Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 3, 2000 / Notices 59021

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

Unemployment Compensation Denied

Claims Accuracy: Proposed

Information Collection and Request for

Public Comment

AGENCY: Employment and Training

Administration (ETA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice and request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as

part of its continuing effort to reduce

paperwork and respondent burden,

conducts a preclearance consultation

program to provide the general public

and Federal agencies with an

opportunity to comment on proposed

and/or continuing collections of

information in accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(PRA95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This

program helps to ensure that the

requested data can be provided in the

desired format, reporting burden (time

and financial resources) is minimized,

collection instruments are clearly

understood, and the impact of collection

requirements on respondents can be

properly assessed.

ETA is soliciting comments

concerning the proposed new collection

of information on the accuracy of

decisions to deny claims for

unemployment compensation (UC).

ETA is seeking Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) approval under the

PRA95 to establish Denied Claims

Accuracy (DCA) as a component of the

quality control (QC) program in the

Federal-State unemployment insurance

system (20 CFR Part 602). A copy of the

proposed data collection instrument is

available on the ETA Office of

Workforce Security (OWS) Web site,

http://workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/, or

can be can be obtained by contacting the

office listed in the Addresses section

below.

DATES: Written comments must be

submitted to the office listed in the

Addresses section below on or before

December 4, 2000.

ADDRESSES: All comments about this

proposed collection of information

should be addressed to: Andrew W.

Spisak, Office of Workforce Security,

Employment and Training

Administration, U.S. Department of

Labor, Room S–4231, 200 Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Andrew W. Spisak, telephone: 202–

219–5223, ext. 157 (this is not a toll-free

number); fax: 202–219–8506; e-mail:

aspisak@doleta.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Since 1987, all State Employment

Security Agencies (SESA’s), except the

Virgin Islands, have been required by

regulation at 20 CFR Part 602 to operate

a quality control program to assess the

accuracy of benefit payments in three

programs: State Unemployment

Insurance (UI), Unemployment

Compensation for Federal Employees

(UCFE), and Unemployment

Compensation for Ex-Servicemembers

(UCX). This program, implemented

under the Department’s authority at

Sections 303(a)(1) and 303(b)(1) of the

Social Security Act, was initially called

Benefits Quality Control but was

renamed Benefit Accuracy Measurement

(BAM) in 1996.

The BAM methodology requires each

State to draw weekly samples of UC

payments. Minimum annual samples

are set at 360 cases in the ten States with

the smallest volume of UC claims and

480 cases in all other States. A specially

trained staff of investigators reviews

agency records and contacts the

claimant, employer(s) and third parties

to verify all the information in agency

records and obtain additional

information pertinent to the benefit

amount for the sampled week. States

have the flexibility to verify the UC

payment information by telephone,

mail, e-mail or fax, as they deem

appropriate.

Using the new and verified

information, the investigators determine

what the benefit payment should have

been to accord fully with State law.

Differences between the actual and

reconstructed payments are coded as

underpayment or overpayment errors,

and data on payment error type (for

example, fraud, nonfraud, technically

proper), cause, and responsible party are

recorded in electronic databases in each

State and in the Department of Labor

National Office in Washington, D.C. The

SESA’s and the Department use this

information to estimate payment

accuracy rates, monitor program quality,

guide possible future program

improvements, inform system

stakeholders, and perform various

analyses. The program is operated under

OMB approval, OMB number 1205–

0245; approval expires October 31,

2002.

During the public consultation

process which preceded the

establishment of the QC/BAM program,

several public interest groups

representing employers, employees, and

State government agencies proposed

underlying principles to govern the

program. The Department adopted these

consensus principles in Unemployment

Insurance Program Letter (UIPL) No. 4–

86 (December 20, 1985).

In the final rule establishing the QC

program for UC, published in the

Federal Register (FR) at 52 FR 33520

(September 3, 1987), one of the

consensus principles states that QC

would be expanded to include the

review/investigation of claims that had

been denied [52 FR 33522].

