.

H. Exchange Rate Guarantees UnderLaw 796/76

Law 796/76 established a program tominimize the risk of exchange ratefluctuations on foreign currency loans.All firms that contract foreign currencyloans from the European Coal and SteelCommunity (ECSC) or the Council ofEurope Resettlement Fund (CERF) couldapply to the Ministry of the Treasury(MOT) to obtain an exchange rateguarantee. The MOT, through the

Ufficio Italiano di Cambi (UIC),calculates loan payments based on thelire-foreign currency exchange rate ineffect at the time the loan is contracted(i.e., the base rate). The programestablishes a floor and ceiling forexchange rate fluctuations, limiting themaximum fluctuation a borrower wouldface to two percent above or below thebase rate. If the lire depreciates morethan two percent against the foreigncurrency, a borrower is still able topurchase foreign currency at theestablished (guaranteed) ceiling rate.The MOT absorbs the loss in the amountof the difference between the guaranteedrate and the actual rate. If the lireappreciates against the foreign currency,the MOT realizes a gain in the amountof the difference between the floor rateand the actual rate.

This program was terminated effectiveJuly 10, 1992, by Decree Law 333/92.However, the pre-existing exchange rateguarantees continue on any loansoutstanding after that date. Italsidercontracted two loans, one in 1978, theother in 1979. Both of these loans wereultimately transferred to ILVA/ILT.These two foreign currencydenominated loans were outstandingduring the POI and exchange rateguarantees applied to both.

We preliminarily determine that thisprogram constitutes a countervailablesubsidy within the meaning of section771(5)(B)(i) of the Act. This programprovides a financial contribution, asdescribed in section 771(5)(D)(i) of theAct, to the extent that the liredepreciates against the foreign currencybeyond the two percent limit. When thisoccurs, the borrower receives a benefitin the amount of the difference betweenthe guaranteed rate and the actualexchange rate.

During the verification of the GOI inthe Plate in Coils from Italy and Sheetand Strip from Italy investigations, GOIofficials explained that over the lastdecade, roughly half of all guaranteesmade under this program were given tocoal and steel companies. See Results ofVerification of the Government of Italy,Memorandum to the File, datedFebruary 3, 1999 (public version of thedocument is available on the public filein the CRU, Room B–099). This isconsistent with the Department’sfinding in a previous proceeding thatthe Italian steel industry has been adominant user of the exchange rateguarantees provided under Law 796/76.See Final Affirmative CountervailingDuty Determination: Small DiameterCircular Seamless Carbon and AlloySteel Standard, Line and Pressure PipeFrom Italy, 60 FR 31996 (June 19, 1995).Therefore, we determine that the



program is specific under section771(5A)(D)(iii)(II) of the Act.

Once a loan is approved for exchangerate guarantees, access to foreignexchange at the established rate isautomatic and occurs at regularintervals throughout the life of the loan.Therefore, we are treating the benefitsunder this program as recurring grants.ILVA/ILT and its predecessorcompanies from which these loans weretransferred, paid a foreign exchangecommission fee to the UIC for eachpayment made. We determine that thisfee qualifies as an ‘‘* * * applicationfee, deposit, or similar payment paid inorder to qualify for, or to receive, thebenefit of the countervailable subsidy.’’See section 771(6)(A) of the Act. Thus,for the purposes of calculating thecountervailable benefit, we have addedthe foreign exchange commission to thetotal amount ILVA/ILT paid under thisprogram during the POI. See Wire Rodfrom Italy, 63 FR at 40479.

Under this program, we havecalculated the total countervailablebenefit as the difference between thetotal loan payment due in foreigncurrency, converted at the currentexchange rate, less the sum of the totalloan payment due in foreign currencyconverted at the guaranteed rate and theexchange rate commission. We dividedthis amount by ILVA/ILT’s totalconsolidated sales during the POI. Onthis basis, we preliminarily determinethe net countervailable subsidy to be0.07 percent ad valorem for ILVA/ILT.Palini & Bertoli did not use thisprogram.

European Commission Programs

A. ECSC Loans Under Article 54

Article 54 of the 1951 ECSC Treatyestablished a program to provideindustrial investment loans directly tothe member iron and steel industries tofinance modernization and purchasenew equipment. Eligible companiesapply directly to the EC (whichadministers the ECSC) for up to 50percent of the cost of an industrialinvestment project. The Article 54 loansare generally financed on a ‘‘back-to-back’’ basis. In other words, upongranting loan approval, the ECSCborrows funds (through loans or bondissues) at commercial rates in financialmarkets which it then immediatelylends to steel companies at a slightlyhigher interest rate. The mark-up is tocover the costs of administering theArticle 54 program.

We preliminarily determine that theseloans constitute a countervailablesubsidy within the meaning of section771(5)(B)(i) of the Act. This program

provides a financial contribution, asdescribed in section 771(5)(D)(i) of theAct, which confers a benefit to theextent the interest rate is less than thebenchmark interest rate. TheDepartment has found Article 54 loansto be specific in several proceedings,including Electrical Steel from Italy, 59FR at 18362, Certain Steel from Italy, 58FR at 37335, and Plate in Coils fromItaly, 64 FR at 15515, because loansunder this program are provided only toiron and steel companies. The EC hasalso indicated on the record of thisinvestigation that Article 54 loans areonly available to steel and coalcompanies which fall within the scopeof the ECSC Treaty. Therefore, wepreliminarily determine that thisprogram is specific pursuant to section771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act.

ILVA/ILT had two long-term, fixed-rate loans outstanding during the POI,each denominated in U.S. dollars. Theseloans were contracted by Italsider, onein 1978 and one in 1979. Consistentwith Wire Rod from Italy, 63 FR at40486, we have used as our benchmarkthe average yield to maturity on selectedlong-term corporate bonds as reportedby the U.S. Federal Reserve, since bothof these loans were denominated in U.S.dollars. We used these rates since wewere unable to find a long-termborrowing rate for loans denominated inU.S. dollars in Italy. The interest ratecharged on both of ILVA/ILT’s twoArticle 54 loans was lowered part waythrough the life of the loan. The interestrate on the loan contracted in 1978 waslowered in 1987, and the rate on theloan contracted in 1979 was lowered in1992. Therefore, for the purpose ofcalculating the benefit, we have treatedthese loans as if they were contracted onthe date of this rate adjustment. BecauseILVA was uncreditworthy in the yearthese loans were contracted, 1987 and1992 (based on the interest rateadjustments mentioned above), wecalculated the uncreditworthybenchmark rate as per section 351.505(a)(3)(iii) of the CVD Regulations. See‘‘Benchmark for Long-Term Loans andDiscount Rates’’ section, above.

To calculate the benefit under thisprogram, pursuant to section351.505(c)(2) of the CVD Regulations,we employed the Department’s long-term fixed-rate loan methodology. Wecompared ILVA/ILT’s interest rates onthe two loans to our benchmark interestrate for uncreditworthy companies oninterest paid by ILVA/ILT during thePOI. We then divided the benefit byILVA/ILT’s total consolidated salesduring the POI. On this basis, wepreliminarily determine the netcountervailable subsidy to be 0.02

percent ad valorem for ILVA/ILT. Palini& Bertoli did not use this program.

ILVA/ILT was also repaying fourECSC loans under Article 54 during thePOI that were taken by ILP for theconstruction of housing for coal andsteel industry workers. Funding forthese loans came entirely from the ECSCoperational budget, which is composedof levies imposed on coal and steelproducers, investment income on thoselevies, guarantee fees and fines paid tothe ECSC, and interest received fromcompanies that have obtained loansfrom the ECSC. Consistent withprevious determinations, because ECSCfunding is based on producer levies, wefind these loans to be notcountervailable. See Electrical Steelfrom Italy, 59 FR at 18364 and CertainSteel from Italy, 58 FR at 37336.

II. Programs Preliminarily DeterminedTo Be Not Countervailable

A. Law 308/82

Law 308/82 was initiated on May 29,1982, and repealed on January 15, 1991.The GOI and ILVA/ILT reported thatItalsider was approved for a grant forinvestments that reduced energyconsumption at the Taranto facilities in1983. ILP received payment of the grantin 1996. In Certain Steel from Italy, welearned that Law 308/82 provided grantsto encourage lower energy consumptionand the use of renewable energysources. In that prior investigation, weverified that Law 308 grants wereprovided to a wide range of industriesand confirmed the amount of grantsprovided to each industrial sector. Wefound that benefits under Law 308/82were widely and fairly evenlydistributed throughout the sectors withno sector receiving a disproportionateamount. Therefore, because Law 308/82grants were not limited to a specificenterprise or industry, or group ofenterprises or industries, we determinedthem to be not countervailable. SeeCertain Steel from Italy, 58 FR at 37336.No new factual information or evidenceof changed circumstances has beenprovided to the Department in thisinstant investigation to warrant theDepartment to revisit its earlierdetermination that grants providedunder Law 308/82 are notcountervailable.

B. Unpaid Portion of Payment Price forILP

In the February 16, 1999 petition,petitioners alleged that the GOIeffectively gave RIVA a zero-interestloan on a portion of the contract priceagreed to by RIVA for ILP, because RIVAhas not paid the full contract price for



ILP. RIVA reported that the companyentered into arbitration after the transferof ownership of ILP in April 1995. RIVAstated that it did not invoke arbitrationto challenge the purchase price of ILP,but invoked arbitration to obtain anindemnity from pre-existing andunreported liabilities in accordancewith the indemnification provision ofthe contract of sale. The disputeconcerns whether IRI owes RIVA a sumof money as indemnification forliabilities, which RIVA has potentiallyincurred as a result of the acquisition ofILP. To preserve its leverage in thedispute and ensure that the companywill obtain relief in the event that it isawarded indemnification by thearbitration panel, RIVA has withheldpayment of amounts due to IRI underthe contract of sale.

We inquired about the arbitrationprocedure and whether any Italiancompany which purchases either agovernment-owned or private entity canenter into arbitration to remedy adispute. RIVA reported that Article 25of the contract of sale provides forarbitration under the rules of theInternational Chamber of Commerce(ICC). Any company in Italy thatpurchases another company from eitherthe government or a private seller caninclude such an arbitration provision inthe contract of sale. Article 806 of theItalian Civil Code authorizes the use ofarbitration to settle litigation. Becausethe arbitration which RIVA invoked toobtain an indemnity from liabilities wasprovided under the rules of the ICC andthe Italian Civil Code, we preliminarilydetermine that the monetary amount,which RIVA has withheld from IRI forthe purchase of ILP, is not tantamountto a zero-interest loan provided by thegovernment.

III. Programs Preliminarily DeterminedTo Be Not Used

Government of Italy Programs

1. Lending From the Ministry ofIndustry Under Law 675/77

ILVA/ILT reported that at the time ofits privatization the company becameresponsible for certain loan obligationsof its predecessor companies. ILVA/ILTwere responsible for repaying the loansunder Law 675/77, which wereapplicable to those facilities thatproduce the subject merchandise.Repayment obligations on these loansended in December 1997. The GOI andILVA/ILT both reported that no newloans have been provided under Law675/77 since 1987. Because there wereno loans provided under Law 675/77outstanding in 1998, we preliminarily

determine that the program was notused during the POI by ILVA/ILT.

2. Interest Contributions Under Law675/77

ILVA/ILT reported that an interestcontribution was received in 1998,against a loan provided under Law 675/77. Because the loan against which theinterest contribution was received wasrepaid in full in December 1997, wepreliminarily determine that thisprogram was not used during the POI.It is the Department’s policy to treatinterest contributions as countervailableon the date the company made thecorresponding interest payments,despite any delay in the receipt of theinterest contributions. This is sobecause the company’s entitlement tothe interest contributions was automaticwhen it made the interest payments.Therefore, we find, for purposes of thebenefit calculation, that the interestcontributions were received at the timethe interest payments were made. Seee.g., Stainless Steel Sheet & Strip, andFinal Affirmative Countervailing DutyDetermination: Oil Country TubularGoods from Italy, 60 FR 33577, 33579(June 28, 1995) (Oil Country TubularGoods from Italy).

3. Law 305/89ILVA/ILT reported that (old) ILVA, its

predecessor company, applied for agrant under Law 305/89 in 1990. TheGOI approved (old) ILVA’s applicationin 1991, and awarded the company agrant of 2.2 billion lire. Becausepayment of the grant was delayed, ILPreceived a portion of the grant in 1994,and ILVA/ILT received payment of theremaining portion of the grant in 1996.We applied the 0.5 percent allocationtest against the full grant amountapproved in 1991. See section351.524(b)(2) of the CVD Regulations.We calculated the benefit under Law305/82 as less than 0.5 percent advalorem of (old) ILVA’s sales in 1991.Therefore, even if we preliminarilydetermined that Law 305/89 iscountervailable, the grant would beexpensed in the years of receipt, 1994and 1996. Because the grant would beexpensed and not provide any benefit toILVA/ILT during the POI, wepreliminarily determine that Law 305/89 was not used by ILVA/ILT.

4. Interest Grants for ‘‘Indirect Debts’’Under Law 750/81

In 1984, Nuova Italsider received aresidual payment of 25.3 billion lireagainst interest grants provided in thefiscal years 1982 and 1983. Because wedo not know what portion of the 1984payment was approved in 1982, and

what portion was approved in 1983, todetermine whether the 1984 grantpayment should be allocated orexpensed, we assumed, for purposes ofthe 0.5 percent allocation test, that theresidual amount was approved in 1984.See § 351.524(b)(2) of the CVDRegulations. On this basis, wecalculated the benefit of the 1984interest grant to be less than 0.5 percentad valorem of Nuova Italsider’s sales in1984. Therefore, because the interestgrant is expensed in the year of receipt,we preliminarily determine that thisprogram was not used during the POI byILVA/ILT.

5. Capital Grants Under Law 218/78

The GOI reported that (old) ILVAreceived a grant in 1988, under Law218/78. The original grant amount wasapproved in 1978. We applied the 0.5percent test against the full grantamount approved in 1978. See§ 351.524(b)(2) of the CVD Regulations.We calculated the benefit as less than0.5 percent ad valorem of Italsider’ssales in 1978. Additionally, Sidercomitreceived a grant in 1996, that wasapproved in 1995. We applied the 0.5percent test against the full grantamount approved in 1995. Wecalculated the benefit as less than 0.5percent ad valorem of ILP’s sales in1995. Therefore, even if we determinedthat this program is countervailable, theabove-mentioned grants would beexpensed in the respective years ofreceipt. Because the grants would beexpensed and would not provide anybenefit to ILVA/ILT during the POI, wepreliminarily determine that capitalgrants were not used.

6. Urban Redevelopment PackagesUnder Law 181/89

ILVA/ILT and its predecessorcompanies, ILP and (old) ILVA, receivedgrants under Law 181/89 between 1991and 1997. No grants were receivedduring the POI. Because the approvedamount of each grant, separately, wasless than 0.5 percent of total sales ofILVA/ILT (or predecessor company) inthe corresponding year, we wouldexpense the benefit of each approvedgrant in that year. See § 351.524(b)(2) ofthe CVD Regulations. Therefore, sincethe grants would be expensed in theyears of receipt, and ILVA/ILT wouldnot realize any benefit during the POI,we preliminarily determine that UrbanRedevelopment Packages under Law181/89 was not used.



7. Closure Payments Under Law 481/94and Predecessor Law

8. Closure Grants Under Laws 46 and706

9. Decree Law 120/89

10. Law 488/92

11. Law 341/95 Tax Concessions

12. Interest Rate Reductions Under Law902

13. Interest Contributions Under theSabatini Law

14. Export Marketing Grants Under Law394/81

15. Law 549/95: Tax Exemptions onReinvested Profits for Steel Producers inObjective 1, 2, and 5(B) Areas

European Commission Programs

1. European Social Fund (ESF)

The GOI has reported ESF grants wereprovided to Nuova Italsider, Italsiderand (old) ILVA from 1985 through 1993.Because the amount of each grant,separately, was less than 0.5 percent oftotal sales of Nuova Italsider, Italsider or(old) ILVA (depending on the year ofreceipt) in the corresponding year, wewould expense the benefit of each grantpayment received in that year. See§ 351.524(b)(2) of the CVD Regulations.

ILVA/ILT has reported that ESFpayments were also made to ILP in 1994and 1995, and to ILVA/ILT in 1998, forprojects having taken place in 1994 and1995. ILVA/ILT has reported that ESFfunding was not used for training ofILVA/ILT employees, but for otherinitiatives in the Mezzogiorno region.ILVA/ILT has provided documentationthat payments received by the companywere solely for goods and services to IRIthat were provided by ILP and ILVA/ILT.

With regard to ESF grants andpayments received, because theamounts would either be expensed inthe corresponding years of receipt, orwere simply payments received forinvoiced goods and services, ILVA/ILTwould not see any benefit during thePOI. Therefore, we preliminarilydetermine that the European SocialFund was not used.

2. Interest Rebates on ECSC Article 54Loans

3. ECSC Conversion Loans, InterestRebates, Restructuring Grants andTraditional and Social Aid UnderArticle 56

4. ERDF Aid

5. Resider and Resider II (CommissionDecision 88/588)

IV. Programs Preliminarily DeterminedNot To Exist

1. Additional Debt Forgiveness in theCourse of Privatization

2. Grants to ILVA to Cover Closure andLiquidation Expenses as Part of the1993–1994 Privatization Plan

3. Working Capital Grants to ILVA in1993

With respect to the programs 1, 2, and3 listed above, the GOI reported in itsMay 10, 1999 questionnaire responsethat all monetary assistance (old) ILVAreceived in the course of the 1993–1994Restructuring Plan was effected in theEC Decision 94/259/ECSC of April 12,1994. There were no additional debtforgiveness or grants provided as part ofthe 1993–1994 Restructuring Plan.Therefore, we preliminary determinethat these programs do not exist.

4. Personnel Retraining Grants UnderLaw 675/77

The GOI reported that personnelretraining grants provided under Law675/77 were terminated in 1987. Thegovernment stated that the resourcesprovided under this program wereallocated over the years 1981 through1987. The GOI reported that no otherlaw providing personnel retraininggrants or financial allocations underLaw 675/77 have been approved since1987.

5. VAT Reductions Under Law 675/77

The GOI reported that the taxreductions referred to in section 18 ofLaw 675 of August 12, 1977, wereterminated effective March 29, 1991.Pursuant to section 14(3) of Law 64 ofMarch 1, 1986, section 18 of Law 675/77, applied for a period of five yearsfrom the date of promulgation of thelaw.

6. Grants to ILVA

7. Grants to RIVA/ILP

Verification

In accordance with section 782(i)(1) ofthe Act, we will verify the informationsubmitted by respondents prior tomaking our final determination.

Suspension of LiquidationIn accordance with section

703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we calculatedan individual subsidy rate for ILVA/ILTand Palini & Bertoli. We preliminarilydetermine that the total estimated netcountervailable subsidy rate is 23.27percent ad valorem for ILVA/ILT and0.0 percent ad valorem for Palini &Bertoli. The All Others rate is 23.27percent ad valorem, which is the ratecalculated for ILVA/ILT. See section705(c)(5)(A) of the Act.

Company Net subsidy rate

ILVA/ILT .................... 23.27% ad valorem.Palini & Bertoli .......... 0.0% ad valorem.All Others .................. 23.27% ad valorem.

In accordance with section 703(d) ofthe Act, we are directing the U.S.Customs Service to suspend liquidationof all entries of certain cut-to-lengthcarbon-quality steel from Italy, whichare entered or withdrawn fromwarehouse, for consumption on or afterthe date of the publication of this noticein the Federal Register, and to requirea cash deposit or bond for such entriesof the merchandise in the amountslisted above. Since the estimatedpreliminary net countervailing duty ratefor Palini & Bertoli is zero, the companywill be excluded from the suspension ofliquidation. This suspension willremain in effect until further notice.

ITC NotificationIn accordance with section 703(f) of

the Act, we will notify the ITC of ourdetermination. In addition, we aremaking available to the ITC allnonprivileged and nonproprietaryinformation relating to thisinvestigation. We will allow the ITCaccess to all privileged and businessproprietary information in our files,provided the ITC confirms that it willnot disclose such information, eitherpublicly or under an administrativeprotective order, without the writtenconsent of the Assistant Secretary forImport Administration.

If our final determination isaffirmative, the ITC will make its finaldetermination within 45 days after theDepartment makes its finaldetermination.

Public CommentIn accordance with 19 CFR 351.310,

we will hold a public hearing, ifrequested, to afford interested parties anopportunity to comment on thispreliminary determination. The hearingis tentatively scheduled to be held 57days from the date of publication of thepreliminary determination at the U.S.



Department of Commerce, 14th Streetand Constitution Avenue, NW.,Washington, DC 20230. Individuals whowish to request a hearing must submita written request within 30 days of thepublication of this notice in the FederalRegister to the Assistant Secretary forImport Administration, U.S. Departmentof Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Streetand Constitution Avenue, NW.,Washington, DC 20230. Parties shouldconfirm by telephone the time, date, andplace of the hearing 48 hours before thescheduled time.

Requests for a public hearing shouldcontain: (1) The party’s name, address,and telephone number; (2) the numberof participants; and, (3) to the extentpracticable, an identification of thearguments to be raised at the hearing. Inaddition, six copies of the businessproprietary version and six copies of thenon-proprietary version of the casebriefs must be submitted to theAssistant Secretary no later than 50 daysfrom the date of publication of thepreliminary determination. As part ofthe case brief, parties are encouraged toprovide a summary of the arguments notto exceed five pages and a table ofstatutes, regulations, and cases cited.Six copies of the business proprietaryversion and six copies of the non-proprietary version of the rebuttal briefsmust be submitted to the AssistantSecretary no later than 5 days from thedate of filing of the case briefs. Aninterested party may make anaffirmative presentation only onarguments included in that party’s caseor rebuttal briefs. Written argumentsshould be submitted in accordance with19 CFR 351.309 and will be consideredif received within the time limitsspecified above.

This determination is publishedpursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) ofthe Act.


Richard W. Moreland,Acting Assistant Secretary for ImportAdministration.[FR Doc. 99–18853 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P



[C–427–817]

Preliminary Affirmative CountervailingDuty Determination and Alignment ofFinal Countervailing DutyDetermination With Final AntidumpingDuty Determination: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel PlateFrom France

AGENCY: Import Administration,International Trade Administration,Department of CommerceEFFECTIVE DATE: July 26, 1999.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Cynthia Thirumalai, Alysia Wilson, andGregory Campbell, Office ofAntidumping/Countervailing DutyEnforcement, Group I, ImportAdministration, U.S. Department ofCommerce, Room 3099, 14th Street andConstitution Avenue, NW, Washington,DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–4087,482–0108, or 482–2239, respectively.

Preliminary DeterminationThe Department of Commerce (the

Department) preliminarily determinesthat countervailable subsidies are beingprovided to producers or exporters ofcertain cut-to length carbon-qualityplate (‘‘carbon plate’’) from France. Forinformation on the estimatedcountervailing duty rates, please see the‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section ofthis notice.

PetitionersThe petition in this investigation was

filed by the Bethlehem SteelCorporation, U.S. Steel Group, GulfStates Steel, Inc., IPSCO Steel Inc., andthe United Steel Workers of America.(collectively referred to hereinafter asthe ‘‘petitioners’’).

Case HistorySince the publication of the notice of

initiation in the Federal Register (seeNotice of Initiation of CountervailingDuty Investigations: Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate fromFrance, India, Indonesia, Italy, and theRepublic of Korea, 64 FR 12996 (March16, 1999) (Initiation Notice)), thefollowing events have occurred:

On March 25, 1999, we met withrepresentatives from the Government ofFrance (GOF) and the EuropeanCommission (EC) for a second round ofconsultations.

On March 17, 1999, we issuedcountervailing duty questionnaires tothe GOF, EC, and the producers/exporters of the subject merchandise.On April 29, 1999, we postponed the

preliminary determination of thisinvestigation until July 16, 1999 (seeCertain Cut-to-Length Carbon-QualitySteel Plate From France, India,Indonesia, Italy and the Republic ofKorea: Postponement of Time Limit forCountervailing Duty Investigations, 64FR 23057 (April 29, 1999)).

On May 11, 1999, we receivedresponses from the GOF and theresponding companies (Usinor, SollacS.A., Creusot Loire Industrie S.A. andGTS Industries S.A.). On June 4, 1999,we issued supplemental questionnairesto the GOF, and responding companies.On June 6, 1999, we issued asupplemental questionnaire to the EC.

In their petition, the petitioners askedthe Department to reinvestigate whetherthe 1991 equity infusions by the GOFand Credit Lyonnais provided to Usinorconferred a subsidy. These investmentswere found not countervailable in theFinal Affirmative Countervailing DutyDeterminations: Certain Steel Productsfrom France, 58 FR 37304, (July 9,1993), (Certain Steel From France). Atthe time this proceeding was initiated,we determined that the petitioners hadnot submitted sufficient information towarrant a reinvestigation of these equityinfusions. On June 10, 1999, thepetitioners submitted additionalinformation supporting their request.After a review of the petitioners’submission, we have determined thatthe information they have provided stilldoes not warrant a reinvestigation ofthese investments. See Memorandum toRichard W. Moreland, Deputy AssistantSecretary for AD/CVD Enforcement,‘‘Petitioners’’ SupplementalAllegations,’’ dated July 16, 1999, on filein the Central Records Unit of theDepartment of Commerce.

On June 16, 1999, the Departmentinvited interested parties to commentregarding the attribution of subsidiesbetween GTS Industries (GTS), Sollac,and Creusot-Loire (CLI). Commentswere submitted by petitioners andrespondents on June 28, 1999.

On June 21, 1999, we receivedresponses to the supplementalquestionnaires from the EC and on June23, 1999, from the respondingcompanies and the GOF.


are certain hot-rolled carbon-qualitysteel: (1) Universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four faces orin a closed box pass, of a widthexceeding 150 mm but not exceeding1250 mm, and of a nominal or actualthickness of not less than 4 mm, whichare cut-to-length (not in coils) andwithout patterns in relief), of iron or



non-alloy-quality steel; and (2) flat-rolled products, hot-rolled, of a nominalor actual thickness of 4.75 mm or moreand of a width which exceeds 150 mmand measures at least twice thethickness, and which are cut-to-length(not in coils).


Steel products to be included in thisscope, regardless of Harmonized TariffSchedule of the United States (HTSUS)definitions, are products in which: (1)iron predominates, by weight, over eachof the other contained elements, (2) thecarbon content is two percent or less, byweight, and (3) none of the elementslisted below is equal to or exceeds thequantity, by weight, respectivelyindicated:1.80 percent of manganese, or1.50 percent of silicon, or1.00 percent of copper, or0.50 percent of aluminum, or1.25 percent of chromium, or0.30 percent of cobalt, or0.40 percent of lead, or1.25 percent of nickel, or0.30 percent of tungsten, or0.10 percent of molybdenum, or0.10 percent of niobium, or0.41 percent of titanium, or0.15 percent of vanadium, or0.15 percent zirconium.

All products that meet the writtenphysical description, and in which thechemistry quantities do not equal orexceed any one of the levels listedabove, are within the scope of theseinvestigations unless otherwisespecifically excluded. The followingproducts are specifically excluded fromthese investigations: (1) Products clad,plated, or coated with metal, whether ornot painted, varnished or coated withplastic or other non-metallic substances;(2) SAE grades (formerly AISI grades) ofseries 2300 and above; (3) productsmade to ASTM A710 and A736 or theirproprietary equivalents; (4) abrasion-

resistant steels (i.e., USS AR 400, USSAR 500); (5) products made to ASTMA202, A225, A514 grade S, A517 gradeS, or their proprietary equivalents; (6)ball bearing steels; (7) tool steels; and (8)silicon manganese steel or siliconelectric steel.



Scope CommentsAs stated in our notice of initiation,

we set aside a period for parties to raiseissues regarding product coverage. Inparticular, we sought comments on thespecific levels of alloying elements setout in the description below, the clarityof grades and specifications excludedfrom the scope, and the physical andchemical description of the productcoverage.

On March 29, 1999, Usinor, arespondent in the French antidumpingand countervailing duty investigationsand Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd. andPohang Iron and Steel Co., Ltd.,respondents in the Korean antidumpingand countervailing duty investigations(collectively the Korean respondents),filed comments regarding the scope ofthe investigations. On April 14, 1999,the petitioners responded to Usinor’sand the Korean respondents’ comments.In addition, on May 17, 1999, ILVA/ILT,a respondent in the Italian antidumpingand countervailing duty investigations,requested guidance on whether certainproducts are within the scope of theseinvestigations.

Usinor requested that the Departmentmodify the scope to exclude: (1) Platethat is cut to non-rectangular shapes orthat has a total final weight of less than200 kilograms; and (2) steel that is 4′′ orthicker and which is certified for use inhigh-pressure, nuclear or other technicalapplications; and (3) floor plate (i.e.,plate with ‘‘patterns in relief’’) madefrom hot-rolled coil. Further, Usinorrequested that the Department provide

clarification of scope coverage withrespect to what it argues are over-inclusive HTSUS subheadings includedin the scope language.




ILVA/ILT requested guidance onwhether certain merchandise producedfrom billets is within the scope of thecurrent CTL plate investigations.According to ILVA/ILT, the billets areconverted into wide flats and barproducts (a type of long product). ILVA/ILT notes that one of the long products,when rolled, has a thickness range thatfalls within the scope of theseinvestigations. However, according toILVA/ILT, the greatest possible width ofthese long products would only slightlyoverlap the narrowest category of widthcovered by the scope of theinvestigations. Finally, ILVA/ILT statesthat these products have differentproduction processes and propertiesthan merchandise covered by the scopeof the investigations and therefore arenot covered by the scope of theinvestigations.

As ILVA/ILT itself acknowledges, theparticular products in question appearto fall within the parameters of thescope and, therefore, we are treatingthem as covered merchandise forpurposes of these investigations.

The Applicable StatuteUnless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references tothe provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930,



as amended by the Uruguay RoundAgreements Act effective January 1,1995 (the Act). In addition, unlessotherwise indicated, all citations to theDepartment’s regulations are to ourregulations as codified at 19 CFR part351 (1998) and Countervailing Duties;Final Rule, 63 FR 65348 (November 25,1998) (CVD Regulations).

Injury Test

Because France is a ‘‘SubsidiesAgreement Country’’ within themeaning of section 701(b) of the Act, theU.S. International Trade Commission(ITC) is required to determine whetherimports of the subject merchandise fromFrance materially injure, or threatenmaterial injury to, a U.S. industry. OnApril 8, 1999, the ITC published itspreliminary determination finding thatthere is a reasonable indication that anindustry in the United States is beingmaterially injured or threatened withmaterial injury by reason of importsfrom France of the subject merchandise.(See Certain Cut-to-Length Steel Platefrom the Czech Republic, France, India,Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, andMacedonia; Determinations, 64 FR17198 (April 8, 1999)).


On July 2, 1999, the petitionerssubmitted a letter requesting alignmentof the final determination in thisinvestigation with the finaldetermination in the companionantidumping duty investigation. SeeInitiation of Antidumping DutyInvestigations: Certain Cut-To-LengthCarbon-Quality Steel Plate From theCzech Republic, France, India,Indonesia, Italy, Japan, the Republic ofKorea, and the Former YugoslavRepublic of Macedonia, 64 FR 12959(March 16, 1999). Therefore, inaccordance with section 705(a)(1) of theAct, we are aligning the finaldetermination in this investigation withthe final determination in theantidumping investigation of carbonplate from France.

Period of Investigation

The period for which we aremeasuring subsidies (the POI) iscalendar year 1998.

Company History

The GOF identified Usinor, SollacS.A., Creusot Loire Industrie S.A.(‘‘CLI’’), and GTS Industries S.A.(‘‘GTS’’) as the only producers of thesubject merchandise that exported to theUnited States during the POI. Sollac andCLI are wholly-owned subsidiaries of

Usinor (a holding company), and GTS isan affiliated company.

UsinorIn 1984, the GOF was a majority

shareholder of Usinor. In 1986, Usinorwas merged with another state-ownedcompany, Sacilor, into a single companycalled Usinor Sacilor. Usinor Sacilorwas 100 percent owned by the GOF.

In 1995, Usinor Sacilor wasprivatized, principally through thepublic sale of shares. In October 1997,the GOF reduced its directshareholdings to 1 percent. As of August1998, the GOF has no direct ownershipinterest in Usinor but retains a minorityindirect interest in the company.

GTSPrior to 1992, GTS was 89.73 percent

owned by Sollac, a direct subsidiary ofUsinor. In 1992, Sollac transferred itsshares in GTS to AG der DillingerHttenwerke (‘‘Dillinger’’), a Germansteel producer. In return, Dillingertransferred shares it held in Sollac toSollac which were of an equivalentvalue. At that time, Dillinger wasmajority owned by DHS-Dillinger HutteSaarstahl AG (‘‘DHS’’), a Germanholding company, which, in turn, was70 percent owned by Usinor.

In 1996, Usinor reduced its interest inDHS from 70 to 48.75 percent. At thattime, DHS owned 95.3 percent ofDillinger, which in turn, owned 99percent of GTS.

Attribution of SubsidiesThe GOF has identified three

producers of subject merchandise in thisinvestigation: Sollac, CLI and GTS.During the POI, both Sollac and CLI arewholly-owned by and consolidatedsubsidiaries of Usinor. With respect toGTS, prior to 1996, it was majorityowned by Usinor since Usinor held 70percent of DHS, which in turn, heldapproximately 95 percent of Dillinger,GTS’ direct parent company. However,since 1996 and during the entire POI,Usinor’s interest in DHS is 48.9 percent,i.e., slightly less than a majority.

The issue before the Department iswhether the subsidies granted to Usinorare attributable to GTS given that GTSis no longer majority-owned by Usinor.Section 351.525 of the CVD Regulationsstates that the Department will attributesubsidies received by two or morecorporations to the products producedby those corporations where crossownership exists. According to§ 351.525(b)(6)(vi) of the CVDRegulations, cross-ownership existsbetween two or more corporationswhere one corporation can use or directthe individual assets of the other

corporation in essentially the same waysit can use its own assets. Theregulations state that this standard willnormally be met where there is amajority voting ownership interestbetween two corporations. Thepreamble to the CVD Regulations,identifies situations where crossownership may exist even though thereis less than a majority voting interestbetween two corporations: ‘‘in certaincircumstances, a large minority interest(for example, 40 percent) or a ‘goldenshare’ may also result in cross-ownership.’’ (63 FR 65401)

In this investigation, we havepreliminarily determined that Usinor’s48.9 percent interest in DHS, theholding company of GTS’ parent,Dillinger, is insufficient to establishcross-ownership between Usinor andGTS. We base this determination on thefollowing facts: (1) Usinor has less thana majority voting ownership in DHS; (2)Usinor does not have a ‘‘golden share’’in GTS; (3) there is another shareholderwhich effectively controls an equivalentamount of shares in DHS; and (4)information submitted by respondentsindicates that there are certainlimitations on the shareholders’ abilityto control Dillinger by virtue of labor’srepresentation on its Supervisory andManagement Boards. For moreinformation, see Memorandum to SusanKuhbach regarding Treatment of GTSIndustries S.A. dated July 16, 1999.

Therefore, for purposes of thispreliminarily determination, we havecalculated a separate countervailingsubsidy rate for GTS. However, sinceGTS was part of the Usinor group formuch of the allocation period, we haveattributed a portion of subsidiesreceived by Usinor through 1996 toGTS, see the Change in Ownershipsection below.

Change in OwnershipIn the General Issues Appendix (GIA)

attached to the Final AffirmativeCountervailing Duty Determination:Certain Steel Products from Austria, 58FR 37217, 37226 (July 9, 1993), weapplied a new methodology withrespect to the treatment of subsidiesreceived prior to the sale of thecompany (privatization) or the spinning-off of a productive unit.

Under this methodology, we estimatethe portion of the purchase priceattributable to prior subsidies. Wecompute this by first dividing theprivatized company’s subsidies by thecompany’s net worth for each yearduring the period beginning with theearliest point at which nonrecurringsubsidies would be attributable to thePOI (i.e., in this case, 1985 for Usinor)



and ending one year prior to theprivatization. We then take the simpleaverage of the ratios. The simple averageof these ratios of subsidies to net worthserves as a reasonable surrogate for thepercent that subsidies constitute of theoverall value of the company. Next, wemultiply the average ratio by thepurchase price to derive the portion ofthe purchase price attributable torepayment of prior subsidies. Finally,we reduce the benefit streams of theprior subsidies by the ratio of therepayment amount to the net presentvalue of all remaining benefits at thetime of privatization.

With respect to spin-offs, consistentwith the Department’s positionregarding privatization, we analyze thespin-off of productive units to assesswhat portion of the sale price of theproductive units can be attributable topayment for prior subsidies. To performthis calculation, we first determine theamount of the seller’s subsidies that thespun-off productive unit couldpotentially take with it. To calculate thisamount, we divide the value of theassets of the spun-off unit by the valueof the assets of the company selling theunit. We then apply this ratio to the netpresent value of the seller’s remainingsubsidies. We next estimate the portionof the purchase price going towardspayment for prior subsidies inaccordance with the privatizationmethodology outlined above.

In accordance with the FinalAffirmative Countervailing DutyDetermination: Stainless Steel Sheetand Strip in Coils from France, 64 FR30774, (June 8, 1999), (FrenchStainless), in this investigation we haveapplied the change-in-ownershipmethodology to the followingtransactions: (1) The sale of Ugine’sshares in 1994; (2) the 1994 sale ofCentrale Siderurgique de Richemont(CSR); (3) the privatization of Usinorwhich spans 1995, 1996, and 1997; (4)the spin-off of assets to Entreprise JeanLeFebvre in 1994; and (5) the spin-off ofassets to FOS–OXY in 1993.Additionally, in this investigation, wehave also applied our change-in-ownership methodology to Sollac’s saleof GTS shares to Dillinger in 1992. In1996, Usinor reduced its interest inGTS, see the Attribution section above.We applied our change-in-ownershipmethodology to this transaction.However, because of the lack ofinformation on the record regarding theamount paid for the shares, we have notprovided for any reallocation ofsubsidies to Usinor in this transaction.During the course of this investigation,we will further examine thistransaction.


Allocation Period: The currentinvestigation includes untied, non-recurring subsidies to Usinor that werefound to be countervailable in CertainSteel from France: PACS, FIS, andShareholders’ Advances. Because wehave already assigned a company-specific allocation period of 14 years tothose subsidies, we have continued toallocate those subsidies over 14 years.See, French Stainless.

We have found no other allocablenon-recurring subsidies received byUsinor and GTS in the instantproceeding. However, had there beenother allocable non-recurring subsidiesreceived we would apply themethodology stated in § 351.524(d)(2) ofthe CVD Regulations. Section351.524(d)(2) states that we willpresume the allocation period for non-recurring subsidies to be the averageuseful life (AUL) of renewable physicalassets for the industry concerned, aslisted in the Internal Revenue Service’s(IRS) 1977 Class Life Asset DepreciationRange System and updated by theDepartment of Treasury. Thepresumption will apply unless a partyclaims and establishes that these tablesdo not reasonably reflect the AUL of therenewable physical assets for thecompany or industry underinvestigation, and the party canestablish that the difference between thecompany-specific or country-wide AULfor the industry under investigation issignificant.

Creditworthiness: When theDepartment examines whether acompany is creditworthy, it isessentially attempting to determine ifthe company in question could obtaincommercial financing at commonlyavailable interest rates. See, § 351.595 ofthe CVD Regulations.

Usinor was found to beuncreditworthy from 1982 through 1988in Certain Steel from France, 58 FR at37306. No new information has beenpresented in this investigation thatwould lead us to reconsider thesefindings. Therefore, consistent with ourpast practice, we continue to findUsinor uncreditworthy from 1985through 1988. See, e.g., FinalAffirmative Countervailing DutyDeterminations: Certain Steel Productsfrom Brazil, 58 FR 37295, 37297 (July 9,1993).

In the Initiation Notice, we stated thatthe petitioners provided sufficientinformation in the petition to believe orsuspect that Usinor was uncreditworthyfrom 1992 through 1995. Our change-in-ownership methodology in addition tothe fact that Usinor received a

contingent liability interest free loanunder the Myosotis project, require theDepartment to make a creditworthydetermination for the 1992–1995 period.

Usinor did not provide theinformation requested by theDepartment to make a creditworthydetermination, citing the ‘‘formidableburdens which would be involved inresponding to the Department’sCreditworthiness questions.’’Consequently, the Department hasdecided to use facts available inaccordance with section 776(a)(2)(A) ofthe Act. Section 776(b) of the Actpermits the Department to draw aninference that is adverse to the interestsof an interested party if that party has‘‘failed to cooperate by not acting to thebest of its ability to comply with arequest for information.’’ In thisinvestigation, Usinor refused to answeron more than one occasion, thecreditworthiness questions in theDepartment’s original and supplementalquestionnaires. Therefore, theDepartment determines it appropriate touse an adverse inference in concludingthat the Usinor was uncreditworthy in1992 through 1995.

Since there was no allegationregarding the creditworthiness of GTS,we have not examined whether GTS iscreditworthy.

Benchmarks for Loans and DiscountRates: In accordance with §§ 351.505(a)and 351.524(c)(3)(i) of the CVDRegulations, we used Usinor’s company-specific cost of long-term, fixed-rateloans, where available, for loanbenchmarks and discount rates for yearsin which Usinor was creditworthy. Foryears where Usinor was creditworthyand a company-specific rate was notavailable, we used the rates for averageyields on long-term private-sector bondsin France as published by the OECD.

For the years in which Usinor wasuncreditworthy (see Creditworthinesssection above), we calculated thediscount rates in accordance with§ 351.524(c)(3)(ii) of the CVDRegulations. To construct thesebenchmark rates, we used the formuladescribed in § 351.505(a)(3)(iii) of theCVD Regulations. This formula requiresvalues for the probability of default byuncreditworthy and creditworthycompanies. For the probability ofdefault by an uncreditworthy company,we relied on the average cumulativedefault rated reported for Caa to C-ratedcategory of companies as published inMoody’s Investors Service, ‘‘HistoricalDefault Rates of Corporate Bond Issuers,1920–1997,’’ (February 1998). For theprobability of default by a creditworthycompany we used the averagecumulative default rates reported for the



1 We note that since publication of the CVDRegulations, Moody’s Investors Service no longerreports default rates for Caa to C-rated category ofcompanies. Therefore for the calculation ofuncreditworthy interest rates, we will continue torely on the default rates as reported in MoodyInvestor Service’s publication dated February 1998(see Exhibit 28).

Aaa to Baa-rated categories ofcompanies as reported in this study.1

Based upon our analysis of thepetition and the responses to ourquestionnaires, we determine thefollowing:

I. Programs Preliminarily DeterminedTo Be Countervailable

GOF Programs

A. Loans With Special Characteristics(PACS)

A plan was agreed upon in 1978 tohelp the principal steel companies,Usinor, Sacilor, Chatillon-Neuves-Maisons, and their subsidiaries,restructure their massive debt. This planentailed the creation of a steelamortization fund, called the Caissed’Amortissement pour l’Acier (CAPA),for the purpose of ensuring repaymentof funds borrowed by these companiesprior to June 1, 1978. In accordancewith the restructuring plan of 1978,bonds previously issued on behalf of thesteel companies and pre-1978 loansfrom Credit National and Fonds deDeveloppement Economique et Social(FDES) were converted into ‘‘loans withspecial characteristics,’’ or PACS. As aresult of this process, the steelcompanies were no longer liable for theloans and bonds, but did take on PACSobligations.

In 1978, Usinor and Sacilor converted21.1 billion French francs (FF) of debtinto PACS. From 1980 to 1981, Usinorand Sacilor issued FF8.1 billion of newPACS. PACS in the amount of FF13.8billion, FF12.6 billion and FF2.8 billionwere converted into common stock in1981, 1986, and 1991, respectively.

In French Stainless, Certain Steelfrom France, and Final AffirmativeCountervailing Duty Determinations:Certain Hot Rolled Lead and BismuthCarbon Steel Products from France, 58FR 6221 (January 27, 1993) (Lead andBismuth), the Department determinedthat the conversion of PACS to commonstock in 1986 constituted acountervailable equity infusion. No newinformation or evidence of changedcircumstances has been submitted inthis proceeding to warrant areconsideration of our earlier finding.Therefore, we preliminarily determinethat a countervailable benefit exists inthe amount of the 1986 equity infusion

in accordance with § 351.507(a)(6) of theCVD Regulations.

We have treated the 1986 equityinfusion as a non-recurring grantreceived in the year the PACS wereconverted to common stock. Using theallocation period of 14 years, the 1986conversion of PACS continues to yielda countervailable benefit during the POI.We used an uncreditworthy discountrate to allocate the benefit of the equityinfusion over time. Additionally, wefollowed the methodology described inthe ‘‘Change in Ownership’’ sectionabove to determine the amounts of theequity infusion appropriately allocatedto Usinor and GTS. We divided theseamounts by Usinor and GTS’ total salesof French-produced merchandise duringthe POI. Accordingly, we preliminarilydetermine the countervailable subsidyto be 1.31 percent ad valorem for Usinorand 0.93 percent ad valorem for GTS.

B. 1986 Shareholders’ AdvancesThe GOF provided Usinor and Sacilor

grants in the form of shareholders’advances in 1986. The purpose of theseadvances was to finance the revenueshortfall needs of Usinor and Sacilorwhile the GOF planned for the nextmajor restructuring of the French steelindustry. These shareholders’ advancescarried no interest and there was noprecondition for receipt of these funds.These advances were converted tocommon stock in 1986.

In French Stainless, Certain Steelfrom France, and Lead and Bismuth, theDepartment determined that theshareholders’ advances constitutedcountervailable grants because no shareswere received for them. No newinformation or evidence of changedcircumstances has been submitted inthis proceeding to warrant areconsideration of our earlier finding.Therefore, we continue to find thatthese grants constitute countervailablesubsidies within the meaning of section771(5) of the Act.

We have treated the 1986shareholders’ advance as non-recurringsubsidies received in 1986. Using theallocation period of 14 years, theseshareholders’ advances continue toprovide countervailable benefits duringthe POI. We used an uncreditworthydiscount rate to allocate the benefits ofthese shareholders’ advances over time.Additionally, we followed themethodology described in the ‘‘Changein Ownership’’ section above todetermine the amount of the grantappropriately allocated to Usinor andGTS. We divided these amounts byUsinor and GTS’ total sales of French-produced merchandise during the POI.Accordingly, we preliminarily

determine the countervailable subsidyto be 0.54 percent ad valorem for Usinorand 0.38 percent ad valorem.

C. Steel Intervention Fund (FIS)The 1981 Corrected Finance Law

granted Usinor and Sacilor the authorityto issue convertible bonds. In 1983, theFonds d’Intervention Siderurgique (FIS),or steel intervention fund, was createdto implement that authority. In 1983,1984, and 1985, Usinor and Sacilorissued convertible bonds to the FIS,which in turn, with the GOF’sguarantee, floated the bonds to thepublic and to institutional investors.These bonds were converted to commonstock in 1986 and 1988.

In French Stainless, Certain Steelfrom France and Lead and Bismuth, theDepartment determined that theconversions of FIS bonds to commonstock in 1986 and 1988 werecountervailable equity infusions. Nonew information or evidence of changedcircumstances has been submitted inthis proceeding to warrant areconsideration of our earlier finding.Therefore, we preliminarily determinethat a countervailable benefit exists inthe amounts of the 1986 and 1988equity infusions in accordance with§ 351.507(a)(6) of the CVD Regulations.

We have treated the 1986 and 1988equity infusions as non-recurringsubsidies received in the years the FISbonds were converted to common stock.Using the allocation period of 14 years,the 1986 and 1988 FIS bond conversionscontinue to yield a countervailablebenefit during the POI. We used anuncreditworthy discount rate to allocatethe benefits of the equity infusions overtime. Additionally, we followed themethodology described in the ‘‘Changein Ownership’’ section above todetermine the amount of the equityinfusion appropriately allocated toUsinor and GTS. Dividing theseamounts by Usinor and GTS’s total salesof French-produced merchandise duringthe POI, we preliminarily determine thecountervailable subsidy to be 3.46percent ad valorem for Usinor and 2.46percent ad valorem for GTS.

D. Investment/Operating SubsidiesDuring the period 1987 through 1998,

Usinor received a variety of smallinvestment and operating subsidiesfrom various GOF agencies as well asfrom the European Coal and SteelCommunity (ECSC). The subsidies wereprovided for research and development,projects to reduce work-related illnessesand accidents, projects to combat waterpollution, etc. The subsidies areclassified as investment, equipment, oroperating subsidies in the company’s



accounts, depending on how the fundsare used.

In French Stainless, the Departmentdetermined that the funding provided toUsinor by the water boards (les agencesde l’eau) and certain work/traininggrants were not countervailable.Therefore, we are not investigating thoseprograms in this proceeding.

