34042 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 103 / Friday, May 26, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

pound. As requested by the respondent,

the Agency is currently and will

continue seeking ways to increase

efficiency and reduce the total cost of

grading and certification services to the

industry. In fact, AMS is actively

involved in each of the areas identified

by the respondent for potential cost

savings. For example, AMS is

cooperating with an industry research

project to test video-imaging technology

for grading and certification

applications. Additionally, AMS is

expanding the role of statistical process

control as a basis of program verification

activities in many carcass and meat

marketing programs.

The second respondent questioned

the need for revising the fee rates and

emphasized the effect of the user fees on

small entities. Small entities generate 38

percent of the Agency’s meat grading

and certification hourly revenues. The

Agency is keenly aware of how fee

increases impact small entities. In the

more than 70 years meat grading and

certification services have been

available, the Agency has always

ensured that every alternative to a fee

increase has been considered. This fee

increase, only the second since

November 1993, is necessary to offset

increased program operating costs

resulting from: (1) The congressionallymandated, governmentwide salary

increases for 1998, 1999, and 2000; (2)

inflation of nonsalary operating costs;

(3) accumulated increases in CONUS

per diem rates; (4) increased costs of

servicing less than full-time applicants;

and, (5) costs associated with updating

the MGC Branch’s automated

information management system to

ensure compliance with year 2000

operating requirements. Despite the

MGC Branch’s cost reduction efforts and

increased efficiency, the operating

expenses projected for FY2000 and

beyond can only be balanced by

adjusting the hourly fee rate charged to

users of voluntary meat grading and

certification services. Any further

reduction in personnel, services, or

management infrastructure beyond

those already in place would have a

detrimental effect on the program’s

ability to provide meat grading and

certification services and ensure the

accurate application of such services.

Further, any reduction in Branch

services has the potential to

substantially (and disproportionally)

harm small and limited resource firms

that rely on grading and certification

services to market their products and

compete in a global marketplace.

Background

The Secretary of Agriculture is

authorized by the AMA, 1946 as

amended, 7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq., to

provide voluntary Federal meat grading

and certification services to facilitate the

orderly marketing of meat and meat

products and to enable consumers to

obtain the quality of meat they desire.

The AMA also provides for the

collection of fees from users of the

Federal meat grading and certification

services that are approximately equal to

the cost of providing these services. The

hourly fees for service are established by

equitably distributing the projected

annual program operating costs over the

estimated hours of service—revenue

hours—provided to users of the service.

Program operating costs include salaries

and fringe benefits of meat graders,

supervision, travel, training, and all

administrative costs of operating the

program. Employee salaries and benefits

account for approximately 80 percent of

the total budget. Revenue hours include

base hours, premium hours, and service

performed on Federal legal holidays. As

program operating costs continue to

rise, the hourly fees must be adjusted to

enable the program to remain

financially self-supporting as required

by law.

In view of these considerations, the

Agency will increase the base hourly

rate commitment applicants pay for

voluntary Federal meat grading and

certification services from $39.80 to $45.

A commitment applicant is a user of

meat grading and certification services

who agrees to pay for five continuous 8

hour days, Monday through Friday

between the hours of 6 a.m. and 6 p.m.,

excluding legal holidays. The base

hourly rate for noncommitment

applicants will increase from $42.20 to

$52. A noncommitment applicant is a

user of meat grading and certification

services for eight consecutive hours or

less per day between the hours of 6 a.m.

and 6 p.m., excluding legal holidays.

The hourly rate for premium hours will

increase from $47.80 to $57, and will be

charged to users of the service for hours

worked in excess of 8 hours per day for

each assigned official grader and for

work performed before 6 a.m. and after

6 p.m., Monday through Friday, and any

time on Saturday or Sunday, except on

Federal legal holidays. The holiday rate

for all applicants will increase from

$79.60 to $90, and will be charged to

users of the service for all hours worked

on legal holidays.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 54

Food grades and standards, Food

labeling, Meat and meat products.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR part 54 is amended as

follows:

PART 54—MEATS, PREPARED

MEATS, AND MEAT PRODUCTS

(GRADING, CERTIFICATION, AND

STANDARDS)

1. The authority citation for part 54

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621–1627.

§ 54.27 [Amended]

2. In § 54.27, paragraph (a), ‘‘$42.20’’

is removed and ‘‘$52’’ is added in its

place, ‘‘$47.80’’ is removed and ‘‘$57’’ is

added in its place, ‘‘$79.60’’ is removed

and ‘‘$90’’ is added in its place, and

paragraph (b), ‘‘$39.80’’ is removed and

‘‘$45’’ is added in its place, ‘‘$47.80’’ is

removed and ‘‘$57’’ is added in its

place, ‘‘$79.60’’ is removed and ‘‘$90’’ is

added in its place.