In addition, 20 CFR 602.2 states that:

Other elements of the QC program (e.g.,

interstate, extended benefits programs,

benefit denials, and revenue collections) will

be phased in under a schedule determined by

the Department in consultation with State

agencies.

States determine claimant eligibility

for UC in three broad areas: monetary

determinations, separation

determinations, and nonseparation

determinations. Monetary

determinations are made when a claim

is initially filed (or when a claim is

made to establish a new benefit year) to

verify that the claimant has sufficient

wage credits in the base period and has

satisfied other monetary requirements to

demonstrate attachment to the labor

force.

Separation determinations are made

when the claim is initially filed or when

an additional claim is filed in the

claimant’s benefit year after a period of

intervening employment. Separation

determinations evaluate whether the

claimant’s unemployment is

involuntary and through no fault of the

claimant.

Nonseparation determinations verify

that the claimant is meeting the

eligibility requirements of State law for

a specific week of unemployment.

In 1986–87, five States conducted a

one-year pilot to measure the accuracy

of decisions to deny UC eligibility for

monetary, separation, and

nonseparation reasons. These States

tested three sampling designs and used

the BAM case investigation

methodology. Although the pilot

identified significant rates of error in the

denial decisions that were investigated,

national implementation of a program to

measure the accuracy of denied claims

was deferred because of resource

constraints and other program priorities,

such as the implementation of Benefit

Timeliness and Quality and the Tax

Performance System. Since the 1986–87

denied claims pilot, several groups,

including organized labor, employee

rights legal support groups, the

Department of Labor’s Office of

59022 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 3, 2000 / Notices

Inspector General, and the Vice

President’s National Performance

Review have urged the Department to

measure the accuracy of decisions that

deny UC benefit claims.

In 1995 the Performance

Enhancement Work Group (PEWG),

which consisted of senior SESA

managers and Federal staff,

recommended several changes in the

way UC operational performance was

measured and improved. The

Department accepted most of the

recommendations and has implemented

them as UI PERFORMS. UIPL No. 41–

95 (August 24, 1995) describes in detail

the UI PERFORMS performance

management system. Among the PEWG

recommendations with respect to BAM

were: (1) The implementation of a

system to measure the accuracy of

decisions to deny UC claims; (2)

reductions in the BAM paid claims

sample allocations; and (3) a

modification of data collection methods

to provide the States more flexibility in

using program resources, which would

be redirected to support UI PERFORMS

continuous improvement activities,

including investigating the accuracy of

denied claims.

UIPL No. 15–96 (April 2, 1996)

described the proposed changes and

solicited comments from the SESA’s.

According to the Attachment to the

UIPL, ‘‘Measuring UI Benefit Payment

Accuracy Under UI PERFORMS:

Proposed Changes to Benefits QC’’:

Under the proposal, staff freed up because

of sample reductions or changes in how

verifications are conducted will be available

for investigating denied claims and other UI

Performs [sic] activities, including taking

other performance measurements.

The implementation of the changes

and the reallocation of BAM resources

were reported in UIPL No. 3–97

(November 20, 1996).

Because significant time had elapsed

since the initial denied claims pilot, the

Department conducted a new pilot to

guide implementation of DCA. The

principal objectives of the pilot were:

• To test the operational feasibility of

applying the BAM paid claims

investigation methodology to denied UC

claims, including both intrastate and

interstate claims; and

• To evaluate whether the accuracy of

decisions to deny UC claims for

separation or nonseparation eligibility

reasons is adequately addressed through

the quarterly reviews of nonmonetary

determination quality (ET Handbook

301) or whether the accuracy of these

nonmonetary determinations can be

measured only through the more

comprehensive BAM fact-finding

process.

Five States (Nebraska, New Jersey,

South Carolina, West Virginia, and

Wisconsin) participated in this new

pilot. Sampling and investigation of

denied UC claims were conducted from

September 1997 through September

1998. A final pilot evaluation report was

issued in May 1999 and is available on

the OWS Web site at: http://

workforcesecurity.doleta.gov.