For the remaining amounts in theseaccounts, including certain work/training grants that differed from thosefound not countervailable in FrenchStainless, the GOF did not provide anyinformation regarding the distribution offunds, stating that, in the GOF’s view,the total amount of investment andoperating subsidies received by Usinorwas ‘‘insignificant and would * * * beexpensed.’’ Given the GOF’s failure toprovide the requested information, weare using ‘‘facts available’’ inaccordance with section 776(a)(2)(A) ofthe Act. Further, section 776(b) of theAct permits the Department to draw aninference that is adverse to the interestsof an interested party if that party has‘‘failed to cooperate by not acting to thebest of its ability to comply with arequest for information.’’ In thisinvestigation, the GOF has refused toanswer the Department’s repeatedrequests for data regarding thedistribution of grant funds. Therefore,the Department determines itappropriate to use an adverse inferencein concluding that the investment andoperating subsidies (except thoseprovided by the water boards andcertain work/training contracts) arespecific within the meaning of section771(5A)(D) of the Act.

We also determine that theinvestment and operating subsidiesprovide a financial contribution, asdescribed in section 771(5)(D)(i) of theAct, in the form of a direct transfer offunds from the GOF and the ECSC toUsinor, providing a benefit in theamount of the grants.

For the investment and operatingsubsidies received in the years prior tothe POI, we have followed themethodology in French Stainless. Sincethese subsidies were less than 0.5percent of Usinor’s sales of French-produced merchandise, we haveexpensed these grants in the years ofreceipt, in accordance with § 351.524(b)(2) of the Department’s newregulations. To calculate the benefitreceived during the POI, we divided thesubsidies received by Usinor in the POIby Usinor’s total sales of French-produced merchandise during the POI.Accordingly, we determine thecountervailable subsidy to be 0.11percent ad valorem. GTS use of

investment and operating subsidies isdiscussed below.

E. Subsidies Provided Directly to GTSGTS’ 1996 condensed financial

statements include a ‘‘capital subsidy’’in the amount of FF 2.1 million. GTSclaims that this amount reflects theunamortized balance of a grant that wasprovided to GTS pursuant to anagreement dated December 29, 1987,between the GOF and Usinor. The grantwas given to support the developmentof a machine for the accelerated coolingof heavy plate during the hot-rollingprocess. The grant was provided in twodisbursements made in 1988 and 1990.

The GOF responded to theDepartment’s questions on this capitalsubsidy stating that because of its size,the amounts would be expensed in aperiod outside the POI. Therefore, theGOF did not provide information on thedistribution of other grants that mighthave been given under the sameprogram.

We preliminarily determine that thetotal amount approved in 1987 was lessthan 0.5 percent of Usinor’s sales ofFrench-produced merchandise in 1987.Therefore, we preliminarily determinethat these grants do not confer acountervailable subsidy in the POI.

F. Myosotis ProjectSince 1988, Usinor has been

developing a continuous thin-stripcasting process called ‘‘Myosotis,’’ in ajoint venture with the Germansteelmaker, Thyssen. The Myosotisproject is intended to eliminate theseparate hot-rolling stage of Usinor’ssteelmaking process by transformingliquid metal directly into a coil betweentwo to five millimeters thick.

To assist this project, the GOF,through the Ministry of Industry andRegional Planning and L’Agence pour laMaıtrise de L’Energie (AFME), enteredinto three agreements with UsinorSacilor (in 1989) and Ugine (in 1991 and1995). The first agreement, datedDecember 27, 1989, provided threepayments made in 1989, 1991, and1993. The second agreement betweenUgine and the AFME covered the costof some equipment for the project. Thisagreement resulted in twodisbursements to Ugine from the AFMEin 1991 and 1992. The third agreementwith Ugine, dated July 3, 1995, providedinterest-free reimbursable advances forthe final two-year stage of the project,with the goal of casting molten steelfrom ladles to produce thin strips. Thefirst reimbursable advance under thisagreement was made in 1997.Repayment of one-third of thereimbursable advance is due July 31,

1999. The remaining two-thirds are duefor repayment on July 31, 2001.

In French Stainless, the Departmentdetermined that funding associated withthe 1989 and 1991 contracts constitutedcountervailable subsidies within themeaning of section 771(5) of the Act.Furthermore, since the GOF did notprovide any information indicating thatthe grants were provided to othercompanies in France, the Departmentdetermined that the grants were specificwithin the meaning of section771(5A)(D) of the Act. No newinformation has been submitted towarrant a reconsideration of our earlierfinding. Therefore, we continue to findthat the grants associated with theMyosotis 1989 and 1991 contractsconstitute countervailable subsidieswithin the meaning of section 771 (5) ofthe Act. Because the amounts receivedunder the 1989 and 1991 contracts wereless than 0.5 percent of Usinor’s salesduring their respective year of approval,these grants were expensed in the yearsof receipt. See CVD Regulations, 64 FRat 65415.

With respect to the reimbursableadvance received in 1997, the GOF hasrequested that we find this subsidy non-countervailable under section771(5B)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act, i.e., that thisis a green-light subsidy. We havepreliminarily determined that we do notneed to address the issue whether thissubsidy is countervailable because thebenefit of the reimbursable advanceduring the POI is less than 0.00 percent.As stated in the preamble to the CVDRegulations:

[W]e will not consider claims for greenlight status if the subject merchandise did notbenefit from the subsidy during the period ofinvestigation or review. Instead, consistentwith the Department’s existing practice, thegreen light status of a subsidy will beconsidered only in an investigation or reviewof a time period where the subjectmerchandise did benefit from the subsidy.See, CVD Regulations, 63 FR at 65388.

To measure whether any benefit wasreceived during the POI, we treated thisadvance as a long-term interest freeloan, consistent with our finding inFrench Stainless (see, 64 FR at 30780).Additionally, in accordance with§ 351.505 (d)(1) of the Department’s newregulations, we are treating thisreimbursable advance as a contingentliability loan because the GOF hasindicated that repayment of the loan iscontingent on the success of the project(see, CVD Regulations 63 FR 65410). Weused as our benchmark, a long-termfixed rate loan consistent with § 351.505(a)(2)(iii) of the Department’sregulations. Since Usinor would havebeen required to make an interest



payment on a comparable commercialloan during the POI (see, FrenchStainless), we calculated the benefitfrom the reimbursable advance as theamount that would have been dueduring the POI. Dividing these interestsavings by Usinor’s sales of French-produced merchandise during the POI,the benefit is 0.00 percent.

EC Programs

European Social Fund

The European Social Fund (ESF), oneof the Structural Funds operated by theEC, was established in 1957 to improveworkers’ employment opportunities andto raise their living standards. The mainpurpose of the ESF is to makeemploying workers easier and toincrease the geographical andoccupational mobility of workers withinthe European Union. It accomplishesthis by providing support for vocationaltraining, employment, and self-employment.

Like the other EC Structural Funds,the ESF seeks to achieve six differentobjectives explicitly identified in theEC’s framework regulations forStructural Funds: Objective 1 is topromote development and structuraladjustment in underdeveloped regions;Objective 2 is to assist areas inindustrial decline; Objective 3 is tocombat long-term unemployment and tocreate jobs for young people and peopleexcluded from the labor market;Objective 4 is to assist workers adaptingto industrial changes and changes inproduction systems; Objective 5 is topromote rural development; andObjective 6 is to aid sparsely populatedareas in northern Europe.

The member states are responsible foridentifying and implementing theindividual projects that receive ESFfinancing. The member states also mustcontribute to the financing of theprojects. In general, the maximumbenefit provided by the ESF is 50percent of the project’s total cost forprojects geared toward Objectives 2, 3,4, and 5b (see below), and 75 percent ofthe project’s total cost for Objective 1projects. For all programs implementedunder Objective 4 in France, 35 percentof the funding comes from the EC, 25percent from the GOF, and theremaining 40 percent from thecompany.

According to the questionnaireresponses, CLI received an ESF grant foran Objective 4 project. The amountreceived during the POI was a portionof a larger total ESF grant authorized forCLI in 1996.

The Department considers workerassistance programs to provide a

countervailable benefit to a companywhen the company is relieved of acontractual or legal obligation it wouldotherwise have incurred. See,§ 357.513(a) of the CVD Regulations.Only limited information was providedin the questionnaire responses about thepurpose of this grant. Therefore, we areunable to determine whether it relievedCLI of any legal or contractualobligations. Likewise, with regard tospecificity, the EC has not providedcomplete information about thedistribution of ESF grants.

Consequently, the Department hasdecided to use facts available inaccordance with section 776(a)(2)(A) ofthe Act. Section 776(b) of the Actpermits the Department to draw aninference that is adverse to the interestsof an interested party if that party has‘‘failed to cooperate by not acting to thebest of its ability to comply with arequest for information.’’ Since Usinor,the GOF and the EC failed to providecomplete information to theDepartment, we preliminarily determineit appropriate to use an adverseinference in concluding that inreceiving the ESF grant that CLI wasrelieved of an obligation, and that theESF grant is specific within the meaningof section 771(5A)(D) of the Act.

We preliminarily determine that the1998 ESF grant is countervailablewithin the meaning of section 771(5) ofthe Act. The grant is a financialcontribution, as described in section771(5)(D)(i) of the Act, which providesa benefit to the recipient in the amountof the grant.

The Department normally expensesthe benefits from worker-relatedsubsidies in the year in which therecipient is relieved of a payment itwould normally incur. See, CVDRegulations at 63 FR 65412. Dividingthe amount of CLI’s 1998 ESF grant byCLI’s total 1998 sales yields acountervailable subsidy of 0.00 percentad valorem for this program.

II. Programs Preliminarily DeterminedNot To Be Countervailable

GOF Programs

A. 1994 Purchase of Power Plant forExcessive Remuneration

The Department initiated aninvestigation of this program prior to theissuance of the final determination ofFrench Stainless. In French Stainless,the Department investigated whetherthe purchase of the Richemont powerplant by Electricite de France (EDF), agovernment-owned entity, was an arm’s-length transaction for full market value.The Department determined that whileFF 1 billion represented a large gain

over the book value of CSR’s physicalassets, the purchase price included anexclusive supply contract from EDF toUsinor’s factories in the Lorraine region.Moreover, the transaction price wassupported by reasonable estimates ofprojected costs and revenues. Therefore,the Department determined thistransaction was an arm’s-lengthtransaction for full-market value andthat EDF’s purchase of Richemont didnot constitute a countervailable subsidywithin the meaning of section 771(5) ofthe Act.

In this investigation, the petitionersstated that to the extent that theDepartment determines that thetransaction is for full-market valuebased on the commitments by Usinor topurchase power from EDF, evidencesuggests that EDF canceled the contractobligating Usinor to purchase electricityexclusively from EDF. Specifically, thepetitioners point to a note in Usinor’s1996 financial statements which statesthat ‘‘other income mainly includes thepositive impact (MF 250) of acompensation received from EDF andrelating to the termination of adistribution contract’’.

As indicated in the our InitiationChecklist and in an additionalMemorandum to the File through SusanKuhbach, dated June 2, 1999, theDepartment indicated that it isterminating its investigation into thoseprograms found not countervailable inFrench Stainless. In French Stainless,the Department determined that the1994 Richemont power planttransaction was a market-basedtransaction. The information containedin Usinor’s 1996 financial statementscited by the petitioners describes anevent that occurred two years after theinvestigated transaction and there is noindication that the 1996 compensationfrom EDF relates to the Richemonttransaction. Therefore, we do notconsider this information sufficient toreconsider our prior determination inFrench Stainless.

B. GOF Conditional AdvanceIn French Stainless, the Department

learned on verification that Usinorreceived an interest-free conditionaladvance from the GOF. This advancewas provided through the Ministry ofIndustry to support a project aimed atdeveloping a new type of steel used inthe production of catalytic converters.Ugine, Sollac, and two unaffiliatedcompanies participated in the projectand each company received a portion ofthe total project funding provided by theGOF. Ugine received its first payment in1992 and a second payment in 1995.There is no information on the record



indicating exactly when Sollac receivedpayment. According to the agreementbetween the GOF and the participatingcompanies, repayment of the advancewas contingent upon sales of theproduct resulting from this projectexceeding a set amount. TheDepartment learned in French Stainless,that since this condition has not beenmet, the entire amount of the advancereceived by Ugine remained outstandingin 1997. Usinor did not provideinformation indicating the outstandingbalance of the loans during the POI.

The responding companies haveindicated that the GOF conditionaladvance is for a project aimed atdeveloping a new type of steel forcatalytic converters which does notcover subject merchandise.Additionally, the width of this productdoes not fall within the width range ofthe subject merchandise as specified inthe scope section of this notice.Therefore, the Department preliminarilydetermines that this program is tied tonon-subject merchandise.

III. Other Programs

A. Electric Arc Furnaces

In 1996, the GOF agreed to provideassistance in the form of reimbursableadvances to support Usinor’s researchand development efforts regardingelectric-arc furnaces. The first disbursalof funds occurred on July 17, 1998.Repayment of the reimbursableadvances will begin on July 31, 2002.

Since these advances may someday berepaid, we are treating them ascontingent liability loans. (See,§ 351.505(d)(1) of the CVD Regulations).Under the methodology specified in theDepartment’s new regulations, thebenefit occurs when payment wouldhave been made on a comparablecommercial loan. (See, § 351.505(b) ofthe CVD Regulations). Informationprovided at verification in the FrenchStainless case indicates that Usinorwould make interest payments on itslong-term loans on an annual basis.Likewise, information from theDepartment’s discussions in FrenchStainless with private banks in Franceconfirms that such a payment schedulewould not be considered atypical ofgeneral French banking practices. SeeFrench Stainless, 64 FR at 30780.Accordingly, we have assumed that apayment on a comparable commercialloan taken out by Usinor at the time ofthis reimbursable advance would not bedue until the year 1999.

Given that no payment would be dueduring the POI, we preliminarilydetermine that there is no benefit toUsinor from these reimbursable

advances during the POI. Consequently,we have not addressed whether thisreimbursable advance iscountervailable.

IV. Programs Preliminarily DeterminedTo Be Not Used

Based on the information provided inthe responses, we determine thatresponding companies did not apply foror receive benefits under the followingprograms during the POI:

GOF ProgramsA. Shareholders GuaranteesB. Long-Term Loans from CFDIC. Subsidies Provided Directly To GTS

EC ProgramsA. Resider and Resider II ProgramB. ECSC Article 54 LoansC. ECSC Article 56(2)(b) Redeployment/

Readaptation AidD. Grants from the European Regional

Development Fund (ERDF)

V. Programs Preliminarily DeterminedNot To Exist

In French Stainless, we determinedthat the alleged program did not exist:‘‘Soft Loans from Credit Lyonnais’’.Therefore, we are not pursuing thisallegation further in this investigation.

VerificationIn accordance with section 782(i)(1) of

the Act, we will verify the informationsubmitted by the respondents prior tomaking our final determination.


703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we havecalculated an individual rate for Usinorand GTS the sole manufacturers of thesubject merchandise. We preliminarilydetermine that the total estimated netcountervailable subsidy rate is 5.42percent ad valorem for Usinor and 3.77percent ad valorem for GTS. The AllOthers rate is 3.84 percent, which is theweighted average of the rates for bothcompanies. In accordance with section703(d) of the Act, we are directing theUS Customs Service to suspendliquidation of all entries of certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate fromFrance which are entered, or withdrawnfrom warehouse, for consumption on orafter the date of the publication of thisnotice in the Federal Register, and torequire a cash deposit or bond for suchentries of the merchandise in theamounts indicated above. Thissuspension will remain in effect untilfurther notice.


the Act, we will notify the ITC of our

determination. In addition, we aremaking available to the ITC allnonprivileged and nonproprietaryinformation relating to thisinvestigation. We will allow the ITCaccess to all privileged and businessproprietary information in our files,provided the ITC confirms that it willnot disclose such information, eitherpublicly or under an administrativeprotective order, without the writtenconsent of the Assistant Secretary,Import Administration.

In accordance with section 705(b)(2)of the Act, if our final determination isaffirmative, the ITC will make its finaldetermination within 45 days after theDepartment makes its finaldetermination.


we will hold a public hearing, ifrequested, to afford interested parties anopportunity to comment on thispreliminary determination. The hearingis tentatively scheduled to be held 57days from the date of publication of thispreliminary determination, at the U.S.Department of Commerce, 14th Streetand Constitution Avenue N.W.,Washington, DC 20230. Individuals whowish to request a hearing must submita written request within 30 days of thepublication of this notice in the FederalRegister to the Assistant Secretary forImport Administration, U.S. Departmentof Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Streetand Constitution Avenue, NW.,Washington, D.C. 20230. Requests for apublic hearing should contain: (1) Theparty’s name, address, and telephonenumber; (2) the number of participants;(3) the reason for attending; and (4) a listof the issues to be discussed. Aninterested party may make anaffirmative presentation only onarguments included in that party’s casebrief and may make a rebuttalpresentation only on argumentsincluded in that party’s rebuttal brief.Parties should confirm by telephone thetime, date, and place of the hearing 48hours before the scheduled time.

In addition, six copies of the businessproprietary version and six copies of thenonproprietary version of the case briefsmust be submitted to the AssistantSecretary no later than 50 days from thepublication of this notice. As part of thecase brief, parties are encouraged toprovide a summary of the arguments notto exceed five pages and a table ofstatutes, regulations, and cases cited.Six copies of the business proprietaryversion and six copies of thenonproprietary version of the rebuttalbriefs must be submitted to theAssistant Secretary no later than 5 days



after the filing of case briefs. Writtenarguments should be submitted inaccordance with 19 CFR 351.309 andwill be considered if received within thetime limits specified above.


Dated: July 16, 1999.Richard W. Moreland,Acting Assistant Secretary for ImportAdministration.[FR Doc. 99–18854 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P



[C–533–818]

Preliminary Affirmative CountervailingDuty Determination and Alignment ofFinal Countervailing DutyDetermination With Final AntidumpingDuty Determination: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel PlateFrom India

AGENCY: Import Administration,International Trade Administration,Department of CommerceEFFECTIVE DATE: July 26, 1999.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Robert Copyak or Eric B. Greynolds,Office of CVD/AD Enforcement VI,Import Administration, U.S. Departmentof Commerce, Room 4012, 14th Streetand Constitution Avenue, NW,Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)482–2786.PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION: TheDepartment of Commerce (theDepartment) preliminarily determinesthat countervailable subsidies are beingprovided to certain producers andexporters of certain cut-to-lengthcarbon-quality steel plate from India.For information on the estimatedcountervailing duty rate, see the‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section ofthis notice.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:


filed by Bethlehem Steel Corporation;U.S. Steel Group, a unit of USXCorporation; Gulf States Steel Inc.;IPSCO Steel Inc.; Tuscaloosa SteelCorporation; and the UnitedSteelworkers of America (thepetitioners).

Case History

Since the publication of the notice ofinitiation in the Federal Register (seeNotice of Initiation of Countervailing

Duty Investigations: Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate fromFrance, India, Indonesia, Italy, and theRepublic of Korea, 64 FR 12996 (March16, 1999) (Initiation Notice)), thefollowing events have occurred: OnMarch 19, 1999, we issued our originalcountervailing duty questionnaire to theGovernment of India (GOI) and toproducers/exporters of the subjectmerchandise. On April 21, 1999, wepostponed the preliminarydetermination of this investigation to nolater than July 16, 1999. See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Platefrom France, India, Indonesia, Italy, andthe Republic of Korea: Postponement ofTime Limit for Countervailing DutyInvestigations, 64 FR 23057 (April 29,1999).

On May 10, 1999, we receivedresponses to our initial questionnairefrom the GOI and from the SteelAuthority of India (SAIL), the onlyproducer and exporter of the subjectmerchandise. We issued supplementalquestionnaires on June 3, 1999, andJune 15, 1999. We received responses tothese questionnaires on June 25, 1999,and July 6, 1999.

Scope of Investigation

The products covered by thisinvestigation are certain hot-rolledcarbon-quality steel: (1) Universal millplates (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled onfour faces or in a closed box pass, of awidth exceeding 150 mm but notexceeding 1250 mm, and of a nominalor actual thickness of not less than 4mm, which are cut-to-length (not incoils) and without patterns in relief), ofiron or non-alloy-quality steel; and (2)flat-rolled products, hot-rolled, of anominal or actual thickness of 4.75 mmor more and of a width which exceeds150 mm and measures at least twice thethickness, and which are cut-to-length(not in coils).

Steel products to be included in thisscope are of rectangular, square, circularor other shape and of rectangular ornon-rectangular cross-section wheresuch non-rectangular cross-section isachieved subsequent to the rollingprocess (i.e., products which have been‘‘worked after rolling’’)—for example,products which have been beveled orrounded at the edges. Steel productsthat meet the noted physicalcharacteristics that are painted,varnished or coated with plastic or othernon-metallic substances are includedwithin this scope. Also, specificallyincluded in this scope are high strength,low alloy (HSLA) steels. HSLA steels arerecognized as steels with micro-alloyinglevels of elements such as chromium,

copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium,and molybdenum.

Steel products to be included in thisscope, regardless of Harmonized TariffSchedule of the United States (HTSUS)definitions, are products in which: (1)Iron predominates, by weight, over eachof the other contained elements, (2) thecarbon content is two percent or less, byweight, and (3) none of the elementslisted below is equal to or exceeds thequantity, by weight, respectivelyindicated:1.80 percent of manganese, or1.50 percent of silicon, or1.00 percent of copper, or0.50 percent of aluminum, or1.25 percent of chromium, or0.30 percent of cobalt, or0.40 percent of lead, or1.25 percent of nickel, or0.30 percent of tungsten, or0.10 percent of molybdenum, or0.10 percent of niobium, or0.41 percent of titanium, or0.15 percent of vanadium, or0.15 percent zirconium.

All products that meet the writtenphysical description, and in which thechemistry quantities do not equal orexceed any one of the levels listedabove, are within the scope of thisinvestigation unless otherwisespecifically excluded. The followingproducts are specifically excluded fromthis investigation: (1) Products clad,plated, or coated with metal, whether ornot painted, varnished or coated withplastic or other non-metallic substances;(2) SAE grades (formerly AISI grades) ofseries 2300 and above; (3) productsmade to ASTM A710 and A736 or theirproprietary equivalents; (4) abrasion-resistant steels (i.e., USS AR 400, USSAR 500); (5) products made to ASTMA202, A225, A514 grade S, A517 gradeS, or their proprietary equivalents; (6)ball bearing steels; (7) tool steels; and (8)silicon manganese steel or siliconelectric steel.

The merchandise subject to thisinvestigation is classified in the HTSUSunder subheadings: 7208.40.3030,7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030,7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060,7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000,7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000,7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000,7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045,7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000,7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000,7225.40.3050, 7225.40.7000,7225.50.6000, 7225.99.0090,7226.91.5000, 7226.91.7000,7226.91.8000, 7226.99.0000.

Although the HTSUS subheadings areprovided for convenience and Customspurposes, the Department’s written



description of the merchandise underinvestigation is dispositive.

Scope Comments

As stated in our notice of initiation,we set aside a period for parties to raiseissues regarding product coverage. Inparticular, we sought comments on thespecific levels of alloying elements setout in the description below, the clarityof grades and specifications excludedfrom the scope, and the physical andchemical description of the productcoverage.

On March 29, 1999, Usinor, arespondent in the French antidumpingand countervailing duty investigationsand Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd. andPohang Iron and Steel Co., Ltd.,respondents in the Korean antidumpingand countervailing duty investigations(collectively the Korean respondents),filed comments regarding the scope ofthe investigations. On April 14, 1999,the petitioners responded to Usinor’sand the Korean respondents’ comments.In addition, on May 17, 1999, ILVAS.p.A. (ILVA), a respondent in theItalian antidumping and countervailingduty investigations, requested guidanceon whether certain products are withinthe scope of these investigations.

Usinor requested that the Departmentmodify the scope to exclude: (1) Platethat is cut to non-rectangular shapes orthat has a total final weight of less than200 kilograms; and (2) steel that is 4’’ orthicker and which is certified for use inhigh-pressure, nuclear or other technicalapplications; and (3) floor plate (i.e.,plate with ‘‘patterns in relief’’) madefrom hot-rolled coil. Further, Usinorrequested that the Department provideclarification of scope coverage withrespect to what it argues are over-inclusive HTSUS subheadings includedin the scope language.


The Korean respondents requestedconfirmation whether the maximumalloy percentages listed in the scope

language are definitive with respect tocovered HSLA steels.

At this time, no party has presentedany evidence to suggest that thesemaximum alloy percentages areinappropriate. Therefore, we have notadjusted the scope language. As in allproceedings, questions as to whether ornot a specific product is covered by thescope and should be timely raised withDepartment officials.

ILVA requested guidance on whethercertain merchandise produced frombillets is within the scope of the currentCTL plate investigations. According toILVA, the billets are converted intowide flats and bar products (a type oflong product). ILVA notes that one ofthe long products, when rolled, has athickness range that falls within thescope of these investigations. However,according to ILVA, the greatest possiblewidth of these long products wouldonly slightly overlap the narrowestcategory of width covered by the scopeof the investigations. Finally, ILVAstates that these products have differentproduction processes and propertiesthan merchandise covered by the scopeof the investigations and therefore arenot covered by the scope of theinvestigations.

As ILVA itself acknowledges, theparticular products in question appearto fall within the parameters of thescope and, therefore, we are treatingthem as covered merchandise forpurposes of these investigations.


citations to the statute are references tothe provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930,as amended by the Uruguay RoundAgreements Act effective January 1,1995 (the Act). In addition, unlessotherwise indicated, all citations to theDepartment’s regulations are to thecurrent regulations as codified at 19CFR part 351 (1998) and to thesubstantive countervailing dutyregulations published in the FederalRegister on November 25, 1998 (63 FR65348) (CVD Regulations).

Injury TestBecause India is a ‘‘Subsidies

Agreement country’’ within the meaningof section 701(b) of the Act, theInternational Trade Commission (ITC) isrequired to determine whether importsof the subject merchandise from Indiamaterially injure, or threaten materialinjury to, a U.S. industry. On April 8,1999, the ITC published its preliminarydetermination that there is a reasonableindication that an industry in theUnited States is being materiallyinjured, or threatened with material

injury, by reason of imports from Indiaof the subject merchandise. See CertainCut-To-Length Carbon-Quality SteelPlate from the Czech Republic, France,India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea,and Macedonia, 64 FR 17198 (April 8,1999).


On July 2, 1999, the petitionerssubmitted a letter requesting alignmentof the final determination in thisinvestigation with the finaldetermination in the companionantidumping duty investigation. SeeInitiation of Antidumping DutyInvestigations: Certain Cut-to-lengthCarbon-Quality Steel Plate from theCzech Republic, France, India,Indonesia, Italy, Japan, the Republic ofKorea, and the Former YugoslavRepublic of Macedonia, 64 FR 12959(March 16, 1999). Therefore, inaccordance with section 705(a)(1) of theAct, we are aligning the finaldetermination in this investigation withthe final determinations in theantidumping duty investigations of cut-to-length plate.

Period of Investigation (POI)

Because SAIL is the only exporter/producer of the subject merchandise,the POI for which we are measuringsubsidies is the period for SAIL’s mostrecently completed fiscal year, April 1,1997 through March 31, 1998.


Allocation Period


In this investigation, no party to theproceeding has claimed that the AULlisted in the IRS tables does notreasonably reflect the AUL of therenewable physical assets for the firm orindustry under investigation. Therefore,according to § 351.524(d)(2) of the CVD



Regulations, we have allocated SAIL’snon-recurring benefits over 15 years, theAUL listed in the IRS tables for the steelindustry.

Benchmarks for Loans and DiscountRate

For those programs which require theapplication of a short-term interest ratebenchmark, we used as our benchmarka company-specific, short-termcommercial interest rate for both rupee-and U.S. dollar-denominated loans forthe POI as reported by SAIL. Where along-term interest-rate benchmark wasrequired, the selection of a benchmarkis specified in the program-specificsections of this notice.

In addition, because SAIL did notreport rupee-denominated long-termcommercial loans, we could not use acompany-specific interest rate as ourdiscount rate. Therefore, the discountrate used was the lending rate on rupeelending from private creditors asreported in the International FinancialStatistics.

I. Programs Preliminarily Determined ToBe Countervailable

A. Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme(DEPS)

In its May 10, 1999, response to theDepartment’s original questionnaire, theGOI submitted copies of two publicallyavailable Ministry of Commercepublications—‘‘Export and ImportPolicy’’ and ‘‘Handbook of Procedures’’(see Exhibits P and Q of the publicversion on file in room B–099 of theMain Commerce Building ). Thesepublications set forth the rules andregulations of the several programswhich allow duty exemptions onimports. Chapter 7 of the ‘‘Export andImport Policy’’ contains the details ofIndia’s Duty Exemption Scheme, whichconsists of the DEPS and ‘‘Duty FreeLicenses’’ (Advance Licenses, AdvanceIntermediate Licenses, and SpecialImprest Licenses).

The DEPS formerly was the PassbookScheme (PBS), which was enacted onApril 1, 1995, under the auspices of theDirectorate General of Foreign Trade(DGFT). Under the PBS, GOI-designatedmanufacturers/exporters, upon export offinished goods, could claim credits oncertain imported inputs which could beused to pay customs duties onsubsequent imports. The amount ofcredit granted was determinedaccording to the GOI’s ‘‘Standard Input/Output’’ (SIO) norm schedule thatestablished the quantities of normallyimported raw materials used to produceone unit of the finished product. Usingthe SIO norm schedule, the GOI granted

a credit based on an estimation of thecustoms duty that would have otherwisebeen charged absent the program. Ratherthan receiving the import duty refund incash, participating companies receivedtheir credits in the form of a ‘‘passbook’’from the DGFT which, in turn, could beused to pay import duties on subsequentGOI-approved imports by means of adebit entry in the company’s passbook.According to the GOI, the passbookprogram was discontinued on April 1,1997. However, exporters may continueto use a passbook credit that was issuedprior to the termination for a period ofup to three years after the issuance date.Thus, exporters can, conceivably,continue to use credits earned under thePBS program until their credits havebeen used up or until March 31, 2000.SAIL has reported that it did not use orreceive credits under the PBS during thePOI.

On the same date that the PBS wasterminated, the GOI enacted the DEPS.Under the DEPS, exporters are eligibleto receive a specified percentage of dutycredits against the f.o.b. value of theirexports. As with the PBS, the GOIdetermines the amount of credit that canbe applied towards a company’sremission of import duties according tothe GOI’s SIO norm schedule, whichsets forth the average amount of inputsimported for the manufacture of aspecific product and the average amountof duty payable on those importedinputs.

Under the DEPS, an exporter mayobtain credits on a pre-export or post-export basis. Eligibility for the DEPSpre-export program is limited tomanufacturers/exporters that haveexported for a three year period prior toapplying for the program. A pre-exportcredit is capped at five percent of theaverage export performance of theapplicant during the preceding threeyears. The GOI and the company havestated that SAIL did not use or receiveDEPS pre-export credits during the POI.

All exporters are eligible toparticipate in the DEPS post-exportprogram, provided that the exportedproduct is listed in the GOI’s SIO normschedule. According to the GOI, post-export DEPS credits allow exporters toreceive exemptions on any subsequentimport regardless of whether it isincorporated into the production of anexport product. In addition, creditsearned under the DEPS post-exportprogram are valid for 12 months and arefreely transferable. During the POI, SAILreceived and used post-export DEPScredits.

Section 351.519 of the CVDRegulations sets forth the criteriaregarding the remission, exemption or

drawback of import duties. Under351.519(a)(4), the entire amount of animport duty exemption iscountervailable if the government doesnot have in place a system or procedureto confirm which imports are consumedin the production of the exportedproduct, or if the government has notcarried out an examination of actualimports involved to confirm whichimports are consumed in the productionof the exported product.

According to the GOI, once a post-export DEPS credit is earned, companiesmay use the credit for the exemption ofduties on any import regardless ofwhether the import is consumed in theproduction of an export product.Because the GOI reported that exportersare free to use products imported withpost-export DEPS credits withoutrestriction, we preliminary determinethat the GOI does not have a system inplace to confirm that imports areconsumed in the production of anexported product, nor has it carried outsuch an examination. Consequently,under § 351.519(a)(4) of the CVDRegulations, the entire amount of theimport duty exemption provides abenefit. Furthermore, a financialcontribution, as defined under section771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act, is providedunder the program because the GOI isforegoing customs duties. In addition,this program can only be used byexporters, and, thus, the subsidy isspecific under section 771(5A)(A) of theAct.

SAIL reported its receipt of DEPSpost-export credits during the POI forexports of subject merchandise to theUnited States and the application fees itpaid in order to receive the credits. Wepreliminarily determine that the feespaid qualify as an ‘‘* * * applicationfee, deposit, or similar payment paid inorder to qualify for, or to receive, thebenefit of the countervailable subsidy.’’See section 771(6)(A) of the Act. Thus,to calculate the subsidy, we havecalculated the amount of DEPS importduty exemptions received by SAIL andthe amount of revenue earned on DEPSexport credits which have been sold bySAIL during the POI that wereattributable to exports of subjectmerchandise to the United States (lessthe applicable fees paid). We thendivided that amount by SAIL’s totalexports of subject merchandise to theUnited States during the POI. On thisbasis, we preliminarily determine thenet countervailable subsidy to be 0.55percent ad valorem.

B. Advance LicensesUnder India’s Duty Exemption

Scheme, companies may also import



inputs duty-free through the use ofimport licenses. Using advance licenses,companies are able to import inputs‘‘required for the manufacture of goods’’without paying India’s basic customsduty (see chapter 7 of ‘‘Export andImport Policy’’). Advance intermediatelicenses and special imprest licenses arealso used to import inputs duty-free.During the POI, SAIL used advancelicences and also sold some advancelicenses. SAIL reported that it did notuse or sell any advance intermediatelicenses or special imprest licensesduring the POI.

In Certain Iron-Metal Castings fromIndia: Final Results of CountervailingDuty Administrative Review, 62 FR32297, 32306 (June 13, 1997) (1994Castings), the Department found that theadvance licenses system accomplished,in essence, what a drawback system isintended to accomplish, i.e., finishedproducts produced with importedinputs are allowed to be exported freeof the import duties assessed on theimported inputs. The Departmentconcluded that, because the importedinputs were used to produce castingswhich were subsequently exported, theduty-free importation of these inputsunder the advance license program didnot constitute a countervailable subsidy.See 1994 Castings 62 FR at 32306.

Subsequently, in Certain Iron-MetalCastings from India: Final Results ofCountervailing Duty AdministrativeReview, 63 FR 64050, 64058–59 (Nov.18, 1998) (1996 Castings), we stated thatwe would reevaluate the program inlight of new information as to how theprogram operates. In the petition,petitioners provided new substantiveinformation which indicated that theGOI does not value the licensesaccording to the inputs actuallyconsumed in the production of theexported good. Based on thisinformation, we initiated areexamination of the advanced licenseprogram.

As stated earlier, § 351.519 of the CVDRegulations sets the criteria used todetermine whether programs whichprovide for the remission, exemption, ordrawback of import duties arecountervailable. Under § 351.519(a)(4),the government must have a system inplace or must carry out an examinationto confirm that inputs are consumed inthe production of the exported product.Absent these procedures, the entireamount of the import duty exemptionprovides a countervailable benefit.

Because the GOI reported in itsquestionnaire response that productsimported under an advance license neednot be consumed in the production ofthe exported product, we preliminarily

determine that the GOI has no system inplace to confirm that the inputs areconsumed in the production of theexported product, nor has the GOIcarried out such an examination.Consequently, under § 351.519(a)(4) ofthe CVD Regulations, the entire amountof the duty exemption under theadvance licenses program iscountervailable. Because only exporterscan receive advance licenses, thisprogram constitutes an export subsidyunder section 771(5A)(B) of the Act. Inaddition, a financial contribution isprovided by the program under section771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act.

The GOI also allows companies to selladvance licenses to other companies inIndia. The Department has previouslydetermined that the sale of importlicenses constitutes a countervailableexport subsidy. See, e.g., 1996 Castingsand 1994 Castings. No new substantiveinformation or evidence of changedcircumstances has been submitted inthis proceeding to warrantreconsideration of this determination.Therefore, in accordance with section771(5A)(B) of the Act, we continue tofind that this program constitutes anexport subsidy and that the financialcontribution in the form of the revenuereceived on the sale of licensesconstitutes the benefit.

SAIL reported the advance licenses itused and sold during the POI which itreceived for exports of subjectmerchandise to the United States andthe application fees it paid in order toreceive these licenses. We preliminarilydetermine that the fees paid qualify asan ‘‘* * * application fee, deposit, orsimilar payment paid in order to qualifyfor, or to receive, the benefit of thecountervailable subsidy.’’ See section771(6)(A) of the Act. Under § 351.524(c)of the CVD Regulations, this programprovides a recurring benefit. Therefore,to calculate the subsidy for the AdvanceLicenses program, we added the valuesof the import duty exemptions realizedby SAIL from its use of advance licensesduring the POI (net of application fees)and the proceeds it realized from salesof advance licenses during the POI (netof application fees). We then dividedthis total by the value of SAIL’s exportsof subject merchandise to the UnitedStates during the POI. On this basis, wepreliminarily determine the netcountervailable subsidy to be 12.90percent ad valorem.

C. Special Import Licenses (SILs)During the POI, SAIL sold through

public auction two other types of importlicenses—SILs for Quality and SILs forStar Trading Houses. SILs for Qualityare licenses granted to exporters which

meet internationally-accepted qualitystandards for their products, such as IS09000 (series) and ISO 14000 (series).SILs for Star Trading Houses arelicenses granted to exporters that meetcertain export targets. Both types of SILspermit the holder to import productslisted on a ‘‘Restricted List of Imports’’in amounts up to the face value of theSIL but do not relieve the importer ofimport duties.

SAIL reported that it sold SILs duringthe POI. As explained above, theDepartment’s practice is that the sale ofspecial import licenses constitutes anexport subsidy because companiesreceived these licenses based on theirstatus as exporters. See, e.g., 1996Castings and 1994 Castings. No newsubstantive information or evidence ofchanged circumstances has beensubmitted in this proceeding to warrantreconsideration of this determination.Therefore, in accordance with section771(5A)(B) of the Act, we continue tofind that this program constitutes acountervailable export subsidy, and thefinancial contribution in the form of therevenue received on the sale of licensesconstitutes the benefit.

During the POI, SAIL sold numerousSILs. Because the receipt of SILs cannotbe segregated by type or destination ofexport, we calculated the subsidies bydividing the total amount of proceedsreceived from the sales of these licensesby the value of SAIL’s total exports. Onthis basis, we preliminarily determinethe net countervailable subsidy be 0.15percent ad valorem.

D. Export Promotion Capital GoodsScheme (EPCGS)

The EPCGS provides for a reductionor exemption of customs duties and anexemption from excise taxes on importsof capital goods. Under this program,producers may import capital goods atreduced rates of duty by undertaking toearn convertible foreign exchange equalto four to six times the value of thecapital goods within a period of five toeight years. For failure to meet theexport obligation, a company is subjectto payment of all or part of the dutyreduction, depending on the extent ofthe export shortfall, plus penaltyinterest.

In the Final Negative CountervailingDuty Determination: Elastic RubberTape From India, 64 FR 19125 (April19, 1999) (ERT), we determined that theimport duty reduction provided underthe EPCGS was a countervailable exportsubsidy. See ERT 64 FR at 19129–30.We also determined that the exemptionfrom the excise tax provided under thisprogram was not countervailable. SeeERT 64 FR at 19130. No new



information or evidence of changedcircumstances have been provided towarrant a reconsideration of thesedeterminations. Therefore, we continueto find that import duty reductionsprovided under the EPCGS to becountervailable export subsidies.

SAIL reported that it importedmachinery under the EPCGS during thePOI and in the years prior to the POI.For some of its imported machinery,SAIL met its export commitments priorto the POI. Therefore, the amount ofduty for which it had claimedexemption has been completely waivedby the GOI. However, SAIL has notcompleted its export commitments forother imports of capital machinery.Therefore, although SAIL received areduction in import duties when thecapital machinery was imported, thefinal waiver on the potential obligationto repay the duties has not yet beenmade by the GOI.

We preliminary determine that SAILbenefitted in two ways by participatingin this program during the POI. The firstbenefit received by SAIL under thisprogram is the benefit on the importduty reductions received on importedcapital equipment which has beenformally waived by the GOI becauseSAIL met its export requirements withrespect to those imports. Prior to thePOI, SAIL met its export requirementsfor certain capital imports it made underthe EPCGS and, therefore, upon thatfulfillment, the GOI formally waived theunpaid duties on those imports. Becausethe GOI has formally waived the unpaidduties on these imports, we have treatedthe full amount of the duty exemptionas a grant received in the year the exportrequirement for the import was metsince that was the year the final waiverof unpaid duties was received.

Section 351.524 of the CVDRegulations specifies the criteria to beused by the Department in determininghow to allocate the benefits from acountervailable subsidy program. Underthe CVD Regulations, recurring benefitswill be expensed in the year of receipt,while non-recurring benefits will beallocated over time. In thisinvestigation, non-recurring benefitswill be allocated over 15 years, the AULof assets used by the steel industry asreported in the IRS tables.

Normally, tax benefits are consideredto be recurring benefits and areexpensed in the year of receipt. Sinceimport duties are a type of tax, thebenefit provided under this program isa tax benefit, and, thus, normally wouldbe considered a recurring benefit.However, the CVD Regulationsrecognize that under certaincircumstances it may be more

appropriate to allocate the benefits of aprogram traditionally considered as arecurring subsidy, rather than toexpense the benefits in the year ofreceipt. For example, § 351.524(c)(2) ofthe CVD Regulations allows a party toclaim that a recurring subsidy should betreated as a non-recurring subsidy andenumerates the criteria to be used by theDepartment in evaluating that claim. Inaddition, in the Explanation of the FinalRules (the Preamble) to the CVDRegulations, the Department providesan example of when it may be moreappropriate to consider the benefits of atax program non-recurring, and, thus,allocate those benefits over time. In thePreamble to the CVD Regulations westated that if a government provides animport duty exemption tied to majorcapital equipment purchases, such asthe program at issue here, that it may beappropriate to conclude that, becausethese duty exemptions are tied to capitalassets, the benefits from such dutyexemptions should be considered non-recurring, even though import dutyexemptions are on the list of recurringsubsidies. See CVD Regulations, 63 FRat 65393. Therefore, because the benefitreceived from the waiver of importduties under the EPCGS program is tiedto the capital assets of SAIL, weconsider the benefit to be non-recurring.Accordingly, we have allocated thebenefit from this program over theaverage useful life of assets in theindustry, as set forth in the ‘‘SubsidiesValuation Information’’ section, above.

The second type of benefit receivedunder this program was provided by theimport duty reductions received onimports of capital equipment for whichSAIL had not yet met its exportrequirements. For those capitalequipment imports, we determine thatSAIL had unpaid duties which formallyhad not been waived by the GOI. Thus,the company had outstandingcontingent liabilities during the POI.When a company has an outstandingliability and repayment of that liabilityis contingent upon subsequent events,our practice is to treat any balance onthat unpaid liability as an interest-freeloan. See § 351.505(d)(1) of the CVDRegulations.

In this investigation, the amount ofcontingent liability which would betreated as an interest-free loan is theamount of the import duty reductionreceived by SAIL, but not yet finallywaived by the GOI. Thus, for dutyreductions received on imports ofcapital equipment for which SAIL hadnot yet met its export requirements, weconsider the full amount of SAIL’sunpaid customs duty on those importswhich are outstanding during the POI to

be an interest-free loan. We calculatedthis portion of the benefit as the interestthat SAIL would have paid during thePOI had it borrowed the full amount ofthe duty reduction at the benchmarkrate. Pursuant to § 351.505(d)(1) of theCVD Regulations, we used a long-terminterest rate as our benchmark formeasuring the subsidy because theevent upon which repayment of theduties depends (i.e., the date ofexpiration of the time period for SAILto fulfill its export commitments) occursat a point in time more than one yearafter the date the capital goods wereimported. Because SAIL did not reportany rupee-denominated long-term loansfor the year in which SAIL imported thecapital equipment, we could not use acompany-specific benchmark interestrate as a discount rate in calculating thebenefit provided to SAIL under thisprogram. Thus, we used, as the discountrate, the lending rate on rupee-lendingfrom private creditors, which ispublished in International FinancialStatistics.

To calculate the subsidy, we dividedthe combined benefit allocable to thePOI by SAIL’s total exports from itsBhilai facility during the POI becauseSAIL only reported the capitalequipment imported under the EPCGSfor the Bhilai facility. (We used thismethodology for the purpose of thepreliminary determination becauseSAIL only reported the capitalequipment imported under the EPCGSby the Bhilai facility, the only plantwhich produced the subjectmerchandise exported to the UnitedStates. We are seeking additionalinformation on all import dutyexemptions on imports of all capitalequipment by SAIL for purposes of thefinal determination). On this basis, wepreliminarily determine the netcountervailable subsidy to be 0.25percent ad valorem.

E. Pre-shipment and Post-shipmentExport Financing

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI),through commercial banks, providesshort-term pre-shipment financing, or‘‘packing credits,’’ to exporters. Uponpresentation of a confirmed export orderor letter of credit to a bank, companiesmay receive pre-shipment loans forworking capital purposes, i.e., for thepurchase of raw materials, warehousing,packing, and transporting of exportmerchandise. Exporters may alsoestablish pre-shipment credit lines uponwhich they may draw as needed. Creditline limits are established bycommercial banks, based upon acompany’s creditworthiness and pastexport performance, and may be



denominated in either Indian rupees orin foreign currency. Companies thathave pre-shipment credit lines typicallypay interest on a quarterly basis on theoutstanding balance of the account atthe end of each period.

Commercial banks extending exportcredit to Indian companies must, bylaw, charge interest on this credit atrates determined by the RBI. During thePOI, the rate of interest charged on pre-shipment, rupee-denominated exportloans up to 180 days was 12.0 and 13.0percent. For those loans over 180 daysand up to 270 days, banks chargedinterest at 15.0 percent. The interestcharged on foreign currencydenominated export loans up to 180days during the POI was a 6-monthLIBOR rate plus 2.0 percent for bankswith foreign branches, or plus 2.5percent for banks without foreignbranches. For those foreign currencydenominated loans exceeding 180 daysand up to 270 days, the interest chargedwas 6-month LIBOR plus 4.0 percent forbanks with foreign branches, or plus 4.5percent for banks without foreignbranches. Exporters did not receive theconcessional interest rate if the loan wasbeyond 270 days.

Post-shipment export financingconsists of loans in the form ofdiscounted trade bills or advances bycommercial banks. Exporters qualify forthis program by presenting their exportdocuments to their lending bank. Thecredit covers the period from the date ofshipment of the goods, to the date ofrealization of export proceeds from theoverseas customer. Post-shipmentfinancing is, therefore, a working capitalprogram used to finance exportreceivables. This financing is normallydenominated in either rupees or inforeign currency, except when anexporter used foreign currency pre-shipment financing, then the exporter isrestricted to post-shipment exportfinancing denominated in the sameforeign currency.

In general, post-shipment loans aregranted for a period of no more than 180days. The interest rate charged on theseforeign currency denominated loansduring the POI was LIBOR plus 2.0percent for banks with overseasbranches or LIBOR plus 2.5 percent forbanks without overseas branches. Forloans not repaid within the due date,exporters lose the concessional interestrate on this financing.

The Department has previously foundboth pre-shipment export financing andpost-shipment export financing to becountervailable, because receipt ofexport financing under these programswas contingent upon exportperformance and the interest rates were

lower than the rates the exporters wouldhave paid on comparable commercialloans. See, e.g., 1995 Castings, 62 FR at32998. No new substantive informationor evidence of changed circumstanceshas been submitted in this investigationto warrant reconsideration of thisfinding. Therefore, in accordance withsection 771(5A)(B) of the Act, wecontinue to find that pre-and post-shipment export financing constitutecountervailable export subsidies.

To determine the benefit conferredunder the pre-export financing programfor rupee-denominated loans, wecompared the interest rate charged onthese loans to a benchmark interest rate.SAIL reported that, during the POI, itreceived and paid interest oncommercial, short-term, rupee-denominated cash credit loans whichwere not provided under a GOIprogram. Cash credit loans are the mostcomparable type of short-term loans touse as a benchmark because like the pre-export loans received under thisprogram, cash credit loans aredenominated in rupee and take the formof a line of credit which can be drawndown by the recipient. Thus, we usedthese loans to calculate a company-specific, weighted-average, rupee-denominated benchmark interest rate.We compared this company-specificbenchmark rate to the interest ratescharged on SAIL’s pre-shipment rupeeloans and found that the interest ratescharged were lower than the benchmarkrates. Therefore, in accordance withsection 771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act, thisprogram conferred countervailablebenefits during the POI because theinterest rates charged on these loanswere less than what a companyotherwise would have had to pay on acomparable short-term commercial loan.

To calculate the benefit from thesepre-shipment loans, we compared theactual interest paid on the loans withthe amount of interest that would havebeen paid at the benchmark interestrate. Where the benchmark interestexceeded the actual interest paid, thedifference is the benefit. We thendivided the total amount of benefit bySAIL’s total exports. On this basis, wepreliminarily determine the netcountervailable subsidy to be 0.10percent ad valorem.