Dated: May 22, 2000.

Barry L. Carpenter,

Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed

Program.

[FR Doc. 00–13240 Filed 5–25–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Rural Utilities Service

7 CFR Part 1728

Specifications and Drawings for

Underground Electric Distribution

AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Rural Utilities Service

(RUS) is revising its regulations on

Specifications and Drawings for

Underground Electric Distribution, RUS

Bulletin 50–6. This bulletin is currently

incorporated by reference in RUS

regulations and, will continue to be

incorporated by reference. This revision

is necessary to provide RUS electric

borrowers with the latest specifications

for constructing their rural underground

electric distribution systems using stateof-art materials, equipment, and

construction methods. RUS is

renumbering and reformating the

revised bulletin in accordance with the

agency’s new publications and

directives system.

DATES: Effective Date: June 26, 2000.

Incorporation by Reference: IBR

approved by the Director, Office of the

Federal Register, June 26, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Trung V. Hiu, Electrical Engineer,

Distribution Branch, Electric Staff

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 103 / Friday, May 26, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 34043

Division, Rural Utilities Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, 1400

Independence Avenue, SW, STOP 1569,

Washington, DC 20250–1569.

Telephone: (202) 720–1877. Fax: (202)

720–7491.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Order 12866

This rule has been determined to be

not significant for purposes of Executive

Order 12866 and, therefore, has not

been reviewed by Office of Management

and Budget (OMB).

Executive Order 12372

This rule is excluded from the scope

of Executive Order 12372,

Intergovernmental Consultation, which

may require consultation with State and

local officials. See the final rule related

notice entitled ‘‘Department Programs

and Activities Excluded from Executive

Order 12372’’ (50 FR 47034).

Executive Order 12988

This rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice

Reform. RUS has determined that this

rule meets the applicable standards

provided in section 3 of the Executive

Order. In accordance with the Executive

Order and the rule: (1) All State and

local laws and regulations that are in

conflict with this rule will be

preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will

be given to this rule; and (3) in

accordance with § 212(e) of the

Department of Agriculture

Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C.

6912(e)), administrative appeal

procedures, if any, are required, must be

exhausted prior to initiating litigation

against the Department or its agencies.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

The Administrator of RUS has

determined that a rule relating to the

RUS electric loan program is not a rule

as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and, therefore,

the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not

apply to this rule. RUS borrowers, as a

result of obtaining Federal financing,

receive economic benefits that exceed

any direct economic costs associated

with complying with RUS regulations

and requirements.

Information Collection and

Recordkeeping Requirements

This rule contains no reporting or

recordkeeping provisions requiring

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) approval under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.

Chapter 35).

National Environmental Policy Act

Certification

The Administrator of RUS has

determined that this rule will not

significantly affect the quality of the

human environment as defined by the

National Environmental Policy Act of

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) Therefore,

this action does not require an

environmental impact statement or

assessment.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

The program described by this rule is

listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic

Assistance Programs under No. 10.850,

Rural Electrification Loans and Loan

Guarantees. This catalog is available on

a subscription basis from the

Superintendent of Documents, U.S.

Government Printing Office,

Washington, DC 20402–9325.

Telephone: (202) 512–1800.

Unfunded Mandates

This final rule contains no Federal

mandates (under the regulatory

provision of Title II of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995) for State,

local, and tribal governments or the

private sector. Thus, this rule is not

subject to the requirements of section

202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995.

Background

Pursuant to the Rural Electrification

Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901 et seq.), the

Rural Utilities Service (RUS) is

amending 7 CFR Chapter XVII, Part

1728, Electric Standards and

Specification for Materials and

Construction, by revising RUS Bulletin

50–6 (D–806), Specification and

Drawings for Underground Electric

Distribution. This revised bulletin is

renumbered as RUS Bulletin 1728F–

806. RUS maintains a system of

bulletins that contains construction

standards and specifications for

materials and equipment which must be

complied with when system facilities

are constructed by RUS electric and

telecommunications borrowers in

accordance with the RUS loan contract.

These standards and specifications

contain standard construction units,

material, and equipment units

commonly used in RUS electric and

telecommunications borrowers’ systems.

RUS Bulletin 50–6 provides standard

underground electric distribution

construction drawings and

specifications of 12.5/7.2 kV and 24.9/

14.4 kV underground electric

distribution lines. RUS is changing the

bulletin number from RUS Bulletin 50–

6 to RUS Bulletin 1728F–806. The

change in the bulletin number and

reformatting is necessary to conform to

RUS new publications and directives

system. This rule incorporates the

bulletin by reference in 7 CFR part

1728.97.