The five States that participated in the

new pilot demonstrated that the BAM

case investigation methodology was

easy to implement for both intrastate

and interstate claims, was successful in

detecting erroneously denied claims,

and identified valuable information on

the cause, responsible party, point of

detection, and prior agency action for

improperly denied claims that SESA’s

could use to improve UC operations.

The new pilot also demonstrated that

the results of the quarterly evaluations

of nonmonetary determination quality

are not a reliable predictor of the

accuracy of decisions to deny claims for

UC. Because of the fundamental

differences in the methodologies used in

BAM and the nonmonetary quality

review, both programs contribute

important but distinct information

within UI PERFORMS.

In general, the new pilot confirmed

the results of the initial pilot that

significant percentages of UC claims in

all three eligibility areas (monetary,

separation, and nonseparation) were

incorrectly denied, although accuracy

rates varied both among States and

among the three eligibility areas. These

results are summarized in Table 1.

TABLE 1.—PERCENTAGE OF CLAIMS ERRONEOUSLY DENIED BY TYPE OF DETERMINATION—1997–98 DENIALS PILOT

State Monetary

(pct.)

Separation

(pct.)

Nonseparation

(pct.)

Nebraska ...................................................................................................................................... 10.1 ( 9.6) 4.0 ( 3.5) 14.0 (13.5)

New Jersey .................................................................................................................................. 12.6 ( 8.2) 11.3 ( 6.2) 14.4 (11.8)

South Carolina ............................................................................................................................. 23.4 (16.2) 5.0 ( 3.0) 18.5 (17.0)

West Virginia ................................................................................................................................ 15.1 (13.5) 3.4 ( 2.9) 6.8 ( 5.8)

Wisconsin ..................................................................................................................................... 18.2 ( 9.4) 19.7 (16.3) 21.7 (16.3)

1997–98 Pilot Average ................................................................................................................ 16.0 (11.2) 8.7 ( 6.4) 15.0 (12.9)

1986–87 Pilot Average ................................................................................................................ 23 15 14

Note: The first percentage in each column

is the unadjusted percentage of erroneous

denials. The second percentage, in

parentheses, is adjusted for appeals,

redeterminations, and cases which the

agency was in the process of resolving.

II. Review Focus

The Department of Labor is

particularly interested in comments

which:

• Evaluate whether the proposed

collection of information is necessary

for the proper performance of the

functions of the agency, including

whether the information will have

practical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of the burden of the

proposed collection of information,

including the validity of the

methodology and assumptions used;

• Enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and

• Minimize the burden of the

collection of information on those who

are to respond, including through the

use of appropriate automated,

electronic, mechanical, or other

technological collection techniques or

other forms of information technology,

e.g., permitting electronic submission of

responses.

III. Current Actions

The Department of Labor proposes the

following methodology and operational

characteristics of DCA:

Sample Design and Sample Sizes:

Each week, States will select systematic

random samples from three separate

sampling frames constructed from the

universes of claims for UC for which

eligibility was denied for monetary,

separation, or nonseparation reasons.

States will use the BAM population edit

and sample selection software program,

which was distributed to all SESA’s in

January 1998, to select the weekly

samples. This software uses a systematic

random sampling algorithm. The

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 3, 2000 / Notices 59023

Department will distribute a table of

random start numbers to use with the

BAM/DCA sample selection program.

States will sample a minimum of 150

cases of each type of denial in each

calendar year. Unlike BAM paid claims

accuracy, in which the ten States with

the smallest workloads sample paid

claims at the reduced level of 360 cases

per year, all States are allocated the

same number of DCA cases. The

Department considers the annual

sample allocation of 150 cases for each

of the three types of denials to be the

minimum sample size required to

produce DCA rate estimates with

acceptable precision and to yield a

sufficient number of error cases to

produce program improvement

information. The proposed DCA sample

allocations also take into account the

likelihood of DCA claimant response

rates less than 100 percent. This will

result in fewer sample cases than the

allocated levels that will be available to

estimate accuracy rates and to provide

information on error causes,

responsibility, and other information

that can be used for program

improvement.