During the POI, SAIL also took outU.S. pre-and post-shipment exportfinancing denominated in U.S. dollars.To determine the benefit conferred fromthis non-rupee pre-and post-shipmentexport financing, we again comparedthe program interest rates to abenchmark interest rate. We used thecompany-specific interest rates fromSAIL’s ‘‘bankers acceptance facility’’

loans to derive the benchmark. SAIL’sbankers acceptance facility loans werethe only commercial short-term dollarlending received by the company duringthe POI. Because the effective rates paidby the exporters are discounted rates,we derived from the bankers acceptancefacility rates a discounted weighted-average, dollar-denominatedbenchmark. We compared thiscompany-specific benchmark rate to theinterest rates charged on pre-shipmentand post-shipment dollar-denominatedloans and determined that the programinterest rates were higher than thebenchmark rate. Therefore, wepreliminarily determine that SAIL didnot benefit from dollar-denominatedpre-and post-shipment export financingduring the POI.

F. Loan Guarantees From the GOIIn its questionnaire response, the GOI

reported that it has not extended loanguarantees pursuant to any program perse. Rather, the Ministry of Financeextends loan guarantees to selectedIndian companies on an ad hoc basis,normally to public sector companies inparticular industries. The GOI alsoreported that GOI loan guarantees arenot contingent on export performancenor are they contingent on the use ofdomestic over imported goods. The GOIstated that, while it has not extendedloan guarantees to the steel sector since1992, it continues to extend loanguarantees to other industrial sectors onan ad hoc basis.

During the POI, SAIL had outstandingseveral long-term, foreign currencyloans on which it received loanguarantees from the GOI. These loansoriginated from both foreign commercialbanks and international lending/development institutions. According toSAIL, the loan guarantees wereearmarked for certain activities relatedto the company’s steel production (i.e.worker training, modernizationactivities, etc.). In contradiction to theGOI’s response, SAIL reported that itfinalized its loan agreements, and, thus,its loan guarantees as late as 1994.

Section 351.506 of the CVDRegulations states that in the case of aloan guarantee, a benefit exists to theextent that the total amount a firm paysfor the loan with a government-providedguarantee is less than the total amountthe firm would pay for a comparablecommercial loan that the firm couldactually obtain on the market absent thegovernment-provided guarantee,including any differences in guaranteefees. Thus, to determine whether thisprogram confers a benefit, we comparedthe total amount SAIL paid, includingeffective interest and guarantee fees, on



each of its outstanding foreign currencyloans with the total amount it wouldhave paid on a comparable commercialloan.

According to SAIL’s response, theoriginal loan amounts weredenominated in foreign currencies.However, SAIL only reported the rupee-denominated payments on these loans,and reported only a weighted-averageinterest rate on these loans derived fromthese rupee payments. Therefore, forthis preliminary determination, we areunable to use a foreign currencybenchmark to calculate the benefitconferred by these loan guarantees. (Wealso note that SAIL did not report anynon-GOI guaranteed long-term foreigncurrency loans, thus, even if SAIL hadproperly reported the interest ratescharged on these loans, we could notuse a company-specific benchmarkinterest rate.) SAIL also did not reportany long-term rupee loans fromcommercial sources. Therefore, we usedas the benchmark the long-term interestrate for loans denominated in rupeesfrom private creditors, which ispublished in International FinancialStatistics. (We are seeking additionalinformation from SAIL on the actualfees charged on these guarantees. Wewill also seek information on interestrates and guarantee fees charged bycommercial banks on foreign currencyloans provided within India.)

Using these two rates for comparisonpurposes, we found that the totalamount paid by SAIL on the GOIguaranteed loans was less than what thecompany would have paid on acomparable commercial loan. Thus, wepreliminary determine that the loanguarantees from the GOI conferred abenefit upon SAIL. We preliminarilydetermine that this program is specificunder section 771(5A)(D)(iii)(II) of theAct because it is limited to certaincompanies selected by the GOI on an adhoc basis. In addition, a financialcontribution is provided under theprogram as defined under section771(5)(D)(i) of the Act. To calculate thesubsidy, we divided the benefitcalculated from the loan guarantees bySAIL’s total sales during the POI. Onthis basis, we preliminarily determinethe net countervailable subsidy to be0.50 percent ad valorem.

We did not include in ourcalculations the loans which originatedfrom international lending/developmentinstitutions. According to § 351.527 ofthe CVD Regulations, the Departmentdoes not generally consider loansprovided by international lending/development institutions such as theWorld Bank to be countervailable.

However, we will continue to considerthe issue for the final determination.

II. Program Preliminarily Determined ToBe Not Countervailable

Government of India (GOI) Loansthrough the Steel Development Fund(SDF)

The SDF was established in 1978 at atime when the steel sector was subjectto price and distribution controls. From1978 through 1994, an SDF levy wasimposed on all sales made by India’sintegrated producers. The proceeds fromthis levy were then remitted to the JointPlant Committee (JPC), theadministrating authority consisting offour major integrated steel producers inIndia that have contributed to the fundover the years. The GOI reported in itsquestionnaire response that these levies,interest earned on loans, andrepayments of loans due are the onlysources of funds for the SDF.

Under the SDF program, companiesthat have contributed to the fund areeligible to take out long-term loans fromthe fund at favorable rates. All loanrequests are subject to review by the JPCalong with the DevelopmentCommission for Iron and Steel. In itsquestionnaire response, the GOI hasclaimed that it has never contributedany funds, either directly or indirectly,to the SDF. Thus, we preliminarilydetermine that the SDF program is notcountervailable because it does notconstitute a financial contribution asdefined under section 771(5)(D)(ii) ofthe Act.


Based upon the information providedin the responses, we preliminarilydetermine that SAIL did not apply foror receive benefits under the followingprograms during the POI:A. Passbook SchemeB. Advanced Intermediate LicensesC. Special Imprest LicensesD. Tax Exemption for Export Profits

(Section 80 HHC of the India TaxAct)

Verification

In accordance with section 782(i) ofthe Act, we will verify the informationsubmitted by respondents prior tomaking our final determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we havecalculated an individual rate for thecompany under investigation—SAIL.We will use this rate for purposes of the‘‘all others’’ rate.

Producer/exporter Net subsidy rate

Steel Authority ofIndia (SAIL).

14.45% ad valorem.

All Others .................. 14.45% ad valorem.

In accordance with section 703(d) ofthe Act, we are directing the U.S.Customs Service to suspend liquidationof all entries of the subject merchandisefrom India, which are entered orwithdrawn from warehouse, forconsumption on or after the date of thepublication of this notice in the FederalRegister, and to require a cash depositor bond for such entries of themerchandise in the amounts indicatedabove. This suspension will remain ineffect until further notice.





we will hold a public hearing, ifrequested, to afford interested parties anopportunity to comment on thispreliminary determination. The hearingis tentatively scheduled to be held 57days from the date of publication of thepreliminary determination at the U.S.Department of Commerce, 14th Streetand Constitution Avenue, NW,Washington, DC 20230. Individuals whowish to request a hearing must submita written request within 30 days of thepublication of this notice in the FederalRegister to the Assistant Secretary forImport Administration, U.S. Departmentof Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Streetand Constitution Avenue, NW,Washington, DC 20230. Parties shouldconfirm by telephone the time, date, andplace of the hearing 48 hours before thescheduled time.

Requests for a public hearing shouldcontain: (1) The party’s name, address,and telephone number; (2) the numberof participants; and, (3) to the extent



practicable, an identification of thearguments to be raised at the hearing. Inaddition, six copies of the businessproprietary version and six copies of thenonproprietary version of the case briefsmust be submitted to the AssistantSecretary no later than 50 days from thedate of publication of the preliminarydetermination. As part of the case brief,parties are encouraged to provide asummary of the arguments not to exceedfive pages and a table of statutes,regulations, and cases cited. Six copiesof the business proprietary version andsix copies of the nonproprietary versionof the rebuttal briefs must be submittedto the Assistant Secretary no later than5 days from the date of filing of casebriefs. An interested party may make anaffirmative presentation only onarguments included in that party’s caseor rebuttal briefs. Written argumentsshould be submitted in accordance with19 CFR 351.309 and will be consideredif received within the time limitsspecified above.





[C–580–837]

Preliminary Affirmative CountervailingDuty Determination and Alignment ofFinal Countervailing DutyDetermination With Final AntidumpingDuty Determination: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel PlateFrom the Republic of Korea

AGENCY: Import Administration,International Trade Administration,Department of Commerce.EFFECTIVE DATE: July 26, 1999.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Stephanie Moore or Tipten Troidl, CVD/AD Enforcement, Office 6, Group II,Import Administration, U.S. Departmentof Commerce, Room 4012, 14th Streetand Constitution Avenue, NW,Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202)482–2786.PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION: TheDepartment of Commerce (theDepartment) preliminarily determinesthat countervailable subsidies are beingprovided to certain producers andexporters of certain cut-to-length

carbon-quality steel plate from theRepublic of Korea. For information onthe estimated countervailing duty rates,see the ‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’section of this notice.


Petitioners

The petition in this investigation wasfiled by Bethlehem Steel Corporation,U.S. Steel Group, a unit of USXCorporation, Gulf States Steel, Inc.,IPSCO Steel Inc., Tuscaloosa SteelCorporation, and the UnitedSteelworkers of America (thepetitioners).

Case History

Since the publication of the notice ofinitiation in the Federal Register (seeNotice of Initiation of CountervailingDuty Investigations: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate fromFrance, India, Indonesia, Italy, and theRepublic of Korea, 64 FR 12996 (March16, 1999) (Initiation Notice)), thefollowing events have occurred. OnMarch 18, 1999, we issuedcountervailing duty questionnaires tothe Government of Korea (GOK), and theproducers/exporters of the subjectmerchandise. On April 29, 1999, wepostponed the preliminarydetermination of this investigation untilno later than July 16, 1999. See CertainCut-to-Length Carbon-Quality SteelPlate from France, India, Indonesia,Italy, and the Republic of Korea:Postponement of Time Limit forCountervailing Duty Investigations, 64FR 23057 (April 29, 1999).

We received responses to our initialquestionnaires from the GOK andPohang Iron & Steel Company, Ltd.(POSCO), and Dongkuk Steel Mill Co.,Ltd. (DSM), producers of the subjectmerchandise, on May 10, 1999. Inaddition, on July 1, 1998 we receivedresponses from four trading companieswhich are involved in exporting thesubject merchandise to the UnitedStates: POSCO Steel Service & SalesCompany, Ltd. (POSTEEL), DongkukIndustries Co., Ltd. (DKI), HyosungCorporation (Hyosung), and SunkyongLtd. (Sunkyong). On June 9, 1999, weissued supplemental questionnaires toall of the responding parties andreceived their responses on June 28,1999, and July 1, 1999.

The Department is currently seekingadditional information regarding certainR&D programs used by either POSCO,DSM or their affiliates, which may havebenefitted the producers/exporters ofthe subject merchandise.

Scope of InvestigationFor purposes of this investigation, the

product covered is certain hot-rolledcarbon-quality steel: (1) Universal millplates (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled onfour faces or in a closed box pass, of awidth exceeding 150 mm but notexceeding 1250 mm, and of a nominalor actual thickness of not less than 4mm, which are cut-to-length (not incoils) and without patterns in relief), ofiron or non-alloy-quality steel; and (2)flat-rolled products, hot-rolled, of anominal or actual thickness of 4.75 mmor more and of a width which exceeds150 mm and measures at least twice thethickness, and which are cut-to-length(not in coils).



All products that meet the writtenphysical description, and in which thechemistry quantities do not equal orexceed any one of the levels listedabove, are within the scope of these



investigations unless otherwisespecifically excluded. The followingproducts are specifically excluded fromthese investigations: (1) Products clad,plated, or coated with metal, whether ornot painted, varnished or coated withplastic or other non-metallic substances;(2) SAE grades (formerly AISI grades) ofseries 2300 and above; (3) productsmade to ASTM A710 and A736 or theirproprietary equivalents; (4) abrasion-resistant steels (i.e., USS AR 400, USSAR 500); (5) products made to ASTMA202, A225, A514 grade S, A517 gradeS, or their proprietary equivalents; (6)ball bearing steels; (7) tool steels; and (8)silicon manganese steel or siliconelectric steel.

The merchandise subject to thisinvestigation is classified in the HTSUSunder subheadings: 7208.40.3030,7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030,7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060,7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000,7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000,7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000,7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045,7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000,7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000,7225.40.3050, 7225.40.7000,7225.50.6000, 7225.99.0090,7226.91.5000, 7226.91.7000,7226.91.8000, 7226.99.0000.




On March 29, 1999, Usinor, arespondent in the French antidumpingand countervailing duty investigationsand DSM and POSCO, respondents inthe Korean antidumping andcountervailing duty investigations(collectively the Korean respondents),filed comments regarding the scope ofthe investigations. On April 14, 1999,the petitioners responded to Usinor’sand the Korean respondents’ comments.In addition, on May 17, 1999, ILVAS.p.A. (ILVA), a respondent in theItalian antidumping and countervailingduty investigations, requested guidanceon whether certain products are withinthe scope of these investigations.

Usinor requested that the Departmentmodify the scope to exclude: (1) Plate

that is cut to non-rectangular shapes orthat has a total final weight of less than200 kilograms; and (2) steel that is 4’’ orthicker and which is certified for use inhigh-pressure, nuclear or other technicalapplications; and (3) floor plate (i.e.,plate with ‘‘patterns in relief’’) madefrom hot-rolled coil. Further, Usinorrequested that the Department provideclarification of scope coverage withrespect to what it argues are over-inclusive HTSUS subheadings includedin the scope language.




ILVA requested guidance on whethercertain merchandise produced frombillets is within the scope of the currentCTL plate investigations. According toILVA, the billets are converted intowide flats and bar products (a type oflong product). ILVA notes that one ofthe long products, when rolled, has athickness range that falls within thescope of these investigations. However,according to ILVA, the greatest possiblewidth of these long products wouldonly slightly overlap the narrowestcategory of width covered by the scopeof the investigations. Finally, ILVAstates that these products have differentproduction processes and thanmerchandise covered by the scope of theinvestigations and therefore are notcovered by the scope of theinvestigations.

As ILVA itself acknowledges, theparticular products in question appearto fall within the parameters of the

scope and, therefore, we are treatingthem as covered merchandise forpurposes of these investigations.

Applicable Statute and RegulationsUnless otherwise indicated, all

citations 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). In addition,unless otherwise indicated, all citationsto the Department’s regulations are tothe current regulations as codified at 19CFR part 351 (1998) and to thesubstantive countervailing dutyregulations published in the FederalRegister on November 25, 1998 (63 FR65348) (CVD Regulations).

Injury TestBecause the Republic of Korea (Korea)

is a ‘‘Subsidies Agreement Country’’within the meaning of section 701(b) ofthe Act, the International TradeCommission (ITC) is required todetermine whether imports of thesubject merchandise from Koreamaterially injure, or threaten materialinjury to, a U.S. industry. On April 8,1999, the ITC published its preliminarydetermination finding that there is areasonable indication that an industryin the United States is being materiallyinjured, or threatened with materialinjury, by reason of imports from Koreaof the subject merchandise (See CertainCut-To-Length Steel Plate From CzechRepublic, France, India, Indonesia,Italy, Japan, Korea, and Macedonia, 64FR 17198 (April 8, 1999).


On July 2, 1999, the petitionerssubmitted a letter requesting alignmentof the final determination in thisinvestigation with the finaldetermination in the companionantidumping duty investigation. SeeInitiation of Antidumping DutyInvestigations: Certain Cut-To-LengthCarbon-Quality Steel Plate from theCzech Republic, France, India,Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Republic ofKorea, and the Former YugoslavRepublic of Macedonia, 64 FR 12959(March 16, 1999). Therefore, inaccordance with section 705(a)(1) of theAct, we are aligning the finaldetermination in this investigation withthe final determinations in theantidumping investigations of certaincut-to-length plate.

Period of InvestigationThe period for which we are

measuring subsidies (the POI) iscalendar year 1998.




Allocation PeriodSection 351.524(d)(2) of the CVD

Regulations states that we will presumethe allocation period for non-recurringsubsidies to be the average useful life(AUL) of renewable physical assets forthe industry concerned, as listed in theInternal Revenue Service’s (IRS) 1977Class Life Asset Depreciation RangeSystem and updated by the Departmentof Treasury. The presumption willapply unless a party claims andestablishes that these tables do notreasonably reflect the AUL of therenewable physical assets for thecompany or industry underinvestigation, and the party canestablish that the difference between thecompany-specific or country-wide AULfor the industry under investigation issignificant.

In this investigation, no party to theproceeding has claimed that the AULlisted in the IRS tables does notreasonably reflect the AUL of therenewable physical assets for the firm orindustry under investigation. Therefore,according to § 351.524(d)(2) of the CVDRegulations, we have allocated POSCOand DSM’s non-recurring subsidies over15 years, the AUL listed in the IRStables for the steel industry.

Benchmarks for Long-Term Loans andDiscount Rates

During the POI, POSCO and DSM hada number of won-denominated andforeign currency-denominated long-termloans outstanding which the companyreceived from government-ownedbanks, Korean commercial banks,overseas banks, and foreign banks withbranches in Korea. A number of theseloans were received prior to 1992. In the1993 investigation of Steel Productsfrom Korea, the Department determinedthat the GOK influenced the practices oflending institutions in Korea andcontrolled access to overseas foreigncurrency loans through 1991. See FinalAffirmative Countervailing DutyDeterminations and Final NegativeCritical Circumstances Determinations:Certain Steel Products from Korea, 58FR 37328, 37338 (July 9, 1993) (SteelProducts from Korea), and the‘‘Direction of Credit’’ section below. Inthat investigation, we determined thatthe best indicator of a market rate forlong-term loans in Korea was the three-year corporate bond rate on thesecondary market. Also, see FinalNegative Countervailing DutyDetermination: Stainless Steel Plate inCoils from the Republic of Korea, 64 FR15530, 15532 (March 31, 1999) (Plate inCoils), and Final Affirmative

Countervailing Duty Determination:Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coilsfrom the Republic of Korea, 64 FR30636, 39641 (June 8, 1999) (Sheet andStrip). Therefore, in the preliminarydetermination of the currentinvestigation, to calculate the benefitwhich POSCO and DSM received fromdirect foreign currency loans anddomestic foreign currency loansobtained prior to 1991 and stilloutstanding during the POI, we used asour benchmark the three-year corporatebond rate on the secondary market. Weare also using the three-year corporatebond rate on the secondary market asthe discount rate to determine thebenefit from non-recurring subsidiesreceived prior to 1992.

In Plate in Coils and Sheet and Strip,the Department determined that theGOK continued to control directly orindirectly the lending practices of mostsources of credit in Korea between 1992and 1997. In the current investigation,we preliminarily determine that theGOK still exercised substantial controlover lending institutions in Koreaduring the POI. Based on our findingson this issue in prior investigations, aswell as in the current investigation onCTL Plate, discussed below in the‘‘Direction of Credit’’ section of thisnotice, we are using the followingbenchmarks to calculate POSCO’s andDSM’s benefit from long-term loansobtained in the years 1992 through1998: (1) For countervailable, foreign-currency denominated loans, we areusing the company-specific, weighted-average U.S. dollar-denominatedinterest rates on the companies’ loansfrom foreign bank branches in Korea; (2)for countervailable won-denominatedloans, where available, we are using thecompany-specific three-year corporatebond rate on the companies’ publicbonds. Where unavailable, we continueto use a national average three-yearcorporate bond rate. In Plate in Coilsand in Sheet and Strip, we found thatthe Korean domestic bond market wasnot controlled by the GOK after 1991,and that domestic bonds serve as anappropriate benchmark interest rate.

We are also using the three-yearcompany-specific corporate bond rate asthe discount rate to determine thebenefit from non-recurring subsidiesreceived between 1992 and 1998.

Benchmarks for Short-Term FinancingFor those programs which require the

application of a short-term interest ratebenchmark, we used as our benchmarka company-specific weighted-averageinterest rate for commercial won-denominated loans for the POI. Eachrespondent provided to the Department

its respective company-specific, short-term commercial interest rate.

Treatment of Subsidies Received byTrading Companies

During the POI, POSCO exported thesubject merchandise to the UnitedStates through three trading companies,POSTEEL, Hyosung, and Sunkyong.DSM exported through one tradingcompany, DKI. POSTEEL is affiliatedwith POSCO, and DKI is affiliated withDSM within the meaning of section771(33)(E) of the Act because as ofDecember 31, 1998, POSCO owned 95.8percent of POSTEEL’s shares, and DSMowned 51.3 percent of DKI shares. Theother trading companies are notaffiliated with either POSCO or DSM.We required that the trading companiesprovide responses to the Departmentwith respect to the export subsidiesunder investigation. Responses wererequired from the trading companiesbecause the subject merchandise may besubsidized by means of subsidiesprovided to both the producer and theexporter. All subsidies conferred on theproduction and exportation of subjectmerchandise benefit the subjectmerchandise even if it is exported to theUnited States by an unaffiliated tradingcompany rather than by the produceritself. Therefore, the Departmentcalculates countervailable subsidy rateson the subject merchandise bycumulating subsidies provided to theproducer, with those provided to theexporter. See 19 CFR 351.525.

Under § 351.107 of the Department’sRegulations, when the subjectmerchandise is exported to the UnitedStates by a company that is not theproducer of the merchandise, theDepartment may establish a‘‘combination’’ rate for eachcombination of an exporter andsupplying producer. However, as notedin the ‘‘Explanation of the Final Rules’’(the Preamble), there may be situationsin which it is not appropriate orpracticable to establish combinationrates when the subject merchandise isexported by a trading company. In suchsituations, the Department will makeexceptions to its combination rateapproach on a case-by-case basis. SeeAntidumping Duties; CountervailingDuties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296; 27303(May 19, 1997).

In this investigation, we preliminarilydetermine that it is not appropriate toestablish combination rates. Thisdetermination is based on two mainfacts: First, the majority of the subsidiesconferred upon the subject merchandisewere received by the producers. Second,the difference in the levels of subsidiesconferred upon the subject merchandise



among the individual trading companiesis insignificant. Therefore, combinationrates would serve no practical purposebecause the calculated subsidy rate forPOSCO/POSTEEL or POSCO/Sunkyongor POSCO and any of the other tradingcompanies would effectively be thesame rate. For these reasons we are notcalculating combination rates in thisinvestigation. Instead, we have onlycalculated one rate for each producer ofthe subject merchandise, all of which isproduced by either POSCO or DSM.

To include the subsidies received bythe trading companies, which areconferred upon the export of the subjectmerchandise, in the calculated advalorem subsidy rate, we used thefollowing methodology. For each of thefour trading companies, we calculatedthe benefit attributable to the subjectmerchandise and factored that amountinto the calculated subsidy rate for theproducer. In each case, we determinedthe benefit received by the tradingcompanies for each export subsidy andweight-averaged the benefit amounts bythe relative share of each tradingcompany’s value of exports of thesubject merchandise to the UnitedStates. This calculated ad valoremsubsidy was then added to the subsidycalculated for either POSCO or DSM.Thus, for each of the programs below,the listed ad valorem subsidy rateincludes the countervailable subsidiesreceived by both the trading companiesand either POSCO or DSM.

I. Programs Preliminarily Determined ToBe Countervailable

A. Direction of Credit

In the 1993 investigation of SteelProducts from Korea, the Departmentdetermined (1) that the GOK influencedthe practices of lending institutions inKorea; (2) the GOK-regulated long-termloans were provided to the steelindustry on a selective basis; and (3) theselective provision of these regulatedloans resulted in a countervailablebenefit. Accordingly, all long-term loansreceived by the producers/exporters ofthe subject merchandise were treated ascountervailable. The determination inthat investigation covered all long-termloans bestowed through 1991. See SteelProducts from Korea, 58 FR at 37339.

In the Plate in Coils and Sheet andStrip investigations, the Departmentexamined whether the GOK continuedto influence the practices of lendinginstitutions in Korea between 1992 and1997. In this investigation, petitionersallege that the GOK continued to controlthe practices of lending institutions inKorea through the POI, and that thesteel sector received a disproportionate

share of low-cost, long-term credit,resulting in countervailable benefitsbeing conferred on the producers/exporters of the subject merchandise.Petitioners assert, therefore, that theDepartment should countervail all long-term loans received by the producers/exporters of the subject merchandisethat were still outstanding during thePOI.

1. The GOK’s Credit Policies Through1991

As noted above, we previously foundsignificant GOK control over thepractices of lending institutions inKorea through 1991, the periodinvestigated in Steel Products FromKorea. This finding of control wasdetermined to be sufficient to constitutea government program and governmentaction. See Steel Products from Korea,58 FR at 37342. We also determined that(1) the Korean steel sector, as a result ofthe GOK’s credit policies and controlover the Korean financial sector,received a disproportionate share ofregulated long-term loans, so that theprogram was, in fact, specific, and (2)that the interest rates on those loanswere inconsistent with commercialconsiderations. Id. at 37343. Thus, wecountervailed all long-term loansreceived by the steel sector from alllending sources.

In this investigation, we provided theGOK with the opportunity to presentnew factual information concerning thegovernment’s credit policies prior to1992, which we would consider alongwith our finding in the priorinvestigation. The GOK has notprovided new factual information thatwould lead us to change ourdetermination in Steel Products fromKorea. Therefore, we continue todetermine that the provision of long-term loans in Korea through 1991results in a financial contributionwithin the meaning of section771(5)(D)(i) of the Act. This finding is inconformance with the Statement ofAdministrative Action (SAA), whichstates that ‘‘section 771(5)(B)(iii)encompasses indirect subsidy practiceslike those which Commerce hascountervailed in the past, and that thesetypes of indirect subsidies will continueto be countervailable.’’ SAA,accompanying H.R. 5110 (H.R. Doc. No.316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong., 2d Sess.)(1994), at 926. In accordance withsection 771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act, a benefithas been conferred to the recipient tothe extent that the regulated loans areprovided at interest rates less than thebenchmark rates described under the‘‘Subsidies Valuation Information’’section, above.

We also continue to determine that allregulated long-term loans provided tothe producers/exporters of the subjectmerchandise through 1991 wereprovided to a specific enterprise orindustry, or group thereof, within themeaning of section 771(5A)(D)(iii)(III) ofthe Act. This finding is in conformancewith our determination in SteelProducts from Korea, 58 FR at 37342,Plate in Coils, 64 FR at 15532 and Sheetand Strip, 64 FR at 30642.

POSCO and DSM were the onlyproducers of the subject merchandise,and both companies received long-termloans prior to 1992 that were stilloutstanding during the POI. Todetermine the benefit from the regulatedloans with fixed interest rates, weapplied the long-term loan methodologyprovided for in § 351.505(c)(3) of theCVD Regulations and calculated thegrant equivalent for the loans. Todetermine the benefit from regulatedloans with variable interest rates, weapplied the methodology provided forin section 351.505(c)(4) of the CVDRegulations, and compared the amountof interest paid during 1998 on theregulated loans to the amount of interestthat would have been paid based uponthe interest rate on the comparisonbenchmark loan. We then summed thebenefit amounts from the loansattributable to the POI and divided thetotal benefit by each company’srespective total sales. On this basis, wepreliminarily determine the netcountervailable subsidy to be 0.10percent ad valorem for POSCO, and 0.06percent ad valorem for DSM.

2. The GOK’s Credit Policies From 1992Through 1998

In Plate in Coils and Sheet and Strip,the Department examined the GOK’scredit policies during the period 1992through 1997. In those investigations,the Department determined that theGOK continued to control directly andindirectly the lending practices of mostsources of credit in Korea through 1997.The Department also determined thatthe GOK regulated credit from domesticcommercial banks and government-controlled banks such as the KoreaDevelopment Bank (KDB), was specificto the steel industry. This creditconferred a benefit on the producers/exporters of the subject merchandise tothe extent that the interest rates on thecountervailable loans were less than theinterest rates on comparable commercialloans. See section 771(5)(ii) of the Act.Also see Plate in Coils, 64 FR at 15533,and Sheet and Strip, 64 FR at 30642.

In this investigation, we provided theGOK with the opportunity to presentnew factual information concerning the



government’s credit policies during the1992 through 1997 period, which wewould consider along with our findingin the prior investigations. The GOK hasnot provided new factual informationthat would lead us to change ourdetermination in Plate in Coils andSheet and Strip. Therefore, we continueto find lending from domestic banks andfrom government-owned banks such asthe KDB to be countervailable.

In the current investigation, weexamined whether the GOK continuedto control or influence directly orindirectly, the lending practices ofsources of credit in Korea in 1998.Because of the Department’sdetermination that the GOK controlledand directed credit provided bydomestic banks and government-ownedbanks during the period 1992 through1997, the burden of demonstrating thatthe GOK has changed its practice ofinterfering in the financial market isplaced, in large part, upon therespondents. Similarly, when we havedetermined a program or a governmentpractice to be not countervailable,petitioners must come forth with newinformation or evidence of changecircumstances before the Departmentwill reexamine the countervailability ofthat program.

In its questionnaire responses, theGOK asserted that it does not providedirection or guidance to Koreanfinancial institutions in the allocation ofloans to selected industries. The GOKstated that the lending decisions andloan distributions of financialinstitutions in Korea reflect commercialconsiderations. The GOK also statedthat its role in the financial sector islimited to monetary and credit policiesas well as bank supervision andexamination.

According to the GOK, measures weretaken in 1998 to liberalize the Koreanfinancial sector. For example, in January1998 the GOK announced closure ofsome banks, and in April 1998,launched the Financial SupervisoryCommission (FSC) to monitor thecompetitiveness of financialinstitutions. In June 1998, theRegulation on Foreign ExchangeControls was amended to furtherliberalize foreign currency transactions,and in July, the GOK abolished the limiton purchasing foreign currency.According to the GOK, it also liberalizedaccess to foreign loans. For directforeign loans to Korean companies, theapproval process under Article 19 of theForeign Investment and Foreign CapitalInducement Act (FIFCIA) and Article 21of its enforcement decree wereeliminated and replaced with theForeign Investment Promotion Act

(FIPA), effective in November 1998.However, during most of the POI, accessto direct foreign loans still required theapproval of the Ministry of Finance andEconomy.

Regarding the GOK regulated creditfrom government-controlled banks suchas the Korea Development Bank (KDB),the GOK reported that the KDB Act wasamended in January 1998, in responseto the financial crisis in 1997.According to the GOK, the KDB endedthe allocation of funds for variousfunctional categories, such as R&D,environment, and technology. Allfunctional loan categories wereeliminated and such loans wereconsolidated into a single category forfacility (equipment) loans. The GOKalso stated that the KDB strengthened itscredit evaluation procedures bydeveloping an objective and systematiccredit evaluation standard to preventarbitrary decisions on loans and interestrates. The KDB changed its CreditEvaluation Committee to the CreditDeliberation Committee (CDC), and gavethe CDC the authority to make lendingdecisions. As a result, the KDB governorno longer makes lending decisionswithout the approval of the CDC. TheGOK also stated that in 1997, the KDBused a system of the prime rate plus aspread for determining interest rates.Effective January 1, 1998, the KDBincreased the range of the credit spreadto provide more flexibility indetermining interest rates based oncreditworthiness and allowed the KDBto increase its profits. However, withrespect to the KDB reforms, no evidencewas provided by respondents todemonstrate that the KDB no longerselectively makes loans to specific firmsor activities to support GOK policies.

In Plate in Coils, the Departmentnoted conflicting information regardingthe GOK’s direct or indirect influenceover the lending decisions of financialinstitutions. For example, the GOKpolicies appeared to be aimed, in part,at promoting certain sectors of theeconomy, such as high technology andsmall and medium-sized industries(SMEs).

While the GOK has started to planand implement reforms in the financialsystem during the POI as a result of the1997 financial crisis, the recordevidence indicates that the GOK haspreviously attempted reforms of thefinancial system in order to remove orreduce its control and influence overlending in the country. In the past tenyears, the GOK has twice attempted toreform its financial system. In 1988, theGOK attempted to deregulate interestrates. However, the 1988 liberalizationwas deemed a failure by the

government. When the interest ratesbegan to rise, the GOK canceled thereforms by indirectly pressuring thebanks to keep interest rates low. In theearly 1990s, the GOK attempted reformsagain with a four-stage interest ratederegulation plan. Again, this attempt toreform the financial system was deemeda failure by the GOK. During 1998 and1999, the GOK has threatened to cut offcredit to Korean companies unless thecompanies follow GOK policies. Inaddition, during the POI, five largecommercial banks were taken over bythe GOK due to the financial crisis.

Based upon the information on therecord and our determinations in Platein Coils and Sheet and Strip, wepreliminarily determine that the GOKcontinued to control directly andindirectly, the lending practices ofdomestic banks and government-ownedbanks through the POI. Duringverification, we will closely examine thefinancial reforms undertaken by theGOK in 1998. We plan to meet withvarious individuals knowledgeableabout the financial sector in Korea inorder to gather information on theimpact of the GOK’s financialliberalization on the lending practices ofKorean banks after 1997. We also planto gather information to assist us indetermining whether we haveappropriately measured the benefitconferred to the respondent companiesby the GOK’s influence over domesticbank and government bank lending.

With respect to foreign sources ofcredit, in Plate in Coils and Sheet andStrip, we determined that access togovernment regulated foreign sources ofcredit in Korea did not confer a benefitto the recipient as defined by771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act, and, as such,credit received by respondents fromthese sources were found notcountervailable. This determination wasbased upon the fact that credit fromKorean branches of foreign banks wasnot subject to the government’s controland direction. Thus, respondents’ loansfrom these banks served as anappropriate benchmark to establishwhether access to regulated foreignsources of credit conferred a benefit onrespondents. On the basis of thiscomparison, we found that there was nobenefit. Petitioners have provided nonew information or evidence of changedcircumstances to cause us to revisit thisdetermination. Therefore, we continueto determine that credit from Koreanbranches of foreign banks were notsubject to the government’s control anddirection. As such, lending from thissource continues to be notcountervailable, and loans from Koreanbranches of foreign banks continue to



serve as an appropriate benchmark toestablish whether access to regulatedforeign sources of funds confer a benefitto respondents.

During the POI, both POSCO andDSM received long-term loans fromdomestic banks and from government-owned banks during the 1992 to 1998period that were still outstanding duringthe POI. These included loans with bothfixed and variable interest rates. Todetermine the benefit from the regulatedloans with fixed interest rates, weapplied the methodology provided forin § 351.505(c)(2) of the CVDRegulations, and to determine thebenefit from regulated loans withvariable interest rates, we applied themethodology provided for in§ 351.505(c)(4) of the CVD Regulations.Therefore, for both fixed and variablerate loans, we calculated the differencein interest payments for the POI basedupon the difference in the amount ofactual interest paid during 1998 on theregulated loan and the amount ofinterest that would have been paid ona comparable commercial loan. We thensummed the benefit amounts from theloans attributable to the POI anddivided the total benefit by eachcompany’s respective total sales. On thisbasis, we preliminarily determine thenet countervailable subsidy to be lessthan 0.005 percent ad valorem forPOSCO, and 0.12 percent ad valorem forDSM.

(a) Loans From the Energy Savings FundEstablished in accordance with

Article 51 of the ‘‘Rationalization ofEnergy Utilization Act’’ (Energy UseAct), the Energy Saving Fund providesfinancing at below-market interest ratesfor investments by businesses infacilities that rationally and efficientlyuse energy. Overall responsibility forthe program lies with the Ministry ofIndustry and Energy (MIE), but theoperation and management of theprogram is entrusted to the KoreaEnergy Management Corporation(KEMC). While the Energy Use Act wasrepealed in 1995, the MIE, under thenew ‘‘Energy Use Rationalization Act,’’provides financing for this programfrom special government accounts.

Korean companies obtain financingunder this program by submitting anapplication to the KEMC. If the KEMCis satisfied that the applicant’s businessplans are intended for therationalization of energy use, it willthen issue a recommendation, andforward the company’s application to abank. The KEMC will transfer funds tothe bank, which will in turn provide thefunds to the applicant. POSCO paidinterest on two Energy Saving Fund

loans during the POI. DSM did not haveany of these loans outstanding duringthe POI.

In Plate in Coils and Sheet and Strip,the Department determined that theloans provided under the EnergySavings Fund are countervailable asGOK directed credit. See Plate in Coils,64 FR at 15533, and Sheet and Strip, 64FR at 30642. This program provides afinancial contribution within themeaning of section 771(5)(D)(i) of theAct and, in accordance with section771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act, provides abenefit to the recipient based on thedifference between the interest rate onthe program loan and the benchmarkrate described in the ‘‘SubsidiesValuation’’ section, above.

To calculate the benefit from theEnergy Savings Loans, we employed theDepartment’s long-term fixed-rate loanmethodology specified in § 351.505(c)(2)of the CVD Regulations, using as ourbenchmark the rate described in the‘‘Subsidies Valuation Information’’section, above. We divided the benefitattributable to the POI by POSCO’s totalsales during 1998. On this basis, wepreliminarily determine the netcountervailable subsidy to be less than0.005 percent ad valorem for POSCO.As stated above, DSM did not use thisprogram.

(b) Korean Export-Import Bank Loans(KExim)

KExim provides import and exportcredits, overseas investment credits, andguarantees to companies in Korea. Thepetitioners allege that through itsfinancing mechanisms, KExim provideslow-interest loans to the steel industry.

The Department previouslydetermined in Steel Products fromKorea, Plate in Coils and Sheet andStrip that all regulated long-term loansprovided to exporters through 1997 arespecific and countervailable. POSCOreceived a fixed-rate regulated KEximlong-term loan prior to 1997, which wasoutstanding during the POI. DSM didnot have any outstanding KExim loansduring the POI. We preliminarilydetermine that this program is specificwithin the meaning of section771(5A)(B) because only exporters areeligible to use this program.

To calculate the benefit, we appliedthe Department’s standard loanmethodology for long-term fixed-rateloans as provided for in § 351.504(c)(2)of the CVD Regulations, using as ourbenchmark the rate described in the‘‘Subsidies Valuation Information’’section of the notice, above. We dividedthe benefit attributable to the POI byPOSCO’s total export sales during 1998.On this basis, we preliminarily

determine the net countervailablesubsidy to be 0.03 percent ad valoremfor POSCO. As noted earlier, DSM didnot use this program.

B. Infrastructure at Kwangyang BayPetitioners requested that the

Department investigate whether theGOK’s infrastructure development atKwangyang Bay continues to provide acountervailable subsidy to POSCO’ssteel production. The Departmentpreviously determined that the Koreangovernment’s infrastructuredevelopment at Kwangyang Bayconstituted a specific countervailablesubsidy to POSCO, because POSCO wasfound to be the predominant user of theinfrastructure. See Steel Products fromKorea, 58 FR at 37346–47. BecausePOSCO still produces steel products atKwangyang Bay, we requestedinformation on this program todetermine whether the GOK has madeadditional investments since 1991, atKwangyang Bay.

In Steel Products from Korea, theDepartment investigated the GOK’sinfrastructure investments atKwangyang Bay over the period 1984–1991. During this period of time, theGOK’s investments at Kwangyang Bayincluded: construction of an industrialwaterway, construction of a railroadstation, construction of a road toKwangyang Bay, dredging of the harbor,and construction of three finished goodsberths. We determined that the GOK’sprovision of infrastructure to POSCO atKwangyang Bay was countervailablebecause we found POSCO to be thepredominant user of the GOK’sinvestments. The Department hasconsistently held that a countervailablesubsidy exists when benefits under aprogram are provided, or are required tobe provided, in law or in fact, to aspecific enterprise or industry or groupof enterprises or industries. See SteelProducts from Korea, 58 FR at 37346.No new factual information or evidenceof changed circumstances has beenprovided to the Department with respectto the GOK’s infrastructure investmentsat Kwangyang Bay over the period1984–1991.

In Plate in Coils and Sheet and Strip,we also examined whether GOKinfrastructure investments made atKwangyang Bay after 1991 providedcountervailable benefits to POSCO. Inthose investigations, we determined thatadditional infrastructure investmentsmade by the GOK at Kwangyang Bayafter 1991 did not providecountervailable benefits to POSCO. SeeSheet and Strip at 30648–49. Thus,post-1991 investments are notcountervailable. Petitioners have not



provided new factual information orevidence of changed circumstances tocause the Department to reexamine ourdetermination that post-1991investments are not countervailable.

To determine the benefit from theGOK’s investments made from the 1984through 1991 period to POSCO that areattributable to the POI, we relied on thecalculations performed in the 1993investigation of Steel Products fromKorea, which were placed on the recordof this investigation by POSCO. Inmeasuring the benefit from this programin the 1993 investigation, theDepartment treated the GOK’s costs ofconstructing the infrastructure atKwangyang Bay as untied, non-recurring grants in each year in whichthe costs were incurred.

To determine the benefit conferred toPOSCO during the POI, we applied theDepartment’s standard grantmethodology and allocated the GOK’sinfrastructure investments over a 15-year period. See the allocation perioddiscussion under the ‘‘SubsidiesValuation Information’’ section, above.We used as our discount rate the three-year corporate bond rate on thesecondary market used in Steel Productsfrom Korea. We then summed thebenefits received by POSCO during1998, from each of the GOK’s yearlyinvestments over the period 1984–1991.We then divided the total benefitattributable to the POI by POSCO’s totalsales for 1998. On this basis, wepreliminary determine a netcountervailable subsidy of 0.22 percentad valorem for POSCO. DSM did notreceive a benefit from this program.

C. Asset Revaluation Pursuant to TERCLArticle 56(2)

This provision under Article 56(2) ofthe Tax Exemption and ReductionControl Act (TERCL) allowed companiesmaking an initial public offeringbetween January 1, 1987, and December31, 1990, to revalue their assets withoutmeeting the requirement in the AssetRevaluation Act of a 25 percent changein the wholesale price index since thecompany’s last revaluation. In SteelProducts from Korea, after verification,petitioners submitted additionalinformation, which according to them,indicated that POSCO’s revaluation mayhave been significantly greater than thatof the other companies that revalued.Because the information submitted bypetitioners was untimely, it wasrejected; however, we requestedadditional information on the subject.The additional information submittedby petitioners contained data on theamount of assets revalued of only 45 ofthe 207 companies that revalued

pursuant to Article 56(2). It was unclearfrom petitioners’ data which companiesrevalued pursuant to Article 56(2) andwhich revalued in accordance with thegeneral provisions of the AssetRevaluation Act. Because of theseshortcomings, and because theinformation was submitted too late forverification, we were unable to drawconclusions with respect to the relativebenefit derived by POSCO from thisprogram. Since there was no evidence ofde jure or de facto selectivityconcerning the timing of POSCO’srevaluation or the method of POSCO’srevaluation under the Asset RevaluationAct, the Department determined thisprogram to be not countervailable. SeeSteel Products from Korea, 58 FR at37351.

In the petition, petitioners providedinformation to substantiate theirallegation that POSCO and DSMreceived a benefit under this programbecause their massive asset revaluationspermitted the companies tosubstantially increase their depreciationand, thereby, reduce their income taxespayable. In support of their allegation,petitioners provided a chart listing 197companies that were eligible forrevaluation of their assets pursuant tothis program. The chart illustrates thatPOSCO’s revaluation accounted for 54percent of the total amount of assetrevaluation by companies that wereeligible to revalue under Article 56(2).Furthermore, according to petitioners’data, the 14 companies in the basicmetals industry that used this programaccounted for 67 percent of the totalamount of asset revaluations underArticle 56(2). Based on this newinformation, the Department initiated areexamination of the countervailabilityof this program and solicitedinformation regarding the usage of thisprogram.

Because the enabling legislation doesnot expressly limit access to the subsidyto an enterprise or industry, or groupthereof, the program is not de jurespecific within the meaning of section771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act. Although theregulation itself does not expressly limitthe access to this law to a specifiedgroup or industry, it does placerestrictions on the time period andeligibility criteria which may havecaused de facto limitations on the actualusage of this tax program. For example,Article 56(2) was enacted on November28, 1987, and applied only to companiesmaking an initial public offering fromJanuary 1, 1987 until the provision wasabolished effective December 31, 1990.Pursuant to Article 56(2), companieslisted on the Korea Stock Exchangebetween January 1, 1987 and December

31, 1988 (as was the case with POSCO)had until December 31, 1989 to revaluetheir assets. A company that listed itsstock after December 31, 1988 had torevalue its assets prior to being listed onthe stock exchange. Therefore, basedupon the eligibility criteria of theprogram, Article 56(2) effectivelylimited usage of this program to only the316 companies that were newly listedon the Korean Stock Exchange duringthe three years the program was in placerather than the 15 to 24 thousandmanufacturers in operation in Koreaduring that period.

According to section 771(5A)(D)(iii), asubsidy is de facto specific if one of thefollowing factors exist: (1) The actualrecipients of the subsidy, whetherconsidered on an enterprise or industrybasis, are limited in number; (2) Anenterprise or industry is a predominantuser of the subsidy; (3) An enterprise orindustry receives a disproportionatelylarge amount of the subsidy; or (4) Themanner in which the authorityproviding the subsidy has exerciseddiscretion in the decision to grant thesubsidy indicates that an enterprise orindustry is favored over others.

Information on the record of thecurrent investigation shows that duringthe period 1987–1990, there werebetween 14,988 and 24,073manufacturing companies operating inKorea. A requirement for participationin this program was that companies hadto make an initial public offeringbetween January 1, 1987 and December31, 1990. DSM listed its initial publicoffering in May 1988 and revalued itsassets under Article 56(2) in July 1988.POSCO listed its initial public offeringin June 1988 and revalued its assetsunder Article 56(2) in January 1989.According to the GOK’s July 1, 1999questionnaire response, 77 companiesrevalued their assets in 1989. The basicmetal sector accounted for 83 percent ofthe total revaluation surplus amount(book value less revalued amount).POSCO’s revaluation surplus accountedfor 91 percent of the basic metal sectorrevaluation surplus, and 75 percent ofthe total revaluation surplus. While werecognize that many factors can affectthe relative size of tax benefits claimedunder programs (e.g., company size,value of assets, timing of investments,management decisions, capitalintensiveness, labor intensiveness), therecord evidence indicates that the basicmetal industry was a dominant user ofthis program in 1988/89. See, e.g.,Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from SouthAfrica, 64 FR 15553 (March 1999).Therefore, we preliminarily determinethat this program is specific, within themeaning of 771(5A)(D)(iii). As a result



of the increase in the value ofdepreciable assets resulting from theasset revaluation, the companies wereable to lower their tax liability.Therefore, we also preliminarilydetermine that the program provides afinancial contribution within themeaning of section 771(5)(D)(ii),because by allowing companies toreduce their income tax liability, theGOK has foregone revenue that isotherwise due.

The benefit from this program is notthe amount of the revaluation surplus,but rather the impact of the differencethat the revaluation of depreciableassets has on a company’s tax liabilityeach year. However, respondents didnot provide this information, and statedthat the depreciation expense resultingfrom the asset revaluation wouldinvolve a detailed, item-by-itemcomparison of thousands of items, andthat it would be difficult for them todistinguish between the remainingbenefit from revaluation under Article56(2), and revaluation pursuant tonormal procedures of the AssetRevaluation Act. Therefore, we havecalculated the benefit from this programby determining the surplus amount ofthe revaluation of assets authorizedunder the program for each companyand divided the total revaluationsurplus by 15, the AUL we are using inthis investigation. We then multipliedthe amount of the revaluation surplusattributable to the POI by the tax rateapplicable to the tax return filed in thePOI, and divided the benefit for eachcompany by their respective total salesduring the POI. On this basis, wepreliminarily determine a netcountervailable subsidy of 0.50 percentad valorem for POSCO and 0.23 percentad valorem for DSM.

D. Short-term Export FinancingThe Department determined that the

GOK’s short-term export financingprogram was countervailable in SteelProducts from Korea, 58 FR at 37350.Petitioners allege that this program mayalso benefit the producers and/orexporters of the subject merchandise. Inthis investigation, the GOK reports thatthe BOK, under the ‘‘Detailed Rules ofTrade Financing Related to theAggregate Ceiling Loans’’ (DetailedRules), provides discounts on foreigntrade bills to commercial banks, which,in turn, extend short-term loans toexporters. Under the aggregate creditceiling system established in 1994, theBOK allocates a credit ceiling everymonth to each commercial bank,including branches of Korean andforeign banks. This ceiling is based oneach bank’s loan performance i.e., each

bank’s discounting of commercial loans,foreign trade financing, and loans forthe production of parts and material.These banks then provide loans toexporters using the funds received fromthe BOK and funds generated from theirown sources to discount trade bills.

There are two types of tradefinancing: Production financing and rawmaterial financing. A bank providesproduction financing when a companyneeds funds for the production of exportmerchandise or the production of rawmaterials used in the production ofexported merchandise. A bank extendsraw material financing to exporterswhich require financing for theimportation or local purchase of rawmaterials used in the production ofexported merchandise.