Major changes in the bulletin are

described below:

(1) Two new drawings, UC2–1 and

UC2–2, have been added as alternative

construction to existing drawing UC2.

(2) RUS has determined that the URD

INSPECTION FORM and 23 drawings

are no longer practical. Therefore, RUS

has removed the following drawings:

UC3, UC4, UG9A, UG23, UM3–47,

UM3–48, UM8–3, UM12–1, UM12–2,

UM–26, UM50, UX8 through UX10, and

UX12 through UX26.

(3) Some of the specifications cited in

the bulletin preface have been altered to

comply with the latest codes and

regulations and to improve field

construction.

(4) The titles of the drawings in the

Index of Drawings have been modified

to have better descriptions.

Approximately 60 drawings have

been revised with one or more of the

following changes:

(1) Clearance distance B has been

changed to be the distance between

open vertical conductors (outer edge

nearest to pole) and pole center in

accordance to the latest codes.

(2) A B MINIMUM table has been

added to appropriate drawings to show

proper clearances corresponding to

different voltages.

(3) Ground rods have been redrawn to

proper grade.

(4) The installation of CAUTION,

WARNING, and DANGER signs has

been changed to meet the latest codes.

(5) In the material tables, item U hw,

CAUTION sign, has been changed to

WARNING sign.

(6) In the material tables, item U hp,

elbow termination, has been added.

(7) Ground wires between ground

rods and connectors have been redrawn

as dotted lines.

(8) In boxes labeled B MINIMUM, the

v in kv has been capitalized.

(9) Some notes below the DESIGNATE

AS headings have been deleted where

appropriate.

(10) In the material tables, (load break

type) has been removed from item af,

cutout descriptions.

(11) Several conductor routes have

been redrawn for easier construction

and increased performance.

(12) Devices, such as surge arresters,

have been redrawn and relocated to

reflect the improved designs and to

meet the latest construction practices

and safety codes.

(13) Crossarms, penta-head bolts, oneline diagrams, grounding pads, and pin

34044 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 103 / Friday, May 26, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

insulators have been added to certain

drawings where appropriate.

(14) Blowups have been added to

several drawings to emphasize details.

(15) The notes on some drawings have

been revised to remove ambiguity and to

meet the latest safety codes and

construction standards.

On April 8, 1998, RUS published a

proposed rule in the Federal Register, at

63 FR 17128. RUS received numerous

comments from several cooperatives

and interested individuals. The

followings are the submitted comments

and RUS responses:

(1) Set all pad-mounted equipment on

concrete vaults. The reinforcing steel in

the base is tied to the ground rod. Tests

have shown this scheme to provide a

very good ground.

Response: RUS disagrees as this

practice may not be practical and may

not significantly improve grounding in

most cases.

(2) Section 7.4: Requires ‘‘mechanical

tamp for only 36 inches from major

units’’—suggests no tamping

requirement for the remainder of the

trench. Is that the intent?

Response: No. The 36 inches (0.9

meters) is mandatory and is a minimum

requirement.

(3) Section 7.5: Does the term ‘‘hole’’

refer to ground sleeve, or vault? Should

RUS change this term?

Response: Section 7.5 has been

removed. This practice is not

recommended by RUS.

(4) Section 11.2: The ‘‘not more than

one splice per 2,000 feet’’ is not

practical if conduits and ground sleeves

are involved. Splice location markings

can be helpful, but not needed as a

‘‘must’’.

Response: RUS allows the borrower

the option to specify. RUS intention is

to limit the number of splices of multi

(‘‘scrap’’) cables.

(5) Section 12.1: Would RUS consider

reseal of the jacket?

Response: As a precaution and to

maximize reliability, RUS borrowers

must use heat or cold shrink sleeves

accepted by RUS (Refer to items U hf

and U hy in RUS Information

Publication 202–1, List of Materials

Acceptable for Use on Systems of RUS

Electrification Borrowers).

(6) Section 14.4: RUS may want to

consider dead front treatment of this

type transformer.

Response: RUS does not accept

enclosures such as sectionalizers and

transformers unless they are of the dead

front design.

(7) Section 25.1: Is it the intention to

require testing or to recommend testing

that would be helpful?

Response: Bulletin 1728F–806

requires that conductor continuity tests

be conducted while it recommends that

borrowers perform the high potential

test. The term ‘‘shall’’ has been changed

to ‘‘should’’ for the high potential test in

section 25.1.b.

