Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 62299

[FR Doc. 00–26501 Filed 10–17–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 00–2238; MM Docket No. 99–278; RM–

9424]

Radio Broadcasting Services;

Susquehanna, PA and Conklin, NY

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission, at the joint

request of Majac of Michigan, Inc., and

Equinox Broadcasting Corporation,

reallots Channel 223A from

Susquehanna, Pennsylvania, to Conklin,

New York, and modifies Station WKGB–

FM’s license accordingly. We also

reallot Channel 263A from Conklin,

New York, to Susquehanna,

Pennsylvania, and modify Station

WCDW(FM)’s license accordingly. See

64 FR 51284, September 22, 1999.

Channel 223A can be reallotted to

Conklin in compliance with the

Commission’s minimum distance

separation requirements at Station

WKGB–FM’s requested site. The

coordinates for Channel 223A at

Conklin are 42–06–53 North Latitude

and 75–51–16 West Longitude.

Additionally, Channel 263A can be

reallotted to Susquehanna in

compliance with the Commission’s

minimum distance separation

requirements at Station WCDW(FM)’s

requested site. The coordinates for

Channel 263A at Susquehanna are 42–

02–30 North Latitude and 75–41–30

West Longitude.

DATES: Effective November 13, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sharon P. McDonald, Mass Media

Bureau, (202) 418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Report

and Order, MM Docket No. 99–278,

adopted September 20, 2000, and

released September 29, 2000. The full

text of this Commission decision is

available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

FCC Reference Information Center

(Room CY–A257), 445 12th Street, SW.,

Washington, DC. The complete text of

this decision may also be purchased

from the Commission’s copy

contractors, International Transcription

Service, Inc., (202) 857–3800, 1231 20th

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting.

Part 73 of title 47 of the Code of

Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

Part 73 [AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 73

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 54, 303, 334, 336.

§ 73.202 [Amended]

2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM

Allotments under New York, is

amended by adding Channel 223A and

removing Channel 263A at Conklin.

3. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM

Allotments under Pennsylvania, is

amended by adding Channel 263A and

removing Channel 223A at

Susquehanna.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 00–26714 Filed 10–17–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

48 CFR Parts 931 and 970

RIN 1991–AB36

Acquisition Regulations; Costs

Associated With Whistleblower

Actions

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy

(Department) is amending its

acquisition regulations to address

contractor defense, settlement and

award costs associated with contractor

employee whistleblower actions. This

action implements a cost principle

approach in the Department of Energy

Acquisition Regulation (DEAR) which

will apply to the Department’s cost

reimbursement contractors and

subcontractors with a contract amount

exceeding $5,000,000.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is

effective November 17, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Terrence D. Sheppard, (202) 586–8193;

e-mail terry.sheppard@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background.

II. Disposition of Comments

III. Procedural Requirements.

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866.

B. Review Under Executive Order 12988.

C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility

Act.

D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction

Act.

E. Review Under the National

Environmental Policy Act.

F. Review Under Executive Order 13132.

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995.

H. Congressional Notification.

I. Background

The purpose of this final rule is to

establish the Department’s policy on the

reimbursement of contractor settlement,

award and defense costs associated with

contractor employee whistleblower

actions. This policy will cover the

Department’s cost reimbursement

contractors and subcontractors with a

contract amount in excess of $5,000,000.

Costs associated with whistleblower

actions filed by an employee in Federal

and state courts, and with Federal

agencies under 29 CFR Part 24, 48 CFR

Subpart 3.9, 10 CFR Part 708 or 42

U.S.C. 7239 will be subject to the

reimbursement provisions of the new

regulation.

This action grows out of rulemaking

notices published on January 5, 1998

(63 FR 386) and March 24, 1999 (64 FR

14206). The first notice published for

comment a proposed rule to create a

whistleblower costs clause. The second

notice reopened the comment period for

an alternate proposal using a cost

principle approach.

The alternate proposal was the result

of a number of factors, including: (1)

The Department’s experience in a few

high profile whistleblower actions; (2)

further review of the practices of the rest

of the Federal Government with this

cost category; (3) a Department effort to

reduce the number of cost clauses in

DEAR Part 970 in favor of a cost

principle approach (notice of proposed

rule published June 14, 2000 (65 FR

37335)); and (4) the comments received

in response to the initial proposed rule.

For the reasons stated below, the

Department has now concluded that the

cost principle approach, which provides

contracting officers with greater

flexibility in making determinations on

a case-by-case basis, is the best

approach for the circumstances facing

the Department and its facility

management contractors. However, the

Department has modified its initial cost

principle proposal in response to some

of the comments received concerning

that proposal.