During the POI, POSCO was the onlyproducer/exporter of the subjectmerchandise that received short-termexport financing. DSM did not have anyshort-term export financing under thisprogram during the POI. POSCO reportsthat the company entered into a creditceiling loan agreement with acommercial bank in accordance withArticles 12 and 13 of the Detailed Rulesto receive financing. The loan agreementoutlines the maximum amount of creditwhich POSCO is eligible to receive, theperiod covered by the loan agreement,the applicable interest rate, and thepenalty interest rate. POSCO states thatwhen the company purchases rawmaterials from a supplier on a letter ofcredit basis, the supplier presents theletter of credit to POSCO’s bank forpayment. The bank, in turn, pays thepurchase price to the supplier anddebits the trade loan against POSCO’sline of credit. POSCO pays the fullamount of each trade loan after about 90days, which is the average period fromproduction to sales. Interest is paid byPOSCO against each trade loan at thetime the loans are received. POSCOreported that the company paid all of itsexport financing during the POI in atimely manner and incurred no overdueinterest penalties. In accordance withsection 771(5A)(B) of the Act, wepreliminary determine that this programconstitutes an export subsidy becausereceipt of the financing is contingentupon export performance. In order todetermine whether this export financingprogram confers a countervailablebenefit to POSCO, we compared theinterest rate POSCO paid on the exportfinancing received under this programduring the POI with the interest ratePOSCO would have paid on acomparable short-term commercial loan.See discussion above in the ‘‘SubsidiesValuation Information’’ section with

respect to short-term loan benchmarkinterest rates.

Because loans under this program arediscounted (i.e., interest is paid up-frontat the time the loans are received), theeffective rate paid by POSCO on itsexport financing is a discounted rate.Therefore, it was necessary to derivefrom POSCO’s company-specificweighted-average interest rate for short-term won-denominated commercialloans, a discounted benchmark interestrate. We compared this discountedbenchmark interest rate to the interestrates charged on the export financingand found that the program interestrates were lower than the benchmarkrates. Therefore, in accordance withsection 771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act, wepreliminarily determine that thisprogram provides a countervailablebenefit because the interest ratescharged on the loans were less thanwhat POSCO would have had to pay ona comparable short-term commercialloan. See Plate in Coils, 64 FR at 15533,and Sheet and Strip, 64 FR at 30644. Wealso preliminarily determine that afinancial contribution is provided toPOSCO under this program within themeaning of section 771(5)(D)(i) of theAct.

To calculate the benefit conferred bythis program, we compared the actualinterest paid on the loans with theamount of interest that would have beenpaid at the benchmark interest rate.When the interest that would have beenpaid at the benchmark rate exceeded theinterest that was paid at the programinterest rate, the difference betweenthose amounts is the benefit. We thendivided the benefit derived from all ofthe loans on which interest was paidduring the POI by total exports. On thisbasis, we preliminarily determine thatPOSCO received from this programduring the POI a net countervailablesubsidy of less than 0.005 percent advalorem.

We also requested information onwhether POSCO or DSM received short-term export financing under twoadditional programs: (1) A 1998emergency support package unveiled bythe GOK which included $4 billion intrade financing, and (2) a 1998 short-term export financing program operatedby the Korean Export-Import Bank.According to both the responses ofPOSCO and DSM, these programs werenot used.

E. Reserve for Export Loss—Article 16 ofthe TERCL

Under Article 16 of the TERCL, adomestic person engaged in a foreign-currency earning business can establisha reserve amounting to the lesser of one



percent of foreign exchange earnings or50 percent of net income for therespective tax year. Losses accruingfrom the cancellation of an exportcontract, or from the execution of adisadvantageous export contract, may beoffset by returning an equivalentamount from the reserve fund to theincome account. Any amount that is notused to offset a loss must be returned tothe income account and taxed over athree-year period, after a one-year graceperiod. All of the money in the reserveis eventually reported as income andsubject to corporate tax either when itis used to offset export losses or whenthe grace period expires and the fundsare returned to taxable income. Thedeferral of taxes owed amounts to aninterest-free loan in the amount of thecompany’s tax savings. This program isonly available to exporters. During thePOI, DKI, a trading company, was theonly exporter of the subjectmerchandise which claimed benefitsunder this program.

We preliminarily determine that theReserve for Export Loss programconstitutes an export subsidy undersection 771(5A)(B) of the Act, becausethe use of the program is contingentupon export performance. We alsopreliminarily determine that thisprogram provides a financialcontribution within the meaning ofsection 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act in theform of a loan. See Plate in Coils, 64 FRat 15534, and Sheet and Strip, 64 FR at30645.

To determine the benefit conferred bythis program, we calculated the taxsavings by multiplying the balanceamount of the reserve as of December31, 1997, by the corporate tax rate for1997. We treated the tax savings onthese funds as a short-term interest-freeloan. See 19 CFR 351.509. Accordingly,to determine the benefit, the amount oftax savings was multiplied by thecompany’s weighted-average interestrate for short-term won-denominatedcommercial loans for the POI, describedin the ‘‘Subsidies ValuationInformation’’ section, above. Using themethodology for calculating subsidiesreceived by trading companies, whichalso is detailed in the ‘‘SubsidiesValuation Information’’ section, above,we preliminarily determine a netcountervailable subsidy of 0.02 percentad valorem for DSM. POSCO did notbenefit from this program because it didnot export the subject merchandisethrough DKI during the POI.

F. Reserve for Overseas MarketDevelopment—Article 17 of the TERCL

Article 17 of the TERCL allows adomestic person engaged in a foreign

trade business to establish a reservefund equal to one percent of its foreignexchange earnings from its exportbusiness for the respective tax year.Expenses incurred in developingoverseas markets may be offset byreturning, from the reserve to theincome account, an amount equivalentto the expense. Any part of the fund thatis not placed in the income account forthe purpose of offsetting overseasmarket development expenses must bereturned to the income account over athree-year period, after a one-year graceperiod. As is the case with the Reservefor Export Loss, the balance of thisreserve fund is not subject to corporateincome tax during the grace period.However, all of the money in the reserveis eventually reported as income andsubject to corporate tax either when itoffsets export losses or when the graceperiod expires. The deferral of taxesowed amounts to an interest-free loanequal to the company’s tax savings. Thisprogram is only available to exporters.The following exporters of the subjectmerchandise were entitled to claimedbenefits under this program during thePOI: Hyosung, POSTEEL, Sunkyong,and DKI.

We determine that the Reserve forOverseas Market Development programconstitutes an export subsidy undersection 771(5A)(B) of the Act becausethe use of the program is contingentupon export performance. We alsodetermine that this program provides afinancial contribution within themeaning of section 771(5)(D)(i) of theAct in the form of a loan. See 19 CFR351.509.

To determine the benefits conferredby this program during the POI, weemployed the same methodology usedfor determining the benefit from theReserve for Export Loss program. Usingthe methodology for calculatingsubsidies received by tradingcompanies, which also is detailed in the‘‘Subsidies Valuation Information’’section, above, we preliminarilycalculate a net countervailable subsidyof 0.01 percent ad valorem for POSCO,and 0.01 percent ad valorem for DSM.

G. Investment Tax CreditsUnder the TERCL, companies in

Korea are allowed to claim investmenttax credits for various kinds ofinvestments. If the tax credits cannot allbe used at the time they are claimed, thecompany is authorized to carry themforward for use in later tax years. Duringthe POI, POSCO, and DSM used variousinvestment tax credits received underthe TERCL to reduce their net taxliability. In Steel Products from Korea,we found that investment tax credits

were not countervailable (see 58 FR at37351); however, there were changes inthe statute effective in 1995, whichcaused us to revisit thecountervailability of the investment taxcredits. See Plate in Coils, 64 FR at15534, and Sheet and Strip, 64 FR at30645.

POSCO claimed or used the followingtax credits in its fiscal year 1997 incometax return which was filed during thePOI: (1) Tax credits for investments inequipment to develop technology andmanpower under Article 10; (2) taxcredits for investment in productivityimprovement facilities under Article 25;and (3) tax credits for investment inspecific facilities under Article 26. DSMonly claimed or used tax credits fortechnology and manpower developmentexpenses under Article 9 and tax creditsunder Article 25 in its fiscal year 1997income tax return which was filedduring the POI. For certain of these taxcredits, a company normally calculatesits authorized tax credit based upon 3 or5 percent of its investment, i.e., thecompany receives either a 3 or 5 percenttax credit. However, if a company makesthe investment in domestically-produced facilities under these Articles,it receives a 10 percent tax credit. Theinvestment tax credit was amended toeliminate the rate differential betweendomestic and foreign-made facilities forinvestments that are made afterDecember 31, 1997. However, thedifferential rate remains in effect forinvestments made prior to that date, andtax credits on these investments can becarried forward beyond the POI.

Under section 771(5A)(C) of the Act,a program that is contingent upon theuse of domestic goods over importedgoods is specific, within the meaning ofthe Act. In Sheet and Strip, weexamined the use of investment taxcredits under Articles 9, 10, 18, 25, 26,27, and 71. In that case, we determinedthat investment tax credits receivedunder Articles 10, 18, 25, 26, 27, and 71constituted import substitutionsubsidies under section 771(5A)(C) ofthe Act, because Korean companiesreceived a higher tax credit forinvestments made in domestically-produced facilities under these Articles.In addition, because the GOK foregoescollecting tax revenue otherwise dueunder this program, we also determinedthat a financial contribution is providedunder section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act.We did not countervail the use ofArticle 9 because a higher tax credit wasnot allowed for investments made indomestically-produced facilities. SeeSheet and Strip at 30645–46.

In this investigation, POSCO claimedinvestment tax credits under Articles



10, 25, and 26. Therefore, wepreliminarily determine that these taxcredits provided POSCO with acountervailable benefit. Petitioners havealso alleged that POSCO usedinvestment tax credits under Article 88and that this tax credit also constitutesan import substitution subsidy becausea higher credit is received if moredomestically-produced goods are used.However, we have insufficientinformation on the record at this time tomake this determination, but we willfurther examine Article 88 atverification.

DSM was entitled to claim investmenttax credits under Articles 9 and 25during the POI. However, DSM did notuse the tax credits to reduce its taxliability during the POI. Instead, thecompany carried forward the tax creditswhich can be used in the future.Because DSM did not claim theinvestment tax credits on its tax returnwhich was filed during the POI, wepreliminarily determine that DSM didnot use this program during the POI.

To calculate the benefit to POSCOfrom this tax credit program, wedetermined the value of the tax creditsPOSCO deducted from its taxes payablefor the 1997 fiscal year. In POSCO’s1997 income tax return filed during thePOI, it deducted from its taxes payable,credits earned in the years 1995 and1996, which were carried forward andused in the POI. We first determinedthose tax credits which were claimedbased upon the investment indomestically-produced facilities. Wethen calculated the additional amountof tax credits received by the companybecause it earned tax credits of 10percent on investments in domestically-produced facilities rather the regular 3or 5 percent tax credit. Next, wecalculated the amount of the tax savingsreceived through the use of these taxcredits during the POI, and divided thatamount by POSCO’s total sales for thePOI. On this basis, we preliminarilydetermine a net countervailable subsidyof 0.30 percent ad valorem for POSCO.

H. Electricity Discounts Under theRequested Load Adjustment Program

Petitioners alleged that POSCO isbeing charged utility rates at less thanadequate remuneration and, hence, theproduction of the subject merchandiseis receiving countervailable benefitsfrom this subsidy. Petitioners allegedthat POSCO is receiving thesecountervailable benefits in the form ofutility rate discounts.

The GOK reports that during the POIthe government-owned Korea ElectricPower Company (KEPCO) providedPOSCO and DSM with four types of

discounts under its tariff schedule.These four discounts were based on thefollowing rate adjustment programs inKEPCO’s tariff schedule: (1) PowerFactor Adjustment; (2) SummerVacation and Repair Adjustment; (3)Requested Load Adjustment; and (4)Voluntary Curtailment Adjustment. (Seethe discussion below in ‘‘ProgramsPreliminarily Determined To Be NotCountervailable’’ with respect to thePower Factor Adjustment, SummerVacation and Repair Adjustment, andthe Voluntary Curtailment Porgramdiscount programs.)

With respect to the Requested LoadAdjustment (RLA) program, the GOKintroduced this discount in 1990, toaddress emergencies in KEPCO’s abilityto supply electricity. Under thisprogram, customers with a contractdemand of 5,000 kw or more, who cancurtail their maximum demand by 20percent or suppress their maximumdemand by 3,000 kw or more, areeligible to enter into a RLA contractwith KEPCO. Customers who choose toparticipate in this program must reducetheir load upon KEPCO’s request, or paya surcharge to KEPCO.

Customers can apply for this programbetween May 1 and May 15 of each year.If KEPCO finds the application in order,KEPCO and the customer enter into acontract with respect to the RLAdiscount. The RLA discount is providedbased upon a contract for two months,normally July and August. Under thisprogram, a basic discount of 440 wonper kW is granted between July 1 andAugust 31, regardless of whetherKEPCO makes a request for a customerto reduce its load. During the POI,KEPCO granted 33 companies RLAdiscounts even though KEPCO did notneed to request these companies toreduce their respective loads. The GOKreports that because KEPCO increasedits capacity to supply electricity in1997, it reduced the number ofcompanies with which it maintainedRLA contracts in 1997 and 1998. In1996, KEPCO entered into RLAcontracts with 232 companies, whichwas reduced to 44 companies in 1997and 33 in 1998.

In Sheet and Strip, we found the RLAprogram countervailable because thediscounts provided under this programwere distributed to a limited number ofusers. See Sheet and Strip at 30646. Nonew information or evidence of changedcircumstances have been provided tothe Department to warrant areconsideration of that determination.Therefore, we continue to find the RLAprogram countervailable.

Because the electricity discounts arenot ‘‘exceptional’’ benefits and are

received automatically on a regular andpredictable basis without furthergovernment approval, we preliminarilydetermine that these discounts providea recurring benefit to POSCO and DSM.See 19 CFR 351.524(a). Therefore, wehave expensed the benefit from thisprogram in the year of receipt. See Sheetand Strip at 30646. To measure thebenefit from these programs, wesummed the electricity discounts whichPOSCO and DSM received from KEPCOunder the RLA program during the POI.We then divided the total RLA discountamount each company received by theirtotal sales for 1998. On this basis, wepreliminarily determine a netcountervailable subsidy of less than0.005 percent ad valorem for POSCOand less than 0.005 percent ad valoremfor DSM from the RLA discountprogram.

I. POSCO’s Two-Tiered PricingStructure to Domestic Customers

POSCO maintains three differentpricing systems which serve differentmarkets: domestic prices in Korean wonfor products that will be consumed inKorea, direct export prices in U.S.dollars or Japanese yen, and local exportprices in U.S. dollars. According toPOSCO’s response, local export pricesare provided to those domesticcustomers who purchase steel forfurther processing into products that areexported. POSCO is the only Koreanproducer of slabs, which is the maininput into the subject merchandise.During the POI, POSCO sold slab toDSM for products that will be consumedin Korea, as well as slab to produceexports of the subject merchandise.

During the POI, POSCO was agovernment-controlled company. SeeSheet and Strip at 30642–43. POSCOsets different prices for the identicalproduct for domestic purchasers basedupon that purchaser’s anticipated exportperformance. Domestic purchaserswhich use the raw material to producea product for export are charged a lowerprice than those domestic purchaserswhich do not export. See Sheet andStrip, 64 FR at 30647. In Sheet andStrip, we found this pricing scheme tobe an export subsidy under section771(5A)(B) of the Act, which provides afinancial contribution under thisprogram under section 771(5)(D) of theAct.

The benefit from this type of exportsubsidy is based upon the difference inthe price charged to exporters and theprice charged for domesticconsumption. The only exception is forpricing programs which fall under Item(d) of the Illustrative List of ExportSubsidies, which is provided for in



1 A subsidy arises under Item (d) from theprovision by governments or their agencies eitherdirectly or indirectly through government-mandated schemes, of imported or domesticproducts or services for use in the production ofexport goods, on terms or conditions morefavourable than for provision of like or directlycompetitive products or services for use in theproduction of goods for domestic consumption, if(in the case of products) such terms or conditionsare more favorable than those commerciallyavailable on world markets to their exporters.

Annex I of the Agreement on Subsidiesand Countervailing Measures.1 Item (d)allows governments to maintain aprogram which provides different pricesbased upon export or domesticconsumption if certain strict criteria aremet by the government. See 19 CFR351.516. Based on the information inthe record, it does not appear thatPOSCO’s dual pricing policy is being setdirectly or indirectly through theapplication of a consistent method forcalculating the difference between thehigher domestic and lower internationalprice of slab available to Koreanexporters. See Final Results ofRedetermination Pursuant to the CourtRemand Creswell Trading Co. v. U.S.,Slip.-Op. 94–65, which is publiclyavailable in Central Records Unit (CRU)(Room B–099 of the Main CommerceBuilding) (Case No. 533–063), (in whichthe Department found in Certain Iron-Metal Casting from India that the Indiangovernment, under the IPRS programmaintained ‘‘a clearly defined andconsistently applied methodology forcalculating the difference between thehigher domestic and lower internationalprice of pig iron available to Indianexporters’’) at 3. We will furtherinvestigate POSCO’s pricing policies atverification. We preliminarily determinethat the benefit from this program isbased upon the difference between theprices charged by POSCO for export andthe prices charged by POSCO fordomestic consumption.

Petitioners argued in a July 12, 1999submission that POSCO’s dual-pricingsystem is a provision of a good for lessthan adequate remuneration, and theDepartment should therefore analyzesuch pricing in accordance with§ 351.511 of the CVD Regulations. InSheet and Strip, we did not analyzePOSCO’s dual-pricing under theadequate remuneration standard. Whilewe have not modified our analysis inthis preliminary determination from ourrecent final determination in Sheet andStrip, we intend to review theapplicability of § 351.511 of the CVDRegulations for purposes of the finaldetermination in this investigation and,therefore, we are requesting commentson the appropriate standard to apply tothis dual-pricing scheme.

To determine the value of the benefitunder this program, we compared themonthly weighted-average price chargedby POSCO to DSM for domesticproduction to the monthly weighted-average price charged by POSCO toDSM for export production. Wheremonthly comparison prices were notavailable, we used quarterly weighted-average prices. We then divided theamount of the price savings by the valueof exports of the subject merchandiseduring the POI. On this basis, wedetermine that DSM received a netcountervailable subsidy of 0.09 percentad valorem from this program duringthe POI.

J. Special Cases of Tax for BalancedDevelopment Among Areas (TERCLArticle 43)

TERCL Article 43 allows a companyto claim a tax reduction or exemptionfor income gained from the dispositionof factory facilities when relocating froma large city to a local area (e.g., SeoulMetropolitan area to a place outside theSeoul Metropolitan area). On December29, 1995, DSM sold land from its Pusanfactory and within three years from thesales date began production at itsPohang plant. In accordance withArticle 16, paragraph 7 of the Addendato the TERCL, DSM was entitled toreceive an exemption on its income taxfor the resulting capital gain.

Payment for the Pusan facilities is ona long-term installment basis, therefore,the income tax on the capital gain ispayable when DSM actually receivespayment or transfers the title ofownership. The capital gain in the taxyear can not exceed DSM’s total taxableincome. The maximum tax savingspermitted is 100 percent of the taxableincome; however, this program is alsosubject to the minimum tax. Thisprogram does not allow carryingforward of unused benefits in futureyears.

We preliminarily determine that theTERCL Article 43, for Special Cases ofTax for Balanced Development AmongAreas is specific within the meaning ofsection 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act,because the program is limited to anenterprise or industry located within adesignated geographical region. See alsoIron-Metal Castings from Mexico, 48 FR8834 (1983) (Fonei Loan program wasregionally specific where available to allcompanies outside of Mexico City), andFinal Affirmative Countervailing DutyDetermination: Stainless Steel Plate inCoils From Italy, 64 FR 15508, 15516(funds were regionally specific becausethey were limited to certain areas withinItaly). We also preliminarily determinethat Article 43 provides a financial

contribution within the meaning ofsection 771(5)(D)(ii), because the GOKforegoes revenue that is otherwise dueby granting this tax credit.

To calculate the benefit from this taxcredit program, we examined theamount of the tax credit DSM deductedfrom its taxes payable for the 1997 fiscalyear. In DSM’s 1997 income tax returnfiled during the POI, it deducted fromits taxes payable, credits earned in 1997.Next, we calculated the amount of thetax savings and divided that amount byDSM’s total sales during POI. Using thismethodology, we preliminarilydetermine a net countervailable subsidyof 0.59 percent ad valorem for DSM.POSCO did not use this program.

II. Programs Preliminarily DeterminedTo Be Not Countervailable

A. Electricity Discounts Under PowerFactor Adjustment, Summer Vacationand Repair Adjustment, and VoluntaryCurtailment Adjustment Programs

In Sheet and Strip, we determinedthat the Power Factor Adjustment, andthe Summer Vacation and RepairAdjustment programs are notcountervailable because the discountsunder these programs are distributed toa large number of firms in a wide varietyof industries. See Sheet and Strip at30647–48.

Regarding the Voluntary CurtailmentAdjustment (VCA) program, KEPCOintroduced this discount in 1995, toprovide a stable supply of electricityand to improve energy efficiency byreducing demand during periods ofpeak consumption that occur during thesummer. Under this program, customerswho use general, educational orindustrial services with a contractdemand of 1,000 kw or more, and whoarrange with KEPCO a curtailmentperiod of five or more days (or times)during the July 15–August 31 period,are eligible to enter into a VCA contractwith KEPCO. Customers who choose toparticipate in this program must curtaildemand by 20 percent or more on thebasis of the average daily demandduring 10 a.m.–12 p.m., or by 3,000 kw.

Customers can apply for this programuntil June 15 of each year. If KEPCOfinds the application in order, KEPCOapproves the application. Afterapproval, KEPCO and the customerenter into a contract with respect to theVCA discount. Under this program, abasic discount of 110 won per kw isgranted between July 15 and August 31.

We analyzed whether the VCAdiscount program is specific in law (dejure specificity), or in fact (de factospecificity), within the meaning ofsection 771(5A)(D)(i) and (iii) of the Act.



First, we examined the eligibilitycriteria contained in the law. TheRegulation on Electricity Supply andKEPCO’s Rate Regulations for ElectricService identified companies within abroad range of industries as beingeligible to participate in the electricitydiscount programs. The VCA discountprogram is available to numerouscompanies across all industries,provided that they have the requiredcontract demand and can reduce theirmaximum demand by a certainpercentage. Therefore, we preliminarilydetermine that the VCA electricityprograms is not de jure specific undersection 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act becausethe regulation does not explicitly limiteligibility of the program.

We next examined data on thedistribution of assistance under the VCAprogram to determine whether theelectricity discount program meets thecriteria for de facto specificity undersection 771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Act. Wefound that discounts provided under theVCA program were distributed to a largenumber of customers, across a widerange of industries. Given the data withrespect to the large number ofcompanies and industries whichreceived VCA electricity discounts, andthe fact that POSCO and DSM were notdominant or disproportionate users ofthis program, we preliminarilydetermine that the VCA program is notde facto specific under section771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Act. Therefore, wepreliminarily determine that the VCAprogram is not countervailable.

B. Port Facility Fees

In Sheet and Strip, we determinedthat this program is not countervailablebecause a diverse and large group ofprivate sector companies representing awide cross-section of the economy havemade a large number of investments ininfrastructure facilities at various portsin Korea, including numerousinvestments at Kwangyang Bay. SeeSheet and Strip at 30649.

C. GOK Infrastructure Investments atKwangyang Bay Post-1991

In Plate in Coils, we determined thatthis program is not countervailablebecause the GOK’s investments atKwangyang Bay since 1991, in theJooam Dam, the container terminal, andthe public highway were not specific toPOSCO. Id. at 15536. The respondentsstate that there have been no additionalinfrastructure investments atKwangyang Bay during the POI.


Based on the information provided inthe questionnaire response, wepreliminarily determine that thecompanies under investigation eitherdid not apply for, or receive, benefitsunder the following programs duringthe POI:A. Special Cases of Tax for Balanced

Development Among Areas (TERCLArticles 41, 42, 44 and 45)

B. Private Capital Inducement Act(PCIA)

C. Social Indirect Capital InvestmentReserve Funds (Art. 28)

D. Energy-Savings Facilities InvestmentReserve Funds (Art. 29)

E. Industry Promotion and Research andDevelopment Subsidies

1. Highly Advanced National ProjectFund

2. Steel Campaign for the 21st CenturyF. Overseas Resource Development

ProgramsG. Export Insurance Rates Provided By

The Korean Export InsuranceCorporation

H. Export Industry Facility Loans (EIFL)and Specialty Facility Loans

I. Scrap Reserve FundJ. Excessive Duty Drawback

IV. Program Preliminarily DeterminedNot To Exist

Free Trade Zones (FTZ) at Pusan andKwangyang

The GOK states that at this time, thereare only two FTZs in Korea. One islocated in Masan and the other is inIksan. Therefore, we preliminarilydetermine that this program does notexist.

Verification

In accordance with section 782(i)(1) ofthe Act, we will verify the informationsubmitted by respondents prior tomaking our final determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we calculatedan individual subsidy rate for POSCO,and DSM, manufacturers of the subjectmerchandise. We preliminarilydetermine that the total estimated netcountervailable subsidy rate is 1.16percent ad valorem for POSCO and 1.12percent ad valorem for DSM. The AllOthers rate is 1.14 ad valorem percent,which is the weighted-average of therates for both companies.


POSCO ..................... 1.16% Ad Valorem.DSM .......................... 1.12% Ad Valorem.


All Others .................. 1.14% Ad Valorem.

In accordance with section 703(d) ofthe Act, we are directing the U.S.Customs Service to suspend liquidationof all entries of certain cut-to-lengthcarbon-quality steel from Korea, whichare entered or withdrawn fromwarehouse, for consumption on or afterthe date of the publication of this noticein the Federal Register, and to requirea cash deposit or bond for such entriesof the merchandise in the amountslisted above. This suspension willremain in effect until further notice.





we will hold a public hearing, ifrequested, to afford interested parties anopportunity to comment on thispreliminary determination. The hearingis tentatively scheduled to be held 57days from the date of publication of thepreliminary determination at the U.S.Department of Commerce, 14th Streetand Constitution Avenue, NW,Washington, DC 20230. Individuals whowish to request a hearing must submita written request within 30 days of thepublication of this notice in the FederalRegister to the Assistant Secretary forImport Administration, U.S. Departmentof Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Streetand Constitution Avenue, NW,Washington, DC 20230. Parties shouldconfirm by telephone the time, date, andplace of the hearing 48 hours before thescheduled time.

Requests for a public hearing shouldcontain: (1) The party’s name, address,and telephone number; (2) the numberof participants; and, (3) to the extentpracticable, an identification of thearguments to be raised at the hearing. In



addition, six copies of the businessproprietary version and six copies of thenonproprietary version of the case briefsmust be submitted to the AssistantSecretary no later than 50 days from thedate of publication of the preliminarydetermination. As part of the case brief,parties are encouraged to provide asummary of the arguments not to exceedfive pages and a table of statutes,regulations, and cases cited. Six copiesof the business proprietary version andsix copies of the non-proprietary versionof the rebuttal briefs must be submittedto the Assistant Secretary no later than5 days from the date of filing of the casebriefs. An interested party may make anaffirmative presentation only onarguments included in that party’s caseor rebuttal briefs. Written argumentsshould be submitted in accordance with19 CFR 351.309 and will be consideredif received within the time limitsspecified above.





[C–560–806]

Preliminary Affirmative CountervailingDuty Determination and Alignment ofFinal Countervailing DutyDetermination With Final AntidumpingDuty Determination: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel PlateFrom Indonesia

AGENCY: Import Administration,International Trade Administration,Department of Commerce.EFFECTIVE DATE: July 26, 1999.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Kathleen Lockard or Eva Temkin, Officeof CVD/AD Enforcement VI, ImportAdministration, U.S. Department ofCommerce, Room 4012, 14th Street andConstitution Avenue, NW, Washington,DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–2786.PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION: TheDepartment of Commerce (theDepartment) preliminarily determinesthat countervailable subsidies are beingprovided to certain producers andexporters of certain cut-to-lengthcarbon-quality steel plate fromIndonesia. For information on theestimated countervailing duty rates,

please see the ‘‘Suspension ofLiquidation’’ section of this notice.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:


filed by Bethlehem Steel Corporation,U.S. Steel Group, a unit of USXCorporation, Gulf States Steel, Inc.,IPSCO Steel, Inc., Tuscaloosa SteelCorporation, and the United SteelWorkers of America (the petitioners).

Case HistorySince the publication of the notice of

initiation in the Federal Register (seeInitiation of Countervailing DutyInvestigations: Certain Cut-To-LengthCarbon-Quality Steel Plate from France,India, Indonesia, Italy, and the Republicof Korea, 64 FR 12996 (March 16, 1999)(Initiation Notice)), the following eventshave occurred. On March 16, 1999, weissued countervailing dutyquestionnaires to the Government ofIndonesia (GOI), and the producers/exporters of the subject merchandise.On April 21, 1999, we postponed thepreliminary determination of thisinvestigation until no later than July 16,1999. See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate From France, India,Indonesia, Italy, and the Republic ofKorea: Postponement of Time Limit forCountervailing Duty Investigations, 64FR 23057 (April 29, 1999).

We received responses to our initialquestionnaires from the GOI and two ofthe three producers of the subjectmerchandise, PT Gunawan DianjayaSteel (Gunawan), and PT Jaya Pari SteelCorporation (Jaya Pari), on April 29,1999. On May 11, 1999 and June 3,1999, we issued supplementalquestionnaires to the respondingparties. On June 7, 1999, petitionersalleged additional subsidies that werenot contained in the original petition.We determined to include theseallegations in this investigation on June21, 1999. See Memorandum for BernardCarreau, Deputy Assistant Secretary forAD/CVD Enforcement Group II, a publicdocument on file in the Central RecordsUnit, room B–099 of the MainCommerce Building (CRU). We issued aquestionnaire addressing theseprograms on June 22, 1999. We receivedadditional responses between June 1,1999 and July 14, 1999.


are certain hot-rolled carbon-qualitysteel: (1) Universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four faces orin a closed box pass, of a widthexceeding 150 mm but not exceeding1250 mm, and of a nominal or actual

thickness of not less than 4 mm, whichare cut-to-length (not in coils) andwithout patterns in relief), of iron ornon-alloy-quality steel; and (2) flat-rolled products, hot-rolled, of a nominalor actual thickness of 4.75 mm or moreand of a width which exceeds 150 mmand measures at least twice thethickness, and which are cut-to-length(not in coils).



All products that meet the writtenphysical description, and in which thechemistry quantities do not equal orexceed any one of the levels listedabove, are within the scope of theseinvestigations unless otherwisespecifically excluded. The followingproducts are specifically excluded fromthese investigations: (1) Products clad,plated, or coated with metal, whether ornot painted, varnished or coated withplastic or other non-metallic substances;(2) SAE grades (formerly AISI grades) of



series 2300 and above; (3) productsmade to ASTM A710 and A736 or theirproprietary equivalents; (4) abrasion-resistant steels (i.e., USS AR 400, USSAR 500); (5) products made to ASTMA202, A225, A514 grade S, A517 gradeS, or their proprietary equivalents; (6)ball bearing steels; (7) tool steels; and (8)silicon manganese steel or siliconelectric steel.





On March 29, 1999, Usinor, arespondent in the French antidumpingand countervailing duty investigationsand Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd. andPohang Iron and Steel Co., Ltd.,respondents in the Korean antidumpingand countervailing duty investigations(collectively the Korean respondents),filed comments regarding the scope ofthe investigations. On April 14, 1999,the petitioners responded to Usinor’sand the Korean respondents’ comments.In addition, on May 17, 1999, ILVAS.p.A. (ILVA), a respondent in theItalian antidumping and countervailingduty investigations, requested guidanceon whether certain products are withinthe scope of these investigations.

Usinor requested that the Departmentmodify the scope to exclude: (1) Platethat is cut to non-rectangular shapes orthat has a total final weight of less than200 kilograms; and (2) steel that is 4’’ orthicker and which is certified for use inhigh-pressure, nuclear or other technicalapplications; and (3) floor plate (i.e.,

plate with ‘‘patterns in relief’’) madefrom hot-rolled coil. Further, Usinorrequested that the Department provideclarification of scope coverage withrespect to what it argues are over-inclusive HTSUS subheadings includedin the scope language.




ILVA requested guidance on whethercertain merchandise produced frombillets is within the scope of the currentCTL plate investigations. According toILVA, the billets are converted intowide flats and bar products (a type oflong product). ILVA notes that one ofthe long products, when rolled, has athickness range that falls within thescope of these investigations. However,according to ILVA, the greatest possiblewidth of these long products wouldonly slightly overlap the narrowestcategory of width covered by the scopeof the investigations. Finally, ILVAstates that these products have differenttechnological properties and mechanicaluses than merchandise covered by thescope of the investigations and thereforeare not covered by the scope of theinvestigations.

As ILVA itself acknowledges, theparticular products in question appearto fall within the parameters of thescope and, therefore, we are treatingthem as covered merchandise forpurposes of these investigations.


citations 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). In addition,unless otherwise indicated, all citationsto the Department’s regulations are tothe current regulations as codified at 19CFR Part 351 (1998) and to thesubstantive countervailing dutyregulations published in the FederalRegister on November 25, 1998 (63 FR65348) (CVD Regulations).

Injury TestBecause Indonesia is a ‘‘Subsidies

Agreement Country’’ within themeaning of section 701(b) of the Act, theInternational Trade Commission (ITC) isrequired to determine whether importsof the subject merchandise fromIndonesia materially injure, or threatenmaterial injury to, a U.S. industry. OnApril 8, 1999, the ITC published itspreliminary determination finding thatthere is a reasonable indication that anindustry in the United States is beingmaterially injured, or threatened withmaterial injury, by reason of importsfrom Indonesia of the subjectmerchandise. See Certain Cut-To-LengthCarbon-Quality Steel Plate from theCzech Republic, France, India,Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, andMacedonia, 64 FR 17198 (April 8, 1999).


On July 2, 1999, the petitionerssubmitted a letter requesting alignmentof the final determination in thisinvestigation with the finaldetermination in the companionantidumping duty investigation. SeeInitiation of Antidumping DutyInvestigations: Certain Cut-to-LengthCarbon-Quality Steel Plate from theCzech Republic, France, India,Indonesia, Italy, Japan, the Republic ofKorea, and the Former YugoslavRepublic of Macedonia, 64 FR 12959(March 16, 1999). Therefore, inaccordance with section 705(a)(1) of theAct, we are aligning the finaldetermination in this investigation withthe final determinations in theantidumping investigations of cut-to-length plate.

Period of InvestigationThe period of investigation for which

we are measuring subsidies (the POI) iscalendar year 1998.

Attribution of SubsidiesSection 351.525 of the CVD

Regulations states that the Department



will attribute subsidies received by twoor more corporations to the productsproduced by those corporations wherecross ownership exists. According to§ 351.525(b)(6)(vi) of the CVDRegulations, cross-ownership existsbetween two or more corporationswhere one corporation can use or directthe individual assets of the othercorporation in essentially the same waysit can use its own assets. Theregulations state that this standard willnormally be met where there is amajority voting ownership interestbetween two corporations. Thepreamble to the CVD Regulations,identifies situations where crossownership may exist even though thereis less than a majority voting interestbetween two corporations: ‘‘in certaincircumstances, a large minority interest(for example, 40 percent) or a ‘goldenshare’ may also result in cross-ownership.’’ See 63 FR 65401.

Because we have preliminarily foundboth Gunawan and Jaya Pari to havezero subsidy rates, we do not reach thequestion of whether the relationshipbetween the companies satisfies thestandard of cross-ownership. However,if we discover subsidies at verificationor otherwise modify our findings so thatone or more of the companies does havea subsidy rate for the finaldetermination, we will considerwhether there is cross-ownershipbetween Gunawan and Jaya Pari andthus, whether, for purposes ofcalculating a countervailing duty rate,we should attribute any subsidiesreceived by either or both companies tothe products produced by bothcompanies. Accordingly, we invite theparties to comment on whether therelationship between the firms satisfiesour new cross-ownership standard.

Use of Facts AvailablePT Krakatau Steel (Krakatau), a

producer of subject merchandise, failedto respond to the Department’squestionnaire. Section 776(a)(2) of theAct requires the use of facts availablewhen an interested party withholdsinformation that has been requested bythe Department, or when an interestedparty fails to provide the informationrequested in a timely manner and in theform required. As described in moredetail below, Krakatau has failed toprovide information explicitly requestedby the Department; therefore, we mustresort to the facts otherwise available.

In using the facts otherwise available,however, the Department notes that theGOI has provided some, although notall, of the information requested aboutKrakatau. With this information fromthe GOI, we find that the administrative

record with regard to Krakatau is not soincomplete that it cannot serve as areliable basis for reaching thispreliminary determination. In addition,we find that the remainder of thecriteria listed in 782(e) of the Act havebeen met. Consequently, we find itunnecessary to resort to total factsavailable with respect to Krakatau.Where practicable, we have based ourpreliminary determination for thiscompany on information provided bythe GOI. We have only used factsavailable where specific informationconcerning Krakatau, that is necessaryfor our analysis, is absent from therecord.

Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Actprovides that in selecting from amongthe facts available, the Department mayuse an inference that is adverse to theinterests of a party if it determines thatparty has failed to cooperate to the bestof its ability. Here, the Departmentasked Krakatau to submit theinformation requested in the initialcountervailing duty questionnaire.Krakatau did not respond to thequestionnaire. The Department thenasked Krakatau once again to respond tothe questionnaire, reminding thecompany that the Department may haveto use facts available if no response wasreceived. However, Krakatau failed tosubmit the information that wasspecifically requested by theDepartment on two separate occasions.Krakatau stated that, due to the recentfinancial crisis, it does not have theresources available to participate in theinvestigation. We note, however, thatKrakatau is participating in thecompanion antidumping dutyinvestigation.

The Department finds that by notproviding necessary informationspecifically requested by theDepartment and failing to participate inany respect in this investigation,Krakatau has failed to cooperate to thebest of its ability. Therefore, in selectingpartial facts available, the Departmentdetermines that an adverse inference iswarranted.

When employing an adverseinference, the statute indicates that theDepartment may rely upon informationderived from (1) the petition; (2) a finaldetermination in a countervailing dutyor an antidumping investigation; (3) anyprevious administrative review, newshipper review, expedited antidumpingreview, section 753 review, or section762 review; or (4) any other informationplaced on the record. See also§ 351.308(c) of the CVD Regulations.Due to the absence of any other relevantinformation on the record, we consider

the petition to be an appropriate sourcefor the necessary information.

Finally, the Statement ofAdministrative Action accompanyingthe URAA clarifies that informationfrom the petition and prior segments ofthe proceeding is ‘‘secondaryinformation.’’ See Statement ofAdministrative Action, accompanyingH.R. 5110 (H.R. Doc. No. 103–316)(1994) (SAA), at 870. If the Departmentrelies on secondary information as factsavailable, section 776(c) of the Actprovides that the Department shall, ‘‘tothe extent practicable,’’ corroborate suchinformation using independent sourcesreasonably at its disposal. The SAAfurther provides that to corroboratesecondary information means simplythat the Department will satisfy itselfthat the secondary information to beused has probative value.

As discussed above, the GOIsubmitted some information aboutKrakatau’s use of programs included inthis investigation. As discussed aboveand in the Analysis Memo for thePreliminary Countervailing DutyDetermination, dated July 16, 1999,public version on file in the CRU(Analysis Memo), we find that theinformation submitted by the GOI maybe used in reaching our determinationin accordance with section 782(e) of theAct. Based on this information, we wereable to determine that Krakatau did notuse the Bank of Indonesia RediscountProgram with respect to shipments ofsubject merchandise and did not use theTax Holiday Program. However, we areapplying the facts available incountervailing the 1995 Equity Infusionto Krakatau program including ouranalysis of the company’screditworthiness. For a more detaileddescription of our treatment of thisprogram, see the program description inthe Program Preliminarily Determinedto be Countervailable section of thisnotice. We are using informationsubmitted in the countervailing dutypetition, modified by and corroboratedby Krakatau’s financial statementswhich were submitted for the record bypetitioners. See Analysis Memo.

In addition, as noted earlier, on June7, 1999, petitioners made new subsidyallegations with respect to Krakatau.The Department has not had sufficienttime to collect information fromKrakatau and the GOI on the use of thePre-1993 Equity Infusions to Krakatau,P.T. Cold-Rolled Mill Indonesia (CRMI)Equity Infusions and Two-Step Loanprograms. Thus, we do not havesufficient information to makedeterminations with respect to theseprograms’ countervailability. Becauserespondents have not had sufficient



opportunity to provide informationabout these programs for the record, theuse of the facts available is notwarranted at this time. We will continueto collect information that will enableus to make a determination about theseprograms in our final determination.


Allocation Period


In this investigation, no party to theproceeding has claimed that the AULlisted in the IRS tables does notreasonably reflect the AUL of therenewable physical assets for the firm orindustry under investigation. Therefore,according to § 351.524(d)(2) of the CVDRegulations, we have allocatedKrakatau’s non-recurring benefits over15 years, the AUL listed in the IRStables for the steel industry.

Equityworthiness

In analyzing whether a company isequityworthy, the Department considerswhether that company could haveattracted investment capital from areasonable private investor in the yearof the government equity infusion basedon the information available at thattime. In this regard, the Department hasconsistently stated that a key factor fora company in attracting investmentcapital is its ability to generate areasonable return on investment withina reasonable period of time. In makingan equityworthiness determination, inaccordance with § 351.507(a)(4) of theCVD Regulations, the Department mayexamine the following factors, amongothers:

A. Objective analyses of the futurefinancial prospects of the recipient firmor the project as indicated by, inter alia,market studies, economic forecasts, andproject or loan appraisals prepared priorto the government-provided equityinfusion in question;

B. Current and past indicators of therecipient firm’s financial healthcalculated from the firm’s statementsand accounts, adjusted, if appropriate,to conform to generally acceptedaccounting principles;

C. Rates of return on equity in thethree years prior to the governmentequity infusion; and

D. Equity investment in the firm byprivate investors.

The Department has examinedKrakatau’s equityworthiness for the year1995. We are also examining Krakatau’sequityworthiness for the period 1988through 1992, to the extent equityinfusions may have been received inthese years. See June 1, 1999,memorandum to Bernard Carreau,Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVDEnforcement II, a public document onfile in the CRU. Krakatau did notrespond to our first questionnaireregarding the new allegations pertainingto the period 1988 through 1992, but thecompany has not yet had theopportunity to respond to anyadditional questionnaire on theseallegations. Therefore, we are notaddressing Krakatau’s equityworthinessin these years for this preliminarydetermination.

In considering whether Krakatau wasequityworthy in 1995, we examinedinformation on the above-listed factors.With respect to factor A, no studies orother relevant data have been submittedto the record. However, according topress articles submitted by petitioners,Krakatau was not an attractiveinvestment. In one article, theIndonesian Minister for theEmpowerment of State Enterprisesstated, ‘‘[w]hy is Krakatau Steel difficultto sell? Because it has often been saidthat the company would go bankruptand that it needed an investment of $1.2billion.’’ The Minister also stated in1998 that Krakatau had a very lowreturn on equity compared to itsinternational competitors. Anothergovernment official stated that Krakatauwould, ‘‘ * * * first have to restructureits subsidiaries, cut costs and reducestaff,’’ in order to complete its proposedprivatization. See Countervailing DutyPetition, public version on file in theCRU.

In addition, according to informationsubmitted by the Petitioners, theinvestment climate in Indonesia in 1995was considered a risky one, furtherdampening any potential for privateinvestment. According to press articles,problems with state-owned firms wouldhave further deterred private investmentin these companies.

To address factors B and C, weexamined Krakatau’s financial ratios for

the three years prior to each of theinfusions based on the informationcontained in Krakatau’s translatedfinancial statements that were submittedby petitioners. See Analysis Memo. Thisdata indicates that Krakatau did reportmodest profits in the years relevant toexamination. Return on sales waspositive, but declined over the period1992 through 1994. Return on equitydeclined from 1992 to 1993, butrecovered in 1994. In all relevant yearsKrakatau’s return on equity remainedless than half of the annual inflationrate; thus the company was postingnegative returns in real terms. Further,Krakatau’s returns during this periodwere well-below commercial interestrates.

With respect to the final factor,Krakatau has no private investors.Therefore, there are no privateinvestments that may be used toevaluate Krakatau’s equityworthiness.

In light of Krakatau’s unfavorablefinancial position, anemic returns andthe press reports about the company’sdubious financial health, it seemsunlikely that a reasonable privateinvestor would have made equityinvestments in the company. On thisbasis, we preliminarily determine thatKrakatau was unequityworthy in 1995.

Equity MethodologyIn measuring the benefit from a

government equity infusion, inaccordance with § 351.507(a)(2) of theCVD Regulations, the Departmentcompares the price paid by thegovernment for the equity to actualprivate investor prices, if such pricesexist. According to § 351.507(a)(3) of theCVD Regulations, where actual privateinvestor prices are unavailable, theDepartment will determine whether thefirm was unequityworthy at the time ofthe equity infusion. In this case, privateinvestor prices were unavailable; thus,we conducted an equityworthy analysis.As discussed above, we havedetermined that Krakatau wasunequityworthy in 1995.

Section 351.507(a)(3) of the CVDRegulations provides that adetermination that a firm isunequityworthy constitutes adetermination that the equity infusionwas inconsistent with the usualinvestment practices of privateinvestors. The Department will thenapply the methodology described in§ 351.507(a)(6) of the regulations, andtreat the equity infusion as a grant. Useof the grant methodology for equityinfusions into an unequityworthycompany is based on the premise thatan unequityworthiness finding by theDepartment is tantamount to saying that



1 We note that since publication of the CVDRegulations, Moody’s Investors Service no longerreports default rates for Caa to C-rated category ofcompanies. Therefore for the calculation ofuncreditworthy interest rates, we will continue torely on the default rates as reported in MoodyInvestor Service’s publication dated February 1998(see Exhibit 28).

the company could not have attractedinvestment capital from a reasonableinvestor in the infusion year based onthe available information.

CreditworthinessWhen the Department examines

whether a company is creditworthy, it isessentially attempting to determine ifthe company in question could obtaincommercial financing at commonlyavailable interest rates. To do so, theDepartment examines whether thecompany received long-termcommercial loans in the year inquestion, and, if necessary, the overallfinancial health and future prospects ofthe company. If a company not ownedby the government receives long-termfinancing from commercial sourceswithout government guarantees, thatcompany will normally be consideredcreditworthy. In the absence ofcommercial borrowings, in accordancewith § 351.505(a)(4) of the CVDRegulations, the Department examinesthe following factors, among others, todetermine whether or not a firm iscreditworthy:

A. The receipt by the firm ofcomparable commercial long-termloans;

B. The present and past financialhealth of the firm, as reflected in variousfinancial indicators calculated from thefirm’s financial statements andaccounts;

C. The firm’s recent past and presentability to meet its costs and fixedfinancial obligations with its cash flow;and

D. Evidence of the firm’s futurefinancial position, such as marketstudies, country and industry economicforecasts, and project and loanappraisals prepared prior to theagreement between the lender and thefirm on the terms of the loan.

With respect to the first factor,Krakatau received one long-termcommercial loan in 1995 amounting toapproximately 3 billion Rupiah.However, because Krakatau is owned bythe government, this loan may not beconsidered dispositive as to thecompany’s creditworthiness. See§ 351.505(a)(4)(ii) of the CVDRegulations.

Therefore, to determine whetherKrakatau was creditworthy in 1995, inaccordance with the Department’s pastpractice, we analyzed financial ratios foreach of the three years prior to the yearunder examination to address factors Band C. In examining these ratios,however, because tKrakatau failed torespond to our questionnaires (asdiscussed in the ‘‘Facts Available’’section of this notice), we do not have

the company’s financial statements for1992 and 1993. The only financialinformation for the years 1992 and 1993on the record of this investigation istaken from data from the IndonesianCommercial Newsletter submitted bypetitioners. Thus, we are not able toevaluate whether this data is supportedby the financial statements and whetherthere may be any notes to the financialstatements that would call the data intoquestion.

Using the only information availableon the record, we found that, asdiscussed above, Krakatau had positivereturns on sales and equity during therelevant years, but these rates werelower than commercial interest ratesand lower than the level of inflation.Krakatau’s current ratio remainedrelatively strong during this period,ranging from 3.86 to 6.51, showing afairly strong degree of short-termprotection for creditors and noindication of difficulty in coveringshort-term liabilities.

The Department normally examinesother financial ratios including thequick ratio and times-interest-earnedratio; however, data on the record isincomplete, allowing us only toexamine the company’s position in1994. Both of these ratios indicate thatthe company probably did not havedifficulties managing its debtobligations in 1994, but we are unableto examine the company’s ratios for theother relevant years.

With respect to the final factor, thereare no studies or analyses submitted tothe record that may be used to evaluateKrakatau’s financial position.