(8) Drawing UC2–2: Cutouts placed on

the opposite side of the crossarm would

not expel fuse material on the

terminations.

Response: RUS agrees and has made

the modifications to accommodate the

suggested comment.

(9) Drawing UC5 and UC6: Clarify

underground source/or reverse switch.

Also, jumpers from switch to overhead

lines would not route to the pole like a

ground wire. End view of equipment

bracket needs to clarify separate phase

connections; may need to exaggerate

center phase offset.

Response: The center primary

conductor has been redrawn to depict a

primary conductor not a ground wire.

The devices are in line when seen from

the sideview.

(10) Drawing UG7: Position of

primary bushings not typical of

transformer supplied.

Response: RUS is more concerned

with detailing how the electrical

connections should be completed. The

philosophy of electrical connections is

important because the bushing layout

design may change from time to time.

The drawing shown depicts an ANSI

Type I transformer. As a result of this

connection, the neutral has been moved

to the bottom bushing.

(11) Drawings UJ1 and UJ2: Dead front

requirement is not clear.

Response: These drawings apply to

secondary connector blocks. Dead front

construction does not apply here.

However, to minimize chances for

confusion, a note stating ‘‘insulated

cover removed’’ has been added to the

drawings.

(12) Drawing UK6: Pentahead bolts on

a below grade enclosure would seem

unnecessary.

Response: Public access and safety

concerns for accessible underground

facilities are no different than above

grade construction.

(13) Sections 10 and 11 Method of

Calculating Minimum Conduit Size and

Installation in Conduit or Duct: Should

RUS provide an explanation of why

these two sections were deleted and

where a borrower can find information

on the installation of wire in conduit?

Response: The previous RUS

published method of calculating

conduit size is not the best available

method. RUS recommends that

borrowers contact cable and conduit

manufacturers for design and

installation instructions.

(14) Drawing UG9A: Should this

drawing be retained. It may be useful, as

a reference, when retiring this unit from

the field.

Response: This construction standard

is no longer recommended and has been

removed from Bulletin 1728F–806. RUS

suggests borrowers refer to RUS Bulletin

1767B–2 for reference of retirement

units.

(15) In general, the print size should

be increased, especially item letters

attached to drawings. It’s easy to

confuse e and c or a and o.

Response: The font sizes have been

increased.

(16) On all terminal drawings, delete

reference to parallel arresters. Those

haven’t been used since MOV arresters

came into being in 1982–83. Maybe RUS

should reinforce use of MOV’s on

underground in the material list under

Uae surge arrester—MOV only.

Response: RUS agrees and has

removed all notes referring to parallel

arresters as they are no longer

applicable to this RUS construction

standard.

(17) Do not specify elbows as part of

transformer drawings to be consistent

with UM3 and UM33 drawings. If RUS

would like to specify, UG7 needs 2

elbows not 1.

Response: RUS agrees to specify two

elbows on drawing UG7 to be consistent

with other drawings.

(18) On UM3–14 delete UM3–15 and

UM3–16. Only difference between –14

and –16 is the pad, which is spaced

separately. –15 is obsolete. Change

drawing to UM3. Redraw UM3–14 now

as UM3 and show a 3-point junction to

reflect the real world way the inside of

the cabinet would look. What’s

illustrated doesn’t exist.

Response: Drawings UM3–15 and

UM3–16 are obsolete and have been

removed. For the ground connections to

the enclosures, the ground wires are

hidden. RUS changed the mounting

arrangement to reflect field application.

(19) In drawing UX4, since we show

loops in ground rod connections for

transformers and pad mount equipment,

shouldn’t there be 2 connections to the

ground rod?

Response: Two connections in an

enclosure are required to provide

additional mechanical protection and to

complete the ground loop. Connections

to ground rods should be isolated and,

mechanically, should not be disturbed.

Therefore, dual connections to the

ground rods are not needed.

(20) On UX11 drawing, the note about

3 ft. max. is not needed. This

connection has lead length of effectively

0 feet. The note is misapplied.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 103 / Friday, May 26, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 34045

Response: The note has been removed

for the reasons presented in this

comment.

(21) Section 18: There is no reference

to concrete vaults and their associated

covers.

Response: Due to the wide variation

of concrete vaults available, RUS does

not have specific requirements for

concrete vaults.

(22) Units UB1, UB3, UB2–1, UC2–1:

The jumper between the top of the

terminator and the top of the arrester

crosses over the top of the crossarm.

This will undoubtedly kill lots of birds.