Table 2 shows the precision, as

measured by 95 percent confidence

intervals, and the number of sample

cases expected to be in error by various

error rates for the proposed DCA sample

size and the current BAM paid claims

sample allocations.

TABLE 2.—95 PERCENT CONFIDENCE INTERVALS AND EXPECTED NUMBER OF ERROR CASES BY ANNUAL SAMPLE SIZE

Error rate (%)

Denied claims accuracy Benefit accuracy measurement

Sample=150 Sample=360 Sample=480

95 pct. C.I.

(+/¥)

Expected

error cases *

95 pct. C.I.

(+/¥)

Expected

error cases *

95 pct. C.I.

(+/¥)

Expected

error cases *

5 ........................................................................... 3.5 8 2.3 18 2.0 24

10 ......................................................................... 4.8 15 3.1 36 2.7 48

15 ......................................................................... 5.7 23 3.7 54 3.2 72

20 ......................................................................... 6.4 30 4.1 72 3.6 96

25 ......................................................................... 6.9 38 4.5 90 3.9 120

30 ......................................................................... 7.3 45 4.7 108 4.1 144

35 ......................................................................... 7.6 53 4.9 126 4.3 168

40 ......................................................................... 7.8 60 5.1 144 4.4 192

45 ......................................................................... 8.0 68 5.1 162 4.5 216

50 ......................................................................... 8.0 75 5.2 180 4.5 240

* Rounded to the nearest integer.

Note: Confidence intervals are expressed as

the number of percentage points +/- for the

estimated error rate. Example: For an

estimated error rate of 20% and an annual

sample size of 150, the 95 percent confidence

interval is 20.0% + 6.4 (13.6%-26.4%).

The sampling errors in States with

relatively small populations of denied

claims will be slightly lower, due to the

higher percentage of the population that

is sampled.

Table 3 shows the 95 percent

confidence intervals for several error

rates and sampling fractions, for a

sample size of 150 cases. Based on CY

1999 data, a sample of 150 denials

exceeds 10 percent of the population of

monetary denials in eight States; and

exceeds 10 percent of the population of

separation denials in one State.

Sampling fractions for populations of

nonseparation denials are less than 10

percent in all States.

TABLE 3.—95 PERCENT CONFIDENCE INTERVALS BY ERROR RATE AND PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION SAMPLED

[Sample size=150 cases]

Percent of population sampled

Error rate (percent)

5 10 15 20 25

1 ............................................................................................................... 3.5 4.8 5.7 6.4 6.9

2 ............................................................................................................... 3.5 4.8 5.7 6.3 6.9

3 ............................................................................................................... 3.4 4.7 5.6 6.3 6.8

4 ............................................................................................................... 3.4 4.7 5.6 6.3 6.8

5 ............................................................................................................... 3.4 4.7 5.6 6.2 6.8

10 ............................................................................................................. 3.3 4.6 5.4 6.1 6.6

15 ............................................................................................................. 3.2 4.4 5.3 5.9 6.4

20 ............................................................................................................. 3.1 4.3 5.1 5.7 6.2

25 ............................................................................................................. 3.0 4.2 4.9 5.5 6.0

Scope: Denied intrastate and

interstate claims in the State UI, UCFE,

and UCX programs will be included in

DCA. In addition, interstate claims in

the UI, UCFE, and UCX programs will

be included in the BAM paid claims

sampling frames, effective with the

implementation of DCA. Paid and

denied interstate claims will be

included in the sampling frames of the

interstate liable State.

Operational Definitions of Sampling

Frames: Unless otherwise stated,

definitions refer to those used in ET

Handbook 401, 3rd edition. ETA report

cell references are those used in ET

Handbook 402, 4th edition.