While the data we have indicates thatKrakatau may not have had anydifficulty obtaining financing atcommercial interest rates, again, wenote that the record evidence isincomplete. In addition, other financialdata and press reports, as discussed inthe ‘‘Equityworthiness’’ section above,indicate that Krakatau had financialdifficulties. Therefore, as adverse factsavailable we preliminarily find thatKrakatau was uncreditworthy in 1995.

Discount RatesWe calculated the discount rates in

accordance with the formula forconstructing a long-term interest ratebenchmark for uncreditworthycompanies as stated in the Department’snew regulations. See § 351.505 (a)(3)(iii)of the CVD Regulations. This formularequires values for the probability ofdefault by uncreditworthy andcreditworthy companies. For theprobability of default by anuncreditworthy company, we relied onthe average cumulative default rated

reported for the Caa to C-rated categoryof companies as published in Moody’sInvestors Service, ‘‘Historical DefaultRates of Corporate Bond Issuers, 1920–1997,’’ (February 1998). For theprobability of default by a creditworthycompany we used the averagecumulative default rates reported for theAaa to Baa.1 For the period before 1998,we used the average cost of long-termfixed-rate loans in Indonesia in 1995 asthe interest rate that would be paid bya creditworthy company, specificallythe investment rate offered bycommercial banks in Indonesia asreported in the Indonesian FinancialStatistics of February 1999, attached tothe GOI’s April 29, 1999, questionnaireresponse, a public document on file inthe CRU. For this period, we used theaverage cumulative default rates forboth uncreditworthy and creditworthycompanies that were based on a 15 yearterm, since Krakatau’s allocable subsidywas based on this allocation period. For1998, since Indonesia experienced highinflation during this year, we convertedthe subsidy into U.S. dollars and thenapplied a long-term dollar rate as thediscount rate, specifically, the averageyield to maturity on selected long-termBaa-rated bonds. See Analysis Memo.This conforms with our practice in FinalAffirmative Countervailing DutyDetermination: Steel Wire Rod fromVenezuela, 62 FR 55014, 55019 (October22, 1997). In calculating theuncreditworthy rate for 1998, we usedthe average cumulative default rates forboth uncreditworthy and creditworthycompanies based on a 12 year term,since that period remained onKrakatau’s allocated subsidy.

I. Program Preliminarily Determined ToBe Countervailable

1995 Equity Infusion Into KrakatauBecause Krakatau did not respond to

this allegation, we used the informationand data provided in the petition asadverse facts available, in accordancewith section 776(b) of the Act (See‘‘Facts Available’’ discussion above).According to both the CountervailingDuty Petition and Krakatau’s financialstatements, the GOI provided Krakatauwith equity in the form of debt-to-equityconversions in 1995. See AnalysisMemo. In 1995, the GOI convertedsubordinated loans into equity. Theconversion was authorized by the



Minister of Finance in decree numberS–44/MK016/1995 dated July 25, 1995.According to Krakatau’s financialstatement, provided in the petition, onApril 29, 1996, through decree of theMinister of Finance S–240/MK016/1996, the conversion was approved at aslightly lower amount than originallyauthorized. The excess amount has notyet been converted into capital and hasbeen recorded as a loan in the financialstatement, with interest still due.

We preliminarily determine thatunder section 771(5)(E)(i) of the Act, theequity conversion into Krakatau was notconsistent with the usual investmentpractice of a private investor andconfers a benefit in the amount of eachinfusion (see ‘‘Equityworthiness’’section above). The equity conversion isspecific within the meaning of section771(5A)(D) of the Act because it waslimited to Krakatau. Accordingly, wepreliminarily find that the 1995 debt-to-equity conversion is a countervailablesubsidy within the meaning of section771(5) of the Act.

As explained in the ‘‘EquityMethodology’’ section above, we havetreated equity infusions intounequityworthy companies as grantsgiven in the year the infusion wasreceived because no market benchmarkexists. In accordance with § 351.507(c)of the CVD Regulations, the equityconversion is allocated as a non-recurring subsidy. We allocated thesubsidy and converted the remainingface value of the infusion in 1998 intoU.S. dollars using the average 1997rupiah/dollar exchange rate and appliedthe long-term U.S. dollaruncreditworthy interest rate describedin the ‘‘Discount Rate’’ section of thisnotice. We then divided the benefitamount allocable to the POI byKrakatau’s estimated 1998 U.S. dollartotal sales figure, which was calculatedbased on the facts available in thepetitioner’s submission. See AnalysisMemo. On this basis, we preliminarilydetermine the net countervailablesubsidy to be 17.38 percent ad valoremfor Krakatau.

II. Program Preliminarily Determined ToBe Not Countervailable

Reduction in Electricity Tariffs

Petitioners alleged that discounts onelectricity rates were provided to thesteel industry during the POI; theyalleged that after the GOI increasedelectricity rates in 1998, the GOIdecreased rates for the steel industry.According to the questionnaireresponse, in 1998, the GOI instituted asubstantial increase in electricity tariffrates for electricity supplied by the

state-owned electricity company, PTPerusahaan Listrik Negara, known asPersero. In accordance with PresidentialDecree No. 70/1998 of May 4, 1998,rates were scheduled to increaseperiodically throughout the year, inMay, August, and November. The May1998 increase was implemented asdiscussed in the Announcement of theMinister of Mines and Energy, No. Pm/40/MPE/1998 dated May 4, 1998,submitted in the June 23, 1999,questionnaire response. Subsequently,the August and November increaseswere retroactively postponed, byPresidential Decree No. 1/1999 ofJanuary 7, 1999, submitted in the June1, 1999, questionnaire response.According to this decree, the rateincrease was postponed for allelectricity customers, with theexception of large residentialhouseholds.

The postponement of the rate increaseapplied broadly throughout theeconomy, with only large residentialhouseholds excepted from the new rate.According to the GOI, all ‘‘[i]ndustrialcustomers pay electricity rate solelyaccording to the tariff and time of use.’’Thus, contrary to petitioners’ allegation,there is no basis for concluding that thesteel industry received a specialelectricity discount. Based on the recordevidence, the electricity discount wasnot limited to a specific enterprise,industry or group thereof, but wasavailable to all industrial users in thecountry. Therefore, we preliminarilydetermine that the electricity discountprogram is not countervailable.


Based on the information provided byrespondents and the GOI, we determinethat Gunawan, Jaya Pari, and Krakataudid not apply for or receive benefitsunder the following programs duringthe POI:A. Bank of Indonesia Rediscount LoansB. Corporate Income Tax Holidays

VerificationIn accordance with section 782(i)(1) of

the Act, we will verify the informationsubmitted by respondents prior tomaking our final determination.


703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we havecalculated individual rates for each ofthe companies under investigation.

According to section 705(5)(A)(i) ofthe Act, the all others rate is, ‘‘anamount equal to the weighted averagecountervailable subsidy ratesestablished for exporters and producers

individually investigated, excluding anyzero and de minimis countervailablesubsidy rates and any rates determinedentirely under section 776.’’ Thus, inaccordance with section 705(5)(A)(i) ofthe Act, we are excluding the ratescalculated for Gunawan and Jaya Paribecause they are zero rates. Althoughthe subsidy rate calculated for Krakatauis based in part on facts available,section 705(5)(A)(i) specifies that onlythose rates calculated entirely undersection 776 (facts available) areexcluded; thus, we are including thesubsidy rate calculated for Krakatau inthe all others rate.

Producer/exporter Net subsidy rate

P.T. Krakatau Steel .. 17.38% ad valorem.P.T. Gunawan Steel 0.00% ad valorem.P.T. Jaya Pari ........... 0.00% ad valorem.All Others Rate ......... 17.38% ad valorem.

In accordance with section 703(d) ofthe Act, we are directing the U.S.Customs Service to suspend liquidationof all entries of cut-to-length plate fromIndonesia, except with respect toGunawan and Jaya Pari as discussedabove, which are entered or withdrawnfrom warehouse, for consumption on orafter the date of the publication of thisnotice in the Federal Register, and torequire a cash deposit or bond for suchentries of the merchandise in theamounts indicated above. Since theestimated preliminary netcountervailing duty rates for Gunawanand Jaya Pari are zero, these twocompanies will be excluded from thesuspension of liquidation. Thissuspension will remain in effect untilfurther notice.

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 703(f) ofthe Act, we will notify the ITC of ourdetermination. In addition, we aremaking available to the ITC allnonprivileged and nonproprietaryinformation relating to thisinvestigation. We will allow the ITCaccess to all privileged and businessproprietary information in our files,provided the ITC confirms that it willnot disclose such information, eitherpublicly or under an administrativeprotective order, without the writtenconsent of the Assistant Secretary forImport Administration.

In accordance with section 705(b)(2)of the Act, if our final determination isaffirmative, the ITC will make its finaldetermination within 45 days after theDepartment makes its finaldetermination.



Public Comment

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.310,we will hold a public hearing, ifrequested, to afford interested parties anopportunity to comment on thispreliminary determination. The hearingis tentatively scheduled to be held 57days from the date of publication of thepreliminary determination at the U.S.Department of Commerce, 14th Streetand Constitution Avenue, NW,Washington, DC 20230. Individuals whowish to request a hearing must submita written request within 30 days of thepublication of this notice in the FederalRegister to the Assistant Secretary forImport Administration, U.S. Departmentof Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Streetand Constitution Avenue, NW,Washington, DC 20230. Parties shouldconfirm by telephone the time, date, and

place of the hearing 48 hours before thescheduled time.

Requests for a public hearing shouldcontain: (1) The party’s name, address,and telephone number; (2) the numberof participants; and, (3) to the extentpracticable, an identification of thearguments to be raised at the hearing. Inaddition, six copies of the businessproprietary version and six copies of thenon-proprietary version of the casebriefs must be submitted to theAssistant Secretary no later than 50 daysfrom the date of publication of thepreliminary determination. As part ofthe case brief, parties are encouraged toprovide a summary of the arguments notto exceed five pages and a table ofstatutes, regulations, and cases cited.Six copies of the business proprietaryversion and six copies of the non-

proprietary version of the rebuttal briefsmust be submitted to the AssistantSecretary no later than 5 days from thedate of filing of the case briefs. Aninterested party may make anaffirmative presentation only onarguments included in that party’s caseor rebuttal briefs. Written argumentsshould be submitted in accordance with19 CFR 351.309 and will be consideredif received within the time limitsspecified above.




fede

ral r

egiste

r

40465

MondayJuly 26, 1999

Part III

Department ofTransportationFederal Transit Administration

Electronic Payment System for TransitFare Collection, Parking Payment,Electronic Toll Collection and OtherApplications; Notice




Federal Transit Administration

Request for Proposals for anOperational Test of an ElectronicPayment System for Transportationand Other Applications

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration(FTA), DOT.ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department ofTransportation (US DOT) announces aRequest for Proposals from eligibleapplicants for an operational test of anelectronic payment system for transitfare collection, parking payment,electronic toll collection and otherapplications. The US DOT is interestedin identifying and evaluating issuesassociated with the establishment ofpartnerships between public transitservice providers and other entities inthe development and use of multiple-application electronic payment systems.The Department is specificallyinterested in an operational test of apayment system that includes a varietyof applications, but must at a minimuminclude transit fare collection, parkingpayment and electronic toll collection.DATES: Proposals shall be submitted by4 P.M. EST on or before October 25,1999.ADDRESSES: Proposals shall besubmitted to Walter Kulyk, Director,Office of Mobility Innovation (TRI–10),Federal Transit Administration, 400 7thStreet SW., Room 9402, Washington, DC20590 and shall reference ElectronicPayment System Demonstration.ELIGIBILITY: Only public transit agenciesand metropolitan planningorganizations (MPOs) in the UnitedStates are eligible to submit proposals inresponse to this RFP. In the case of MPOapplicants, a statement explaining whya local transit partner is unable tosubmit the application and serve as agrantee must be included in theproposal. This eligibility restrictionapplies only to the agency submittingthe proposal and serving as theapplicant and does not limit projectpartners. All agencies submittingproposals in response to this noticeconsent to be publicly identified asrespondents.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: BertArrillaga, Chief, Service InnovationDivision, (TRI–12), at (202) 366–0231 orSean Ricketson, Office of MobilityInnovation, (TRI–11), at (202) 366–6678.This notice is posted on the FTAwebsite on the Internet under http://www.fta.dot.gov/library/legal/fr99toc.htm. Questions and replies

regarding this notice will be posted onthe FTA website under http://www.fta.dot.gov/office/research/its.htm.

ContentsI. BackgroundII. Visions, Goals and ObjectivesIII. Project Development

A. GeneralB. Management Oversight

IV. PartnershipsV. National ITS ArchitectureVI. Project Evaluation ActivitiesVII. FundingVIII. ScheduleIX. Proposals

A. Technical PlanB. Management and Staffing PlanC. Financial Plan

X. Proposal Evaluation Criteria

I. BackgroundRecent developments in electronic

payment systems and card technologypresent a unique opportunity for publicand private institutions to establishmutually beneficial partnerships in thedevelopment and management ofelectronic payment systems fortransportation. These developmentsinclude stored-value card systemscreated by financial institutions,contactless smart card systems forpublic transportation, electronic tollcollection systems on highways andcard systems for human service agencyprogram management and benefitsdelivery. Private industry and publicagencies foresee substantial benefits inestablishing partnerships to developfurther capabilities in electronic feecollection, delivery of benefitspayments, funds transfer, settlementand clearinghouse functions. However,a number of institutional issuescontinue to restrict the formation ofthese partnerships. Through thedevelopment of an operational test thisproject intends to be a step towardsidentifying and addressing the complexinstitutional issues surroundingelectronic payment systems intransportation.

The decision to focus the scope of theoperational test on integrating transitfare collection, parking payment andelectronic toll collection systems restson a number of factors. Based onresponses the US DOT received from theFederal Register Notice, Request forLetters of Interest in an Operational Testof Transit Fare Collection and OtherApplications, dated November 24, 1998,it is considered that the transit industryis progressing in the development ofintegrated transit payment systems.With limited research funds available,the US DOT feels that this operationaltest could facilitate the next step to thedevelopment of an integrated, multi-modal transportation payment system

infrastructure. However, there is aconcern that a project integrating transit,parking and toll collection (given themodal balance found in most areas) mayhave a limited transit component.Therefore, it has been determined thatthe lead applicant (the agencysubmitting the proposal and potentialgrantee) be limited to transit agencies orMPOs to ensure sufficient participationby a public transit partner. Because thiseligibility is more restrictive than firstpresented in the Request for Letters ofInterest, the response period to the RFPhas been extended to ninety days.

II. Vision, Goals and Objective(s)

The vision this operational testsupports is one of a seamlesstransportation payment infrastructurewhere local transportation agencies andother organizations are not limited byinstitutional constraints in thedevelopment of transportation paymentproducts. Examples of possible productsare pre-paid integrated accounts for tollpayment, parking and transit, or storedvalue cards for transit and parking meteruse. Ideally, only local creativity andtransportation needs should limit thedevelopment of such products.

While the goals and objectivesdescribed below are focused ontechnical and institutional outcomes,the success of the test will depend uponwhether it makes a positive contributionto the enhancement of localtransportation service and operationalefficiency. This focus must bemaintained throughout the lifecycle ofthe operational test (planning,development, implementation andevaluation) by the grantee.

The goal of the operational test is toprovide solutions to transit and otherservice providers exploring thefeasibility of developing multi-modaltransportation payment systems andintegrating transportation payment withother payment applications.Additionally, the operational test isintended to offer insight to thoseinterested private sector partners (i.e.,the electronic payments industry,financial services industry, and otherindustries) interested in integrating theirservices with a transportation paymentsystem.

The objective of the operational test isto evaluate and document theintegration of transit fare collection,parking payment and electronic tollcollection within one coordinatedpayment system. Additional objectives,if feasible, are to evaluate and documentthe viability and benefits of integratingtransportation payment systems withother payment applications.



III. Project Development

A. General

The operational test will need toachieve an optimal balance of meetinglocal transportation needs while alsoproviding a worthwhile national modelof payment system coordination andpartnerships.

B. Management Oversight

The grantee and other local partnersin the project will manage theoperational test. Additional guidancewill be provided by a U.S. DOTcommittee composed of transportationindustry representatives. Thiscommittee is already established by theU.S. DOT to provide feedback onelectronic fare payment activities. Thegrantee will consult with the committeeprior to any significant changes inproject scope or direction. For thisproject, the committee may beaugmented by experts from otherindustries as needed. Concurrently, thiscommittee will direct a separatelyfunded effort being conducted by theU.S. DOT to develop and document aset of guidelines for the integration ofelectronic fare payment with otherpayment systems. These guidelines willprovide recommendations for theintegration of transit payment systemswith other payment systems such asbenefits transfer, toll collection,security, parking, retail, financialservices, telephony, identification andaccess control. The results of theoperational test are intended tocontribute to the advancement of theguidelines document. In turn, thedevelopment of the guidelinesdocument is intended to assist thecommittee, the grantee, and localpartners with the implementation of theoperational test.

IV. Partnerships

The U.S. DOT will work with the leadpublic agency (applicant/grantee)participating in the project to ensure theneeded support to achieve the objectivesof the field operational test. The U.S.DOT will verify that the requiredinstitutional, partnership and fundingarrangements are in place. All necessarypartnership arrangements andinstitutional agreements to support theproposed project need to bedocumented by the applicant in theproposal. The grantee and participatingpartners will be required to implementthe first phase of the operational testwithin 24 months from the time thecooperative agreement is awarded.

V. National ITS ArchitectureThe National ITS Architecture

provides a common structure for thedesign of Intelligent TransportationSystems (ITS). The architecture definesthe function that must be performed toimplement a given user service, thephysical entities or subsystems wherethese functions reside, the interfaces/information flows between the physicalsubsystems, and the communicationrequirements for the information flows.In addition, the architecture identifiesand specifies the requirements forstandards needed to support nationaland regional interoperability, as well asproduct standards needed to supporteconomy of scale considerations indeployment. The proposal shall providea ‘‘Statement of Intent’’ to develop asystem consistent with the National ITSArchitecture.

Proposals shall also provide a‘‘Statement of Intent’’ to design a systemthat is consistent with SAE J1708T BusVehicle Area Network, the TransitCommunications Interface Profiles(TCIP), and other applicable protocols,or standards requirements as theseemerge from the National ITSArchitecture Development Program.Information about SAE J1708T may beobtained from the Society ofAutomotive Engineers, 400Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale,Pennsylvania, USA, 15096–0001;phone: 412–776–4841, fax: 412–776–5760, or through the Internet at http://www.sae.org. Information about TCIPcan be obtained on the TCIP homepageat http://www.tcip.org or by contactingthe Institute of TransportationEngineers, 525 School St., SW, Suite410 Washington, DC 20024; phone: 202–554–8050. Copies of the ArchitectureDefinition Documents, the draftStandards Requirements Document, andthe Standards Development Programfrom the Architecture DevelopmentProgram are available from ITS America,400 Virginia Avenue, SW, Suite 800,Washington, DC 20024, telephone 202–484–4847. Electronic copies areavailable on the ITS America Internetwebsite, http://www.itsa.org. Thesedocuments provide insight into thedefinition of the National ITSArchitecture, and the emergingapproaches being taken towardstandardizing interfaces that wouldsupport the integration of transportationmanagement components.

In developing plans for standards andarchitectural consistency, proposalsshould recognize the practical benefitsof this requirement. The ability tointegrate systems and exchange dataamong applications offers some of the

strongest benefits of ITS. As anillustration of understanding of thispoint, plans should identify potentialopportunities for integration and datasharing among fare payment and othersystems and applications. Informationabout key indicators of the electronicpayment component of the ITSmetropolitan infrastructure andintegration of it with other componentscan be found in, ‘‘Measuring ITSDeployment and Integration: August1998’’ available through the Internet atURL Http://www.its.fhwa.dot.gov/cyberdocs/welcome.htm, the report isdocument number 4372 in theElectronic Document Librarymaintained at this website.

VI. Project Evaluation ActivitiesA major goal of the US DOT is to

promote the development of innovativeapplications of advanced technologies.In order to encourage the widespreadadoption of technological innovations,data and results from the operationaltest must be analyzed, documented andreported. Accordingly, evaluations arean integral part of the operational testand are critical to the success of theNational ITS Program.

This electronic payment systemoperational test will be evaluated by aUS DOT contractor funded separately bythe US DOT. The contractor willdevelop an Evaluation Plan which willspecify the data collection requirementswhich will enable an assessment of theachievement of the goals and objectivesof the National ITS Program applicableto this project as well as the goals andobjectives of the implementingorganizations. The contractor willassemble all the data collected inaccordance with the Evaluation Plan,analyze the data, and prepare theEvaluation Report. The Evaluation Planwill also include an assessment of thetechnological issues, operational issues,customer acceptance, system reliability,attitudes of implementing organizations,implementation and continuingoperational costs, integration issues, anda variety of institutional issuesincluding partnership arrangements,legal issues, clearinghouse operation,the reason for selecting the type ofsystem (closed or open), and the successin obtaining multiple agencyparticipants.

The operational test partners (allparticipating agencies and institutions)will be involved in all phases of theevaluation. Partners will be expected toprovide the local goals and objectives,review and comment on the EvaluationPlan, assist the contractor to collect thedata specified in the Evaluation Plan(including any surveys that may be



necessary), provide information onexternal factors that may affect theproject’s results, and review andcomment on the Evaluation Reportprepared by the evaluation contractor.

VII. FundingFederal funds available for this

operational test are $2.33 million.Federal funding shall not exceed 50% oftotal project costs.

Implementing organizations will berequired to furnish the specifiedevaluation data and perform reviews ofevaluation documents. No additionalFederal funding will be provided forthis effort. The evaluation activitiesconducted by the evaluation contractorwill be funded separately by the USDOT.

The US DOT, the Comptroller Generalof the United States, and, if appropriate,individual States have the right toaccess all documents pertaining to theuse of Federal ITS funds and non-Federal contributions. Non-Federalpartners must submit sufficientdocumentation during final negotiationsand on a regular basis during the life ofthe project to substantiate these costs.Such items as direct labor, fringebenefits, material costs, consultantcosts, and subcontractor costs, andtravel costs should be included in thatdocumentation.

VIII. ScheduleThe project must remain operational

for a period long enough to obtain validevaluation data. The data collectionperiod will be for a minimum of twelve(12) months from the time that theproject is fully operational (i.e., allelements are working as intended).Upon the completion of data collectionthere shall be a six (6) month period ofanalysis and report coordination beforea final evaluation report is submitted.The system shall remain operationalthroughout the evaluation process untilthe final report is received by the USDOT, unless otherwise agreed to by theUS DOT.

IX. ProposalsThe US DOT will select one

operational test proposal for fundingunder this RFP. Applications should,where possible, focus on utilizingcurrently available technology. TheDepartment is specifically interested inan operational test that includes transitfare payment, parking payment andelectronic toll collection.

Applications that offer the greatestpotential for demonstrating andevaluating the benefits of usingelectronic fare payment in a multi-application transportation environment

with at least one private sectorpartnership are the most desirable.

Proposal CriteriaA proposal shall not exceed forty-five

(45) pages in length including title,index, tables, maps, appendices,abstracts, resumes and other supportingmaterials. A page is defined as one (1)side of an 81⁄2 by 11-inch paper, linespacing no smaller than 1.5 with a typefont no smaller than 12 pt. Proposalsexceeding forty-five (45) pages arestrongly discouraged. Ten (10) copiesplus an unbound reproducible copy ofthe proposal shall be submitted. Thecover sheet or front page of the proposalshall include the name, address andphone number of an individual towhom correspondence and questionsabout the application may be directed.Each proposal shall include a TechnicalPlan, Financial Plan, and a Managementand Staffing Plan that describes how theproposed objectives will be met withinthe specified time frame and budget.These plans should be structured so thatthey contain the following information.

A. Technical Plan

General Requirements1. The technical plan must provide a

general description of the local transitmarket, toll collection system(s),parking payment system(s), and otherproposed payment system markets.Information shall include transitridership statistics, toll plazathroughput statistics, parking systemsand parking usage. Additionally, thetechnical plan must provide an outlineof the current fare collection, tollcollection and parking paymentprocesses, and types of payment mediacurrently in use. In addition, otherpotential public/private agency(s)involvement such as partnerships,merchants, retailers, etc. must beoutlined.

2. Proposals must includedocumentation of any existing orplanned interagency agreements orpublic/private cooperative arrangementsnecessary for the conduct of theoperational test.

Project Overview1. Define existing infrastructure (both

physical and information technology)and support systems in place, e.g.,current fare collection system and cashhandling procedures, toll collectionprocesses and parking collectionprocesses as well as current systems ofthose additional non-transportationapplications being considered forintegration.

2. Describe how the existinginfrastructure will be expanded and

used to support the proposed system.Identify existing technological andinstitutional linkages within and acrossmodes.

3. Describe the proposed system andhow it will be integrated with othernon-transportation applications andparticipating private sector institutions.

4. Summarize the expectations of theproposed system (e.g. costs, benefits,risks, operations, maintenance issues,plans, and system support).

Technical Approach

The Technical Approach will bejudged on its ability to incorporate therequirements of a multi-modal, multi-application payment system within thetransportation infrastructure. The U.S.DOT recognizes that a single paymentinstrument or technology may not meetall the stakeholders’ needs in a region;however, proposals will be evaluated ondemonstrated local willingness andcapability to integrate the proposedservices among the necessary partnersin the transportation environment.

Within the Technical Approach thefollowing areas need to be clearlyaddressed:

1. Define and describe the goals andobjectives of the system, and the goalsand objectives of each of the serviceproviders participating in the proposedpayment system. Address both customerservice and operating efficiency.

2. Describe the system design concept.Describe the extent of proposed systemintegration, type(s) of proposed mediaand/or payment mechanisms, settlementand clearinghouse processes, andpartners.

3. Describe implementation of thesystem in probable phases with fundingfor each phase clearly specified.Document the schedule of work,assumptions and technicaluncertainties, and proposed specificapproaches to resolve any uncertainties.

4. Describe the approach by which thesystem design concept will be refined,developed, and operationally tested.

5. Show evidence that the projectteam has considered service deliveryissues. Examples include: Who will useany new payment media? Whatproblems will it solve for theparticipating transportation providers?What will the benefits of the newsystem be and how will the project teammarket the system to the user?

6. Describe the plan for concludingthe operational test (Closure Plan),indicating whether hardware, software,and infrastructure will remain inrevenue service, be sold, or returned toparticipating vendors, if applicable.Closure Plans may be contingent uponthe results of the operational test, in



which case more than one Closure Planmay be developed.

B. Management and Staffing Plan

Provide names and positions of allpersonnel related to managing theproject. Identify key management andcontrol responsibilities for the overallprogram. Provide a timeline and definekey milestones and deliverables for theproject. Provide estimated professionaland technical staffing in staff-monthsand staff-hours. Demonstrate that theproject manager is capable, availableand able to commit to a level ofinvolvement that ensures projectsuccess. Include biographical data onkey management personnel.

C. Financial Plan

Provide a description of total projectcosts and of matching funds, ifapplicable.

Provide a system budget identifyingcosts for system design, development,implementation, project management,operations, maintenance and evaluationsupport.

The applicant’s evaluation supportcosts shall include the followinginformation:

Breakdown costs identifying them byone of the following: (1) Local; (2) State;(3) Private; (4) Federal ITS; (5) OtherFederal-aid; (6) Other (describe).

Note: Costs attributed to Federal dollarsproposed to be received through award ofthis operational test are Federal ITS.

Provide cost estimates by phase byfunding year as defined in the technicalplan.

All financial commitments to theproject from both public and privatesectors shall be documented in signedMemorandum of Understanding (MOU)and included in the proposal.

The proposal shall provide an in-depth description and assessment of thetotal cost of achieving the objectives ofthe Electronic Fare Payment Systemfield operational test. The FinancialPlan should describe a phased approachthat delineates what will beaccomplished with the project funding.

The proposal should provide acomprehensive, concise plan thatensures systems integration of thefunctions necessary to support anelectronic payment system for farecollection. The plan shall include adiscussion of the ways in which design,acquisition, construction, and otherprocurement activities will affectsystems integration.

X. Proposal Evaluation CriteriaAll proposals must include a

Technical Plan, Financial Plan, andManagement and Staffing Plan thatdescribes how the proposed objectives

will be met within the specified timeframe and budget. The primaryevaluation criterion for the proposalwill be the degree to which the proposaldemonstrates the potential forsuccessfully testing a multi-use paymentsystem with multi-modal transportationcapability. Proposed projects mustinclude viable transit fare collection,parking payment, and electronic tollcollection components. Significantconsideration will be given to thoseprojects involving public agencies andprivate sector partners with previouswork or experience developing andintegrating electronic payment systems.Proposals must demonstrate localviability and must also show strongpotential for providing the baseline fora national model. Proposals shouldemphasize the nature and arrangementof any public-private partnerships.Proposals should present the potentialbenefits as well as associated risks andcosts to transportation agency partners.Significant consideration will be givento those projects with greater levels ofprivate and local funding contributions.

Issued on: July 15, 1999.

Gordon J. Linton,Administrator.[FR Doc. 99–18921 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]



fede

ral r

egiste

r

40471

MondayJuly 26, 1999

Part IV

Department ofTransportationFederal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 193Protection of Voluntarily SubmittedInformation; Proposed Rule





14 CFR Part 193

[Docket No. FAA–1999–6001; Notice No. 99–14]

RIN 2120–AG36

Protection of Voluntarily SubmittedInformation

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to add anew part to provide that certaininformation submitted to the FAA on avoluntary basis would not be disclosed.This proposal would implement a newstatutory provision. It is intended toencourage people to provideinformation that will assist the FAA incarrying out its safety and securityduties.DATES: Comments must be received onor before September 24, 1999.ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposedrulemaking should be mailed ordelivered, in duplicate, to: U.S.Department of Transportation Dockets,Docket No. FAA–1999–6001, 400Seventh Street, SW, Room Plaza 401,Washington, DC 20590. Comments mayalso be sent electronically to thefollowing Internet address: 9–NPRM–[email protected]. Comments may be filedand/or examined in Room Plaza 401between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdaysexcept Federal holidays.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Marisa Mullen, Office of Rulemaking,ARM–205, or Mardi Thompson, Officeof Assistant Chief Counsel, AGC–200,Federal Aviation Administration, 800Independence Avenue, SW.,Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202)267–7653 or (202) 267–3073,respectively.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 resultfrom 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.

The Administrator will consider allcomments received on or before theclosing date before taking action on thisproposed 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–1999–6001.’’ The postcard will be datestamped and mailed to the commenter.

Availability of NPRM

An electronic copy of this documentmay be downloaded using a modem andsuitable communications software fromthe FAA regulations section of theFedWorld electronic bulletin boardservice (telephone: (703) 321–3339) orthe Government Printing Office’s (GPO)electronic bulletin board service(telephone: (202) 512–1661).

Internet users may reach the FAA’sweb page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/nprm/nprm.htm or the GPO’s webpage at http://www.access.gpo.gov/narafor access to recently publishedrulemaking documents.

Any person may obtain a copy of thisdocument by submitting a request to theFederal Aviation Administration, Officeof Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800Independence Avenue SW.,Washington, DC 20591, or by calling(202) 267–9680. Communications mustidentify the notice number or docketnumber of this NPRM.

Persons interested in being placed onthe mailing list for future rulemakingdocuments should request from theabove office a copy of Advisory CircularNo.11–2A, Notice of ProposedRulemaking Distribution System, whichdescribes the application procedure.

Background

Statement of the Problem

The FAA is committed to makecontinuing improvements in aviationsafety and security. To do so, the FAAmust have an increasing amount ofinformation regarding current safety andsecurity systems and how they arefunctioning today. The FAA isdeveloping data sharing programs in

which persons in the aviationcommunity, such as air carriers, wouldshare with the FAA information relatedto safety and security. In one suchprogram, Flight Operations QualityAssurance (FOQA), in-flight data iscollected during normal flights andaggregate trend analyses from that dataare made available for FAA inspection.In Aviation Safety Action Programs(ASAP), the FAA and entities of the airtransportation industry have enteredinto programs intended to generatesafety information that may nototherwise be obtainable. ASAP isdescribed in Advisory Circular 120–66.

An impediment to furtherdevelopment of these programs is thereluctance of some persons to shareinformation that, when in the hands ofa government agency, may be requiredto be released to the public through theFreedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5U.S.C. § 552) or other means.

The Federal Aviation ReauthorizationAct of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–264) providesrelief from these concerns by addingnew § 40123 to Title 49, United StatesCode. The new section provides:

(a) In General.—Notwithstanding any otherprovision of law, neither the Administrator ofthe Federal Aviation Administration, nor anyagency receiving information from theAdministrator, shall disclose voluntarily-provided safety or security relatedinformation if the Administrator finds that—

(1) The disclosure of the informationwould inhibit the voluntary provision of thattype of information and that the receipt ofthat type of information aids in fulfilling theAdministrator’s safety and securityresponsibilities; and

(2) Withholding such information fromdisclosure would be consistent with theAdministrator’s safety and securityresponsibilities.

(b) Regulations.—The Administrator shallissue regulations to carry out this section.

In the legislative history, Congresscited the data-sharing programs beingdeveloped that could help improvesafety by allowing the FAA to spottrends before they result in accidents. Itnoted the concern in the aviationcommunity about the confidentiality ofthe data. ‘‘Much of the informationcould be incomplete, unreliable, andquite sensitive. There will be areluctance to share such information ifit will be publicly released because itcould easily be misinterpreted,misunderstood, or misapplied.’’ H.R.Rep. No. 104–714, 104th Cong., 2d Sess.41. Congress noted that protecting thisinformation from public disclosure willnot reduce the information available tothe public, because the information isnot provided to the public now. Itfurther noted that the information



‘‘should be useful in the development ofsafety policies and regulations.’’ H.R.Rep. No. 104–714, 104th Cong., 2d Sess.42.

In addition, the White HouseCommission on Aviation Safety andSecurity issued a recommendation onthis subject. In Recommendation 1.8 theCommission noted that the mosteffective way to identify problems is forthe people who operate the system toself-disclose the information, but thatpeople will not provide information tothe FAA unless it can be protected. Itrecommended that the FAAexpeditiously complete rulemaking toimplement the legislation for protectingvoluntarily provided information.

This notice contains proposals tocarry out § 40123. The FAA anticipatesthat information received in programsunder this part will be used to carry outthe FAA’s safety and securityresponsibilities in a number of ways,including identifying potentially unsafeconditions and appropriate correctiveaction, identifying a need for and thecontents of rulemaking, identifying aneed for and the contents of policies,and identifying a need for aninvestigation or inspection.

General Discussion of the ProposalsThe proposed rule is intended to

furnish a way for people to provideinformation to the FAA for safety orsecurity purposes, yet protect theinformation from disclosure to others(with exceptions discussed below).

There is a strong public policy infavor of Federal agencies releasinginformation to the public, to ensure thatthe public is informed as to how thegovernment is doing business. Section40123, however, reflects a recognitionthat there is a significant benefit toproviding exceptions to this policy inorder for the FAA to receive additionalsafety and security related informationthat it is not now receiving.

Section 40123 requires that the FAAand other agencies not releaseinformation that meets the standards inthe statute and implementing rules. Theinformation that is subject to thisprotection is defined in § 40123 asinformation that is voluntarily providedand that is safety or security related.Section 40123 requires that certainfindings be made by the Administratorbefore its protections apply. The FAAproposes to add a new part 193 thatwould describe how the Administratorwould determine that the requirementsof § 40123 are met, thereby making theinformation protected from disclosure.

Not all information that is voluntarilyprovided to the FAA meets thestandards in § 40123, and, therefore, is

not protected from disclosure under§ 40123. The FAA often receivesinformation from persons who arewilling to provide it without thenondisclosure protections in § 40123.For instance, persons may call an FAAfield office to report possible violationssuch as low flight, or may approachinspectors who are at an airport withinformation on possible violations. Suchinformation generally does not meet therequirements in § 40123 because thedisclosure of the information generallydoes not inhibit the voluntary provisionof that type of information. Indeed, theperson often expects disclosure of theinformation when the FAA acts toaddress the apparent violation.

Under proposed part 193, the onlyinformation to be protected would beinformation specifically designated asprotected in accordance with theprocedures in §§ 193.9 or 193.11. Othervoluntarily provided information wouldnot be protected under this part. Part193 would provide for specific findingsto be made by the Administrator as tothe elements in § 40123. In the ordinarycase, the Administrator would publishin the Federal Register a proposeddesignation for specified types ofinformation and request comments.After review of the comments, the FAAcould publish a designation protectingthe information from disclosure.However, when there is an immediateneed for the FAA to provide protectionin order to receive information, this rulewould also permit the Administrator todesignate the information as protectedwithout notice to the public.

Section 40123 and this proposed rulerepresent a new effort to encourage theaviation community to shareinformation with the FAA. As adeveloping project, it is not clear howbest to structure programs to maximizethe benefits. Accordingly, this proposalis written to provide many options forfuture development and tailoring ofindividual programs. In all cases exceptthose where there is an immediate needfor the information, the FAA wouldpublish notice of these developmentsand any expansion of the non-disclosurepolicies in the Federal Register andinvite comment.

Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 193.1 Scope and Delegations

This section would explain that part193 implements 49 U.S.C. 40123,protection of voluntarily submittedinformation.

This section also would provide fordelegation of the authority under thispart. It would state that the authority ofthe Administrator to issue, amend, and

withdraw designations under this partmay be delegated to AssociateAdministrators and AssistantAdministrators and to the ChiefCounsel, their deputies, and anyindividual formally designated to act intheir capacity. For instance, if anAssociate Administrator were on leave,the person designated as ActingAssociate Administrator would have theauthority under this part. This sectionwould further state that the authority ofthe Administrator to issue proposeddesignations under this part may befurther delegated, which could be belowthe level of Associate Administrator.This would allow the Administrator todelegate to other officials the authorityto sign proposed and final designationsto be published in the Federal Registerunder §§ 193.9 and 193.11. Because ofthe strong public policy in favor ofdisclosure of information held by aFederal agency, authority to grant thefinal designations, with their extensivenon-disclosure protections under thispart, should be the decision of seniorofficials in the agency.

Section 193.3 DefinitionsThis section would define some of the

terms used in part 193.Section 40123 refers to ‘‘any agency

receiving information from theAdministrator,’’ but does not define‘‘agency.’’ There are many definitions ofthat term in the United States Code. Itappears that in this context, the mostappropriate definition is essentially theone in the Administrative ProceduresAct, 5 U.S.C. § 551(1). The FAAproposes to use a simplified version ofthat definition and to define ‘‘agency’’as each authority of the FederalGovernment of the United States,whether or not it is within or subject toreview by another agency, but does notinclude—(A) the Congress; (B) thecourts of the United States; (C) thegovernments of the territories orpossessions of the United States; (D) thegovernment of the District of Columbia;or (E) court martial and militarycommissions. This definition wouldpermit the FAA to give information tothe National Transportation SafetyBoard (NTSB), and to other agenciessuch as the FBI, in the interest of safetyor security. See the discussion of§ 193.5(d).

As explained below, the proposedrule would provide for some limiteddisclosure of ‘‘de-identified’’information, which would be defined tomean that the identity of the source ofthe information and the names ofpersons are removed from theinformation. Under Part 1, ‘‘person’’ isbroadly defined to include not only



individuals, but also such entities ascompanies and firms. Thus, informationfrom an air carrier that was ‘‘de-identified’’ would not include the nameof the air carrier or the names of anycrewmembers, maintenance personnel,repair stations, or other persons thatmay have been in the originalinformation.

Section 40123 provides that‘‘notwithstanding any other provision oflaw,’’ the FAA and other agencies shallnot ‘‘disclose’’ information underspecified circumstances. By referring to‘‘any other provision of law,’’ it appearsthat ‘‘disclose’’ was meant to be readbroadly to cover all circumstancesunder which the FAA and otheragencies might otherwise be required orpermitted to disclose information.‘‘Disclose’’ would be defined broadlyunder this proposal to mean the releaseof information or a portion ofinformation to other than anotheragency. Release to another agency, suchas the NTSB, would not be considereddisclosure under this rule, because§ 40123 states that other agencies areunder the same requirements as theFAA not to disclose the information.

The most common definition ofdisclosing agency information generallyarises in connection with release underthe FOIA. ‘‘Disclose’’ in this regulationwould also include release inrulemaking proceedings, in a pressrelease, or to a party in a legal action.Note that in some legal actions, such assome enforcement actions or criminalprosecutions, the rule would permitdisclosure of the information. See thediscussions of proposed §§ 193.5(f) and193.7(a).

‘‘Information’’ would mean data,reports, source, and other information. Itis intended to be inclusive. The word‘‘information’’ would be used todescribe all or a part of a submission ofinformation.

‘‘Summarized’’ information wouldmean that individual incidents are notspecifically described, but are presentedin statistical or other more general form.Summarized information might be usedin rulemaking, for instance, to explainthe need for the rule.

Section 40123 protections apply onlyto information submitted voluntarily.‘‘Voluntary’’ would be defined to meanthat the information was submittedwithout mandate or compulsion, andnot as a condition of doing businesswith the government. It would notinclude information submitted as part ofa means of complying with statutory,regulatory, or contractual requirements.Under this proposed definition,information that is required to besubmitted under a regulation would not

be considered voluntarily provided. If aregulation gives several options forcompliance, information provided aspart of complying with any optionchosen would not be voluntarilyprovided.

The definition of ‘‘voluntary’’ alsoprovides that a program under this partmay be published in the Code of FederalRegulations (CFR) and the informationsubmitted under it will considered‘‘voluntarily provided.’’ The FAAanticipates that some programs adoptedunder § 193.9 may be published in title14 of the Code of Federal Regulations.Other programs may be adopted asnotices that are published in the FederalRegister but not incorporated into theCFR. The definition is intended to makeclear that a part 193 program can bepublished in the CFR withoutdestroying its voluntary nature.

This definition is based in part on theviews expressed by courts as to thenature of a ‘‘voluntary’’ submission ofinformation in cases under Exemption 4to the FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)). Underthat exemption, certain voluntarilyprovided trade secrets and commercialor financial information are exemptfrom disclosure under FOIA.

The FAA has various arrangementsunder which it receives informationfrom foreign authorities, generally undera bilateral agreement. Whether suchinformation would be considered to be‘‘voluntarily-provided’’ would dependon all of the circumstances. Forinstance, in some cases the foreigncountry inspects an FAA-certificatedrepair station, production certificateholder, or other FAA-regulated party todetermine whether it is in compliancewith applicable rules and requirements,and forwards its findings to the FAA.The regulated party is required tosubmit to such inspections, and thus theinformation is not voluntarily-providedby the regulated party any more thaninformation obtained during aninspection by FAA personnel would bevoluntarily-provided. In other cases, theinformation provided by a foreignauthority might be consideredvoluntarily provided.

Section 193.5 WithholdingInformation From Disclosure

This section would state the generalprovisions for withholding informationfrom disclosure. Section 193.5(a) wouldprovide that, except as provided in thispart and in individual programs, theAdministrator does not disclosevoluntarily provided safety or securityinformation that has been designated asprotected under this part.

As discussed above, the protections ofthis part would apply only to

information covered under a designatedprogram, because the Administratormust make findings in accordance with§ 40123 before the protections of thatsection are invoked.

Section 193.5(b) would set forth thebasic elements for the Administrator’sdesignation of a program under this partcovering a type of information. Itincludes the elements that are in§ 40123.

Section 193.5(b)(1) would require afinding that the information would beprovided voluntarily. As noted above,only information that is providedvoluntarily may be protected under§ 40123. Some information that isprovided other than voluntarily mayreceive protection under other laws,such as exemptions to the FOIA.

Section 193.5(b)(2) would require afinding that the information is safety orsecurity related.

Section 193.5(b)(3) would require afinding that the disclosure of theinformation would inhibit the voluntaryprovision of that type of information.The FAA anticipates that this normallywould be based in part on statementsfrom the aviation community that theyare unwilling to provide the informationunless the protections of § 40123 areensured. The FAA would conduct ananalysis to determine whether thepossibility of disclosing the informationwould sufficiently inhibit the provisionof the information to warrant grantingthe protections of § 40123.

In most cases the designation wouldapply only to information provided afterthe designation is made. There may beinstances, however, when informationof that type has been provided in thepast, but that future submissions may beinhibited without further protection.This may be true, for instance, whereemployees have experienced reprisalsfor submitting adverse informationregarding their employers. In such casesthe FAA might consider designating asprotected information that it hasreceived already.

The FAA notes that § 40123 refers towhether disclosure would ‘‘inhibit’’ thevoluntary provision of information. Inthis context, the FAA interprets‘‘inhibit’’ to mean to discourage or torepress or restrain, but not to meanprevent the provision of information.The FAA need only find that theprovision of information would bediscouraged, repressed, or restrained,but not necessarily altogether prevented,to designate it as protected under part193. This is consistent with thelegislative history that refers to the FAAwithholding voluntarily providedinformation if disclosure would‘‘discourage’’ people from providing it.



H.R. Rep. No. 104–714, 104th Cong., 2dSess. 49.

Section 193.5(b)(4) would require afinding that the receipt of that type ofinformation aids in fulfilling theAdministrator’s safety and securityresponsibilities. This generally wouldbe done by describing how the FAAintends to use the information.

Section 193.5(b)(5) would require afinding that withholding suchinformation from disclosure, under thecircumstances stated in the program,would be consistent with theAdministrator’s safety and securityresponsibilities. There may becircumstances under which disclosurewould be consistent with safety andsecurity. These would be described inthe designation. See the discussion of§ 193.7(b).

Section 193.5(c) would clarify thatonly information submitted under aprogram designated under this partwould be protected from disclosure asdescribed in this part. The FAA mayreceive information on a particularincident both under a designatedprogram and from another unrelatedsource. Information received by theAdministrator through another means isnot protected as described in this part.For instance, the FAA might receiveinformation about an airspace deviationboth from air traffic control (ATC) andfrom a part 193 designated program. Theinformation received from ATC wouldnot be protected under this part whilethe information received under part 193would be protected from disclosure.Another example would be whereinformation provided under a part 193program led the FAA to conduct aninvestigation. If the investigation led toadditional information, the additionalinformation would not be protectedunder part 193, but the originalinformation would continue to beprotected.

Section 193.5(d) would make clearthat nothing in this part prevents theAdministrator from giving informationprovided in a program under this partto other agencies with safety or securityresponsibilities. Section 40123specifically makes such agencies subjectto its requirements regardingnondisclosure of information, and thusclearly contemplates that the FAA maygive information to such agencies. Forinstance, at times it may promote safetyto share information with the NTSB,and it may be important for security toshare information with the FBI or otheragencies with security responsibilities.As another example, if the FAA draftsa regulation based on voluntarilysubmitted information, the FAA mayprovide that information to the

Department of Transportation or theOffice of Management and Budget inconnection with their review of draftFAA rulemaking documents. (See alsothe discussion of proposed§ 193.7(a)(1).) Further, if informationreceived suggests that there have beencriminal violations, the FAA may referthe matter to the Department of Justiceor other appropriate agency. Section40123 supersedes other laws in grantingprotection to information, when it statesthat the information shall not bedisclosed ‘‘Notwithstanding any otherprovision of law.* * *’’

The Administrator would only givethe information to another agency if theother agency provides adequateassurance, in writing, that it will protectthe information from disclosure asrequired. The FAA expects that‘‘adequate assurance’’ usually willinclude a description of the proceduresthe other agency will use to ensure thatthe information is protected fromdisclosure. This will further promotethe purpose of § 40123, which is to givepeople confidence that they can provideinformation to the FAA without fear ofinappropriate disclosure.

Section 193.5(e) would provide thatthe nondisclosure protections describedin this part do not apply when theperson who provided the informationagrees to its disclosure.

Section 193.5(f) would provide aspecific procedure in the event that theFAA received a subpoena for protectedinformation. This might happen, forinstance, in litigation between an aircarrier and an individual who alleges hewas harmed by the air carrier’snegligence. Proposed § 193.5(f) wouldprovide that when the FAA receives asubpoena for information designated asprotected under this part, the FAAwould contact the person whosubmitted the information to determinewhether the person objects to disclosureof the information or wishes toparticipate in responding to thesubpoena. If the person had no objectionthe FAA would have the option ofdisclosing the information. If the personwanted the information to continue tobe protected, that person would havethe option of participating in theresponse to the subpoena such as byfiling an appropriate motion with thecourt. The person would not be requiredto participate, however, and may notwish to if that person wishes to remainanonymous.

The FAA would decide based on allthe circumstances how to respond to asubpoena. If the person did not object toreleasing the information that likelywould be the response, however, theremay be instances in which the person

who provided particular material maynot object to its release but release maycompromise other aspects of theprogram, in which case the FAA maydecide to continue to protect it fromrelease.

The FAA represents the governmentin administrative litigation such asmany enforcement actions. The FAAdoes not represent the United Statesgovernment in litigation in Federal orstate court, rather the Department ofJustice (DOJ) provides representations.The FAA would either make anappropriate response to a subpoena orrequest that DOJ make an appropriateresponse, such as to resist disclosing theprotected information by filing a motionfor a protective order or a motion toquash the subpoena, or by releasing therequested information. In limitedcircumstances, the government may berequired to disclose some protectedinformation to a judge so that the judgecan determine whether the governmentis properly withholding informationunder the law.