Response: Due to limitations of what

and how we can show details on

drawings, jumpers in drawings are for

demonstration purpose and may not

reflect actual field installation. Usually

raptors choose the highest point to

perch in search of prey and rest. On the

structure referred to in this comment,

most raptors can be expected to perch

on the pole top rather than the lower

crossarm. However, in locations where

there is a possibility that raptors may

use the lower crossarm, borrowers may

utilize insulated jumper wires for the

connection cited by the commentor.

(23) Drawings UG17 and UG17B:

Shows only one ground rod. Note that

UM 48–2 shows two (2) ground rods

which will help get below 25 ohms.

Response: The ground rods on the

drawings referred to by the commentor

are not part of the cited drawings as is

intended by their dotted appearance on

these drawings. The ground rods are

shown on these drawings only for

reference perspective purposes.

Grounding is required but for details on

the grounding, borrowers would refer to

the applicable RUS standard drawings

on which grounding and ground rod use

are included as part of the unit and

included in the materials list. The

applicable grounding drawings include

notes that advise borrowers that

depending on the condition and type of

soil, installation of multiple ground rods

may be necessary to attain a desirable

ground resistance. These drawing notes

also advise that, because use is site

specific, numbers and type of ground

rods are to be specified separately by the

engineer.

(24) Drawings UM 3–44 and UM 3–45:

Live bushing equipment in this type of

enclosure is not a good safety practice.

Suggest it not be allowed.

Response: The drawings were not

shown as intended. As can be seen from

the material listings for ‘‘be’’ and ‘‘el’’,

these items are to be supplied with

bushing wells and thus the drawings

need to be shown using elbows. The

drawings were changed to agree with

materials used.

(25) Drawing UM6 Page 5 of 8: In the

Notes, items Uhf are referred to for

resealing concentric neutral wires. What

are they?

Response: Item U hf is a cable sealing

kit. A note has been added to the

drawing to better explain this item and

its use. RUS accepted U hf products of

various manufacturers are included in

RUS Informational Publication 202–1,

List of Materials Acceptable for Use on

Systems of RUS Electrification

Borrowers.

(26) Drawing UA1—UC6: RUS

Bulletin 50–6 recommends, p

connectors as required, where as, RUS

Bulletin 50–3 required, p compression

connectors. It would be desirable to

maintain a consistent standard in the

type of connector required in making

the connection from the primary neutral

to the pole ground.

Response: RUS requires compression

connectors be used for grounding

connections on underground

construction. Many connector options

may be use for overhead connections

where conditions will generally be less

adverse than underground construction.

Compression connectors improve the

chances for more permanent

connections in underground

construction.

(27) Drawing UM48–2: This drawing

previously required #2 copper for the

grounding wire. This requirement does

not seem to be clearly spelled out in the

current drawing.

Response: The minimum size of

grounding wire to use is specified in the

National Electrical Safety Code (NESC).

As the size of grounding wire required

will vary, RUS no longer includes wire

size in the drawing and leaves

determination and specification to the

design engineer. RUS does not object to

using wire sizes which exceed the

minimum NESC requirements.

(28) Section 6.4 and 17.1: The two

inches of sand is not recommended by

the cable manufacturers. Sand serves as

a thermal insulator and de-rates the

cable ampacity. Also, for cable runs of

a 1⁄4 mile or more, a potential galvanic

action problem may be created for

grounding the cable as required by

NESC.

Response: Normally, good soil

removed during digging of a trench is

used as backfilling material. Sand is

used as backfill in situations where

removed soil is not suitable backfill

material and consists of large rocks and/

or sharp objects that could damage the

buried cable. Sand may not be the ideal

substitute as backfilling material.

However, in most rural low load factor

circuit use situations sand availability

and economic feasibility make it a

choice backfilling substitute.

(29) Drawing UK5: Locking

mechanism should have provisions for

company pad lock.

Response: NESC Rule 381G. requires

enclosures to be either locked or

otherwise secure against unauthorized

entry. RUS requires and accepts

enclosures that include the standard

penta-head bolt, which provides the

NESC intended security. Borrowers

wishing to also use padlocking facilities

in addition to having and using the

required penta-head bolt may do so.

(30) Can a note be included on some

drawings (such as UB1 where the

neutral is so high) allowing the neutral

to be lowered to get it down out of the

primary?

Response: The neutral may be moved

as long as the resulting installation

meets proper clearances and does not

violate safety codes.

(31) Several sections state that it is the

responsibility of the borrower to ensure

that the Contractor and the Owner. Is the

borrower not the owner? Maybe this

needs to be clarified.