(1) Monetary Denials

Include all initial claims that meet the

definition for inclusion in the ETA 5159

Claims and Activities report on lines

101 (State UI), 102 (UCFE, No UI), and

103 (UCX only), for item 2 (new

intrastate, excluding transitional), item

6 (transitional), and item 7 (interstate

59024 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 3, 2000 / Notices

received as liable State) and for which

eligibility was denied because of:

• Insufficient wages,

• Insufficient hours/weeks/days,

• Failure of high quarter wage test,

• Transitional wage requirement, or

• Other State monetary eligibility

requirement.

Exclude denied claims made under

the Short Time Compensation (STC)

(Workshare), Extended Benefits (EB),

Trade Readjustment Allowance (TRA),

Disaster Unemployment Assistance

(DUA), or any temporary Federal-State

supplemental compensation programs.

(2) Separation Denials

Include all separation determinations

that meet the definition for inclusion in

the ETA 9052 Nonmonetary

Determinations Time Lapse (Detection

Date) report in cells c1 (intrastate), c5

(interstate), and c193 (multi-claimant)

and for which eligibility was denied

based on any of the following issues:

• Lack of work (for example,

reduction in force, temporary lay off),

• Voluntary quit,

• Discharge,

• Labor dispute,

• Military, or

• Job attachment (claimant not

separated, including leave of absence).

Exclude denied claims made under

the STC, EB, TRA, DUA, or any

temporary Federal-State supplemental

compensation programs.

(3) Nonmonetary-Nonseparation Denials

Include all nonmonetarynonseparation determinations that meet

the definition for inclusion in the ETA

9052 Nonmonetary Determinations

Time Lapse (Detection Date) report in

cells c97 (intrastate), c101 (interstate),

and c193 (multiclaimant) and for which

eligibility was denied based on any of

the following issues:

• Able and/or available to work,

• Actively seeking work,

• Disqualifying/unreported income,

• Refusal of suitable work,

• Failure to apply for or accept

referral,

• Failure to report,

• Failure to register with the

employment service, or

• Other nonseparation eligibility

issue (for example, alienstatus, athlete,

school employee, seasonality,

determination of UI status, removal of

disqualification).

Exclude denied claims made under

the STC, EB, TRA, DUA, or any

temporary Federal-State supplemental

compensation programs.

Frequency and Timing: State agencies

will create a sampling frame file each

week. The sampling frame includes all

decisions to deny UC claims issued

during the period 12:00 a.m. Sunday to

11:59 p.m. Saturday. The date of the

determination is the date that the notice

of denial is mailed to the claimant,

presented to the claimant in-person, or

otherwise transmitted to the claimant by

the State agency. If no notice is

required, it is the date that the denial

action was entered into the agency’s

record system, that a stop payment

order was issued, or that an offset was

applied.

In the 1997–98 DCA pilot, several

claims for UC were sampled which were

initially denied for insufficient wages

but were subsequently determined to be

monetarily eligible upon the addition of

wages from out-of-State employers

(combined wage claims) or Federal

wages (UCFE and/or UCX programs).

The exchange of information on UCFE

and UCX wages is in the process of

being automated and expedited.

However, in order to allow time for

States to request and receive Federal

and combined wage credits, the

sampling frame for monetary denials

will be constructed two weeks after the

week ending date of the initial claim.

For example, for all new and

transitional initial claims filed during

the week ending June 10, 2000, the

sampling frame will consist of claims

for which the most recent determination

as of June 24 denies monetary

eligibility.

Case Investigation: All denied claims

sample cases will be investigated using

the BAM methodology, which is

documented in ET Handbook 395.

Investigators will review agency records

and contact the claimant, employer(s),

and all other relevant parties to verify

information in agency records or obtain

additional information pertinent to the

decision to deny eligibility. Unlike the

investigation of paid claims, in which

all decisions affecting claimant

eligibility that precede the compensated

week selected for the sample are

evaluated, the investigation of denied

claims will be limited to the issue, or

issues, upon which the denial decision

was based. For example, if a continued

week claim is denied because the

agency determined the claimant was not

available for work, then only the

availability issue will be investigated;

the monetary, separation and any prior

nonmonetary determinations will not be

investigated. Like the investigation of

paid claims, States have the flexibility

to conduct the investigation of denied

claims for UC by in-person interview,

telephone, mail or fax, as they deem

appropriate.