Section 193.7 Disclosure ofInformation

Section 40123(a)(2) requires that, forinformation to be protected, theAdministrator must find thatwithholding the information would beconsistent with safety and security. If allother requirements in § 40123 are met,it will be infrequent that the FAA willfind it advisable to disclose theinformation. However, there are somecircumstances under which it would beconsistent with safety or security todisclose at least portions of aninformation submission, whichcircumstances would be stated in theproposed regulation and in theindividual program. Where disclosurewould be necessary, attempts would bemade to limit the disclosure to theextent practicable, such as releasingonly de-identified and summarizedinformation.

Some reasons for disclosinginformation apply to all FAA programsand activities and are set forth inproposed § 193.7(a). They involvedeveloping new policies and regulations(§ 193.7(a)(1)), evaluating or correctingcurrent deficiencies (§ 193.7(a)(2)),conducting criminal investigations orprosecutions (§ 193.7(a)(3)), andcomplying with 49 U.S.C. 44905,regarding information about threats tocivil aviation (§ 193.7(a)(4)).

Proposed § 193.7(a)(1) would providefor the disclosure of limited informationto explain the need for changes inpolicies and regulations. As is explainedin the legislative history for § 40123, theinformation collected in these voluntary



programs ‘‘could help to improve airsafety by helping safety officials identifytrends before they cause accidents.’’H.R. Rep. No. 104–714, 104th Cong., 2dSess. 41. ‘‘The data and information thatwould be available to the FAA as aresult of this provision * * * should bevery useful in the formulation of theFAA’s safety policy and regulations.’’Id. at 42.

Generally, during rulemaking theagency is required to make dataavailable that it relied on in developingthe proposed rule and is required to givethe public an opportunity to commenton the proposal. Providing the datagives the public a chance to look at howthe agency analyzed and interpreted thedata and provides an opportunity tocomment on the conclusions reached.See 5 U.S.C. 553. Such informedcomment assists the agency indeveloping rules that best promotesafety and security. Commenters areable to better understand the reasons forthe proposed rule, offer alternateinterpretations of the underlying data,and offer solutions that they feel wouldbetter address the safety or securityproblem.

Section 40123, however, specificallyprovides that information voluntarilyprovided under that section shall not bedisclosed ‘‘notwithstanding any otherprovision of law * * *.’’ Anotherprovision of law includes the provisionsof 5 U.S.C. § 553 that otherwise wouldcall for full disclosure of datasupporting a proposed rulemaking. Itwould not be consistent with the intentof § 40123 for the FAA to make availableto the public all of the raw data onwhich it relied, if that data wassubmitted voluntarily in a programunder this proposed part. It also wouldnot be consistent with safety andsecurity for the FAA to completelyforego the benefits of informed commenton a proposed rule that comes withreleasing the data supporting theproposed rule.

The FAA proposes, therefore, that if itenters into rulemaking or policy makingbased on data submitted voluntarilyunder this part, it would not release allof the data. Rather, it would release onlydata that is de-identified and that issummarized. In this way, the source ofthe data would not be revealed, butenough information would be madeavailable to explain to the public howthe FAA made its decisions on theproposed changes. This proposedapproach attempts to balance thepublic’s interest in understanding thebasis for agency rulemaking and policymaking, and the need to encourage thesubmission of voluntarily providedsafety and security information.

In providing de-identified,summarized information, the FAAwould provide in the rulemakingsufficient information to permitmeaningful comment. Data could besummarized in a number of ways,depending on the rulemaking. Forinstance, charts might show how oftena specific maintenance problem wasdiscovered in different air carriers,without revealing the names of the aircarriers. This would show how themaintenance problem was distributedacross the industry, leading the FAA topropose a general rulemaking instead ofa correction for one air carrier. Thisapproach is similar to that currentlyused with information that is of a verypersonal or private nature. Rulemakingbased on a review of medical records,for instance, may provide summarizedfindings without revealing individuals’names.

Proposed § 193.7(a)(2) would providefor disclosure of information received ina program under this part to evaluate orcorrect a condition that maycompromise safety or security. There area number of instances in which thismight occur. Examples includeevaluating airworthiness conditions,assuring that the holder of an FAAcertificate is qualified for thatcertificate, and preventing on-goingviolations of the safety or securityregulations.

The FAA may need to make a limiteddisclosure to evaluate airworthinessconditions. If, for instance, informationindicates an unsafe condition in a typeof aircraft, engine, or other product, theFAA may consider issuing anAirworthiness Directive (under part 39)to require that the deficiency becorrected. The FAA works with designand production approval holders, suchas holders of type certificates orproduction certificates under part 21, toidentify the need for action to correctairworthiness problems and to developwhat that action should be. The holdersof design and production approvalshave expertise in their own productsthat the FAA does not have, and it isimportant that their expertise beavailable to help the FAA analyzepotential airworthiness problems. Underproposed § 193.7(a)(2), the FAA coulddisclose voluntarily-providedinformation to a design or productionapproval holder to assist the FAA inassessing the need for, and the contentof, required corrective action. The FAArequests comments on whether theholder or other person receiving theinformation under similarcircumstances should be required toprotect the information from furtherdisclosure.

Also under § 193.7(a)(2), the FAAwould disclose information to assurethat the holder of an FAA certificatecontinues to be qualified to hold thecertificate. The FAA issues a certificate(such as for an air carrier, a producer ofaircraft, or an airman) when theapplicant has shown that all safety andsecurity requirements for that certificateare met. If it later becomes evident thatthe certificate holder is unable orunwilling to continue to meet the safetyand security requirements, that personis no longer qualified to hold thecertificate. It would be inconsistent withsafety or security for that person tocontinue to hold the certificate andexercise its privileges.

Section 193.7(a)(2) would be usedwhen the FAA receives information ina program under part 193 that acertificate holder may not be qualifiedfor the certificate. The FAA would firstinvestigate the matter. Generally thatinvestigation would includeapproaching the certificate holder toattempt to resolve the matter. If the lackof qualifications was confirmed, or ifthere was a reasonable question as towhether the certificate holder wasqualified, and no corrective action wastaken, the FAA might have to resort toremedial action. Such remedial actionmay include an order of compliance ora cease and desist order (§ 13.20),requiring changes to the certificateholder’s procedures, or remedialenforcement action. The latter mayinclude suspending the certificate untilthe holder shows that it is qualified orrevoking the certificate. In takingremedial action the FAA may have todisclose some information that wassubmitted in a part 193 program. Inremedial enforcement action, forinstance, the certificate holder wouldhave the right to appeal the suspensionor revocation to the NTSB. The appealprocess, except in very limitedcircumstances, is a public process, andevidence used in the case is availablefor inspection and copying by thepublic. Depending on the case, thevoluntarily-provided information thatgave rise to the investigation may ormay not be used by the FAA to showthat the enforcement action waswarranted, and may or may not bedisclosed in the course of theproceeding. This is consistent with thelegislative history for § 40123, whichprovides: ‘‘Examples of information thewithholding of which would beinconsistent with the FAA’s safety andsecurity responsibilities (and thus stillcould be disclosed) are informationrequired in an enforcement action toprosecute safety or security violations.



* * *’’ H.R. Rep. No 104–714, 104thCong., 2d Sess. 49.

Section 193.7(a)(2) also wouldprovide for disclosure to preventcontinuation of an on-going violation ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations (14CFR Parts 1 through 199), the HazardousMaterials Regulations as they relate toair transportation (49 CFR Part 171 etseq.), and the relevant statutes. Thiswould occur when the informationreveals that a violation was continuingto occur and thus remedial enforcementaction was necessary to correct theviolation.

Section 193.7(a)(3) would provide fordisclosure of information to conduct acriminal investigation or prosecution.While the FAA does not prosecutecriminal actions, in those rarecircumstances in which it is appropriatethe agency refers such matters to theDepartment of Justice or otherappropriate agency. For instance, inrecent years there have been somecriminal prosecutions involvingcounterfeit aircraft parts. Such parts canpresent a danger to the traveling public,and it is important that thoseresponsible for such crimes be broughtto justice. The FAA anticipates that, inthose few instances in which part 193information is provided to a lawenforcement agency, it would be usedmostly to develop leads and otherwiseassist in the investigation. The part 193information might not be used asevidence in the prosecution and thereformight not be disclosed. However, itmight be necessary to disclose theinformation during the prosecution.

Finally, § 193.7(a)(4) would providefor disclosure of information to complywith 49 U.S.C. 44905 regardinginformation about threats to civilaviation. That section requires thatpublic notice be made in specifiedcircumstances about threats to civilaviation, generally involving possibleterrorist threats. The legislative historymakes clear that such informationshould be disclosed even if voluntarilyprovided under § 40123. H.R. Rep. No.104–714, 104th Cong., 2d Sess. 49.

Section 193.7(b) would provide forother circumstances in whichwithholding information providedunder this part would not be consistentwith the Administrator’s safety andsecurity responsibilities. Thesecircumstances may be differentdepending on the program. It isproposed that those circumstances bedescribed in the designation for thatprogram. The FAA cannot predict howinformation programs may develop inthe future. As the FAA develops uses forthe information that may require somedisclosure, these uses would be

proposed in individual programs.Possible examples include disclosure toforeign aviation authorities, disclosureafter a period of time in which theinformation would no longer beprotected, and disclosure in punitiveenforcement actions.

As to enforcement actions, note thatthis proposed rule speaks only to wheninformation may be disclosed inconnection with an enforcement action.It does not describe what enforcementpolicy may be applied for eachdesignated program. Each programwould have different goals andprovisions for such policies.

Section 193.9 Designating Informationas Protected Under This Part: NoticeProcedure

This section would describe theprocedure normally used to designateinformation as protected under this part.This procedure would be for use wherethere is not an immediate need for theinformation. It generally would be usedfor programs in which a specific type ofinformation is to be provided by typesof persons on an on-going basis. Forinstance, under FOQA, flight recorderdata is made available by air carriers onan on-going basis. ASAP programs,which are entered into by the FAA andentities of the air transportationindustry, are intended to generate safetyinformation that may not otherwise beobtainable.

The scope of § 193.9 programs wouldvary. One way would be for FAA tocreate a national program that isnational in scope and that is availableto all individuals or companies thatmeet the basic requirements of thatprogram. For a national program, theFAA would designate the entirenational program as protected under§ 40123. Then different persons wouldhave the option of participating in theprogram without obtaining anindividual designation under this part.

Examples of national programs areFOQA and ASAP. The FAA anticipatesthat it will propose to designate thenational FOQA and ASAP programs asprotected under § 40123. The proposeddesignations would include all of theitems in § 193.9, such as a descriptionof the type of information that may bevoluntarily provided. If, after publiccomment, the FAA decides to designatethese programs for protection under§ 40123, then individual air carrierswould receive the protections of § 40123without each obtaining a designationunder part 193 for their individualFOQA and ASAP programs.

Another way to have an informationprogram designated as protected under§ 40123 would be for an air carrier or

other person to submit an applicationfor an individual program. The FAAwould evaluate the application andeither publish a proposed designationbased on the application for publiccomment or deny the application. Anyperson would be able to apply to haveinformation designated as protectedunder this part. If the applicant is an aircarrier or another certificate holder withan FAA principal inspector, theapplication would be sent to theprincipal inspector. If the applicant hasno principal inspector, the applicationwould be sent to the local FAA FieldOffice.

The application would include thedesignation described in paragraph (c)that the applicant would like to beissued. The Administrator wouldevaluate the application, and may issuea proposed designation based on theapplication or may deny theapplication.

The Administrator may decide toissue a proposed designation basedeither on an application or the FAA’sinternal decision. The FAA wouldpublish a proposed designation in theFederal Register and request comment.After comments were received, the FAAwould review them and evaluatewhether the elements in § 193.5 weremet. The Administrator would designateinformation as protected under this partonly if the elements in § 193.5 were met.

If the Administrator found that theelements in § 193.5 were met, an orderdesignating the information as protectedwould be published in the FederalRegister. The order would includesummaries of why the Administratorfound that the elements were met. Bypublishing the order in the FederalRegister, all interested persons wouldbe able to see that they could provideinformation under the program andreceive the protection described in§ 40123 and this part.

The first five items in the order wouldbe the elements of § 40123. Section193.9(c)(1) would provide for asummary of why the Administratorfinds that the information will beprovided voluntarily. Paragraph (2) ofthat section would provide for adescription of the type of informationthat may be voluntarily provided underthe program and a summary of why theAdministrator finds that the informationis safety or security related. Paragraph(3) would call for a summary of why theAdministrator finds that the disclosureof the information would inhibit thevoluntary provision of that type ofinformation. Paragraph (4) would be fora summary of why the receipt of thattype of information aids in fulfilling theAdministrator’s safety and security



responsibilities. Paragraph (5) wouldcall for a summary of why withholdingsuch information from disclosure wouldbe consistent with the Administrator’ssafety and security responsibilities,including a statement as to thecircumstances under which, and asummary of why, withholding suchinformation from disclosure would notbe consistent with the Administrator’ssafety and security responsibilities, asdescribed in § 193.7.

Proposed § 193.9(c)(6) would providefor a summary of how the Administratorwill distinguish information protectedunder this part from other information.This might include such items as themethod for persons to become involvedin the program, how information issubmitted under that program, and howthe information is segregated within theFAA to ensure that it is handledproperly. It might also include suchprocedures as marking documents asprotected under part 193.

The FAA anticipates that thedesignation published in the FederalRegister may not contain all the details,conditions, and procedures that apply tothe program. For instance, a designationfor FOQA might contain only theelements contained in § 193.9(c), suchas a description of the information thatmay be provided under the program.That designation may require eachinterested air carrier to apply for its ownFOQA approval, which would provideparticular procedures for that air carrier.The approvals for each air carrier wouldnot need to be published in the FederalRegister as long as they are consistentwith the designation that waspublished.

Under § 193.9(d), the FAA couldamend a designation in the same way itwas first adopted.

Section 193.9(e) would provide forwithdrawal of the designation if theFAA determines that the program nolonger meets the required elements in§ 193.5, or if the requirements of theindividual program are not met. Thewithdrawal would be published in theFederal Register and would state theeffective date of the withdrawal.Information that was received under theprogram while the designation waseffective would remain protected evenafter the program was discontinued. Nonewly received information wouldreceive the protection of § 40123 andpart 193.

Section 193.11—DesignatingInformation as Protected Under ThisPart: No Notice Procedure

This proposed procedure is intendedfor situations in which there was animmediate need for the FAA to receive

safety or security information. The FAAmight need to obtain the informationquickly in order to evaluate the need forimmediate remedial or corrective action.The process in this section would be away that the FAA could assure thesource that the information would beprotected under this part, but would notrequire publication in the FederalRegister and a comment period.

The FAA anticipates using thisprocedure in rare circumstances. Forinstance, there may be a serious safetyor security violation that an air carrieris unwilling to address, and anemployee wishes to report it. If theinformation would prove to be correct,enforcement action against the aircarrier may be likely. The employeemay wish for his or her name to beprotected from disclosure from the aircarrier for fear of being fired orotherwise suffering reprisals. Theprotection under this part would permitthe FAA to withhold the employee’sname from disclosure.

The FAA would protect informationunder this section only when theAdministrator has found that theelements of § 193.5 were met, and thatthere was an immediate need to obtainthe information without carrying out themore time-consuming procedures in§ 193.9. The designation would be inwriting.

This procedure generally wouldinvolve an individual who hadinformation regarding a specificcondition that could be provided all atonce or over a short time, rather thanon-going information sharing programs.Section 193.11(c) would containlimitations on the length of time theseprocedures could be used, and generallywould provide that such an informationcollection could be used only for 60days. If an enforcement or criminalinvestigation was underway, theinformation could continue to beprovided under the protection of part193. However, we do not rule out thepossibility that there may arise a criticalsafety or security need to immediatelyadopt a program and begin collectinginformation in a program that normallywould be under § 193.9. In that case, theFAA could use § 193.11 to beginobtaining the information right away,and initiate the procedure in § 193.9 toadopt a long-term program.

Section 193.11(d) would describethose circumstances under which theinformation could be disclosed. This isin addition to the circumstances listedin § 193.7(a), which would apply to allinformation received under this part.The special circumstances wouldinclude use in enforcement actions. Asnoted above, under the rare

circumstances in which this proceduremight be used, enforcement action maybe the likely result.

Section 193.11(e) would provide foramending the designation in the sameway that the designation originally wasmade.

Finally, proposed § 193.11(f) wouldstate how the designation would bewithdrawn. This would be by writtennotice to the person providing theinformation.

Paperwork Reduction ActThis proposal contains the following

new information collectionrequirements subject to review by theOffice of Management and Budget(OMB) under the Paperwork ReductionAct of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)). Thetitle, description, number ofrespondents, and estimate of the annualtotal reporting and recordkeepingburden are shown below.

Title: Protection of VoluntarilySubmitted Information.

Summary: The FAA proposes to adda new part (part 193) to provide thatcertain information submitted to theFAA on a voluntary basis would not bedisclosed. This proposal wouldimplement a new statutory provision.The purpose of this proposed rule is toencourage the aviation community tovoluntarily share information with theFAA so that the agency may workcooperatively with industry to identifymodifications to rules, policies, andprocedures needed to improve safety,security and efficiency of the NationalAirspace System.

Use of: To encourage people tovoluntarily submit desired information,§ 40123 was added to Title 49, UnitedStates Code, in the Federal AviationReauthorization Act of 1996. Section40123 allows the Administrator,through FAA regulations, to protectfrom disclosure voluntarily providedinformation relating to safety andsecurity issues.

The White House Commission onAviation Safety and Security issued arecommendation on this subject. InRecommendation 1.8, the Commissionnoted that the most effective way toidentify problems is for the people whooperate the system to self-disclose theinformation, but that people will notprovide information to the FAA unlessit can be protected. It recommended thatthe FAA expeditiously completerulemaking to implement the legislationfor protecting voluntarily providedinformation.

Respondents (including number of):Those individuals, organizations, orbusinesses that submit informationregarding safety or security issues,



including aircraft operators,manufacturers, repair stations, andairports.

Annual Burden Estimate: Thisproposal would impose a negligiblepaperwork burden for air carriers thatchoose to participate in this program.The air carrier would submit a letternotifying the Administrator that theywish to participate in a current program.The FAA believes this letter will costapproximately $100 to generate. TheFAA also believes that approximately 10air carriers would prepare oneapplication each. Assuming that each ofthe 10 air carriers file one applicationdivided by 10 years equalsapproximately one (1) hour perapplication times five (5) programsequals a total of 5 hours each year. Theestimated hour burden is 5 hours (onetime application). The FAA anticipatesapproximately five (5) programs withinthe next 10 years. The total cost to theindustry of notifying the Administratorconcerning the air carriers’ participationin these programs would be $5,000 over10 years.

Occasionally, an air carrier may wantto propose a program to the FAA thatwould require voluntarily submittedinformation that would have to beprotected. The FAA anticipates that itwould cost approximately $1,000 todevelop such a proposal, and weanticipate that there would only be one(1) such proposal per decade.

The agency solicits public commentregarding the number of applications,proposals, and cost of each on theinformation collection requirements to:(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 theaccuracy of the agency’s estimate of theburden of the proposed collection ofinformation, including the validity ofthe methodology and assumptions used;(3) enhance the quality, utility, andclarity of the information to becollected; and (4) minimize the burdenof the collection of information on thosewho are to respond, including throughthe use of appropriate automated,electronic, mechanical, or othertechnological collection techniques orother forms of information technology.

Individuals and organizations maysubmit comments on the informationcollection requirement by September 24,1999, to the address listed in theADDRESSES section of this document.

Persons are not required to respond toa collection of information unless itdisplays a currently valid OMB controlnumber. The burden associated with

this proposal has been submitted toOMB for review. The FAA will publisha notice in the Federal Registernotifying the public of the approvalnumber.

Compatibility With ICAO StandardsIn keeping with U.S. obligations

under the Convention on InternationalCivil Aviation, it is FAA policy tocomply with International CivilAviation Organization (ICAO) Standardsand Recommended Practices to themaximum extent practicable. The FAAhas reviewed the corresponding ICAOStandards and Recommended Practicesand has identified no conflicts in theseproposed amendments and the foreignregulations.

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 Actof 1980, as amended, requires agenciesto analyze the economic impact ofregulatory changes on small entities.Third, the Office of Management andBudget directs agencies to assess theeffects of regulatory changes oninternational trade. And fourth, theUnfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995(Pub. L. 104–4) requires agencies toprepare a written assessment of thecosts, benefits, and other effects ofproposed or final rules that include aFederal mandate likely to result in theexpenditure by State, local, or tribalgovernments, in the aggregate, or by theprivate sector, of $100 million or moreannually (adjusted for inflation).

In conducting these analyses, the FAAhas determined that the economicimpact of this proposed rule does notmeet the standards for a ‘‘significantregulatory action’’ under section 3(f) ofExecutive Order 12866 and under theDepartment of Transportation’sRegulatory Policies and Procedures forSimplification, Analysis, and Review ofRegulations (44 FR 11034, February 26,1979). However, the FAA hasdetermined that this proposedregulation is significant due to thepublic interest in this rulemaking and,therefore, is subject to review by theOffice of Management and Budget.Additionally, this proposed rule wouldnot have a significant impact on asubstantial number of small entities,would not constitute a barrier tointernational trade, and does notcontain a significant intergovernmentalor private sector mandate.

The FAA has determined that sincethe proposed rule has only a negligibleeconomic impact, positive or negative,on the aviation industry, a fullregulatory evaluation is not necessary.

The FAA invites the public to providecomments and supporting data on theassumptions made in the evaluationanalyses below. All comments receivedwill be considered in the finalregulatory evaluation.

The proposed action is initiated inresponse to requirements of the FederalAviation Authorization Act of 1996which requires, in part, that the FederalAviation Administration issueregulations to carry out a provision ofthe Act that certain informationprovided to the FAA on a voluntarybasis would not be disclosed. Theproposal is intended to encouragepeople to voluntarily provideinformation that will assist the FAA incarrying out its safety and securityduties.

The purpose of this rule is toencourage the aviation community tovoluntarily share information with theFAA so that the agency may workcooperatively with industry to identifymodifications to rules, policies, andprocedures needed to improve safety,security, and efficiency of the NationalAirspace System (NAS). To facilitatethis process, the FAA has initiated anumber of programs designed to capturesafety and security related informationnormally not available to the public orto governmental agencies.

One such program envisioned underthis proposal is the Flight OperationalQuality Assurance Program (FOQA),which entails the routine extraction andanalysis of digital flight data from lineoperations. The program enablescollection of objective information thatcan be used to identify trends relatingto the safety and efficiency of the NAS.Voluntary sharing of such informationwith the FAA could accelerate agencydecision making in many areas ofmutual interest, for example, publishedairport area arrival and departureprocedures, air traffic control data,updates to certification criteria foraircraft, agency guidance for the use andperformance of key aircraft subsystems,i.e., Traffic Alert and CollisionAvoidance System (TCAS) and GlobalPositioning System (GPS), or theapproval under the AdvancedQualification Program of departuresfrom traditional pilot training methodsand media. Another benefit of datasharing programs envisioned throughthe proposed rule is that it provides anobjective tool by which the FAA couldimprove its safety surveillance. Forexample, voluntarily shared data could



provide the FAA and industry with analternative means of monitoring thecontinued safety of Reduced VerticalSeparation Maneuvers (RVSM).

Under current FOQA guidelines, anFAA inspector may review data andinformation while at the operator’sfacility. The inspector is not authorizedto remove either a paper or electroniccopy of data provided under theprogram from an operator’s premises.Not having a voluntarily provided copyof the information severely limits theability of the FAA to use theinformation in agency decision making.This circumstance is not always in theinterest of the FAA, the airline industry,or the public as it can preclude timelyrealization of a safety problem orpotential efficiency benefits that mightotherwise be realized from the sharedinformation.

Adopting this proposed rule wouldencourage data sharing by ensuring thatthe information shared is protected frompublic disclosure, even if requestedunder the Freedom of Information Act(FOIA). The proposed rule wouldprotect the confidentiality of theindividual submitting the informationand, therefore, alleviate aviationindustry fears that information providedwould be used by the public,competitors, or other governmentagencies for purposes other than thoserelated to safety and security of theaviation system.

In order to participate in any FAAsponsored program where voluntarilysubmitted information is protected, theair carrier will have to submit a letternotifying the Administrator that the aircarrier wishes to participate in theprogram. The FAA believes that thisletter will cost approximately $100 togenerate. The FAA also believes thatapproximately 10 air carriers mayparticipate. The FAA anticipatesapproximately five(5) new programswill be in existence within the next 10years. The total cost to the industry ofnotifying the Administrator concerningthe air carriers participation in theseprograms would be $5,000 over 10years. Occasionally, an air carrier maywant to propose a program to the FAAthat would require voluntarilysubmitted information that would haveto be protected. The FAA anticipatesthat it would cost approximately $1,000to develop such a proposal, and weanticipate that there would only beone(1) such proposal per decade. Wesolicit industry comments regarding thenumber of applications, proposals, andcost of each.

The benefits of this proposed rule areunquantifiable, but nevertheless arepositive because the protected

information can be used proactively tocorrect safety concerns, thus preventingavoidable accidents and potentiallysaving many lives and millions ofdollars.

There are negligible application costsassociated with implementing theproposed rule. The proposal, if adopted,imposes no reporting requirements onthe aviation community and wouldassure aviation interests such as aircarrier operators, pilot associations,airframe manufacturers, and tradeassociations that voluntarily submitproprietary information would beprotected from public disclosure. Thecost to the public of having this data orinformation protected from publicdisclosure is considered negligible.

On the other hand, the benefit to theFAA of voluntarily submitted sensitive,proprietary, safety, and securityinformation protected from publicdisclosure outweighs any potential coststo the public of being denied access tothis information.

The White House Commission onAviation Safety and Security noted inits recommendations to the FAA thatthe most effective way to identifyproblems is for the people who operatethe system to self-disclose theinformation, but that people will notprovide information to the FAA unlessit can be protected. The Commissionrecommended that the FAA completerulemaking to implement the legislationfor protecting voluntarily providedinformation.

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 principle,the Act requires agencies to solicit andconsider flexible regulatory proposalsand to explain the rationale for theiractions. The Act covers a wide range ofsmall entities, including small business,not-for profit organizations, and smallgovernmental jurisdictions.

Agencies must perform a review todetermine whether a proposed or finalrule will have a significant economicimpact on a substantial number of smallentities. If the determination is that itwill, the agency must prepare aregulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) asdescribed in the Act.

However, if an agency determines thata proposed or final rule is not expected

to have a significant economic impacton a substantial number of smallentities, § 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.

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 will not have asignificant impact on a substantialnumber of small entities. However, theFAA solicits comments from the publicregarding this determination of non-significant impact.

International Trade Impact StatementThe FAA has determined that the

proposed rule would have no impact ontrade for both United States (U.S.) firmsdoing business in foreign countries oron foreign firms doing business in theU.S.

Federalism ImplicationsThe regulations proposed herein

would 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.

Unfunded Mandates Reform ActAssessment

Title II of the Unfunded MandatesReform Act of 1995 (the Act), codifiedas 2 U.S.C. 1501–1571, requires eachFederal agency, to the extent permittedby law, to prepare a written assessmentof the effects of any Federal mandate ina proposed or final agency rule that mayresult in expenditures by State, local,and tribal governments, in the aggregate,or by the private sector of $100 millionor more (adjusted annually for inflation)in any one year.

This proposal does not meet thethresholds of the Act. Therefore, therequirements of Title II of the Act do notapply.

Environmental AnalysisFAA Order 1050.1D defines FAA

actions that may be categoricallyexcluded from preparation of a National



Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)environmental assessment orenvironmental impact statement. Inaccordance with FAA Order 1050.1D,appendix 4, paragraph 4(j), thisrulemaking action qualifies for acategorical exclusion.

Energy ImpactThe energy impact of the proposed

rule has been assessed in accordancewith the Energy Policy andConservation Act (EPCA) and Pub. L.94–163, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6362). Ithas been determined that it is not amajor regulatory action under theprovisions of the EPCA.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 193Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Safety, Security.

The Proposed AmendmentIn consideration of the foregoing, the

Federal Aviation Administrationproposes to add part 193 to Title 14,Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFRpart 193) as follows:

PART 193—PROTECTION OFVOLUNTARILY SUBMITTEDINFORMATION

Sec.193.1 Scope and delegations.193.3 Definitions.193.5 Withholding information from

disclosure.193.7 Disclosure of information.193.9 Designating information as protected

under this part: Notice procedure.193.11 Designating information as protected

under this part: No notice procedure.Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40123.

§ 193.1 Scope and delegations.(a) This part implements 49 U.S.C.

40123, protection of voluntarilysubmitted information.

(b) The authority of the Administratorto issue, amend, and withdrawdesignations under this part may bedelegated to Associate Administratorsand Assistant Administrators and to theChief Counsel, their Deputies, and anyindividual formally designated asActing Associate or AssistantAdministrator, Acting Chief Counsel, orActing Deputy of such offices. Theauthority of the Administrator to issueproposed designations under this partmay be further delegated.

§ 193.3 Definitions.Agency means each authority of the

Government of the United States,whether or not it is within or subject toreview by another agency, but does notinclude—

(1) The Congress;(2) The courts of the United States;

(3) The governments of the territoriesor possessions of the United States;

(4) The government of the District ofColumbia;

(5) Courts martial and militarycommissions.

De-identified means the identity ofthe source of the information, and thenames of persons, are removed from theinformation.

Disclose means to release informationto other than another agency, such asunder a request under the Freedom ofInformation Act (5 U.S.C. 552), inrulemaking proceedings, in a pressrelease, or to a party to a legal action.

Information means data, reports,source, and other information.‘‘Information’’ may be used to describethe whole or a portion of a submissionof information.

Summarized means individualincidents are not specifically described,but are presented in statistical or othermore general form.

Voluntary means that the informationwas submitted without mandate orcompulsion, and not as a condition ofdoing business with the government.‘‘Voluntarily-provided information’’does not include information submittedas part of a means of complying withstatutory, regulatory, or contractualrequirements. However, a programunder this part may be published in theCode of Federal Regulations and theinformation submitted under it willconsidered ‘‘voluntarily provided.’’

§ 193.5 Withholding information fromdisclosure.

(a) Except as provided in this part, theAdministrator does not disclosevoluntarily provided safety or securityinformation that has been designated asprotected under this part.

(b) The Administrator designatesinformation as protected under this partwhen the Administrator finds that—

(1) The information is providedvoluntarily;

(2) The information is safety orsecurity related;

(3) The disclosure of the informationwould inhibit the voluntary provision ofthat type of information;

(4) The receipt of that type ofinformation aids in fulfilling theAdministrator’s safety and securityresponsibilities; and

(5) Withholding such informationfrom disclosure, under thecircumstances provided in this part,would be consistent with theAdministrator’s safety and securityresponsibilities.

(c) Only information designated asprotected under this part is protectedfrom disclosure as described in this

part. Information obtained by theAdministrator through another means isnot protected as described in this part.

(d) Nothing in this part prevents theAdministrator from giving informationdesignated as protected under this partto other agencies with safety or securityresponsibilities. Such agencies aresubject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C.40123 regarding nondisclosure ofinformation. The Administrator will notgive the information to another agencyunless the other agency provides theAdministrator with adequate assurance,in writing, that it will protect theinformation from disclosure as requiredin 49 U.S.C. 40123, this part, and theterms of the specific program.

(e) The nondisclosure protectionsdescribed in this part do not applywhen the person who provided theinformation agrees to its disclosure.

(f) When the Administrator receives asubpoena for information designated asprotected under this part, theAdministrator contacts the person whosubmitted the information to determinewhether the person objects to disclosureof the information or wishes toparticipate in responding to thesubpoena. Based on all thecircumstances, including the person’sresponse, the Administrator requests theDepartment of Justice to make anappropriate response to the subpoena,or the Administrator files an appropriateresponse, such as filing a motion for aprotective order or a motion to quashthe subpoena, or release of theinformation.

§ 193.7 Disclosure of information.Withholding information that is

designated as protected under this partwould not be consistent with theAdministrator’s safety and securityresponsibilities, and therefore may bedisclosed, as follows:

(a) Disclosure in all programs.(1) De-identified, summarized

information provided under this partmay be disclosed to explain the need forchanges in policies and regulations.

(2) Information provided under thispart may be disclosed to correct acondition that may compromise safetyor security.

(3) Information provided under thispart may be disclosed to carry out acriminal investigation or prosecution.

(4) Information provided under thispart may be disclosed to comply with 49U.S.C. 44905, regarding informationabout threats to civil aviation.

(b) Disclosure in particular programs.In individual programs, theAdministrator may find that there areadditional circumstances under whichwithholding information provided



under this part would not be consistentwith the Administrator’s safety andsecurity responsibilities. Thosecircumstances are described in thedesignation for that program.

§ 193.9 Designating information asprotected under this part: Notice procedure.

This section provides the procedurefor the Administrator to designateinformation provided under specificprograms as protected under this part,other than when there is an immediatesafety or security need for theinformation. These programs generallyspecify a type of information that willbe provided by types of persons on anon-going basis.

(a) Application. Any person mayapply to have information designated asprotected under this part by submittingan application addressed to the person’sFAA principal inspector. If the personhas no FAA principal inspector, theapplication should be submitted to thelocal FAA field office. The applicationshall include the designation describedin paragraph (c) of this section that theapplicant requests be issued. TheAdministrator may issue a proposeddesignation based on the application ormay deny the application.

(b) Proposed designation. Beforemaking a designation under this section,either based on an application orotherwise, the Administrator publishesa proposed designation in the FederalRegister and requests comment.

(c) Designation. The Administratordesignates information provided undera program as protected under this partif, after review of the comments, theAdministrator finds that the elements in§ 193.5 are met. An order designatingthe information provided under theprogram to be protected under this partis published in the Federal Register.The designation includes at least thefollowing:

(1) A summary of why theAdministrator finds that the informationwill be provided voluntarily.

(2) A description of the type ofinformation that may be voluntarilyprovided under the program and asummary of why the Administratorfinds that the information is safety orsecurity related.

(3) A summary of why theAdministrator finds that the disclosureof the information would inhibit thevoluntary provision of that type ofinformation.

(4) A summary of why the receipt ofthat type of information aids in fulfilling

the Administrator’s safety and securityresponsibilities.

(5) A summary of why withholdingsuch information from disclosure wouldbe consistent with the Administrator’ssafety and security responsibilities,including a statement as to thecircumstances under which, and asummary of why, withholding suchinformation from disclosure would notbe consistent with the Administrator’ssafety and security responsibilities, asdescribed in § 193.7 of this part.

(6) A summary of how theAdministrator will distinguishinformation protected under this partfrom other information.

(d) Amendment of designation. TheAdministrator may amend a designationunder this section in the same manneras an original designation is made.

(e) Withdrawal of designation. TheAdministrator may withdraw adesignation under this section at anytime the Administrator finds thatcontinuation of the designation does notmeet the elements of § 193.5, or if therequirements of the individual programare not met. The Administratorwithdraws the designation bypublishing a notice in the FederalRegister. The withdrawal is effective onthe date of publication or such later dateas the notice may state. Informationprovided during the time the programwas designated remains protected underthis part and the program. Informationprovided after the withdrawal of thedesignation is effective is not protectedunder this part or the program.

§ 193.11 Designating information asprotected under this part: No noticeprocedure.

This section provides the procedurefor the Administrator to designateinformation as protected under this partwhen there is an immediate safety orsecurity need for the information. Thissection generally is used for provision ofspecific information on a short-termbasis by a specific person.

(a) Application. A person may requestthat the Administrator designateinformation the person is offering asprotected under this part. The personshall state at least the general nature ofinformation and whether the personwill provide the information withoutthe protection of this part.

(b) Designation. An order designatinginformation provided under this sectionas protected under this part is inwriting. The Administrator designatesthe information as protected under thispart if the Administrator finds that—

(1) The elements of § 193.5 are met,and

(2) There is an immediate safety orsecurity need to obtain the informationwithout carrying out the procedures in§ 193.9 of this part.

(c) Time limit. Except as provided inparagraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of thissection, no designation under thissection shall continue in effect for morethan 60 days after the date ofdesignation. Information providedduring the time the designation was ineffect remains protected under this part.Information provided after thedesignation ceases to be in effect is notprotected under this part. Thedesignation remains in effect for morethan 60 days if—

(1) The procedures to designate suchinformation under § 193.9(a) have beeninitiated, or

(2) There is an ongoing enforcementor criminal investigation, in which casethe designation may continue until theinvestigation is completed.

(d) Disclosure. Unless otherwiseprovided in the designation,withholding information providedunder this section from disclosure in theconduct of enforcement actions wouldnot be consistent with theAdministrator’s safety and securityresponsibilities and, therefore, theinformation may be disclosed.

(e) Amendment of designation. TheAdministrator may amend a designationunder this section in the same manneras an original designation is made.

(f) Withdrawal of designation. TheAdministrator may withdraw adesignation under this section at anytime the Administrator finds thatcontinuation does not meet the elementsof § 193.5, or if the requirements of theindividual program are not met. TheAdministrator withdraws thedesignation by notifying the person inwriting that the designation iswithdrawn. The withdrawal is effectiveon the date of receipt of the notice orsuch later date as the notice may state.Information provided during the timethe designation was in effect remainsprotected under this part. Informationprovided after the withdrawal iseffective is not protected under thispart.

Issued in Washington, DC on July 16, 1999.Ida M. Klepper,Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking.[FR Doc. 99–18818 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–13–P


fede

ral r

egiste

r

40483

MondayJuly 26, 1999

Part V

Department of theTreasuryFiscal Service

31 CFR Parts 315, 353, 357, and 370Regulations Governing U.S. SavingsBonds, U.S. Savings Notes; Book-EntryTreasury Bonds, Notes and Bills; andElectronic Transactions and FundsTransfers Related to U.S. Securities; FinalRule



DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Fiscal Service

31 CFR Parts 315, 353, 357, and 370

Regulations Governing U.S. SavingsBonds, Series A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H,J, and K, and U.S. Savings Notes;Regulations Governing United StatesSavings Bonds, Series EE and HH;Regulations Governing Book-EntryTreasury Bonds, Notes and Bills; andElectronic Transactions and FundsTransfers Related to U.S. Securities

AGENCY: Bureau of the Public Debt,Fiscal Service, Treasury.ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We’re publishing a final ruleon electronic transactions and fundstransfers relating to United Statessecurities. In particular, we’veeliminated redundant provisions thataddress our use of Automated ClearingHouse entries.DATES: Effective July 26, 1999.ADDRESSES: You can download thisfinal rule at the following WorldWide Web address:<http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov>. Youmay also inspect and copy this final ruleat: Treasury Department Library,Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)Collection, Room 5030, Main TreasuryBuilding, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave., NW,Washington, DC 20220. Before visiting,you must call (202) 622–0990 for anappointment.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:• Wallace L. Earnest, Director, Division

of Staff Services, Savings BondOperations Office, Bureau of thePublic Debt, at (304) 480–6319 or<[email protected]>

• Maureen Parker, Director, Division ofSecurities Systems, Office ofSecurities and Accounting Services,Bureau of the Public Debt, at (304)480–7761 or<[email protected]>

• Susan J. Klimas, Attorney-Adviser,Office of the Chief Counsel, Bureau ofthe Public Debt, at (304) 480–3688 or<[email protected]>

• Gregory J. Till, Attorney-Adviser,Office of the Chief Counsel, Bureau ofthe Public Debt, at (202) 219–3320 or<[email protected]>

• Edward C. Gronseth, Deputy ChiefCounsel, Bureau of the Public Debt, at(304)480–3688 or<[email protected]>


I. Background

On November 20, 1998, we publisheda final rule in the Federal Register (63

FR 64543). The final rule amended theregulations at 31 CFR part 370 thatgoverned the transfer of funds onaccount of United States securities. Inparticular, the final rule provided forthe use of Automated Clearing House(ACH) debit entries for the sale ofsavings bonds. At the time, we made noattempt to consolidate these provisionswith other debit entry provisionsalready in 31 CFR part 370.

This final rule consolidates thepreviously separate debit entryprovisions in 31 CFR part 370. We’vealso eliminated redundant credit entryprovisions that were found in 31 CFRparts 315, 353, and 357, in favor ofunified provisions in part 370. We’vealso rewritten part 370 in plainlanguage.

II. Summary of Amendments in 31 CFRPart 370

Subpart A—General Information

What Special Terms Do I Need To KnowTo Understand This Part? (§ 370.1)

We’ve made several changes to thissection. We’ve amended the definitionof ‘‘electronic signature’’ to beconsistent with the definition given byCongress in the Government PaperworkElimination Act, or title XVII of PublicLaw 105–277 (October 21, 1998).Congress passed this act to facilitate theuse and acceptance of electronicsignatures by executive agencies.Consistent with the Act, the final ruledefines an electronic signature as asignature of an electronic message that:

(1) identifies and authenticates aparticular person as the source of theelectronic message; and

(2) indicates such person’s approvalof the information contained in theelectronic message.

The definition of ‘‘investor account’’mirrors that which we will use in anupcoming revision to the TreasuryDirectregulations in 31 CFR part 357. We’veamended the definition of ‘‘payment’’for greater accuracy. In addition, we’veadded definitions of ‘‘we’’ and ‘‘you.’’We’ve added these definitions, as wellas slightly revised a handful of otherdefinitions, to help us write this finalrule in plain language.

Subpart B—Credit ACH Entries

How Can I Appoint a FinancialInstitution To Receive Payments on MyBehalf? (§ 370.5)

This section has been amended torequire that you name a financialinstitution and deposit account toreceive payments through the ACHmethod, using an approved form. Theformer section (b) has been moved to

370.15, relating to limitations onliability.

What Requirements Apply to aFinancial Institution That Handles aCredit Entry? (§ 370.6)

This section has been amended byeliminating unnecessary provisions, andby adding a provision that a financialinstitution, by accepting and handling acredit entry initiated by us, agrees tocomply with the Operating Rules of theNational Automated Clearing HouseAssociation (NACHA Rules), asmodified by our regulations.

Are There Any Requirements Related toa Prenotification Entry? (§ 370.8)

This section is amended to providethat we may, in our discretion, send aprenotification message before we senda credit entry or whenever there is achange in the payment instructions.Paragraph (b) requires that the financialinstitution respond to prenotificationmessages within the time frame of theNational Automated Clearing HouseAssociation (NACHA). If the financialinstitution does not respond to aprenotification message, we mayinterpret the nonresponsiveness asagreement to this subpart, and that thedeposit account information containedin the prenotification message isaccurate.

How Can My Payment Instructions BeChanged? (§ 370.9)

This section provides that paymentinstructions will continue until you oryour financial institution asks us tochange them.

What Can Cause My Payments To BeSuspended? (§ 370.10)

This section is amended to providethat payments will be suspended if wereceive notice that your deposit accounthas been closed, that someone namedon your account is dead or has beendeclared legally incompetent, that thereis a change in the title of your depositaccount which alters your interest, or ifa corporation has been dissolved. Inaddition, we will suspend payments ifthere are changes in the status of thebond, security, or investor account.Payments will continue in suspensionuntil we receive evidence satisfactory tous as to who is entitled to receivepayments.

What Must My Financial Institution DoWhen It Receives a Payment? (§ 370.11)

This former § 370.10 is redesignatedas § 370.11.



What Happens if an Error Is Made in aCredit Entry, or if a Duplicate CreditEntry Is Made? (§ 370.12)

This former § 370.11 is redesignatedas § 370.12. The former § 370.12 hasbeen deleted as an unnecessaryprovision.

What Limitations Exist on Liability?(§ 370.15)

This section is the former § 370.16,which has been redesignated as§ 370.15. The former § 370.15 has beendeleted as unnecessary. Paragraphs (a)and (b) are substantively unchanged.Section (c) has been moved from § 370.5and is substantively unchanged.

Subpart C—Debit ACH Entries

What Requirements Apply if I Want ToAuthorize a Debit Entry to My DepositAccount? (§ 370.20)

This section sets out requirements ondebit entry authorizations. Theprovisions of this section are somewhatcomplicated by the various ways thatwe use debit entries for the sale ofsecurities, depending on the type ofsecurity involved.

We currently accept debit entryauthorizations for sales of book-entry(electronic) Treasury securities held inour TreasuryDirect system. We alsoaccept debit entry authorizations forsales of definitive (paper) savings bondssold directly by us through the UnitedStates Savings Bond EasySaverPlan<SUP>TM</SUP>. (Savings bondsalso are sold by savings bond issuingagents, but part 370 has no applicationto them). We also will accept debitauthorizations for collection of fees.

Under this section, we require that ifyou purchase a book-entry security heldin TreasuryDirect, you must be namedon the investor account that holds thesecurity. On the other hand, we do notimpose a similar requirement for oursales of definitive savings bonds,because these are not held in investoraccounts.

Also under this section, we limit youto authorizing only single-entry debitsfor purchases of book-entry securitiesheld in TreasuryDirect. On the otherhand, debit entries for purchases ofdefinitive savings bonds must berecurring.

For purchases of book-entry Treasurysecurities, a debit entry authorizationmay be completed electronically. Forinstance, for purchases of securitiesheld in TreasuryDirect, you must openan investor account; once there is anexisting relationship, you mayelectronically authorize a debit entry toa designated deposit account for thepurchase of a book-entry Treasury

security by providing some personalidentification information. By contrast,the debit entry authorization fordefinitive savings bonds only may becompleted if signed on paper. Thisdifference between the securities is notexplicit in the regulations. Rather, itsimply reflects how we currently dobusiness.

The section requires that all debitentry authorizations must be signed.We’ve defined the word ‘‘signature’’ as‘‘any symbol or method executed oradopted by a person with presentintention to be bound.’’ This is atraditional legal definition of asignature.

Special consideration has been givento authorizations completed byelectronic means. As noted above, asignature may be an electronicsignature. However, as stated in section370.35, not every electronically signeddebit entry authorization automaticallyis acceptable to us. Instead, theelectronic signature must beaccomplished through a method thatwe’ve approved. For instance, werequire you to enter your TreasuryDirectaccount number and taxpayeridentification number to access ourTreasuryDirect electronic services. Weconsider the entry of this information tobe an electronic signature that expressesyour intent to be bound by any debitentry authorization that you may submitwhile accessing our electronic services.

In determining what types ofelectronic signatures are acceptable tous, we will look to how electronicsignatures are treated under other lawand in the private sector. We also willbe bound by whatever procedures maybe imposed upon executive agenciesgoverning the use of digital signatures.

Our approach on authorizationscompleted by electronic means divergesfrom the approach taken by the Board ofGovernors of the Federal Reserve (‘‘theBoard’’) and the National AutomatedClearing House Association(‘‘NACHA’’). The Board is responsiblefor Regulation E (12 CFR part 205),which sets out consumer rights inelectronic funds transfers such as debitentries. NACHA is responsible for theOperating Rules (‘‘the NACHA Rules’’)that govern the handling of debitentries. These authorities state that adebit entry authorization must be in a‘‘writing signed or similarlyauthenticated by the consumer.’’ UnderRegulation E, this requirement appliesonly to debit entry authorizations forrecurring debits; under the NACHARules, this requirement applies to alldebit entry authorizations.

Under Regulation E and the NACHARules, the meaning of ‘‘signed’’ appears

to be limited to a signature completedin longhand, and does not extend to anelectronic signature. Neither RegulationE nor the NACHA Rules recognize theterm ‘‘electronic signature.’’ Instead, adebit ACH authorization that iscompleted electronically must be‘‘similarly authenticated.’’

The Board and NACHA haveinterpreted ‘‘similarly authenticated’’ asallowing authentication by use of a PINor digital signature. On the other hand,the use of an account number andtaxpayer identification number may notbe sufficient for the Board and NACHA.Thus, our current means of allowing theelectronic submission of a debit entryauthorization in TreasuryDirect maydiffer from that allowed by the Boardand NACHA.

We have decided not to adopt the‘‘similarly authenticated’’ language usedby the Board and NACHA, for tworeasons. First, in the GovernmentPaperwork Elimination Act, Congressdefined the term ‘‘electronic signature.’’Congress also stated its intent thatexecutive agencies use and accept suchsignatures. Of course, we wish to beconsistent with Congress. Second, bynot adopting the ‘‘similarlyauthenticated’’ language, we reservesome right to determine whatconstitutes an acceptable means ofelectronically submitting a debit entryauthorization. In deciding whatqualifies as an approved ‘‘electronicsignature,’’ we will be influenced, butnot bound, by the Board and NACHA’sinterpretation of ‘‘similarlyauthenticated.’’

We can differ from Regulation E onthis point because Regulation Eexcludes from its coverage ‘‘[a]nytransfer of funds the primary purpose ofwhich is the purchase or sale of asecurity * * * [h]eld in book-entry formby a Federal Reserve Bank or federalagency.’’ Transactions involving book-entry securities held in TreasuryDirectfall within this exclusion. As notedabove, it only is for these types ofsecurities that the Bureau of the PublicDebt allows debit entry authorizationsto be completed electronically.