Response: The commenter is correct

in that the ‘‘Owner’’ and ‘‘Borrower’’ are

generally the same entity. The ‘‘Owner’’

is the term used in RUS standard

contracts to refer to the RUS borrower

that executes the contract with the

contractor. Borrower refers to a RUS

borrower that has obtained financing

assistance from RUS and has executed

a loan contract with RUS. For accuracy

purposes, specific bulletin sections

deliberately refer to the contract

terminology noted.

(32) Several sections state that it is the

responsibility of the borrower to ensure.

This needs to be changed to include the

contractor as well.

Response: RUS does not have a

regulatory relationship that allows

establishment of requirements for

contractors. Thus, RUS requires the

borrower to ensure that the contractor

complies with contract provisions.

Borrowers are able to do so easily by use

of RUS construction contracts which

both the borrower and the contractor

sign. RUS contracts make the design

specification (RUS Bulletin 1728F–806

in this case) an integral part of the

contract under which the contractor is

contractually obligated to comply with

the specification provisions.

(33) Section 17: Need to define what

proper compaction is.

Response: Proper compaction

provisions vary greatly and depend on

local conditions. Compaction provision

should be established by the borrower

and completed in accordance with the

borrower’s satisfaction.

34046 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 103 / Friday, May 26, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

(34) Section 17.1: Is one inch too large

for having in backfill?

Response: Backfill with pieces of less

than one-inch (25 millimeter) size is

recommended.

(35) Section 18.1: Gravel or sand is

not needed under pads in all cases. This

should be optional.

Response: RUS agrees and the term

‘‘shall’’ has been changed to ‘‘may.’’

(36) Drawings UB2 and UC2: Why is

the crossarm shown on a different side

of the pole on these two drawings as

compared with UB1 and UC1? Why are

left side terminals and cutouts not out

to end of arms to balance construction?

Response: Drawings UB1 and UC1

detail construction utilizing crossarm

mounting arresters while drawings UB2

and UC2 detail construction utilizing

bracket mounting arresters. Brackets

mount on opposite sides of the pole to

provide for accessibility and clearances.

Equipment and hardware on the

structures have been redrawn to depict

balanced construction as suggested.

(37) Drawings UC5 and UC6:

Intermediate arresters are shown (we

guess that is why they are so large).

Most cooperatives use riser pole

arresters.

Response: We agree that the arrester

size is confusing and revised the

drawings to depict pole arrester use.

(38) Drawings UG6, UG7, UG17,

UG17–2 and UG17–3: No slack is shown

in primary cable. Most cooperatives

loop the primary over from the

secondary side to give slack so that

cables can be parked or switched.

Bulletin 50–6 showed the cable this

way.

Response: We agree with the utility

suggestion in this comment and revised

the drawing by adding a note to allow

slack in the primary cable installation.

(39) Drawing UG17: Requiring three

phase switches as implied by note 6

should be optional.

Response: Note 6 on Drawing UG17

advises that three phase switching

‘‘should’’ be installed where

ferroresonance may occur. The note is

cautionary to help avoid equipment

damage on three-phase installations

where ferroresonance is a possibility.

Because the word ‘‘should’’ is used and

not ‘‘must’’, three-phase switching

would not need to be installed in

situations where a borrower’s engineer

determined that ferroresonance would

not occur.

(40) Drawing UJ1: A note is needed on

the drawing stating that the connector

blocks must be insulated to have a

‘‘dead-front’’ unit.

Response: These are drawings

depicting various types of secondary

connector blocks. It is not the intent of

the bulletin to show dead front in this

drawing. To help dispel possible

confusion, the drawing includes a note

that states ‘‘insulated covers are not

shown’’.

(41) Drawing UK6: If this handhole is

metal, how is it to be grounded? Sign

should be a warning not danger.

Response: RUS accepted metal

pedestals must have grounding lugs

available on the inside wall. A note has

been added advising that all pedestals

shall be grounded in accordance with

the NESC. The placement of the safety

sign has been relocated to the pedestal

side (with the penta-head bolt lock) that

opens. Both DANGER and WARNING

signs have been added to the drawing’s

material listings. A WARNING sign

should be placed on the outside of the

enclosure where there is a potential

hazard. A DANGER sign should be

placed on the inside of the enclosure

where there is an imminent hazard.

(42) Drawing UM1–6C: Having three

or four different size pads might fit

these size transformers better. Note #1

requires 4000# concrete, but most use

3000# which would be adequate for

this.

Response: RUS agrees and has

amended Note 1 of the drawing to

specify the minimum at 3000 pounds

per square inch (20 megapascals).

(43) Drawings UM3–44 and UM3–46:

This is a dangerous installation since it

is not dead front. A bushing insert can

be installed in the recloser and then

primary cable run to it to make

everything deadfront.

