26656 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 89 / Monday, May 8, 2000 / Notices

These circumstances call for governmentto-government initiatives to root out bribery

and corruption in international procurement

markets. The Administration is aggressively

pursuing this objective in a wide range of

international fora. The OECD Convention on

Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials

in International Business Transactions, for

example, represents a major breakthrough in

this area. The Convention obligates the

parties to criminalize bribery of foreign

public officials in the conduct of

international business, which can include

government procurement. It is aimed at

proscribing the activities of those who offer,

promise, or pay a bribe. For this reason the

Convention is often characterized as a

‘‘supply side’’ agreement, as it seeks to effect

changes in the conduct of companies in

exporting nations. The Convention entered

into force in February 1999 for 12 of the 34

signatories. As of April 2000, 20 signatories,

including the United States, had ratified it.

In March 1996, countries in the Western

Hemisphere concluded negotiations on the

Inter-American Convention Against

Corruption. To date, 26 countries have signed

it and 18 have ratified. This Convention, a

direct result of the Summit of the Americas

Plan of Action, requires that the signatories

criminalize bribery, using language modeled

in part on the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices

Act, and adopt other various measures aimed

at both national and international corruption.

The Convention entered into force in March

1997 for those countries which have ratified

it.

The Administration is pursuing a broad

range of complementary initiatives in the

WTO and other international and regional

trade fora. For example, we continue to press

WTO Members for early conclusion of a

multilateral Agreement on Transparency in

Government Procurement. We have also led

initiatives to ensure full and timely

implementation of the WTO Agreement on

Customs Valuation and to strengthen the

operation of the WTO Agreement on PreShipment Inspection. As part of the Business

Facilitation initiative for the Free Trade

Agreement of the Americas, the

Administration has already secured

important commitments to ensure

transparency and due process, particularly in

relation to customs procedures, that will

apply to all 34 countries of the Western

Hemisphere. These initiatives strengthen the

international rule of law and help to create

a transparent, stable and predictable business

environment that suppresses corrupt

practices and allows U.S. firms and their

workers to compete on a level playing field

in overseas markets.

F. Offsets in Defense Trade

When purchasing defense systems from

U.S. contractors, many foreign governments

require compensation, in the form of offsets,

as a condition of purchase in either

government-to-government or commercial

sales of defense articles and/or defense

services. Offsets include mandatory coproduction, licensed production,

subcontractor production, technology

transfer, countertrade, and foreign

investment. Offsets may be directly related to

the weapon system being exported, or they

may take the form of compensation unrelated

to the exported item, such as foreign

investment or countertrade.

Originally designed to enhance allied

national security, some key U.S. trading

partners now use offsets to pursue economic

and commercial objectives. Department of

Commerce data indicates that, while over 90

percent of recent offset agreements were

associated with exports of U.S. aerospace

weapons systems, almost half the resulting

offset transactions were fulfilled with nonaerospace products. Such mandatory offset

requirements may negatively affect U.S. firms

and their workers by enhancing foreign

suppliers’ competitive capabilities or

opportunities, reducing U.S. exports, and

potentially limiting domestic job

opportunities in these industries. They may

also have a negative impact on the foreign

buyer, since contract award decisions that are

determined by the willingness or ability of a

supplier to provide offsets may result in

procurement that does not achieve the best

possible value in terms of the price and

quality of the equipment, installation,

materials or services supplied.

An Interagency Offset Steering Committee,

chaired by the Department of Defense and

including representatives of the Departments

of Commerce, State and Labor and the Office

of the United States Trade Representative,

was established in 1999. The Committee has

been working to develop strategies that

would reduce the adverse effects that defense

related offsets may have on the industrial

base and on U.S. trade interests. On this

basis, the Committee has initiated bilateral

discussions with U.S. allies in an effort to

focus allied governments’ attention on the

adverse effects of offsets in defense trade and

to explore ways for reducing or eliminating

them.

Carmen Suro-Bredie,

Chairman, Trade Policy Staff Committee.