Even without this exclusion, we areconsistent with Regulation E. The‘‘signed or similarly authenticated’’language in Regulation E applies only toauthorizations for recurring debitentries. However, all electronicallysubmitted debit authorizations inTreasuryDirect are for single-entrydebits. Accordingly, to the extent thatwe allow debit entry authorizations tobe electronically signed, the ‘‘signed orsimilarly authenticated’’ requirement ofRegulation E is not triggered.



In the future, we may wish to acceptelectronically submitted debit entryauthorizations for our sales of definitivesavings bonds. As opposed to book-entry securities, Regulation E applies todebit entry transactions involvingdefinitive securities. Thus, anauthorization of recurring debit entriesfor the sale of definitive savings bondsmay have to qualify as ‘‘signed orsimilarly authenticated’’ underRegulation E, though single-entryauthorizations may not have to soqualify. If we decide to pursue sales ofdefinitive savings bonds throughelectronic debit entry authorizations, wewould consider making the ‘‘signed orsimilarly authenticated’’ requirementexplicit in our regulations. However, nosuch electronic transactions arecurrently planned for definitive savingsbonds.

We can differ from the NACHA Rulesbecause the NACHA Rules are privatelaw. More importantly, today’s final ruleis consistent with Regulation E, whichhas carved out an exclusion fortransactions involving certain book-entry Treasury securities. Furthermore,although the ‘‘signed or similarlyauthenticated’’ language in the NACHARules applies to single-entry debitauthorizations, we note that thisapplication was inspired by NACHA’sdesire to protect consumers fromaggressive telemarketers. This is anadmirable purpose but one that has littlemeaning with regard to consumerdealings with Treasury. We believewe’re justified in not following theNACHA Rules on this point.

No matter how an electronic signatureof a debit entry authorization may becompleted, we have at our disposalseveral measures to prevent fraud. Forinstance, for a book-entry security heldin TreasuryDirect, we reserve the rightto prevent the owner from disposing ofthe security for up to thirty days afterpurchase. If fraud is reported during thistime, we can cancel the security,preventing the fraud from succeeding.Also, even after this thirty-day period,any attempt to transfer out or otherwisecollect the value of a security requiresthe owner to provide identification, inperson, to a bank or other institution. Inother words, a person attempting a fraudcannot do it anonymously; instead, hemust identify himself. Finally, to theextent that fraud may occur, the UnitedStates is better capable of prosecutingcases than may be a small, privateentity.

In addition, the section states thatcredit and debit entries with respect toa security must be made to the samedeposit account. This is another securityfeature. The provision helps ensure that

funds are placed back into the samedeposit account from which the fundswere drawn, rather than going to animproper account.

What Rights Do I Have To Terminate orSuspend Debit Entries? (§ 370.25)

This section is amended to state thatif you submit a debit entry authorizationin conjunction with a Treasury auctiontender for the purchase of a book-entrysecurity, you cannot terminate orsuspend a debit entry after the auctioncloses. This is to prevent a person fromunfairly withdrawing the remittance ifthe person receives an unfavorable yieldat an auction.

What Limitations Exist on Liability?(§ 370.26)

This section is amended to state thatour liability does not extend beyond theamount of the debit entry. Furthermore,if a financial institution causes us a lossbecause it fails to follow this part, thefinancial institution cannot be liable tous for more than the amount of thedebit.

Can I Be Held Accountable if MyNegligence Contributes to a ForgedSignature? (§ 370.40)

This section is amended to state thatit has no application in any disputeinvolving a debit authorization or creditcard transaction. Instead, we will relyupon the error resolution procedures ofthe NACHA Rules, credit cardassociation rules, and the Board’sregulations.

What Is the Status of a Security if theRemittance Cannot Be Collected?(§ 370.45)

This new section states that if wecannot promptly collect all of theremittance for a security, we may in ourdiscretion cancel the security unless ithas been legally transferred for value toa third person who had no knowledgeof the improper debit entry at the timeof the transfer.

III. Procedural Requirements

This final rule does not meet thecriteria for a ‘‘significant regulatoryaction,’’ as defined in Executive Order12866. Therefore, the regulatory reviewprocedures contained therein do notapply.

This final rule relates to matters ofpublic contract and procedures forUnited States securities. The notice andpublic procedures requirements of theAdministrative Procedure Act areinapplicable, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.553(a)(2).

As no notice of proposed rulemakingis required, the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) does notapply.

We ask for no new collections ofinformation in this final rule. Therefore,the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.3507) does not apply.

List of Subjects

31 CFR part 315

Government Securities, FederalReserve System, Banks and Banking.

31 CFR part 353

Bonds, Electronic Funds Transfers,Government Securities.

31 CFR part 357

Bonds, Electronic funds transfer,Federal Reserve System, Governmentsecurities, Securities.

31 CFR part 370

Bonds, Electronic Funds Transfers,Government Securities, Securities.

For the reasons set forth in thepreamble, 31 CFR parts 315, 353, 357,and 370 are amended as follows:

PART 315—REGULATIONSGOVERNING U.S. SAVINGS BONDS,SERIES A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J, ANDK, AND U.S. SAVINGS NOTES


Authority: 31 U.S.C. 3105 and 5 U.S.C.301.

2. Amend § 315.31 as follows:a. Remove the last two sentences of

paragraph (b);b. Remove the last sentence of

paragraph (c);c. Revise paragraph (h)(1) to read as

set forth below.d. Remove paragraph (h)(2);e. Redesignate paragraphs (h)(3),

(h)(4), (h)(5), and (h)(6) as (h)(2), (3), (4),and (5);

f. Revise redesignated paragraph (h)(5)to read as set forth below.

g. Remove paragraph (h)(7);h. Redesignate paragraph (h)(8) as

(h)(6) and revise redesignated paragraph(h)(6) to read as set forth below.

i. Redesignate paragraph (i) as (h)(7)and revise redesignated paragraph (h)(7)to read as set forth below.

§ 315.31 Series H bonds.

* * * * *(h) * * *(1) Payments on same account.

Payments on all Series H bondsassigned to the same accountmaintained by the Bureau will be madeto the same deposit account at afinancial institution.* * * * *



(5) Cancellation of ACH arrangement.An ACH arrangement shall remain ineffect until it is terminated by a requestfrom the owner or coowner submitted tothe Bureau of the Public Debt,Parkersburg, WV 26102–1328.

(6) Rules. Series H interest paymentsmade by the ACH method are governedby the regulations at 31 CFR part 370.

(7) Nonreceipt or loss of interestpayment. The Bureau of the Public Debt,Parkersburg, WV 26102 should benotified if:

(i) An interest check is not received oris lost after receipt or

(ii) An ACH payment is not creditedto the designated account and thefinancial institution has no record ofreceiving it. The notice should includethe owner or coowner’s name andtaxpayer identifying number and theinterest payment date.

PART 353—REGULATIONSGOVERNING UNITED STATESSAVINGS BONDS, SERIES EE AND HH


Authority: 31 U.S.C. 3105 and 5 U.S.C.301.

2. Amend § 353.31 as follows:a. Remove the third sentence of

paragraph (b);b. Revise the last sentence of

paragraph (b) to read as set forth below.c. Redesignate paragraph (c)(1) as

paragraph (c) and remove the lastsentence from the redesignatedparagraph (c);

d. Remove paragraphs (c)(2), (d), and(e);

e. Redesignate paragraphs (f) and (g)as paragraphs (d) and (e), respectively;

f. Redesignate paragraph (h) as (f);g. Revise redesignated paragraph (f)(1)

to read as set forth below.h. Remove redesignated paragraph

(f)(2);i. Redesignated paragraphs (f)(3),

(f)(4), (f)(5) and (f)(6) are furtherredesignated as (f)(2), (f)3), (f)(4), and(f)(5), respectively.

j. Revise redesignated (f)(5)(ii) to readas set forth below.

k. Remove redesignated paragraph(f)(7).

l. In redesignated paragraph (f),further redesignate paragraph (f)(8) as(f)(6) and revise to read as set forthbelow.

m. Redesignate paragraph (i) as (f)(7)and revise to read as set forth below.

§ 353.31 Series HH bonds.

* * * * *

(b) * * * Series H interest paymentsmade by the ACH method are governedby the regulations at 31 CFR part 370.* * * * *

(f) * * *(1) Submission of deposit account

information. Payments on all Series HHbonds assigned to the same accountmaintained by the Bureau must be madeto the same deposit account at afinancial institution.* * * * *

(5) * * *(ii) Bonds issued prior to October 1,

1989. An ACH arrangement establishedfor Series HH bonds issued prior toOctober 1, 1989, shall remain in effectuntil it is terminated by a request fromthe owner or coowner submitted to theBureau of the Public Debt, Parkersburg,WV 26102–1328

(6) Rules. Series HH interest paymentsmade by the ACH method are governedby the regulations at 31 CFR part 370.

(7) Nonreceipt or loss of interestpayment. The Bureau of the Public Debt,Parkersburg, WV 26102 should benotified if:

(i) An interest check is not received oris lost after receipt or

(ii) An ACH payment is not creditedto the designated account and thefinancial institution has no record ofreceiving it. The notice should includethe owner or coowner’s name andtaxpayer identifying number and theinterest payment date.

PART 357—GENERAL REGULATIONSGOVERNING BOOK-ENTRYTREASURY BONDS, NOTES ANDBILLS.


Authority: 31 U.S.C. 31, 5 U.S. 301 and 12U.S.C. 391.

2. Amend § 357.26 as follows:a. Revise the section heading as set

forth below.b. Revise paragraph (a) to read as set

forth below.c. Revise the heading for paragraph (b)

to read as set forth below.d. Remove paragraphs (b)(1)(i),

(b)(1)(iv), (b)(2), (b)(3), (c) and (d);e. Redesignate paragraph (b)(1)(ii) as

paragraph (b);f. Redesignate paragraph (b)(1)(iii) as

paragraph (c) and add a heading to readas set forth below.

g. Redesignate paragraph (b)(1)(v) asparagraph (d) and add a heading to readas set forth below.

h. Redesignate paragraph (b)(1)(vi) asparagraph (e) and add a heading to readas set forth below.

§ 357.26. Direct Deposit.

(a) General. A payment by theDepartment with respect to a securityshall be by direct deposit unless it isdeemed necessary by the Department tomake payment by another means. DirectDeposit payments are governed by theregulations at 31 CFR part 370.

(b) Names on account. * * *(c) Inquiry to financial institution.

* * *(d) Payments to master account.

* * *(e) Deposit account. * * *3. Revise § 357.30 to read as follows.

§ 357.30 Cases of delay or suspension ofpayment.

If evidence required by theDepartment in support of a transactionrequest is not received by theDepartment at least ten (10) businessdays before the maturity date of thesecurity, or if payment at maturity hasbeen suspended pursuant to 31 CFR370.10, in cases of reinvestment, theDepartment will redeem the securityand hold the redemption proceeds inthe same form of registration as thesecurity redeemed, pending furtherdisposition. No other interest shallaccrue or be paid on such proceeds afterthe security is redeemed.

1. Revise part 370 to read as follows:

PART 370—ELECTRONICTRANSACTIONS AND FUNDSTRANSFERS RELATING TO UNITEDSTATES SECURITIES


Sec.370.0 What does this part cover?370.1 What special terms do I need to know

to understand this part?


370.5 How can I appoint a financialinstitution to receive payments on mybehalf?

370.6 What requirements apply to afinancial institution that handles a creditentry?

370.7 How can my financial institutionchange my designated deposit account?

370.8 Are there any requirements related toa prenotification entry?

370.9 How can my payment instructions bechanged?

370.10 What can cause my payments to besuspended?

370.11 What must my financial institutiondo when it receives a payment?

370.12 What happens if an error is made ina credit entry, or if a duplicate creditentry is made?

370.13 Can time limits for taking an actionon a credit entry be extended?

370.14 Can substitute payment proceduresbe used?

370.15 What limitations exist on liability?



Subpart C—Debit Entries370.20 What requirements apply if I want to

authorize a debit entry to my depositaccount?

370.21 Are there any requirements relatedto a prenotification entry?

370.22 What requirements apply to afinancial institution that debits a depositaccount?

370.23 What other requirements apply to afinancial institution?

370.24 What right does the Bureau of thePublic Debt have to terminate or suspenddebit entries?

370.25 What rights do I have to terminateor suspend debit entries?


Subpart D—Electronic Submission ofTransaction Requests Through the Bureauof the Public Debt370.35 Does the Bureau of the Public Debt

accept all electronically signedtransaction requests?

370.36 When does a transaction requestbecome effective?

370.37 Where is the point of transaction foran electronically submitted transactionrequest?

370.38 What is the legal effect of anelectronic signature?

370.39 To what extent is a digital signatureadmissible in any civil litigation ordispute?

370.40 Can I be held accountable if mynegligence contributes to a forgedsignature?


Subpart E—Additional Provisions370.45 What is the status of a security if the

remittance cannot be collected?370.46 Are there any situations in which

the Bureau of the Public Debt may waivethese regulations?

370.47 To what extent may the Bureau ofthe Public Debt change theseregulations?

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 391; 31 U.S.C. chapter31.


§ 370.0 What does this part cover?(a) Scope. This part applies to the

transfer of funds by the AutomatedClearing House method as used by us inconnection with United Statessecurities. This part also providesregulations for the electronicsubmission of transaction requeststhrough us, except as varied byagreement or as otherwise provided.This part does not apply to transactionsfor the sale of United States SavingsBonds accomplished through savingsbond issuing agents generally, exceptand to the extent we direct otherwise.

(b) Operating Rules of the NationalAutomated Clearing House Associationand Regulations of the FinancialManagement Service. The OperatingRules of the National AutomatedClearing House Association generally

apply to these transactions. However,the Operating Rules do not apply to theextent that the Operating Rules arepreempted entirely and excludedspecifically by application of FinancialManagement Service regulations in part210 of this chapter. In the event of anyinconsistencies between this part 370and either the Operating Rules or part210, this part 370 applies.

(c) Regulations of the Board ofGovernors of the Federal Reserve. To theextent that Regulation E (12 CFR part205) and Regulation Z (12 CFR part 226)of the Board of Governors of the FederalReserve System apply to transactionsauthorized by this part, those Federallaws are unaffected by this part 370.

(d) Variance by agreement. The termsof this part may be varied by agreement.

§ 370.1 What special terms do I need toknow to understand this part?

Automated Clearing House (ACH)entry means a transaction in accordancewith the Operating Rules of the NationalAutomated Clearing House Association,as modified by these regulations andother law. The regulations in this partcontrol in the event of anyinconsistencies with the applicableOperating Rules.

Credit entry means an ACH entry forthe payment of money to a depositaccount.

Debit entry means an ACH entry forthe collection of money from a depositaccount.

Deposit account means a demanddeposit (checking), savings, or assetaccount (other than an occasional orincidental credit balance in a creditplan) held directly or indirectly by afinancial institution.

Digital signature means a type ofelectronic signature. A signer creates adigital signature by using public-keyencryption to transform a messagedigest of an electronic message. If arecipient of the digital signature has anelectronic message, message digestfunction, and the signer’s public key,the recipient can verify:

(1) whether the transformation wasaccomplished with the private key thatcorresponds to the signer’s public key;and

(2) Whether the electronic messagehas been altered since thetransformation was made.

Electronic message means informationthat is stored in an electronic mediumand is retrievable in perceivable form.

Electronic signature means a signatureof an electronic message that:

(1) identifies and authenticates aparticular person as the source of theelectronic message; and

(2) indicates such person’s approvalof the information contained in theelectronic message.

Financial institution means:(1) any insured bank as defined in

section 3 of the Federal DepositInsurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813) or anybank that is eligible to make applicationto become an insured bank undersection 5 of such Act (12 U.S.C. 1815);

(2) any mutual savings bank asdefined in section 3 of the FederalDeposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813)or any bank that is eligible to makeapplication to become an insured bankunder section 5 of such Act (12 U.S.C.1815);

(3) any savings bank as defined insection 3 of the Federal DepositInsurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813) or anybank that is eligible to make applicationto become an insured bank undersection 5 of such Act (12 U.S.C. 1815);

(4) any insured credit union asdefined in section 101 of the FederalCredit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1752) orany credit union that is eligible to makeapplication to become an insured creditunion pursuant to section 201 of suchAct (12 U.S.C. 1781);

(5) any savings association as definedin section 3 of the Federal DepositInsurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813) that is aninsured depository institution asdefined in that act or is eligible to applyto become an insured depositoryinstitution under that act; and

(6) any Federal branch or agency of aforeign bank as defined in section 1(b)of the International Banking Act, asamended (12 U.S.C. 3101).

Investor account is our record of yourTreasuryDirect holdings, including a listof your total security holdings, the exactform of registration of your account,your mailing address, yourTreasuryDirect account number, yoursocial security account number oremployer identification number, andyour deposit account instructions.

Message digest function means analgorithm that transforms an electronicmessage into a seemingly unintelligible,generally smaller, result called themessage digest. A message digestfunction has these qualities:

(1) the same electronic message yieldsthe same message digest every time thealgorithm is executed;

(2) it is computationally infeasiblethat an electronic message can bederived from the message digest resultproduced by the algorithm; and

(3) it is computationally infeasiblethat two electronic messages can be



found that produce the same messagedigest using the algorithm.

Payment means, for the purpose ofthis part, funds paid by us to you.

Person means any natural person ororganization.

Public-key encryption means acryptographic process which generatesand employs a key pair, consisting of apublic key and a different butmathematically related private key. Oneuse of the public key is to verify adigital signature created by the privatekey.

Security means an obligation offeredby the Secretary of the Treasury.

Settlement date means the date anexchange of funds with respect to anACH entry is reflected on the books ofthe Federal Reserve Bank(s).

Signature means any symbol ormethod executed or adopted by a personwith present intention to be bound.

We (or ‘‘us’’) refers to the Secretary ofthe Treasury and the Secretary’sdelegates at the Treasury Departmentand Bureau of the Public Debt. The termalso extends to any fiscal or financialagent acting on behalf of the UnitedStates when designated to act by theSecretary or the Secretary’s delegates.The term does not extend to UnitedStates Savings Bond issuing and payingagents.

You means a deposit account owner,in subparts B and C, unless statedotherwise. The word ‘‘you’’ means aperson who electronically submitstransaction requests through us, insubpart D.


§ 370.5 How can I appoint a financialinstitution to receive payments on mybehalf?

You must name a financial institutionto receive payments through creditentries using the ACH method. You alsomust identify the deposit account towhich payments are to be made. To dothis, you must use a form approved byus.

§ 370.6 What requirements apply to afinancial institution that handles a creditentry?

A financial institution that acceptsand handles a credit entry initiated byus agrees to the provisions of thissubpart, and warrants that it willcomply with all requirements imposedupon Receiving Depository FinancialInstitutions under the Operating Rulesof the National Automated ClearingHouse Association, as modified by theseregulations and other law.

§ 370.7 How can my financial institutionchange my designated deposit account?

If your financial institution requestsus to make a change in your depositaccount number or type of your account,we will change the information withoutrequiring any confirmation from you.The request from the financialinstitution must be made following theOperating Rules of the NationalAutomated Clearing House Association.The financial institution’s request willbe deemed an agreement by theinstitution to indemnify us and you forany loss resulting from the requestedchange.

§ 370.8 Are there any requirements relatedto a prenotification entry?

(a) Use of prenotification in ourdiscretion. In our discretion, we mayinitiate a prenotification entry to afinancial institution before we send acredit entry. We may also send aprenotification message whenever thereis a change in the payment instructions.If we send a prenotification message, wewill follow the time frames asestablished by the Operating Rules ofthe National Automated Clearing HouseAssociation. A prenotification is a zero-dollar ACH entry that can help usdetermine whether there might beproblems with sending a subsequentcredit entry.

(b) Requirements placed uponfinancial institution that receives aprenotification. A financial institutionmust respond to a prenotification withinthe time frame for such responses asestablished by the Operating Rules ofthe National Automated Clearing HouseAssociation. If the receiving financialinstitution does not respond to theprenotification message within thespecified time period, we may interpretthe nonresponsiveness as the financialinstitution’s agreement to this subpart.Furthermore, a financial institutionwarrants by its nonresponsiveness thatthe deposit account number and thetype of account contained in theprenotification entry message wasaccurate as of the moment the financialinstitution received it.

§ 370.9 How can my payment instructionsbe changed?

Your payment instructions willcontinue to apply until either you oryour financial institution requests us tomake a change.

§ 370.10 What can cause my payments tobe suspended?

(a) Change in deposit account. Wewill suspend payments if we receivenotice that your deposit account hasbeen closed, that someone named onyour deposit account is dead or has

been declared legally incompetent, thatthere is a change in the title of yourdeposit account that alters yourinterests; or, if a corporation is theowner, that it has been dissolved.

(b) Change in status of owner. We willsuspend payments when we receivenotice that an owner of a bond, security,or investor account is dead or has beendeclared legally incompetent, or in anycase where we receive notice of achange in the name or status of anorganization or representative named ona bond, security, or investor account.

(c) Continuation of Suspension.Payments will continue to be suspendeduntil we receive satisfactory evidence asto who is authorized or entitled toreceive payments.

§ 370.11 What must my financialinstitution do when it receives a payment?

An institution which receives apayment on behalf of its customer must:

(a) Upon receipt, make the paymentavailable to you on the payment date. Ifa scheduled payment date is not abusiness day for the Federal ReserveBank of the district in which theinstitution is located, payment will bemade on the next-succeeding businessday. If the institution is unable to makea credit entry to the designated account,it must return the payment inaccordance with the Operating Rules ofthe National Automated Clearing HouseAssociation.

(b) Promptly notify us when youraccount has been closed, or when it ison notice of the death or legalincapacity of you or any otherindividual named on your account, orwhen it is on notice of the dissolutionof a corporation in whose name thedeposit account is held. The institutionmust return all payments received alongwith an explanation for the return.

§ 370.12 What happens if an error is madein a credit entry, or if a duplicate creditentry is made?

If we make an erroneous credit entryunder this part, we will make acorrected credit entry to your account.We will then take action to recover theerroneous credit entry, or any duplicatecredit entry, as follows:

(a) Return of amount of erroneous orduplicate credit entry by financialinstitution. We will send a notice to thefinancial institution to which theerroneous or duplicate credit entry wassent. When it receives this notice, thefinancial institution must immediatelyreturn to the appropriate FederalReserve Bank an amount equal to thecredit entry. If the institution is unableto do this, the institution mustimmediately notify us, and provide any



information that it has about the matter.We reserve the right to request thereturn of a partial amount of anerroneous or duplicate credit entry.

(b) Collection of amount ofunreturned erroneous or duplicatecredit entry. Where the erroneous orduplicate credit entry has not beenreturned, we will undertake any otheractions that are appropriate. To theextent permitted by law, the collectionaction may include deducting theamount owed from future credit entriesmade to the deposit account to whichthe erroneous or duplicate credit entrywas made.

(c) Authorization of Debit to collectunreturned dulicate or erroneous creditentry. If a financial institution has notresponded within 60 calendar days ofthe notice, its acceptance of the creditentry will be considered anauthorization for a debit in the amountof the entry. The debit will be madefrom the account maintained or utilizedby the financial institution at theFederal Reserve Bank to which the entrywas made. An institution designated bya financial institution to receivepayment on its behalf, in permitting theusage, is deemed to have authorized adebit. The debit will be made from itsaccount maintained at the FederalReserve Bank to which the entry wasmade. The institution to which thecredit entry has been directed is deemedto have agreed to provide informationand assistance to recover any erroneousor duplicate entry. You are also deemedto have agreed to provide informationand assistance, and to take any actionprovided by law to recover an erroneousor duplicate credit entry.

§ 370.13 Can time limits for taking anaction on a credit entry be extended?

If we or your financial institution aredelayed beyond applicable time limitsin taking any action with respect to acredit entry because of circumstancesbeyond our control, then the time fortaking that action will be extended asnecessary until the cause of the delayends.

§ 370.14 Can substitute paymentprocedures be used?

We may use substitute paymentprocedures, instead of ACH, if weconsider it to be necessary. Any suchaction is final.

§ 370.15 What limitations exist on liability?

(a) We may rely on the informationprovided by you or anyone elseauthorized to provide informationconcerning your financial institution ordeposit account to which payments areto be made. We do not need to verify

this information. We are not liable forany action we may take in reliance onthe information furnished.

(b) Our liability does not extendbeyond the amount of the payment due.

(c) When you name a financialinstitution to receive payments on yourbehalf, you are appointing thatinstitution as your agent for the receiptof payments. When a credit entry ismade to your financial institution fordeposit to your account following yourinstructions, we no longer have anyfurther responsibility for that payment.Where your financial institution hasarranged with the Federal Reserve Bankto have payments made through anotherfinancial institution, the crediting ofyour payment to that institution relievesus of any further responsibility for thatpayment.

Subpart C—Debit Entries

§ 370.20 What requirements apply if I wantto authorize a debit entry to my depositaccount?

(a) General. You may pay for asecurity and related fees by authorizingus to initiate one or more debit entriesto your deposit account. For a purchaseof a book-entry security to be held in aninvestor account maintained by us, youmust be named on the investor account.The authorization must beaccomplished only through forms ormeans approved by us.

(b) Single-entry and recurring debitentries. You only may authorize single-entry debits for purchases of book-entrysecurities held in TreasuryDirect. Youonly may authorize recurring debitentries for purchases of definitivesavings bonds.

(c) Credit entries to be made to samedeposit account. To the extent thatpayments by us with respect to asecurity are to be made through creditentries, you must receive debit andcredit entries in the same depositaccount.

(d) Signature. The authorization musthave your signature and that of anyother person whose signature isrequired to withdraw funds from thedeposit account. We need not verifyyour identity or the authenticity of yoursignature.

§ 370.21 Are there any requirementsrelated to a prenotification entry?

(a) Use of prenotification in ourdiscretion. In our discretion, we mayinitiate a prenotification entry to afinancial institution prior to sending adebit entry. A prenotification is a zero-dollar ACH entry that can help usdetermine whether there might beproblems with sending a subsequentdebit entry.

(b) Requirements placed uponfinancial institution that receives aprenotification. If sent, a financialinstitution must respond to aprenotification within the time frame forsuch responses as established by theNational Automated Clearing HouseAssociation. If the receiving financialinstitution does not respond to theprenotification message within thespecified time period, we may interpretthe nonresponsiveness as the financialinstitution’s agreement to this subpart.Furthermore, a financial institutionwarrants by its nonresponsiveness thatthe deposit account number and thetype of account contained in theprenotification entry message wasaccurate as of the moment the financialinstitution received it.

§ 370.22 What requirements apply to afinancial institution that debits a depositaccount?

A financial institution that debits adeposit account upon receiving a debitinitiated by us agrees to the provisionsof this subpart. A financial institutionthat does so also warrants that it has theauthority to receive debit entries.

§ 370.23 What other requirements apply toa financial institution?

The financial institution warrants thatit will comply with all requirementsimposed upon Receiving DepositoryFinancial Institutions under theOperating Rules of the NationalAutomated Clearing House Association,as modified by these regulations andother law.

§ 370.24 What right does the Bureau of thePublic Debt have to terminate or suspenddebit entries?

We may terminate or suspend theavailability of one or more debit entriesin any case or class of cases, and maydo so without notice at any time. Adecision to terminate or suspend theavailability of debit entries is in our solediscretion and is final.

§ 370.25 What rights do I have to terminateor suspend debit entries?

(a) General. If you are an investoraccount owner or deposit accountowner, you generally may terminate orsuspend one or more debit entries bynotifying us orally or in writing at leastthree business days before thescheduled date of a transfer. In responseto an oral notice, we may require you togive written notice, to be received by uswithin fourteen days of an oral notice.An oral notice ceases to be binding afterfourteen days if you fail to provide therequired written confirmation. Asuspension will remain in effect for theduration you specify, but for no more



than six months. The termination andsuspension methods need not be recitedin the authorization. These terminationor suspension rights are in addition tothose that you may have through yourfinancial institution under Regulation Eof the Board of Governors of the FederalReserve System (12 CFR part 205).

(b) Exception. If you submit a debitentry authorization in conjunction witha Treasury auction tender for thepurchase of a book-entry security, youcannot terminate or suspend a debitentry after the auction closes.


If we sustain a loss because a financialinstitution fails to handle an entry inaccordance with this part, the financialinstitution is liable to us for the loss, butnot beyond the amount of the debitentry. In no instance does our liabilityextend beyond the amount of the debitentry.

Subpart D—Electronic Submission ofTransaction Requests Through theBureau of the Public Debt

§ 370.35 Does the Bureau of the PublicDebt accept all electronically signedtransaction requests?

An electronic signature will not beaccepted if it has not been accomplishedthrough a method that has beenapproved for specific purposes by us.

§ 370.36 When does a transaction requestbecome effective?

Except for auction bids of U.S.securities or unless otherwise agreed, atransaction request becomes effective atthe moment we send a confirmationmessage. In no instance does atransaction request become effectivebefore we actually receive the request.

§ 370.37 Where is the point of transactionfor an electronically submitted transactionrequest?

For jurisdiction and venue purposes,the point of transaction for a transactionrequest handled pursuant to this subpartis Parkersburg, West Virginia, regardlessof from where the transaction request istransmitted or where the transactionrequest is actually processed.

§ 370.38 What is the legal effect of anelectronic signature?

An electronic signature and anyelectronic message to which it is affixedor attached may not be denied legaleffect, including legal effect as asignature, a writing, or an original,solely because the signature or record isin electronic form.

§ 370.39 To what extent is a digitalsignature admissible in any civil litigationor dispute?

In asserting a digital signature againstyou in any civil litigation or dispute,extrinsic evidence of authenticity as acondition precedent of admissibility(such as testimony about the scientificvalidity of digital signatures) is notnecessary to establish:

(a) That a digital signaturecorresponds to a specific public keypair, and;

(b) That an electronic message towhich the digital signature is affixed hasnot been altered from its original form.

§ 370.40 Can I be held accountable if mynegligence contributes to a forgedsignature?

(a) General. If your failure to exerciseordinary care substantially contributesto the submission of a forged signature,then you cannot claim that the signatureis a forgery. However, we cannot invokethis section against you if we cannotfirst establish that we were reasonablein relying upon the signature. If we cando so, you bear the burden ofproduction and the burden of

persuasion in establishing your exerciseof ordinary care. If you cannot do so,then you cannot claim that the signatureis a forgery.

(b) Exception. This section has noapplication in any dispute involving adebit authorization or credit cardtransaction.


In no instance does our liabilityextend beyond the amount of thetransaction.

Subpart E—Additional Provisions

§ 370.45 What is the status of a security ifthe remittance cannot be collected?

If we cannot promptly collect all ofthe remittance for a security, we may inour discretion cancel the security unlessit has been legally transferred for valueto a third person who had no knowledgeof the improper debit entry at the timeof the transfer.

§ 370.46 Are there any situations in whichthe Bureau of the Public Debt may waivethese regulations?

We reserve the right, in ourdiscretion, to waive any provision ofthese regulations in any case or class ofcases. We may do so if such action isnot inconsistent with law and will notsubject the United States to substantialexpense or liability.

§ 370.47 To what extent may the Bureau ofthe Public Debt change these regulations?

Any aspect of this part may bechanged at any time and without notice.You assume the risk that a change mayterminate a provision that was to youradvantage. Nothing in this part createsvested rights in your favor.

Dated: June 28, 1999.Donald V. Hammond,Fiscal Assistant Secretary.[FR Doc. 99–18919 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4810–39–P


fede

ral r

egiste

r

40493

MondayJuly 26, 1999

Part VI

Department of DefenseGeneral ServicesAdministrationNational Aeronautics andSpace Administration48 CFR Parts 12, 14 et al.Federal Acquisition Regulation;Empowerment Contracting; ProposedRule




GENERAL SERVICESADMINISTRATION

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS ANDSPACE ADMINISTRATION

48 CFR Part 12, 14, 15, 26, 36, and 52

[FAR Case 97–603]

RIN 9000–AH58

Federal Acquisition Regulation;Empowerment Contracting

AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DoD),General Services Administration (GSA),and National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration (NASA).ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Civilian AgencyAcquisition Council and the DefenseAcquisition Regulations Council havedecided to withdraw FAR case 97–603,Empowerment Contracting, publishedin the Federal Register at 62 FR 19200,

April 18, 1997. The rule proposed toamend the Federal AcquisitionRegulation (FAR) to establish phase oneof an Empowerment ContractingProgram that provided procurementincentives to both large and smallbusinesses to encourage their activity inareas of general and severe economicdistress. That action was taken toimplement Executive Order 13005 ofMay 21, 1996, EmpowermentContracting.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: TheFAR Secretariat, Room 4035, GSBuilding, Washington, DC 20405, (202)501–4755, for information pertaining tostatus or publication schedules. Forclarification of content, contact Ms.Victoria Moss, Procurement Analyst, at(202) 501–4764. Please cite FAR case97–603, Empowerment Contracting;Withdrawal.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. BackgroundExecutive Order 13005 established the

Empowerment Contracting Program to

encourage business activity in areas ofgeneral economic distress by providingprocurement incentives to qualifiedbusinesses. This initiative has beeneffectively superseded by the HUBZoneAct of 1997, enacted on December 2,1997, and the subsequentimplementation of Sections 601–607 ofthe Act in the Federal AcquisitionRegulation under FAR case 97–307,HUBZone Program. An interim rule waspublished in the Federal Register onDecember 12, 1998 (63 FR 70265).Therefore, the proposed rule for FARcase 97–603 is withdrawn.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 12, 14,15, 26, 36, and 52

Government procurement.


Edward C. Loeb,Director, Federal Acquisition Policy Division.[FR Doc. 99–19011 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P


fede

ral r

egiste

r

40495

MondayJuly 26, 1999

Part VII

Department ofHousing and UrbanDevelopment24 CFR Part 985Technical Amendment to the Section 8Management Assessment Program(SEMAP); Interim Final Rule



DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING ANDURBAN DEVELOPMENT

24 CFR Part 985

[Docket No. FR–4498–I–01]

RIN 2577–AC10

Technical Amendment to the Section 8Management Assessment Program(SEMAP)

AGENCY: Office of the AssistantSecretary for Public and IndianHousing, HUD.ACTION: Interim rule.

SUMMARY: This interim rule amends theregulations for the Section 8Management Assessment Program(SEMAP) for the purpose ofincorporating technical revisionsrecommended by the Office ofManagement and Budget to conform torequirements under the Single AuditAct Amendments of 1996. This interimrule revises the basis upon which HUDassigns ratings under eight SEMAPindicators. For the eight SEMAPindicators where the HUD verificationmethod is the latest independentauditor (IA) annual audit report, thisinterim rule provides that the rating willbe based on the housing agency (HA)SEMAP certification to HUD, ratherthan on statements in the annual auditreport. Under this interim rule, SEMAPratings will be subject to change afterHUD receives the HA’s annual auditreport if the audit report containsinformation that the HA’s SEMAPcertification is not accurate.DATES: Effective Date: August 25, 1999.Comments Due Date: September 24,1999.ADDRESSES: Interested persons areinvited to submit comments regardingthis rule to Rules Docket Clerk, Office ofGeneral Counsel, Room 10276,Department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment, 451 Seventh Street, S.W.,Washington, D.C. 20410–0500.Communications should refer to theabove docket number and title.Facsimile (FAX) comments are notacceptable. A copy of eachcommunications submitted will beavailable for public inspection andcopying between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30p.m. weekdays at the above address.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Gerald Benoit, Acting Director, RealEstate and Housing PerformanceDivision, Office of Public and AssistedHousing Delivery, Office of Public andIndian Housing, Room 4210, 451Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC20410–0500. Telephone: (202) 708–0477

(voice); (202) 708–0850 (TTY). Personswith hearing or speech-impairmentsmay call 1–800–877–8339 (FederalInformation Relay Service TTY). (Otherthan the ‘‘800’’ number, these are nottoll-free numbers.)SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. BackgroundOn September 10, 1998 (63 FR 48548),

HUD published a final rule whichestablished the Section 8 ManagementAssessment Program (SEMAP). TheSeptember 10, 1998 final rule providedthat HUD would rate the performance ofa housing authority (HA) under eightSEMAP indicators based on statementsin the latest independent auditor (IA)annual audit report. The eight indicatorsare: (1) Selection from the Waiting List;(2) Reasonable Rent; (3) Determinationof Adjusted Income; (4) UtilityAllowance Schedule; (5) HousingQuality Standards (HQS) QualityControl Inspections; (6) HQSEnforcement; (7) Expanding HousingOpportunities; and (8) DeconcentrationBonus. HUD intended that IAs wouldindependently test a minimum sampleof files for HA compliance withrequirements under five of these eightindicators and would include specificstatements concerning HA compliancein the audit report on compliance withall eight. Procedures of the Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB)implementing the Single Audit ActAmendments of 1996, however, do notpermit HUD to include audit proceduresin the OMB Circular A–133 compliancesupplement which require eitherminimum samples of files or anyspecific reporting on compliance.

II. This RuleIn accordance with OMB

requirements under the Single AuditAct Amendments of 1996, HUD isamending the September 10, 1998 finalrule to base ratings for the eightindicators on the HA’s SEMAPcertification to HUD, rather than on theIA annual audit report. The OMBCircular A–133 compliance supplementfor the Section 8 tenant-based programswill still provide procedures for the IAto audit compliance for the eightSEMAP indicators, and to verify theaccuracy of the HA’s SEMAPcertification to HUD. Therefore, theHUD method of verification of HAperformance under the eight indicatorsremains the IA annual audit report. TheDepartment continues to rely on IA’s toverify the accuracy of the HA’s SEMAPcertification with respect to the eightindicators. This interim rule alsoclarifies that HUD confirmatory reviewswill be used as an additional method of

verification to the extent they areperformed.

This technical amendment to theSeptember 10, 1998 final rule requiresthe HA to submit a SEMAP certificationconcerning the results of its supervisoryquality control reviews of file samplesdrawn in an unbiased manner to ensurecompliance under four SEMAPindicators ((1) Selection from theWaiting List; (2) Reasonable Rent; (3)Determination of Adjusted Income; and(4) HQS Enforcement). The interim rule,therefore, requires the HA to performannual quality control reviews of itsperformance under these indicators inorder to complete the SEMAPcertification form. While there haspreviously been no regulatoryrequirement that an HA perform qualitycontrol reviews in these four areas,many HAs would have instituted suchprocedures under the September 10,1998 final rule. Further, soundmanagement practices require adequateinternal control systems, such assupervisory quality control reviews,which the Department has required andencouraged in the past.

This technical amendment alsorevises the SEMAP standard under§ 985.3(e) for HQS quality controlinspections. This indicator is changed torequire HQS quality control samples ofthe same minimum sample size asrequired for other supervisory qualitycontrol reviews. The requirement for a5 percent HQS quality control sampleno longer applies.

III. Justification for InterimRulemaking

It is HUD’s policy to publish rules forpublic comment before their issuancefor effect, in accordance with its ownregulations on rulemaking found at 24CFR part 10. Part 10 provides, however,that prior public procedure will beomitted if HUD determines that it is‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contraryto the public interest’’ (24 CFR 10.0).HUD finds that in this case priorcomment is unnecessary. This interimrule amends §§ 985.1, 985.2, 985.3, and985.103, only to make technical changesto the basis for HUD ratings on eightSEMAP indicators and to the minimumsample size for HQS quality controlinspections. Rather than relying onstatements in the IA annual audit reportto assign ratings under the eightindicators, HUD will rely on the HA’sSEMAP certification to assign ratings.The HA’s SEMAP certification for theseeight indicators may be subject to acompliance audit under the SingleAudit Act Amendments of 1996, or to aHUD confirmatory review, and if theaudit report on compliance or the



confirmatory review report containsinformation that the HA’s SEMAPcertification is not accurate, SEMAPratings will be subject to change.

IV. Findings and Certifications

Environmental Impact

A Finding of No Significant Impactwith respect to the environment for thisrule has been made in accordance withHUD regulations at 24 CFR part 50,which implement section 102(2)(C) ofthe National Environmental Policy Actof 1969. The Finding of No SignificantImpact is available for public inspectionbetween 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m.weekdays in the Office of the RulesDocket Clerk, Office of the GeneralCounsel, Department of Housing andUrban Development, Room 10276, 451Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.20410.


The Secretary, in accordance with theRegulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.605(b)), has reviewed this rule beforepublication and by approving it certifiesthat this rule would not have asignificant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entities.There are no anti-competitivediscriminatory aspects of the rule withregard to small entities, and there arenot any unusual procedures that wouldneed to be complied with by smallentities. Nevertheless, the Department issensitive to the fact that the uniformapplication of requirements on entitiesof differing sizes often places adisproportionate burden on smallbusinesses. The Department, therefore,is soliciting alternatives for compliancefrom small entities as to how thesesmall entities might comply in a wayless burdensome to them.

Executive Order 12612, Federalism

The General Counsel, as theDesignated Official under section 6(a) ofExecutive Order 12612, Federalism, hasdetermined that this rule does not have‘‘federalism implications’’ because itdoes not have substantial direct effectson the States (including their politicalsubdivisions), or on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities among thevarious levels of government.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

The Catalog of Federal DomesticAssistance Program numbers assigned tothe Section 8 Management AssessmentProgram are 14.855 and 14.857.

List of Subjects for 24 CFR Part 985

Grant programs—housing andcommunity development, Housing, Rent

subsidies, Reporting and recordkeepingrequirements.

Accordingly, part 985 of title 24 of theCode of Federal Regulations is amendedas follows:

PART 985—SECTION 8 MANAGEMENTASSESSMENT PROGRAM (SEMAP)

1. The authority citation for 24 CFRpart 985 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c, 1437f,and 3535(d).

2. Section 985.1 is amended byrevising the second sentence ofparagraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 985.1 Purpose and applicability.(a) Purpose. * * * SEMAP also

establishes a system for HUD to measureHA performance in key Section 8program areas and to assignperformance ratings. * * ** * * * *

3. In § 985.2 amend paragraph (b) byadding definitions of ‘‘confirmatoryreview’’ and ‘‘HA’s quality controlsample’’ in alphabetical order to read asfollows:


* * * * *(b) * * *Confirmatory review means an on site

review performed by HUD to verify themanagement performance of an HA.* * * * *

HA’s quality control sample means anannual sample of files or records drawnin an unbiased manner and reviewed byan HA supervisor (or by anotherqualified person other than the personwho performed the original work) todetermine if the work documented inthe files or records conforms to programrequirements. The minimum size of theHA’s quality control sample is asfollows:

Universe Minimum number of files orrecords to be sampled

50 or less .......... 5.51–600 .............. 5 plus 1 for each 50 (or

part of 50) over 50.601–2000 .......... 16 plus 1 for each 100 (or

part of 100) over 600.Over 2000 ......... 30 plus 1 for each 200 (or

part of 200) over 2000.

Where the universe is: the number ofadmissions in the last year for each ofthe two quality control samples underthe SEMAP indicator at § 985.3(a)Selection from the Waiting List; thenumber of families assisted for theSEMAP indicators at § 985.3(b)Reasonable Rent, and 985.3(c)Determination of Adjusted Income; thenumber of units under HAP contract

during the last completed HA fiscal yearfor the SEMAP indicator at § 985.3(e)HQS Quality Control Inspections; andthe number of failed HQS inspections inthe last year for the SEMAP indicator at§ 985.3(f) HQS Enforcement.* * * * *

4. Section 985.3 is amended byrevising the last sentence of the firstintroductory paragraph, the firstsentence of the second introductoryparagraph, and paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(3)introductory text, (a)(3)(i) introductorytext, (a)(3)(i)(B), (a)(3)(ii), (b)(2), (b)(3)introductory text, (b)(3)(i) introductorytext, (b)(3)(i)(B), (b)(3)(ii), (b)(3)(iii),(c)(2), (c)(3) introductory text, (c)(3)(i)introductory text, (c)(3)(ii), (c)(3)(iii),(d)(2), (d)(3), (e), (f)(2), (f)(3), (g)(2),(g)(3) introductory text, (g)(3)(i)introductory text, (g)(3)(ii), (h)(2) and(h)(3) to read as follows:

§ 985.3 Indicators, HUD verificationmethods and ratings.

* * * The method for selecting theHA’s quality control sample underparagraphs (a), (b), (c) and (f) of thissection must leave a clear audit trail thatcan be used to verify that the HA’squality control sample was drawn in anunbiased manner.

An HA that expends less than$300,000 in Federal awards and whoseSection 8 programs are not audited byan independent auditor (IA), will not berated under the SEMAP indicators inparagraphs (a) through (g) of this sectionfor which the annual IA audit report isa HUD verification method. * * *

(a) * * *(2) HUD verification method: The

independent auditor (IA) annual auditreport covering the HA fiscal yearentered on the SEMAP certification andon-site confirmatory review ifperformed.

(3) Rating: (i) The HA’s SEMAPcertification states that:* * * * *

(B) Based on the HA’s quality controlsamples, drawn separately forapplicants reaching the top of thewaiting list and for admissions,documentation shows that at least 98percent of the families in both samplesof applicants and admissions wereselected from the waiting list foradmission in accordance with thesepolicies and met the selection criteriathat determined their places on thewaiting list and their order of selection.15 points.

(ii) The HA’s SEMAP certificationdoes not support the statement inparagraph (a)(3)(i) of this section. 0points.

(b) * * *



(2) HUD verification method: The IAannual audit report covering the HAfiscal year entered on the SEMAPcertification and on-site confirmatoryreview if performed.


(B) Based on the HA’s quality controlsample of tenant files, the HA followsits written method to determinereasonable rent and has documented itsdetermination that the rent to owner isreasonable in accordance with § 982.503for at least 98 percent of units sampledat the time of initial leasing, if there isany increase in the rent to owner and,at the HAP contract anniversary if thereis a 5 percent decrease in the publishedFMR in effect 60 days before the HAPcontract anniversary. 20 points.

(ii) The HA’s SEMAP certificationincludes the statements in paragraph(b)(3)(i) of this section, except that theHA documents its determination ofreasonable rent for only 80 to 97 percentof units sampled at initial leasing, ifthere is any increase in the rent toowner, and at the HAP contractanniversary if there is a 5 percentdecrease in the published FMR in effect60 days before the HAP contractanniversary. 15 points.

(iii) The HA’s SEMAP certificationdoes not support the statements ineither paragraph (b)(3)(i) or (b)(3)(ii) ofthis section. 0 points.

(c) * * *(2) HUD verification method: The IA

annual audit report covering the HAfiscal year entered on the SEMAPcertification and on-site confirmatoryreview if performed.

(3) Rating: (i) The HA’s SEMAPcertification states that, based on theHA’s quality control sample of tenantfiles, for at least 90 percent of families:* * * * *

(ii) The HA’s SEMAP certificationincludes the statements in paragraph(c)(3)(i) of this section, except that theHA obtains and uses independentverification of income, properlyattributes allowances, and uses theappropriate utility allowances for only80 to 89 percent of families. 15 points.

(iii) The HA’s SEMAP certificationdoes not support the statements ineither paragraph (c)(3)(i) or (c)(3)(ii) ofthis section. 0 points.

(d) * * *(2) HUD verification method: The IA


(3) Rating: (i) The HA’s SEMAPcertification states that the HA reviewed

utility rate data within the last 12months, and adjusted its utilityallowance schedule if there has been achange of 10 percent or more in a utilityrate since the last time the utilityallowance schedule was revised. 5points.

(ii) The HA’s SEMAP certificationdoes not support the statement inparagraph (d)(3)(i) of this section. 0points.

(e) HQS quality control inspections.(1) This indicator shows whether an HAsupervisor or other qualified personreinspects a sample of units undercontract during the HA fiscal year,which meets the minimum sample sizerequirements specified at § 983.2 underHA’s quality control sample, for qualitycontrol of HQS inspections. The HAsupervisor’s reinspected sample is to bedrawn from recently completed HQSinspections (i.e., performed during the 3months preceding reinspection) and isto be drawn to represent a cross sectionof neighborhoods and the work of across section of inspectors. (24 CFR982.405(b))

(2) HUD verification method: The IAannual audit report covering the HAfiscal year entered on the SEMAPcertification and on-site confirmatoryreview if performed.

(3) Rating: (i) The HA’s SEMAPcertification states that an HAsupervisor or other qualified personperformed quality control HQSreinspections during the HA fiscal yearfor a sample of units under contractwhich meets the minimum sample sizerequirements specified in § 983.2 underHA’s quality control sample. The HA’sSEMAP certification also states that thereinspected sample was drawn fromrecently completed HQS inspections(i.e., performed during the 3 monthspreceding the quality controlreinspection) and was drawn torepresent a cross section ofneighborhoods and the work of a crosssection of inspectors. 5 points.

(ii) The HA’s SEMAP certificationdoes not support the statements inparagraph (e)(3)(i) of this section. 0points.