Response: The drawings were not

shown as intended. As can be seen from

the material listings for ‘‘be’’ and ‘‘el’’,

these items are to be supplied with

bushing wells and thus the drawings

needs to be shown using elbows. The

drawings were changed to agree with

the materials used.

(44) Drawing UM6–27: Needs to be

omitted.

Response: RUS agrees and has deleted

this obsolete drawing.

(45) Drawing UM8–2: Ground rod

connector has to be above grade as per

code. Does the post need to be a

minimum size, such as 4 x 4 inches?

Response: Section 250–52(c)(3) of the

National Electrical Code requires that

the upper end of a driven ground rod be

flush with or below ground level unless

the rod end and the grounding electrode

conductor attachment are protected

against physical damage. The RUS

drawing shows the top of the rod well

beneath grade to depict greater

protection for the rod end and the

grounding attachment.

RUS has included a note to require a

minimum post size of 4 inches (10

centimeters) square or diameter.

(46) Drawing UM8–4: Why not show

conduit coming in bottom of meter base

to eliminate the elbow?

Response: RUS agrees and has revised

the drawing to show cable entering from

the base instead of from the side of the

meter.

(47) Drawing UM8–6: Why cannot a

meter be mounted to transformer?

Utilities do this all the time.

Response: RUS does not believe such

installations to be prudent. Mounting

metering equipment onto the wall of

padmounted transformers will require

some cutting and drilling which will

expose untreated transformer metal

surfaces. These surfaces overtime will

corrode prematurely and may cause

serious problems.

In addition, vibrations from the

transformer may affect the meter

operation. Also, anytime a transformer

is changed out, the meter has to be

changed as well.

(48) Drawing UM12: Should this sign

meet ANSI Z535 standards also? Would

it be a Notice or a Warning or a Caution?

Response: RUS agrees there may be

confusion with this drawing and revised

the drawing by adding the signal word

‘‘WARNING’’ to the label. A note was

also added requiring the sign to comply

with ANSI Z535.

(49) Drawing UM26: Needs to be

omitted. Nobody uses these anymore.

Response: RUS agrees that this

drawing depicts outdated construction

and removed the drawing.

(50) Drawing UM48–3: Is anode

needed for jacketed cable?

Response: The sacrificial anode (Item

U si) shown as a hidden line is optional.

Some RUS borrowers prefer to install

anodes at all ground points because

gophers might chew through the jacket

and expose the copper neutrals. The

sacrificial anode will provide corrosion

protection to such exposed neutral

wires preventing a loss of neutral

integrity.

(51) Drawing UX5: Need to show a

minimum distance between ground rods

as are done on other drawings.

Response: RUS agrees and has revised

the drawing to show a minimum

spacing of 6 ft. (1.8 m) between multiple

ground rods. (As a general rule, RUS

recommends that separation of ground

rods be no closer than the length of the

ground rods used. When rods are closer

to one another than their length they

will magnetically influence one another

and degrade grounding effectiveness.) A

note was also added to advise that

multiple rods may not fit inside the

enclosure. Where spacing inside an

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 103 / Friday, May 26, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 34047

enclosure does not allow the 6 ft. (1.8

m) separation between multiple ground

rods, one rod is to be installed inside

the enclosure and the other outside. The

ground loop has been redrawn to show

a complete loop with a conductor feed

from the loop down to the ground rod.

(52) Drawing UM7–1: There is no

minimum ground clearance shown on

any pole structures. If RUS does not

want to show minimum clearances,

perhaps a note regarding the source for

clearance information would be in

order.

Response: RUS agrees there is

possible confusion here. Clearances

were omitted purposefully because

alternative working methods may be

implemented along with appropriate

alternative working clearances as a

means of providing safety. To allay

concerns of this comment, RUS revised

the drawing by adding a note which

states that clearances must meet NESC

requirements.

(53) Certain existing drawings (UC5)

are a different design from the proposed

drawings. Certain materials used are

different and the specification will also

have different record units.

Response: RUS agrees and has

changed the drawing numbers to the

applicable drawings.

(54) When RUS changes a

construction specification, maybe RUS

should add a suffix to indicate that

change (example: UC5 change to UC5A

or UC5–1, or UC5–98)

Response: RUS agrees and has

changed the drawing numbers to the

applicable drawings.

(55) Drawing UM48–2: The drawing

shows the use of two ground rods in the

elevation view, however, the quantity of

rods is left open in the material list. I

and a number of fellow workers and

clients feel that it would be helpful to

add a note 3 stating that the quantity of

rods is to be determined by the specifier

and that the use of two rods rather than

one at a multi-phase transformer or

enclosure is not a standard or a

requirement by RUS.