Resources: When BAM paid claims

sample sizes were reduced in

accordance with PEWG

recommendations to the 480/360 levels

in 1996 in preparation for DCA, State

staff allocations were adjusted to

provide sufficient resources to conduct

BAM paid and denied claims accuracy,

Benefit Timeliness and Quality, Tax

Performance System, and UI

PERFORMS continuous improvement

activities. Two full-time equivalent

(FTE) staff positions allocated to

continuous improvement activities will

support DCA. States will decide how to

allocate/apportion among staff BAM

paid and denied claims sample cases.

ADP Support: UIPL No. 1–98 (October

20, 1997) included the documentation

for the revised BAM population edit and

sample selection program, which was

distributed to all SESA’s in January

1998, and the specifications for

programming required to construct the

DCA sampling frame files, for which the

SESA’s are responsible. DCA

applications software, which was

developed for the DCA pilot, are

installed on the State Sun Ultra 10

computers provided by the Department.

Although this software is functional and

can be used to conduct DCA, several

modifications of and additions to this

software have been identified and will

be released to the States in advance of

the national implementation of DCA. In

addition, the BAM sample selection

program will be modified to include

paid interstate claims in the BAM

samples and to reflect revisions that

were identified in the DCA pilot, such

as the two-week lag in sampling

monetary denials. States will have to

recompile the revised COBOL program

on their ADP system.

Data Recording and Reports: States

will record the results of their

investigations using a standard data

collection instrument and suite of

software supplied by the Department.

The Department will collect this

information from the State databases,

store the data in a database in the

National Office in Washington, D.C.,

and produce annual statistics on the

accuracy rates for each of the three types

of denied claims by State.

Training: The Department will

conduct DCA training for State staff

during the calendar quarter preceding

national implementation. The

Department will issue a directive

containing details on the times,

locations, and content of the training in

advance of the sessions.

Type of Review: New.

Agency: Employment and Training

Administration.

Title: Unemployment Compensation

Denied Claims Accuracy.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 3, 2000 / Notices 59025

Record keeping: States are required to

follow their State laws regarding public

record retention in retaining BAM paid

and denied claims records.

Affected Public: Individuals;

Businesses; Other for-profit/not-forprofit organizations; Farms; Federal,

State, Local, and Tribal Governmental

entities.

Frequency: Weekly.

Total Respondents: 1,395 per week

(includes claimants, employers, third

parties, and SESA BAM/DCA staff).

Total Responses: 72,540 per year (52

State Agencies/1,395 per State; includes

claimants, employers, third parties, and

SESA DCA staff).

Estimated Time Per Response:

Claimant—0.5 hours; Employers and

Third Parties—0.5 hours; SESA BAM/

DCA staff—6.67 hours.

Total Burden Hours: 180,375 hours.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):

$1,014,000 (52 State Agencies/$19,500

per State).

Total Burden Cost (operating/

maintaining): $4,264,000 (annual)

(approximately $82,000 per State).

Comments submitted in response to

this request will be summarized and/or

included in the request for OMB

approval of the information collection

request; they will also become a matter

of public record.

Signed in Washington, D.C., on September

26, 2000.

Grace A. Kilbane,

Administrator, Office of Workforce Security.

[FR Doc. 00–25354 Filed 10–2–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–U

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Notice of Permit Applications Received

Under the Antarctic Conservation Act

of 1978 (P.L. 95–541)

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.

ACTION: Notice of Permit Modification

Received under the Antarctic

Conservation Act of 1978, P.L. 95–541.