II. Disposition of Comments

Two sets of comments were received

in response to the January 5, 1998,

notice of proposed rulemaking and five

sets of comments were received in

response to the March 24, 1999, notice

to reopen the comment period. Except

62300 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

for one set of comments from another

Federal agency, all comments were from

the Department’s contractors.

Contract Cost Clause Approach

Both sets of comments on the

proposed cost clause pointed out that

the result of the proposal to reimburse

settlement costs, while excluding costs

where an adverse determination is

made, would provide a financial

incentive for the Department’s

contractors to settle any employee claim

of retaliation, no matter how lacking in

merit, rather than risk an adverse

determination and the disallowance of

costs. The comments also asserted that

such a liberal policy for settlement of

questionable claims would encourage

frivolous claims.

It was, in part, as a result of these

comments that the Department

proposed the alternate cost principle

approach providing contracting officers

with greater flexibility in making caseby-case determinations based on the

facts of each case. In a case-by-case

approach, costs resulting from unlawful

or egregious contractor conduct would

be disallowed, while costs resulting

from the exercise of prudent business

judgment by the contractor would be

allowable.

Cost Principle Approach

Three of the contractors commented

that the alternate proposal would create

an administrative burden and

unnecessary and unallowable expense,

and they urged that the final regulation

not be expanded to labor cases beyond

whistleblower retaliation claims. All of

the contractor comments argued that the

existing contract clauses and cost

principle regulations provided sufficient

coverage for labor settlements and

litigation costs.

The Department agrees that the

regulation should not be expanded to

cover all labor cases and the final

regulation covers only employee

whistleblower actions alleging a

retaliatory act.

Final Rule

The final rule creates a cost principle

regulation to be added to 48 CFR

(DEAR) Part 931 and incorporated by

reference in 48 CFR (DEAR) Subpart

970.31. Contractors and subcontractors

covered by this regulation are those

with contracts for an amount in excess

of $5,000,000. The regulation requires

contracting officers to determine

allowability of defense, settlement and

award costs on a case-by-case basis after

considering the terms of the contract,

relevant cost regulations, and relevant

facts and circumstances, including

federal law and policy prohibiting

reprisal against whistleblowers, at the

conclusion of the employee

whistleblower claim. The cost principle

addresses only the costs associated with

whistleblower retaliation claims filed in

Federal and state courts and with

Federal agencies under 29 CFR Part 24,

48 CFR subpart 3.9, 10 CFR Part 708 or

42 U.S.C. 7239.

The Department recognizes that a

potential disadvantage of a case-by-case

approach is unwarranted variation in

cost allowability determinations in

cases involving similar circumstances.

Therefore, in order to promote an

evenhanded approach and to avoid

unwarranted variation, the Department

will name a member of the Office of

General Counsel who will consult with

representatives from the Office of

Procurement and Assistance

Management, the Office of Environment,

Safety and Health, and other

Headquarters program offices on

whistleblower costs. The Department’s

contracting officers will be required to

report their final allowability

determinations, and the analysis or

basis for their determinations, to the

Office of Procurement and Assistance

Management, which will collect that

information to determine whether

additional guidance to the field is

necessary. The collected information

will also be a resource for providing

advice to contracting officers. Internal

guidance is being issued to establish

procedures and points of contact for

consulting and reporting purposes.

This cost principle will be effective in

contracts awarded or executed by the

Department after the effective date of

this regulation. Whistleblower costs

clauses already contained in current

contracts will continue to be effective

unless a contract modification is

executed deleting the clause in favor of

cost principle coverage.

Since the Department published the

January 5, 1998, notice and the March

24, 1999, notice, the National Defense

Authorization Act for FY 2000 (Pub.L.

106–65) reorganized the Department.

Consistent with that Act, the

Department has amended the authority

citation for 48 CFR (DEAR) Parts 931

and 970 to include the citation for that

Act.

III. Procedural Requirements

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

Today’s regulatory action has been

determined not to be a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ under Executive

Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and

Review,’’ (58 FR 51735, October 4,

1993). Accordingly, this final rule was

not subject to review under that

Executive Order by the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs of

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB).

B. Review Under Executive Order 12988

With respect to the review of existing

regulations and the promulgation of

new regulations, section 3(a) of

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice

Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996),

imposes on Executive agencies the

general duty to adhere to the following

requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting

errors and ambiguity; (2) write

regulations to minimize litigation; (3)

provide a clear legal standard for

affected conduct rather than a general

standard; and (4) promote simplification

and burden reduction. With regard to

the review required by section 3(a),

section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988

specifically requires that Executive

agencies make every reasonable effort to

ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly

specifies the preemptive effect, if any;

(2) clearly specifies any effect on

existing Federal law or regulation; (3)

provides a clear legal standard for

affected conduct while promoting

simplification and burden reduction; (4)

specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5)

adequately defines key terms; and (6)

addresses other important issues

affecting clarity and general

draftsmanship under any guidelines

issued by the Attorney General. Section

3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires

Executive agencies to review regulations

in light of applicable standards in

section 3(a) and section 3(b) to

determine whether they are met or it is

unreasonable to meet one or more of

them. DOE has completed the required

review and determined that, to the

extent permitted by law, this regulation

meets the relevant standards of

Executive Order 12988.