Response: RUS agrees. Depending on

the condition and type of soil,

installation of multiple ground rods may

be necessary to attain a desirable ground

resistance. Thus, ground rods need to be

specified separately.

In response to this comment, RUS

added the following note to the

drawing: ‘‘The quantity of rods is to be

determined by the specifier. The use of

two rods rather than one at a multiphase transformer or enclosure is not a

standard or a requirement by RUS.’’

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1728

Electric power, Incorporation by

reference, Loan programs-energy, Rural

areas.

For reasons set out in the preamble,

RUS is amending 7 CFR part 1728 as

follows:

PART 1728—ELECTRIC STANDARDS

AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR

MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION

1. The authority citation for part 1728

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 901 et seq., 1921 et

seq., 6941 et seq.

2. Section 1728.97 is amended by

revising paragraph (a) and by adding, in

numerical order, the entry for Bulletin

1728F–806 to paragraph (b). The

revision and addition read as follows:

§ 1728.97 Incorporation by reference of

electric standards and specifications.

(a) The following electric bulletins

have been approved for incorporation

by reference by the Director of the Office

of the Federal Register. The bulletins

containing construction standards (50–3

to 50–6 and 1728F–803 to 1728F–811),

may be purchased from the

Superintendent of Documents, U.S.

Government Printing Office,

Washington, DC 20402. The bulletins

containing specifications for materials

and equipment (50–15 to 50–99 and

1728F–700) may be obtained from the

Rural Utilities Service, Program

Development and Regulatory Analysis,

Stop 1522, Room 4028-S, Washington,

DC 20250–1522. The terms ‘‘RUS form’’,

‘‘RUS standard form’’, ‘‘RUS

specification’’, and ‘‘RUS bulletin’’ have

the same meanings as the terms ‘‘REA

form’’, ‘‘REA standard form’’, ‘‘REA

specification’’, and ‘‘REA bulletin’’,

respectively unless otherwise indicated.

The bulletins are available for

inspection at the Office of the Federal

Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW,

Suite 700, Washington, DC. These

materials are incorporated as they exist

on the date of the approval and a notice

of any change in these materials will be

published in the Federal Register.

(b) * * *

Bulletin 1728F–806 (D–806),

Specifications and Drawings for

Underground Electric Distribution, June

2000.

* * * * *

Dated: May 15, 2000.

Jill Long Thompson,

Under Secretary, Rural Development.

[FR Doc. 00–13293 Filed 5–25–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–15–P

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

12 CFR Part 201

[Regulation A]

Extensions of Credit by Federal

Reserve Banks; Change in Discount

Rate

AGENCY: Board of Governors of the

Federal Reserve System.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Board of Governors has

amended its Regulation A on Extensions

of Credit by Federal Reserve Banks to

reflect its approval of an increase in the

basic discount rate at each Federal

Reserve Bank. The Board acted on

requests submitted by the Boards of

Directors of the twelve Federal Reserve

Banks.

DATES: The amendments to part 201

(Regulation A) were effective May 16,

2000. The rate changes for adjustment

credit were effective on the dates

specified in 12 CFR 201.51.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary of the

Board, at (202) 452–3259; for users of

Telecommunications Device for the Deaf

(TDD), contact Janice Simms, at (202)

872–4984, Board of Governors of the

Federal Reserve System, 20th and C

Streets NW, Washington, D.C. 20551.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to the authority of sections 10(b), 13, 14,

19, et al., of the Federal Reserve Act, the

Board has amended its Regulation A (12

CFR part 201) to incorporate changes in

discount rates on Federal Reserve Bank

extensions of credit. The discount rates

are the interest rates charged to

depository institutions when they

borrow from their district Reserve

Banks.

The ‘‘basic discount rate’’ is a fixed

rate charged by Reserve Banks for

adjustment credit and, at the Reserve

Banks’ discretion, for extended credit

for up to 30 days. In increasing the basic

discount rate from 5.5 percent to 6.0

percent, the Board acted on requests

submitted by the Boards of Directors of

the twelve Federal Reserve Banks. The

new rates were effective on the dates

specified below. The 50-basis-point

increase in the discount rate was

associated with a similar increase in the

federal funds rate approved by the

Federal Open Market Committee and

announced at the same time.

Increases in demand have remained

in excess of even the rapid pace of

productivity-driven gains in potential

supply, exerting continued pressure on

resources. The Board and the Reserve

Banks are concerned that this disparity