[FR Doc. 00–11415 Filed 5–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3190–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

Environmental Impact Statement:

Lehigh and Norththampton Counties,

Pennsylvania

AGENCY: Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this

notice to advise the public that an

Environmental Impact Statement will be

prepared for a proposed highway project

in Lehigh and Northampton Counties,

Pennsylvania.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David W. Cough, P.E., Operations Group

Leader, Federal Highway

Administration, Pennsylvania Division

Office, 228 Walnut Street, Room 536,

Harrisburg, PA 17101–1720, Telephone:

(717) 221–3411 OR Donald Lerch,

Assistant District Engineer,

Pennsylvania Department of

Transportation, District 5–0, 1713

Lehigh Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania,

18103, Telephone (610) 798–4131.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

FHWA, in cooperation with the

Pennsylvania Department of

Transportation (PennDOT), and the

Lehigh Valley Planning Commission

will prepare an Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) to identify and evaluate

alternatives for improvements to the

U.S. Route 22 corridor in Lehigh and

Northampton Counties, Pennsylvania.

The proposed action would consist of

improvements along U.S. Route 22

between its interchanges with Interstate

78 to the west and S.R. 248 to the east,

a distance of approximately 31 km (19

miles). Included in the overall project

will be the identification of a range of

alternatives that meet the identified

project needs, and supporting

environmental documentation and

analysis to recommend a selected

alternative for implementation. A

complete public involvement program is

included as part of the project.

Documentation of the need for the

project is being prepared. This process

will identify the need for roadway

improvements through the study area

based on local and regional

transportation demand, system linkage

and continuity, geometric criteria, safety

and local and regional planning.

Alternatives that will be considered

may include, but will not be limited to:

No Build; transportation systems

management (TSM) upgrade existing

facility, construction on new alignment,

upgrade of existing road network, mass

transit, traffic control measures, (TCM),

and travel demand management (TDM).

These alternatives will be the basis for

recommendation of alternatives to be

carried forward for detailed

environmental and engineering studies

in the EIS.

Letters describing the proposed action

and soliciting comments will be sent to

appropriate federal, state and local

agencies and to private organizations

and citizens who express interest in this

proposal. Public meetings will be held

in the area throughout the study

process. Public involvement and agency

coordination will be maintained

throughout the development of the EIS.

To ensure that the full range of issues

related to the proposed action are

addressed and all significant issues are

identified, comments and suggestions

are invited from all interested parties.

Comments or questions concerning this

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 89 / Monday, May 8, 2000 / Notices 26657

proposed action and the EIS should be

directed to FHWA or PennDOT at the

address provided above.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning

and Construction. The regulations

implementing Executive Order 12372

regarding intergovernmental consultation on

Federal programs and activities apply to this

program)

Issued on: April 25, 2000.

James A. Cheatham,

FHWA Division Administrator.

[FR Doc. 00–11413 Filed 5–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs

Administration

[RSPA–00–7283, Notice No. 00–4]

Safety Advisory Notice; Use of NonComplying Portable Tanks for

Transportation of Propane

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs

Administration (RSPA), DOT.

ACTION: Safety advisory notice.

SUMMARY: This safety advisory notice is

to make persons aware of safety

concerns related to the intermodal

transportation of propane in portable

tanks and of the proper packaging

requirements for such transportation.

RSPA has become aware of several

instances where propane was

improperly transported in portable

tanks. This suggests that some persons

who offer or transport propane in

portable tanks may not be fully aware of

the applicable requirements of the

Hazardous Materials Regulations. This

notice alerts offerors and transporters to

potential safety problems and

summarizes the proper packaging

requirements for offering or accepting

propane in portable tanks for

transportation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Diane LaValle, Office of Hazardous

Materials Standards, RSPA, Department

of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street,

SW., Washington, DC 20590–0001,

Telephone (202) 366–8553.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The U.S. Coast Guard has identified

problems with certain portable tanks

used to transport propane in and

between the states of Washington and

Alaska. It appears that many of the

portable tanks in this service may not

conform to the requirements of the

Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR;

49 CFR parts 171–180) and to

requirements for approval and

inspection of cargo containers (49 CFR

parts 450–453). Some of the deficiencies

identified may pose a significant safety

threat.