(f) * * *(2) HUD verification method: The IA


(3) Rating: (i) The HA’s SEMAPcertification states that the HA’s qualitycontrol sample of case files with failedHQS inspections shows that, for allcases sampled, any cited life-threateningHQS deficiencies were corrected within24 hours from the inspection and, for atleast 98 percent of cases sampled, all

other cited HQS deficiencies werecorrected within no more than 30calendar days from the inspection orany HA-approved extension, or, if anylife-threatening HQS deficiencies werenot corrected within 24 hours and allother HQS deficiencies were notcorrected within 30 calendar days orany HA-approved extension, the HAstopped (abated) housing assistancepayments beginning no later than thefirst of the month following thecorrection period, or took prompt andvigorous action to enforce familyobligations. 10 points.

(ii) The HA’s SEMAP certificationdoes not support the statement inparagraph (f)(3)(i) of this section. 0points.

(g) * * *(2) HUD verification method: The IA



(ii) The HA’s SEMAP certificationdoes not support the statement inparagraph (g)(3)(i) of this section. 0points.

(h) * * *(2) HUD verification methods: HA

data submitted for the deconcentrationbonus, the IA annual audit reportcovering the HA fiscal year entered onthe SEMAP certification, and on-siteconfirmatory review if performed.

(3) Rating: (i) The data submitted bythe HA for the deconcentration bonusshows that the HA met the requirementsfor bonus points in paragraph (h)(1)(i),(ii) or (iii) of this section. 5 points.

(ii) The data submitted by the HA forthe deconcentration bonus does notshow that the HA met the requirementsfor bonus points in paragraph (h)(1)(i),(ii) or (iii) of this section. 0 points.* * * * *

5. Section 985.103 is amended byredesignating paragraph (d) asparagraph (e), adding a new paragraph(d), and revising newly redesignatedparagraph (e)(3), to read as follows:

§ 985.103 SEMAP score and overallperformance rating.

* * * * *(d) Modified rating on an indicator. A

rating on any of the indicators at§§ 985.3(a) through 985.3(h) will besubject to change after HUD receives theHA’s annual audit report or after HUDconducts a confirmatory review if the



audit report or the confirmatory reviewreport contains information that theHA’s SEMAP certification concerningan indicator is not accurate.

(e) Modified or withheld overallrating. * * *

(3) When HUD modifies or withholdsa rating for any reason, it shall explainin writing to the HA the reasons for themodification or for withholding therating.

Dated: June 23, 1999.Harold Lucas,Assistant Secretary for Public and IndianHousing.[FR Doc. 99–18877 Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4210–33–P


fede

ral r

egiste

r

40501

MondayJuly 26, 1999

Part VIII

The PresidentMemorandum of July 16, 1999—Delegation of Authority Under Section1304(b)(2) of the Strom ThurmondNational Defense Authorization Act forFiscal Year 1999

VerDate 18-JUN-99 14:41 Jul 23, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\26JYO0.XXX pfrm12 PsN: 26JYO0


Presidential Documents

40503

Federal Register

Vol. 64, No. 142


Title 3—

The President

Memorandum of July 16, 1999

Delegation of Authority Under Section 1304(b)(2) of theStrom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act forFiscal Year 1999

Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense

By the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of theUnited States of America, including section 301 of title 3 of the UnitedStates Code, I hereby delegate to the Secretary of Defense the authorityvested in me under section 1304(b)(2) of the Strom Thurmond NationalDefense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105–261). Theauthority delegated by this memorandum may be redelegated not lowerthan the Under Secretary level.

Any reference in this memorandum to the provision of any Act shall bedeemed to include references to any hereafter-enacted provision of lawthat is the same or substantially the same as such provision.

You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the FederalRegister.

œ–THE WHITE HOUSE,Washington, July 16, 1999.

[FR Doc. 99–19232

Filed 7–23–99; 8:45 am]

Billing code 5001–10–M


i

Reader Aids Federal Register

Vol. 64, No. 142


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 for notification of recently enacted Public Laws. Tosubscribe, send E-mail to

[email protected]

with the text message:

subscribe PUBLAWS-L your name

Use [email protected] only to subscribe or unsubscribe toPENS. We cannot respond to specific inquiries.

Reference questions. Send questions and comments about theFederal Register system to:

[email protected]

The Federal Register staff cannot interpret specific documents orregulations.

FEDERAL REGISTER PAGES AND DATES, JULY

35559–35920......................... 135921–36236......................... 236237–36558......................... 636559–36762......................... 736763–37032......................... 837033–37392......................... 937393–37662.........................1237663–37832.........................1337833–38102.........................1438103–38286.........................1538287–38534.........................1638535–38814.........................1938815–38998.........................2038999–39392.........................2139393–39896.........................2239897–40280.........................2340281–40504.........................26

CFR PARTS AFFECTED DURING JULY

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:6575.................................362296982.................................365497206.................................362297207.................................365497208.................................373897208.................................373937209.................................39895Executive Orders:July 12, 1911

(Revoked in part byPLO 7400)....................38212

12722 (See Notice ofJuly 20, 1999 ...............39897

12724 (See Notice ofJuly 20, 1999 ...............39897

13010...............................3853513129...................36757, 3703313130...............................38535Administrative Orders:Notice of July 20,

1999) ............................39897Memorandums:July 7, 1999 .....................37393July 9, 1999 .....................38101July 16, 1999 ...................40503Presidential Determinations:No. 99–30 of June 23,

1999 .............................35921No. 99–31 of June 30,

1999 .................37033, 38075No. 99–32 of July 1,

1999 .................37035, 38075

5 CFR

531...................................36763550...................................36763591...................................36763890...................................36237Proposed Rules:1204.................................359521205.................................35957

7 CFR

47.....................................38103271...................................38287272...................................38287273...................................38287274...................................38287275...................................38287276...................................38287277...................................38287278...................................38287279...................................38287280...................................38287281...................................38287282...................................38287283...................................38287284...................................38287285...................................38287300...................................37663

301 ..........37663, 38815, 40281319...................................38108400...................................38537762...................................38297925...................................37833944...................................378331477.................................355591980.................................38297Proposed Rules:29.....................................3943254.....................................3831556.....................................3788670.....................................37886210...................................38839220...................................38839225...................................38839226...................................38839250...................................36978251...................................36978253...................................39432254...................................39432271...................................37454273...................................37454276...................................37454319...................................36608906...................................38597924...................................37888948...................................378901000.....................37892, 390921001.....................37892, 390921002.....................37892, 390921004.....................37892, 390921005.....................37892, 390921006.....................37892, 390921007.....................37892, 390921012.....................37892, 390921013.....................37892, 390921030.....................37892, 390921032.....................37892, 390921033.....................37892, 390921036.....................37892, 390921040.....................37892, 390921044.....................37892, 390921046.....................37892, 390921049.....................37892, 390921050.....................37892, 390921064.....................37892, 390921065.....................37892, 390921068.....................37892, 390921076.....................37892, 390921079.....................37892, 390921106.....................37892, 390921124.....................37892, 390921126.....................37892, 390921131 ........37892, 38144, 390921134.....................37892, 390921135.....................37892, 390921137.....................37892, 390921138.....................37892, 390921139.....................37892, 390921218.....................39790, 398031430.................................394421710.................................36609

VerDate 18-JUN-99 19:29 Jul 23, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\26JYCU.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 26JYCU

ii Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 142 / Monday, July 26, 1999 / Reader Aids

8 CFR

214...................................36423235...................................36559Proposed Rules:241.......................37461, 39560

9 CFR

1.......................................385462.......................................385463.......................................3854652.....................................3739578.....................................3677594.....................................38548331...................................37666381...................................37666Proposed Rules:3.......................................3814594.........................37897, 3859996.....................................37897130...................................37903

10 CFR

9.......................................3939350.....................................38551170...................................38816171...................................38816708...................................37396Proposed Rules:30.....................................4029531.....................................4029532.....................................4029540.....................................3661550.........................36291, 3944772.....................................36291170...................................40295171...................................40295430...................................37706474...................................37905810...................................35959

11 CFR

110...................................37397Proposed Rules:110...................................39095

12 CFR

615...................................38110Proposed Rules:229...................................37708

13 CFR

114...................................40282Proposed Rules:120...................................40310121.......................40311, 40314123...................................36617

14 CFR

23.....................................3989925.....................................3899939 ...........35559, 36561, 36563,

36777, 37667, 37669, 37838,37841, 38299, 38301, 38557,38817, 38821, 39001, 39003,39005, 39396, 39398, 40283

71 ...........36565, 36566, 36567,36568, 37671, 38302, 38303,38304, 38305, 38306, 38560,38822, 38823, 38824, 39007,39008, 39009, 39011, 39012,39013, 39014, 39015, 39403,

4028573.....................................3901697 ...........35562, 35564, 38561,

38562

257...................................38111258...................................381111206.................................39404Proposed Rules:21.....................................3590225.....................................3909527.....................................3590229.....................................3590239 ...........36307, 36618, 36623,

36624, 36626, 36628, 37046,37465, 37471, 37911, 37913,37915, 37917, 37918, 37920,38150, 38152, 38154, 38156,38157, 38316, 38319, 38322,38325, 38329, 38332, 38335,38338, 38341, 38345, 38348,38351, 38355, 38358, 38362,38365, 38368, 38371, 38374,38378, 38379, 38382, 38383,38603, 38605, 38606, 38844,38846, 38848, 38850, 39097,39100, 39102, 39104, 39448,39450, 39944, 39946, 40319

71 ...........36630, 36631, 37713,37714, 37715, 37716, 37717,38385, 38386, 38607, 38609,

39949, 3995091.........................35902, 3701893 ...........35963, 37296, 37304,

38851139...................................37026193...................................40472

15 CFR774...................................36779902.......................36780, 39017Proposed Rules:710...................................39194711...................................39194712...................................39194713...................................39194714...................................39194715...................................39194716...................................39194717...................................39194718...................................39194719...................................39194720...................................39194721...................................39194740...................................40106743...................................40106774...................................40106801...................................37049922...................................38853

16 CFR

Proposed Rules:23.....................................37051Ch. II ................................38387432...................................38610453...................................359651213.................................370511500.................................370511513.................................37051

17 CFR

1.......................................365683.......................................399129...........................39913, 39915240.......................37586, 39918249...................................37586Proposed Rules:1.......................................38159

18 CFR

2.......................................37037

153...................................37037157...................................37037275...................................37037284...................................37037290...................................37037385...................................37037430...................................35566Proposed Rules:330...................................37718385...................................37718

20 CFR

220...................................36239

21 CFR

74.....................................39414173...................................38563520.......................37672, 39918524...................................37400556...................................35923558.......................35923, 376721020.................................359241308 ........35928, 37673, 395601312.................................35928Proposed Rules:16.........................36492, 36517101 ..........36492, 36517, 36824115.......................36492, 36517291...................................39810333...................................39452510...................................35966514.......................35966, 40321558...................................35966

22 CFR

514...................................40286Proposed Rules:103...................................39244

23 CFR

655...................................38307661...................................385651225.................................35568

24 CFR

291...................................36210570...................................38812985...................................40496Proposed Rules:5.......................................40262200.......................36216, 40262247...................................40262290...................................38284880...................................40262882...................................40262884...................................40262891...................................40262Ch. IX...............................38853960...................................40262966...................................40262972.......................40323, 40340982...................................40262

25 CFR

Proposed Rules:516...................................38164

26 CFR

1 .............35573, 36092, 36116,36175, 37037, 37675, 37677,

3882520.....................................3767525.....................................3767531.....................................3767540.....................................37675

301 .........36092, 36569, 37677,39020

602 .........36092, 36116, 36175,37678

Proposed Rules:1...........................35579, 37727301.......................37727, 39106

28 CFR0.......................................3703890.....................................39744553...................................36750600...................................37038Proposed Rules:5.......................................37065

29 CFR1203.................................402861205.................................402861209.................................402861614.................................376444044.....................38114, 38534Proposed Rules:1908.................................359721926.................................380782510.................................38390

30 CFR210...................................38116216...................................38116227...................................36782920...................................36784934...................................38826Proposed Rules:57.........................36632, 3682672.....................................3682675.........................36632, 36826904...................................37067914...................................38165916...................................40323917...................................38391920...................................38392924...................................40326938...................................36828

31 CFR100...................................39919306...................................38124Ch. V................................35575315...................................40484353...................................40484357...................................40484370...................................40484

32 CFR199...................................38575989...................................38127Proposed Rules:775...................................37069776...................................37473

33 CFR100 ..........37583, 39027, 39415110...................................38828117 .........36239, 36569, 36570,

37678, 38829, 38830165 .........36571, 36572, 36573,

37679, 39027, 39032, 39033173...................................36240Proposed Rules:110...................................38166117.......................36318, 39454165 ..........36633, 39108, 39454

34 CFRProposed Rules:600...................................38272


iiiFederal Register / Vol. 64, No. 142 / Monday, July 26, 1999 / Reader Aids

668.......................38272, 38504694...................................39109

36 CFR

242..................................35776,35821

251...................................37843Proposed Rules:327...................................388541010.................................399511191.................................373261275.................................37922

37 CFR

201...................................36574202...................................36574203...................................36574204...................................36574211...................................36574212...................................36576251...................................36574253...................................36574259...................................36574260...................................36574Proposed Rules:212...................................36829255...................................38861

38 CFR

21.....................................38576

39 CFR

111...................................388313002.................................37401

40 CFR

9...........................36580, 3762422.....................................4013851.....................................3571452 ...........35577, 35930, 35941,

36243, 36248, 36586, 36786,36790, 37402, 37406, 37681,37847, 38577, 38580, 38832,38836, 39034, 39037, 39920,

39923, 4028760.........................37196, 3824162 ............36600, 37851, 3858263.........................37683, 3895075.....................................3758280.....................................3768781.........................37406, 3941682.....................................3904090.....................................36423180 .........36252, 36794, 37855,

37861, 37863, 37870, 38307,39041, 39049, 39053, 39060,

39068, 39072, 39078185 ..........39068, 39072, 39078186.......................39072, 39078228...................................39927260...................................36466261...................................36466262...................................37624264.......................36466, 37624265.......................36466, 37624268...................................36466270.......................36466, 37624273...................................36466300...................................39878430...................................36580745...................................39418Proposed Rules:35.........................40064, 40084

52 ...........36635, 36830, 36831,37491, 37492, 37734, 37923,38616, 38617, 38862, 38863,

39110, 39963, 4032862 ...........36426, 36639, 37923,

3861763.........................37734, 3899381.....................................37492131...................................37072148...................................40192180...................................36640261...................................40192268...................................40192271...................................40192300.......................39886, 40328302...................................40192403...................................39564442...................................38863745...................................40064

41 CFR

101-35..............................38588102-2................................39083Ch. 301 ............................38587301–52.............................38528301–54.............................38528301–70.............................38528301–71.............................38528301–76.............................38528

42 CFR

431...................................39934482...................................36070498...................................399341001.................................394201002.................................394201003.................................39420Proposed Rules:8.......................................39810405...................................38395409...................................36320410.......................36320, 39608411.......................36320, 39608412...................................36320413...................................36320414...................................39608415...................................39608416...................................36321419...................................36320488...................................36321489...................................36320498...................................363201003.................................36320

43 CFR

Proposed Rules:2530.................................38172

44 CFR

7.......................................3830864.........................38309, 38311

45 CFR

260...................................40290261...................................40290262...................................40290263...................................40290264...................................40290265...................................402902522.................................374112525.................................374112526.................................374112527.................................37411

2528.................................374112529.................................37411Proposed Rules:5b.....................................37081

46 CFRProposed Rules:10.....................................3945515.....................................3945590.....................................3945598.....................................39455125...................................39455126...................................39455127...................................39455128...................................39455129...................................39455130...................................39455131...................................39455132...................................39455133...................................39455134...................................39455170...................................39455174...................................39455175...................................39455388...................................36831

47 CFR

1...........................35832, 3993818.....................................3741720.....................................3831363.....................................3993873 ...........35941, 36254, 36255,

36256, 36257, 36258, 37875,37876, 38588, 38589, 38590,38591, 38592, 39940, 39941,

4029276.........................35948, 3660590.........................36258, 39942Proposed Rules:1.......................................3861715.....................................3887720.....................................3839622.....................................3861727.....................................3664273 ...........36322, 36323, 36324,

36642, 37924, 37925, 37926,37927, 38621, 38622, 39963,

39964, 39965, 40331101...................................38617

48 CFR

1.......................................3622212.....................................3622214.....................................3622215.....................................3622219.....................................3622226.....................................3622233.....................................3622252.....................................3622253.....................................36222Ch. 1 ................................36222201...................................39429237...................................39430252...................................39431Ch. 5 ................................37200829...................................385921615.................................362711632.................................362711652.................................362711801.................................366051804.................................366051809.................................366051815.................................36605

1827.................................366051832.................................366051833.................................366061845.................................366051852.................................366052832.................................370446103.................................38143Proposed Rules:9.......................................3736012.....................................4049414.....................................4049415.....................................4049426.....................................4049431.....................................3736036.....................................4049447.....................................3764052.........................37640, 40494208...................................38878212...................................38878213...................................38878214...................................38878215...................................38878232...................................38878245...................................39456252.......................38878, 394561807.................................388801811.................................388801812.................................388801815.................................388801816.................................388801823.................................388801842.................................388801846.................................388801852.................................38880

49 CFR

1.......................................36801177...................................36802180...................................36802395...................................37689567...................................38593574...................................36807578...................................37876591...................................37878Proposed Rules:71.....................................40331192...................................35580195...................................38173571...................................366571420.................................39111

50 CFR

17 ............36274, 37638, 39560100..................................35776,

35821216...................................37690600.......................36817, 39017622.......................36780, 37690635 ..........36818, 37700, 37883660 .........36817, 36819, 36820,

40293679 .........37884, 39087, 39089,

39090, 40293Proposed Rules:17 ...........36454, 36836, 37492,

4033320.....................................39460622 ..........35981, 36325, 37082640...................................37082648...................................35984660.......................39479, 39965


iv Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 142 / Monday, July 26, 1999 / 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 JULY 26, 1999

ENERGY DEPARTMENTFederal Energy RegulatoryCommissionElectric utilities (Federal Power

Act):Open access same-time

information system(OASIS); published 6-25-99

ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCYAir programs:

Fuels and fuel additives—Puerto Rico gasoline;

compliance baselinemodification; published6-9-99

Clean Air Act:Interstate ozone transport

reduction—Nitrogen oxides budget

trading program;Section 126 petitions;findings of significantcontribution andrulemaking; published 5-25-99

FEDERALCOMMUNICATIONSCOMMISSIONRadio stations; table of

assignments:Florida; published 6-18-99Missouri; published 6-22-99Montana; published 6-18-99Texas; published 6-18-99Wisconsin; published 6-18-

99Television broadcasting:

Cable television systems—Markets definition for

purposes of broadcastsignal carriage rules;published 6-24-99

HOUSING AND URBANDEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENTGovernment National

Mortgage Association(Ginnie Mae):Mortgage-backed securities;

book-entry securities;published 6-24-99

INTERIOR DEPARTMENTFish and Wildlife ServiceEndangered and threatened

species:

Lloyd’s hedgehog cactus;published 6-24-99

NATIONAL CREDIT UNIONADMINISTRATIONCredit unions:

Organization andoperations—Fidelity bond and

insurance coverage;published 5-27-99

NATIONAL MEDIATIONBOARDPractice and procedure:

Administrative corrections;published 7-26-99

SMALL BUSINESSADMINISTRATIONOrganization, functions, and

authority delegations:Disaster Area Counsel et al;

administrative claimsapproval, denial, etc.;published 7-26-99

TRANSPORTATIONDEPARTMENTFederal AviationAdministrationAirworthiness directives:

Pratt & Whitney; published5-26-99

TREASURY DEPARTMENTFiscal ServiceBonds and notes, U.S.

Treasury:U.S. securities; electronic

transactions and fundstransfers; published 7-26-99

UNITED STATESINFORMATION AGENCYExchange visitor program:

Return to home countrytwo-year requirement;waiver requests;processing fee; published7-26-99

COMMENTS DUE NEXTWEEK

AGRICULTUREDEPARTMENTAgricultural MarketingServiceCherries (tart) grown in—

Michigan et al.; commentsdue by 8-6-99; published6-7-99

Nectarines and peachesgrown in—California; comments due by

8-6-99; published 6-7-99

AGRICULTUREDEPARTMENTAnimal and Plant HealthInspection ServiceAnimal welfare:

Dogs and cats; acclimationcertificates; comments due

by 8-6-99; published 6-7-99

Exportation and importation ofanimals and animalproducts:Ports of entry—

New Jersey and NewYork; ports designatedfor exportation ofhorses; comments dueby 8-2-99; published 6-4-99

Plant-related quarantine,domestic:Fire ant, imported;

comments due by 8-6-99;published 6-7-99

Mediterranean fruit fly;comments due by 8-6-99;published 6-7-99

COMMERCE DEPARTMENTNational Oceanic andAtmospheric AdministrationEndangered and threatened

species:Designated critical

habitats—Snake River spring/

summer chinooksalmon; comments dueby 8-2-99; published 6-2-99

Fishery conservation andmanagement:Northeastern United States

fisheries—Northeastern multispecies;

comments due by 8-2-99; published 6-1-99

DEFENSE DEPARTMENTAir Force DepartmentMilitary personnel:

Military personnel,employees, anddependents available tocivilian authorities for trial;comments due by 8-2-99;published 6-1-99

DEFENSE DEPARTMENTDefense Logistics AgencyDefense contracting:

Wildfire Suppression AircraftTransfer Act of 1996;implementation; commentsdue by 8-2-99; published6-1-99

EDUCATION DEPARTMENTFamily educational rights and

privacyAmendments; comments

due by 8-2-99; published6-1-99

ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCYAir pollution control; new

motor vehicles and engines;and fuels and fuel additives:Tier 2 motor vehicle

emission standards and

gasoline sulphur controlrequirem ents; commentsdue by 8-2-99; published5-13-99

Tier 2 motor vehicleemission standards andgasoline sulphur controlrequirements; commentsdue by 8-2-99; published6-30-99

Air programs; approval andpromulgation; State plansfor designated facilities andpollutants:Illinois; comments due by 8-

6-99; published 7-7-99Air quality implementation

plans; approval andpromulgation; variousStates:Delaware; comments due by

8-6-99; published 7-7-99Pesticides; tolerances in food,

animal feeds, and rawagricultural commodities:Emergency exemptions;

time-limited tolerances;comments due by 8-2-99;published 6-3-99

Water programs:Underground injection

control program;Alabama’s Class IIprogram withdrawn; plichearing and commentrequest; comments dueby 8-5-99; published 5-21-99

FEDERALCOMMUNICATIONSCOMMISSIONCommon carrier services, etc.:

Agency competitive biddingauthority; comments dueby 8-2-99; published 6-7-99

Radio stations; table ofassignments:Texas; comments due by 8-

2-99; published 6-22-99HEALTH AND HUMANSERVICES DEPARTMENTFood and DrugAdministrationFood for human consumption:

Food labeling—Dietary supplements;

effect on structure orfunction of body; typesof statements definition;meeting; comments dueby 8-4-99; published 7-8-99

HOUSING AND URBANDEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENTMortgage and loan insurance

programs:Single family mortgage

insurance—Appraiser roster;

placement and removal


vFederal Register / Vol. 64, No. 142 / Monday, July 26, 1999 / Reader Aids

procedures; commentsdue by 8-2-99;published 7-2-99

INTERIOR DEPARTMENTFish and Wildlife ServiceMigratory bird hunting:

Seasons, limits, andshooting hours;establishment, etc.Meeting; comments due

by 8-2-99; published 7-22-99

INTERIOR DEPARTMENTMinerals ManagementServiceFederal regulatory review;

request for comments;comments due by 8-6-99;published 6-7-99

INTERIOR DEPARTMENTSurface Mining Reclamationand Enforcement OfficePermanent program and

abandoned mine landreclamation plansubmissions:Kentucky; comments due by

8-2-99; published 7-16-99JUSTICE DEPARTMENTImmigration andNaturalization ServiceNonimmigrant classes:

Adjustment of status; H-1and L-1 status applicants;continued validity ofnonimmigrant status,unexpired employmentauthorization, and travelauthorization; commentsdue by 8-2-99; published6-1-99

Status adjustment; H-1 andL-1 status applicants;continued validity ofnonimmigrant status,unexpired employmentauthorization, and travelauthorizationCorrection; comments due


LABOR DEPARTMENTMine Safety and HealthAdministrationCoal mine and metal and

nonmetal mine safety andhealth:Underground mines—

Self-rescue devices;comments due by 8-6-99; published 7-7-99

LABOR DEPARTMENTOccupational Safety andHealth AdministrationSafety and health standards:

Tuberculosis; occupationalexposure; comments dueby 8-2-99; published 6-17-99

LIBRARY OF CONGRESSCopyright Office, Library ofCongressCopyright office and

procedures:Vessel hulls; design

protection; comments dueby 8-6-99; published 7-7-99

NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSIONEarly site permits standard

design certifications andcombined licenses fornuclear power plants:AP600 design certification;


Production and utilizationfacilities; domestic licensing:Nuclear power reactors—

Reporting requirements;comments due by 8-5-99; published 7-6-99

SMALL BUSINESSADMINISTRATIONDisaster loan program:

Pre-disaster mitigation loans;comments due by 8-6-99;published 7-7-99

TRANSPORTATIONDEPARTMENTCoast GuardPorts and waterways safety:

Mandatory ship reportingsystems; comments dueby 8-2-99; published 6-1-99Correction; comments due


San Pedro Bay, CA; safetyzone; comments due by8-2-99; published 6-2-99

Vessel inspection alternatives:Alternate Compliance

Program; incorporationsby reference; commentsdue by 8-6-99; published6-8-99

TRANSPORTATIONDEPARTMENTWorkplace drug and alcohol

testing programs:Organizations certifying

substance abuseprofessionals; procedureto have members includedin DOT’s substance abuse

professional definition;comments due by 8-2-99;published 6-3-99

TRANSPORTATIONDEPARTMENTFederal AviationAdministrationAir carrier certification and

operations:Aging airplane safety;


Air traffic operating and flightrules, etc.:Flight plan requirements for

helicopter operationsunder instrument flightrules; comments due by8-2-99; published 7-1-99

Airworthiness directives:Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc.;


Boeing; comments due by8-6-99; published 6-22-99

Bombardier; comments dueby 8-6-99; published 7-7-99

British Aerospace;comments due by 8-6-99;published 7-7-99

Israel Aircraft Industries,Ltd.; comments due by 8-6-99; published 7-7-99

Class E airspace; commentsdue by 8-2-99; published 6-11-99

TRANSPORTATIONDEPARTMENTFederal HighwayAdministrationEngineering and traffic

operations:Emergency relief program;


TREASURY DEPARTMENTInternal Revenue ServiceIncome taxes:

Long-term contracts, incomeaccountability; commentsdue by 8-3-99; published5-5-99

Long-term contracts; incomeaccountabilityCorrection; comments due

by 8-3-99; published 6-16-99

Recognition of gain on stockor securities distributions;comments due by 8-2-99;published 5-3-99

VETERANS AFFAIRSDEPARTMENTAcquisition regulations:

Simplified acquisitionprocedures; commentsdue by 8-3-99; published6-4-99

LIST OF PUBLIC LAWS

This is a continuing list ofpublic bills from the currentsession of Congress whichhave become Federal laws. Itmay be used in conjunctionwith ‘‘P L U S’’ (Public LawsUpdate Service) on 202–523–6641. This list is alsoavailable online at http://www.nara.gov/fedreg.

The text of laws is notpublished in the FederalRegister but may be orderedin ‘‘slip law’’ (individualpamphlet) form from theSuperintendent of Documents,U.S. Government PrintingOffice, Washington, DC 20402(phone, 202–512–1808). Thetext will also be madeavailable on the Internet fromGPO Access at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/index.html. Some laws maynot yet be available.

H.R. 775/P.L. 106–37

Y2K Act (July 20, 1999; 113Stat. 185)

Last List June 29, 1999

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-LYour Name.

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.


vi Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 142 / Monday, July 26, 1999 / Reader Aids

CFR CHECKLIST

This checklist, prepared by the Office of the Federal Register, ispublished weekly. It is arranged in the order of CFR titles, stocknumbers, prices, and revision dates.An asterisk (*) precedes each entry that has been issued since lastweek and which is now available for sale at the Government PrintingOffice.A checklist of current CFR volumes comprising a complete CFR set,also appears in the latest issue of the LSA (List of CFR SectionsAffected), which is revised monthly.The CFR is available free on-line through the Government PrintingOffice’s GPO Access Service at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/index.html. For information about GPO Access call the GPO UserSupport Team at 1-888-293-6498 (toll free) or 202-512-1530.The annual rate for subscription to all revised paper volumes is$951.00 domestic, $237.75 additional for foreign mailing.Mail orders to the Superintendent of Documents, Attn: New Orders,P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250–7954. All orders must beaccompanied by remittance (check, money order, GPO DepositAccount, VISA, Master Card, or Discover). Charge orders may betelephoned to the GPO Order Desk, Monday through Friday, at (202)512–1800 from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. eastern time, or FAX yourcharge orders to (202) 512-2250.Title Stock Number Price Revision Date

1, 2 (2 Reserved) ......... (869–034–00001–1) ...... 5.00 5 Jan. 1, 1999

3 (1997 Compilationand Parts 100 and101) .......................... (869–038–00002–4) ...... 20.00 1 Jan. 1, 1999

4 .................................. (869–034–00003–7) ...... 7.00 5 Jan. 1, 1999

5 Parts:1–699 ........................... (869–038–00004–1) ...... 37.00 Jan. 1, 1999700–1199 ...................... (869–038–00005–9) ...... 27.00 Jan. 1, 19991200–End, 6 (6

Reserved) ................. (869–038–00006–7) ...... 44.00 Jan. 1, 1999

7 Parts:1–26 ............................. (869–038–00007–5) ...... 25.00 Jan. 1, 199927–52 ........................... (869–038–00008–3) ...... 32.00 Jan. 1, 199953–209 .......................... (869–038–00009–1) ...... 20.00 Jan. 1, 1999210–299 ........................ (869–038–00010–5) ...... 47.00 Jan. 1, 1999300–399 ........................ (869–038–00011–3) ...... 25.00 Jan. 1, 1999400–699 ........................ (869–038–00012–1) ...... 37.00 Jan. 1, 1999700–899 ........................ (869–038–00013–0) ...... 32.00 Jan. 1, 1999900–999 ........................ (869–038–00014–8) ...... 41.00 Jan. 1, 19991000–1199 .................... (869–038–00015–6) ...... 46.00 Jan. 1, 19991200–1599 .................... (869–038–00016–4) ...... 34.00 Jan. 1, 19991600–1899 .................... (869–038–00017–2) ...... 55.00 Jan. 1, 19991900–1939 .................... (869–038–00018–1) ...... 19.00 Jan. 1, 19991940–1949 .................... (869–038–00019–9) ...... 34.00 Jan. 1, 19991950–1999 .................... (869–038–00020–2) ...... 41.00 Jan. 1, 19992000–End ...................... (869–038–00021–1) ...... 27.00 Jan. 1, 1999

8 .................................. (869–038–00022–9) ...... 36.00 Jan. 1, 1999

9 Parts:1–199 ........................... (869–038–00023–7) ...... 42.00 Jan. 1, 1999200–End ....................... (869–038–00024–5) ...... 37.00 Jan. 1, 1999

10 Parts:1–50 ............................. (869–038–00025–3) ...... 42.00 Jan. 1, 199951–199 .......................... (869–038–00026–1) ...... 34.00 Jan. 1, 1999200–499 ........................ (869–038–00027–0) ...... 33.00 Jan. 1, 1999500–End ....................... (869–038–00028–8) ...... 43.00 Jan. 1, 1999

11 ................................ (869–038–0002–6) ....... 20.00 Jan. 1, 1999

12 Parts:1–199 ........................... (869–038–00030–0) ...... 17.00 Jan. 1, 1999200–219 ........................ (869–038–00031–8) ...... 20.00 Jan. 1, 1999220–299 ........................ (869–038–00032–6) ...... 40.00 Jan. 1, 1999300–499 ........................ (869–038–00033–4) ...... 25.00 Jan. 1, 1999500–599 ........................ (869–038–00034–2) ...... 24.00 Jan. 1, 1999600–End ....................... (869–038–00035–1) ...... 45.00 Jan. 1, 1999

13 ................................ (869–038–00036–9) ...... 25.00 Jan. 1, 1999

Title Stock Number Price Revision Date

14 Parts:1–59 ............................. (869–038–00037–7) ...... 50.00 Jan. 1, 199960–139 .......................... (869–038–00038–5) ...... 42.00 Jan. 1, 1999140–199 ........................ (869–038–00039–3) ...... 17.00 Jan. 1, 1999200–1199 ...................... (869–038–00040–7) ...... 28.00 Jan. 1, 19991200–End ...................... (869–038–00041–5) ...... 24.00 Jan. 1, 199915 Parts:0–299 ........................... (869–038–00042–3) ...... 25.00 Jan. 1, 1999300–799 ........................ (869–038–00043–1) ...... 36.00 Jan. 1, 1999800–End ....................... (869–038–00044–0) ...... 24.00 Jan. 1, 199916 Parts:0–999 ........................... (869–038–00045–8) ...... 32.00 Jan. 1, 19991000–End ...................... (869–038–00046–6) ...... 37.00 Jan. 1, 199917 Parts:1–199 ........................... (869–038–00048–2) ...... 29.00 Apr. 1, 1999200–239 ........................ (869–038–00049–1) ...... 34.00 Apr. 1, 1999*240–End ...................... (869–038–00050–4) ...... 44.00 Apr. 1, 199918 Parts:1–399 ........................... (869–038–00051–2) ...... 48.00 Apr. 1, 1999400–End ....................... (869–038–00052–1) ...... 14.00 Apr. 1, 199919 Parts:1–140 ........................... (869–034–00053–3) ...... 34.00 Apr. 1, 1998141–199 ........................ (869–038–00054–7) ...... 36.00 Apr. 1, 1999200–End ....................... (869–038–00055–5) ...... 18.00 Apr. 1, 199920 Parts:1–399 ........................... (869–038–00056–3) ...... 30.00 Apr. 1, 1999400–499 ........................ (869–038–00057–1) ...... 51.00 Apr. 1, 1999500–End ....................... (869–038–00058–0) ...... 44.00 7 Apr. 1, 199921 Parts:1–99 ............................. (869–034–00059–2) ...... 21.00 Apr. 1, 1998100–169 ........................ (869–038–00060–1) ...... 28.00 Apr. 1, 1999170–199 ........................ (869–038–00061–0) ...... 29.00 Apr. 1, 1999200–299 ........................ (869–034–00062–2) ...... 9.00 Apr. 1, 1998300–499 ........................ (869–038–00063–6) ...... 50.00 Apr. 1, 1999500–599 ........................ (869–034–00064–9) ...... 28.00 Apr. 1, 1998600–799 ........................ (869–038–00065–2) ...... 9.00 Apr. 1, 1999800–1299 ...................... (869–034–00066–5) ...... 32.00 Apr. 1, 19981300–End ...................... (869–038–00067–9) ...... 14.00 Apr. 1, 199922 Parts:1–299 ........................... (869–038–00068–7) ...... 44.00 Apr. 1, 1999*300–End ...................... (869–038–00069–5) ...... 32.00 Apr. 1, 199923 ................................ (869–038–00070–9) ...... 27.00 Apr. 1, 199924 Parts:0–199 ........................... (869–038–00071–7) ...... 34.00 Apr. 1, 1999200–499 ........................ (869–034–00072–0) ...... 28.00 Apr. 1, 1998500–699 ........................ (869–038–00073–3) ...... 18.00 Apr. 1, 1999700–1699 ...................... (869–038–00074–1) ...... 40.00 Apr. 1, 19991700–End ...................... (869–038–00075–0) ...... 18.00 Apr. 1, 199925 ................................ (869–038–00076–8) ...... 47.00 Apr. 1, 199926 Parts:§§ 1.0-1–1.60 ................ (869–038–00077–6) ...... 27.00 Apr. 1, 1999§§ 1.61–1.169 ................ (869–038–00078–4) ...... 50.00 Apr. 1, 1999§§ 1.170–1.300 .............. (869–038–00079–2) ...... 34.00 Apr. 1, 1999§§ 1.301–1.400 .............. (869–034–00080–1) ...... 23.00 Apr. 1, 1998*§§ 1.401–1.440 ............ (869–038–00081–4) ...... 43.00 Apr. 1, 1999§§ 1.441-1.500 .............. (869-038-00082-2) ...... 30.00 Apr. 1, 1999§§ 1.501–1.640 .............. (869–038–00083–1) ...... 27.00 7 Apr. 1, 1999*§§ 1.641–1.850 ............ (869–038–00084–9) ...... 35.00 Apr. 1, 1999*§§ 1.851–1.907 ............ (869–038–00085–7) ...... 40.00 Apr. 1, 1999§§ 1.908–1.1000 ............ (869–038–00086–5) ...... 38.00 Apr. 1, 1999§§ 1.1001–1.1400 .......... (869–038–00087–3) ...... 40.00 Apr. 1, 1999§§ 1.1401–End .............. (869–038–00088–1) ...... 55.00 Apr. 1, 19992–29 ............................. (869–038–00089–0) ...... 39.00 Apr. 1, 199930–39 ........................... (869–038–00090–3) ...... 28.00 Apr. 1, 199940–49 ........................... (869–038–00091–1) ...... 17.00 Apr. 1, 199950–299 .......................... (869–038–00092–0) ...... 21.00 Apr. 1, 1999300–499 ........................ (869–038–00093–8) ...... 37.00 Apr. 1, 1999500–599 ........................ (869–034–00094–1) ...... 10.00 Apr. 1, 1998600–End ....................... (869–038–00095–4) ...... 11.00 Apr. 1, 199927 Parts:1–199 ........................... (869–034–00096–7) ...... 49.00 Apr. 1, 1998

VerDate 18-JUN-99 19:45 Jul 23, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4721 Sfmt 4721 E:\FR\FM\26JYCL.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 26JYCL

viiFederal Register / Vol. 64, No. 142 / Monday, July 26, 1999 / Reader Aids


200–End ....................... (869–034–00097–5) ...... 17.00 6 Apr. 1, 1998

28 Parts: .....................0-42 ............................. (869–034–00098–3) ...... 36.00 July 1, 199843-end ......................... (869-034-00099-1) ...... 30.00 July 1, 1998

29 Parts:0–99 ............................. (869–034–00100–9) ...... 26.00 July 1, 1998100–499 ........................ (869–034–00101–7) ...... 12.00 July 1, 1998500–899 ........................ (869–034–00102–5) ...... 40.00 July 1, 1998900–1899 ...................... (869–034–00103–3) ...... 20.00 July 1, 19981900–1910 (§§ 1900 to

1910.999) .................. (869–034–00104–1) ...... 44.00 July 1, 19981910 (§§ 1910.1000 to

end) ......................... (869–034–00105–0) ...... 27.00 July 1, 19981911–1925 .................... (869–034–00106–8) ...... 17.00 July 1, 19981926 ............................. (869–034–00107–6) ...... 30.00 July 1, 19981927–End ...................... (869–034–00108–4) ...... 41.00 July 1, 1998

30 Parts:1–199 ........................... (869–034–00109–2) ...... 33.00 July 1, 1998200–699 ........................ (869–034–00110–6) ...... 29.00 July 1, 1998700–End ....................... (869–034–00111–4) ...... 33.00 July 1, 1998

31 Parts:0–199 ........................... (869–034–00112–2) ...... 20.00 July 1, 1998200–End ....................... (869–034–00113–1) ...... 46.00 July 1, 199832 Parts:1–39, Vol. I .......................................................... 15.00 2 July 1, 19841–39, Vol. II ......................................................... 19.00 2 July 1, 19841–39, Vol. III ........................................................ 18.00 2 July 1, 19841–190 ........................... (869–034–00114–9) ...... 47.00 July 1, 1998191–399 ........................ (869–034–00115–7) ...... 51.00 July 1, 1998400–629 ........................ (869–034–00116–5) ...... 33.00 July 1, 1998630–699 ........................ (869–034–00117–3) ...... 22.00 4 July 1, 1998700–799 ........................ (869–034–00118–1) ...... 26.00 July 1, 1998800–End ....................... (869–034–00119–0) ...... 27.00 July 1, 1998



35 ................................ (869–034–00126–2) ...... 14.00 July 1, 1998

36 Parts1–199 ........................... (869–034–00127–1) ...... 20.00 July 1, 1998200–299 ........................ (869–034–00128–9) ...... 21.00 July 1, 1998300–End ....................... (869–034–00129–7) ...... 35.00 July 1, 1998

37 (869–034–00130–1) ...... 27.00 July 1, 1998

38 Parts:0–17 ............................. (869–034–00131–9) ...... 34.00 July 1, 199818–End ......................... (869–034–00132–7) ...... 39.00 July 1, 1998

39 ................................ (869–034–00133–5) ...... 23.00 July 1, 1998

40 Parts:1–49 ............................. (869–034–00134–3) ...... 31.00 July 1, 199850–51 ........................... (869–034–00135–1) ...... 24.00 July 1, 199852 (52.01–52.1018) ........ (869–034–00136–0) ...... 28.00 July 1, 199852 (52.1019–End) .......... (869–034–00137–8) ...... 33.00 July 1, 199853–59 ........................... (869–034–00138–6) ...... 17.00 July 1, 199860 ................................ (869–034–00139–4) ...... 53.00 July 1, 199861–62 ........................... (869–034–00140–8) ...... 18.00 July 1, 199863 ................................ (869–034–00141–6) ...... 57.00 July 1, 199864–71 ........................... (869–034–00142–4) ...... 11.00 July 1, 199872–80 ........................... (869–034–00143–2) ...... 36.00 July 1, 199881–85 ........................... (869–034–00144–1) ...... 31.00 July 1, 199886 ................................ (869–034–00144–9) ...... 53.00 July 1, 199887-135 .......................... (869–034–00146–7) ...... 47.00 July 1, 1998136–149 ........................ (869–034–00147–5) ...... 37.00 July 1, 1998150–189 ........................ (869–034–00148–3) ...... 34.00 July 1, 1998190–259 ........................ (869–034–00149–1) ...... 23.00 July 1, 1998260–265 ........................ (869–034–00150–9) ...... 29.00 July 1, 1998


266–299 ........................ (869–034–00151–3) ...... 33.00 July 1, 1998300–399 ........................ (869–034–00152–1) ...... 26.00 July 1, 1998400–424 ........................ (869–034–00153–0) ...... 33.00 July 1, 1998425–699 ........................ (869–034–00154–8) ...... 42.00 July 1, 1998700–789 ........................ (869–034–00155–6) ...... 41.00 July 1, 1998790–End ....................... (869–034–00156–4) ...... 22.00 July 1, 199841 Chapters:1, 1–1 to 1–10 ..................................................... 13.00 3 July 1, 19841, 1–11 to Appendix, 2 (2 Reserved) ................... 13.00 3 July 1, 19843–6 ..................................................................... 14.00 3 July 1, 19847 ........................................................................ 6.00 3 July 1, 19848 ........................................................................ 4.50 3 July 1, 19849 ........................................................................ 13.00 3 July 1, 198410–17 ................................................................. 9.50 3 July 1, 198418, Vol. I, Parts 1–5 ............................................. 13.00 3 July 1, 198418, Vol. II, Parts 6–19 ........................................... 13.00 3 July 1, 198418, Vol. III, Parts 20–52 ........................................ 13.00 3 July 1, 198419–100 ............................................................... 13.00 3 July 1, 19841–100 ........................... (869–034–00157–2) ...... 13.00 July 1, 1998101 ............................... (869–034–00158–1) ...... 37.00 July 1, 1998102–200 ........................ (869–034–00158–9) ...... 15.00 July 1, 1998201–End ....................... (869–034–00160–2) ...... 13.00 July 1, 1998

42 Parts:1–399 ........................... (869–034–00161–1) ...... 34.00 Oct. 1, 1998400–429 ........................ (869–034–00162–9) ...... 41.00 Oct. 1, 1998430–End ....................... (869–034–00163–7) ...... 51.00 Oct. 1, 1998

43 Parts:1–999 ........................... (869–034–00164–5) ...... 30.00 Oct. 1, 19981000–end ..................... (869–034–00165–3) ...... 48.00 Oct. 1, 1998

44 ................................ (869–034–00166–1) ...... 48.00 Oct. 1, 1998

45 Parts:1–199 ........................... (869–034–00167–0) ...... 30.00 Oct. 1, 1998200–499 ........................ (869–034–00168–8) ...... 18.00 Oct. 1, 1998500–1199 ...................... (869–034–00169–6) ...... 29.00 Oct. 1, 19981200–End ...................... (869–034–00170–0) ...... 39.00 Oct. 1, 1998

46 Parts:1–40 ............................. (869–034–00171–8) ...... 26.00 Oct. 1, 199841–69 ........................... (869–034–00172–6) ...... 21.00 Oct. 1, 199870–89 ........................... (869–034–00173–4) ...... 8.00 Oct. 1, 199890–139 .......................... (869–034–00174–2) ...... 26.00 Oct. 1, 1998140–155 ........................ (869–034–00175–1) ...... 14.00 Oct. 1, 1998156–165 ........................ (869–034–00176–9) ...... 19.00 Oct. 1, 1998166–199 ........................ (869–034–00177–7) ...... 25.00 Oct. 1, 1998200–499 ........................ (869–034–00178–5) ...... 22.00 Oct. 1, 1998500–End ....................... (869–034–00179–3) ...... 16.00 Oct. 1, 1998

47 Parts:0–19 ............................. (869–034–00180–7) ...... 36.00 Oct. 1, 199820–39 ........................... (869–034–00181–5) ...... 27.00 Oct. 1, 199840–69 ........................... (869–034–00182–3) ...... 24.00 Oct. 1, 199870–79 ........................... (869–034–00183–1) ...... 37.00 Oct. 1, 199880–End ......................... (869–034–00184–0) ...... 40.00 Oct. 1, 1998

48 Chapters:1 (Parts 1–51) ............... (869–034–00185–8) ...... 51.00 Oct. 1, 19981 (Parts 52–99) ............. (869–034–00186–6) ...... 29.00 Oct. 1, 19982 (Parts 201–299) .......... (869–034–00187–4) ...... 34.00 Oct. 1, 19983–6 ............................... (869–034–00188–2) ...... 29.00 Oct. 1, 19987–14 ............................. (869–034–00189–1) ...... 32.00 Oct. 1, 199815–28 ........................... (869–034–00190–4) ...... 33.00 Oct. 1, 199829–End ......................... (869–034–00191–2) ...... 24.00 Oct. 1, 1998

49 Parts:1–99 ............................. (869–034–00192–1) ...... 31.00 Oct. 1, 1998100–185 ........................ (869–034–00193–9) ...... 50.00 Oct. 1, 1998186–199 ........................ (869–034–00194–7) ...... 11.00 Oct. 1, 1998200–399 ........................ (869–034–00195–5) ...... 46.00 Oct. 1, 1998400–999 ........................ (869–034–00196–3) ...... 54.00 Oct. 1, 19981000–1199 .................... (869–034–00197–1) ...... 17.00 Oct. 1, 19981200–End ...................... (869–034–00198–0) ...... 13.00 Oct. 1, 1998

50 Parts:1–199 ........................... (869–034–00199–8) ...... 42.00 Oct. 1, 1998200–599 ........................ (869–034–00200–5) ...... 22.00 Oct. 1, 1998600–End ....................... (869–034–00201–3) ...... 33.00 Oct. 1, 1998


viii Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 142 / Monday, July 26, 1999 / Reader Aids


CFR Index and FindingsAids .......................... (869–034–00049–6) ...... 46.00 Jan. 1, 1998

Complete 1998 CFR set ...................................... 951.00 1998

Microfiche CFR Edition:Subscription (mailed as issued) ...................... 247.00 1998Individual copies ............................................ 1.00 1998Complete set (one-time mailing) ................... 247.00 1997Complete set (one-time mailing) ................... 264.00 19961 Because Title 3 is an annual compilation, this volume and all previous volumes

should be retained as a permanent reference source.2 The July 1, 1985 edition of 32 CFR Parts 1–189 contains a note only for

Parts 1–39 inclusive. For the full text of the Defense Acquisition Regulationsin Parts 1–39, consult the three CFR volumes issued as of July 1, 1984, containingthose parts.

3 The July 1, 1985 edition of 41 CFR Chapters 1–100 contains a note onlyfor Chapters 1 to 49 inclusive. For the full text of procurement regulationsin Chapters 1 to 49, consult the eleven CFR volumes issued as of July 1,1984 containing those chapters.

4 No amendments to this volume were promulgated during the period July1, 1997 to June 30, 1998. The volume issued July 1, 1997, should be retained.

5 No amendments to this volume were promulgated during the period January1, 1998 through December 31, 1998. The CFR volume issued as of January1, 1997 should be retained.

6 No amendments to this volume were promulgated during the period April1, 1997, through April 1, 1998. The CFR volume issued as of April 1, 1997,should be retained.

7 No amendments to this volume were promulgated during the period April1, 1998, through April 1, 1999. The CFR volume issued as of April 1, 1998,should be retained.