SUMMARY: The National Science

foundation (NSF) is required to publish

a notice of requests to modify permits

issued to conduct activities regulated

under the Antarctic Conservation Act of

1978. NSF has published regulations

under the Antarctic Conservation Act at

Title 45 Part 670 of the Code of Federal

Regulations. This is the required notice

of a requested permit modification.

DATES: Interested parties are invited to

submit written data, comments, or

views with respect to this permit

application on or before November 2,

200. Permit applications may be

inspected by interested parties at the

Permit Office, address below.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to Permit Office, Room 755,

Office of Polar Programs, National

Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson

Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nadene G. Kennedy at the above

address or (703) 292–7405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

National Science Foundation, as

directed by the Antarctic Conservation

Act of 1978 (Public Law 95–541), has

developed regulations that implement

the ‘‘Agreed Measures for the

Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and

Flora’’ for all United States citizens. The

Agreed Measures, developed by the

Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties,

recommended establishment of a permit

system for various activities in

Antarctica and designation of certain

animals and certain geographic areas a

requiring special protection. The

regulations establish such a permit

system to designate Specially Protected

Areas and Sites of Special Scientific

Interest.

DESCRIPTION OF PERMIT MODIFICATION

REQUESTED: The Foundation issued a

permit (2000–004) to Dr. Paul J.

Ponganis on September 21, 1999. The

issued permit allows the applicant to

capture up to 60 Emperor adults and 55

Emperor chicks for collection of

samples and application of various

depth recorders, physiological recorders

or video cameras to study the

thermoregulation and underwater

behavior of Emporer penguins.

The applicant proposes to access the

Cape Crozier Antarctic Specially

Protected Area #124 to census Emperor

penguin chicks.

LOCATION: ASPA 124—Cape Crozier,

Ross Island.

Dates: November 15, 2000 to February 28,

2002.

Nadene G. Kennedy,

Permit Officer, Office of Polar Programs.

[FR Doc. 00–25380 Filed 10–2–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Notice of Permit Application Received

Under the Antarctic Conservation Act

of 1978

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.

ACTION: Notice of Permit Applications

Received Under the Antarctic

Conservation Act.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

the National Science Foundation (NSF)

has received a waste management

permit application for operation of a

remote field support and emergency

provisions for the Expedition Vessel,

Kapitan Dranitsyn for the 2000–2001

season and four following austral

summers. The application is submitted

to NSF pursuant to regulations issued

under the Antarctic Conservation Act of

1978.

DATES: Interested parties are invited to

submit written data, comments, or

views with respect to this permit

application on or before November 2,

2000. Permit applications may be

inspected by interested parties at the

Permit Office, address below.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to Permit Office, Room 755,

Office of Polar Programs, National

Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson

Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joyce A. Jatko or Nadene Kennedy at the

above address or (703) 292–8030.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NSF’s

Antarctic Waste Regulation, 45 CFR Part

671, requires all U.S. citizens and

entities to obtain a permit for the use or

release of a designated pollutant in

Antarctica, and for the release of waste

in Antarctica. NSF has received a permit

application under this Regulation for

operation of up to nine expeditions per

year to Antarctica. During each trip,

passengers are taken ashore at selected

sites by Zodiac (rubber raft) or

helicopter for approximately two to four

hours at a time. On each helicopters

landing, emergency gear would be taken

ashore in case weather deteriorates and

passengers are required to camp on

shore. Anything taken ashore will be

removed from Antarctica and disposed

of in Ushuaia, Argentina, Port Stanley,

Falkland Islands, or a substitute port of

disembarkation. No hazardous domestic

products or wastes (aerosol cans, paints,

solvents, etc.) will be brought ashore.

Cooking stoves/fuel will be used only in

an emergency were passengers are

forced to spend night on shore.

Conditions of the permit would include

requirements to report on the removal of

materials and any accidental releases,

and management of all waste, including

human waste, in accordance with

Antarctic waste regulations.

Applications for the permit is made

by: Lars Winkander, Quark Expeditions,

Inc., 980 Post Road, Darien, CT 06820.

LOCATION: Antarctic Peninsula Area.