On March 17, 2000, a SeaLand/CSX

cargo vessel transporting over 6,000

gallons of propane in a portable tank

encountered rough seas. The portable

tank broke loose from its frame,

damaging its external piping and

releasing over 100 gallons of propane.

Although the release of propane in this

incident was relatively small, the

potential for a catastrophic incident

involving the bulk transportation of

propane on board vessels should not be

minimized. A significant release of

propane, coupled with a fire or

explosion, would place the crew and the

vessel at serious risk.

Subsequent inquiries and

investigations by RSPA’s Offices of

Hazardous Materials Enforcement and

Hazardous Materials Technology, the

Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Administration, and the U.S. Coast

Guard identified several potential

problems with portable tanks used for

the intermodal transportation of

propane. These problems involve

improper mounting of portable tanks to

container frames, substandard welds

where portable tanks are attached to

container frames, overfilling,

improperly modified cargo tanks, and

invalid specification packaging

markings. Preliminary indications are

that such deficiencies may affect a

significant number of portable tanks in

intermodal propane service. An initial

industry estimate is that perhaps 60

percent of 500 portable tanks involved

in this transportation may not conform

to HMR requirements. Because these

tanks are used in intermodal service, the

potential safety problems could affect

highway and rail transportation, in

addition to transportation by vessel.

II. Requirements for the Transportation

of Propane in Portable Tanks

Section 173.315 of the HMR

authorizes the transportation of propane

in a number of bulk packagings,

including DOT Specification 51 portable

tanks. Specifications for the design and

manufacture of DOT Specification 51

portable tanks are in Subpart H of Part

178 of the HMR.

Design and construction. Generally,

DOT 51 portable tanks must be

designed, constructed, certified, and

stamped in accordance with the ASME

Code in effect at the time the tank is

constructed (see § 178.245–1). Welds

used in tank construction, as well as

welding procedures and weld

performance tests, must conform to the

ASME Code (see § 178.245–1(b)). The

regulations also include specific

requirements for tank openings and

filling and discharge connections (see

§ 178.245–1(d)). Among other

requirements, each filling and discharge

connection below the normal liquid

level of the tank must be equipped with

an internal self-closing stop valve

capable of closing within 30 seconds of

actuation.

The regulations for DOT 51 portable

tanks also include specific requirements

applicable to materials of construction

(§ 178.245–2), design pressure

(§ 178.245–3), mountings (§ 178.245–4),

and damage protection (§ 178.245–5).

A DOT 51 portable tank that meets the

definition of a ‘‘container’’ in 49 CFR

450.3(a)(2) must also conform to the

requirements of 49 CFR parts 450

through 453 for compliance with Annex

II of the International Convention for

Safe Containers, particularly with regard

to attachment of the portable tank to its

intermodal frame (see § 178.245–

1(d)(4)(i) and 178.245–4(e)). Parts 450

through 453 establish requirements and

procedures for safety approval and

periodic examination of cargo

containers. Portable tanks that meet the

definition of ‘‘container’’ for purposes of

Parts 450 through 453 must be inspected

by an agency that has been approved by

the US Coast Guard. As defined in 49

CFR 450.3(a)(2), a ‘‘container’’ is an

article of transport equipment that: (1) Is

suitable for repeated use; (2) is designed

to facilitate the transport of goods by

one or more modes of transport without

intermediate reloading; (3) is designed

to be secured and readily handled with

corner fittings for these purposes; and

(4) has an area enclosed by the bottom

four corners that is at least 150 square

feet or 75 square feet if it has top corner

fittings.

Periodic inspections and tests.

Portable tanks used for the

transportation of hazardous materials

must undergo periodic inspections and

tests to assure the continued integrity of

the tank and its appurtenances. The

requirements for periodic inspection

and testing of DOT 51 portable tanks are

in § 173.32(e). Every five years, a DOT

51 portable tank must successfully pass

a pressure test that conforms to the

requirements in § 173.32(e)(2)(i) and a

visual inspection that conforms to the

requirements in § 173.32(e)(2)(ii). The

date of the most recent periodic test and

inspection must be marked on the tank

on or near its certification plate. A

portable tank for which the prescribed

tests or inspections have become due

may not be filled and offered for