C. Review Under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires

preparation of an initial regulatory

flexibility analysis for any rule that by

law must be proposed for public

comment unless the agency certifies that

the rule will not have a ‘‘significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.’’ DOE is not

required by the Administrative

Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) or any

other law to propose this procurement

rule for public comment. Accordingly,

the Regulatory Flexibility Act

requirements do not apply to this

rulemaking, and no regulatory flexibility

analysis has been prepared.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 62301

D. Review Under the Paperwork

Reduction Act

No new information or record keeping

requirements are imposed by this

rulemaking. Accordingly, no OMB

clearance is required under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.).

E. Review Under the National

Environmental Policy Act

DOE has concluded that promulgation

of this rule falls into a class of actions

which would not individually or

cumulatively have significant impact on

the human environment, as determined

by DOE’s regulations (10 CFR part 1021,

subpart D) implementing the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of

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

Specifically, this rule is categorically

excluded from NEPA review because

the amendments to the DEAR would be

strictly procedural (categorical

exclusion A6). Therefore, this rule does

not require an environmental impact

statement or environmental assessment

pursuant to NEPA.

F. Review Under Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999) requires agencies to

develop an accountable process to

ensure meaningful and timely input by

State and local officials in the

development of regulatory policies that

have ‘‘federalism implications.’’ Policies

that have federalism implications are

defined in the Executive Order to

include regulations that have substantial

direct effects on the States, on the

relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. DOE has

examined this rule and has determined

that it would not have a substantial

direct effect on the States, on the

relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. No further action

is required by Executive Order 13132.

G. Review Under the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) generally

requires a Federal agency to perform a

detailed assessment of costs and

benefits of any rule imposing a Federal

Mandate with costs to State, local or

tribal governments, or to the private

sector, of $100 million or more. This

rulemaking, which provides guidance

on the reimbursement of certain

contractor legal defense costs, does not

impact any state, local or tribal

government.

H. Congressional Notification

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will

report to Congress promulgation of this

final rule prior to its effective date. The

report will state that it has been

determined that the rule is not a ‘‘major

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 931 and

970.

Government procurement.

Issued in Washington, D.C. on October 2,

2000.

T.J. Glauthier,

Deputy Secretary.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, chapter 9 of Title 48 of the

Code of Federal Regulations is amended

as set forth below.

PART 931—CONTRACT COST

PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES

1. The authority citation for Part 931

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7101, et seq.; 40

U.S.C. 486(c); 50 U.S.C. 2401, et seq.; 42

U.S.C. 2201.

2. Section 931.205–47 is added to

read as follows:

931.205–47 Costs related to legal and

other proceedings. (DOE coverageparagraph (h)).

(h) Costs Associated with

Whistleblower Actions.

(1) Definitions for purposes of this

paragraph (h):

Covered contractors and

subcontractors means those contractors

and subcontractors with contracts

exceeding $5,000,000.

Employee whistleblower action means

any action filed by an employee in

Federal or state court for redress of a

retaliatory act by a contractor and any

administrative procedure initiated by an

employee under 29 CFR Part 24, 48 CFR

subpart 3.9, 10 CFR Part 708 or 42

U.S.C. 7239.

Retaliatory act means a discharge,

demotion, reduction in pay, coercion,

restraint, threat, intimidation or other

similar negative action taken against an

employee by a contractor as a result of

an employee’s activity protected as a

whistleblower activity by a Federal or

state statute or regulation.

Settlement and award costs means

defense costs and costs arising from

judicial orders, negotiated agreements,

arbitration, or an order from a Federal

agency or board and includes

compensatory damages, underpayment

for work performed, and reimbursement

for a complainant employee’s legal

counsel.

(2) For costs associated with

employee whistleblower actions where

a retaliatory act is alleged against a

covered contractor or subcontractor, the

contracting officer:

(i) May authorize reimbursement of

costs on a provisional basis, in

appropriate cases;

(ii) Must consult with the Office of

General Counsel whistleblower costs

point of contact, who will consult with

other Headquarters points of contact as

appropriate, before making a final

allowability determination; and

(iii) Must determine allowability of

defense, settlement and award costs on

a case-by-case basis after considering

the terms of the contract, relevant cost

regulations, and the relevant facts and

circumstances, including federal law

and policy prohibiting reprisal against

whistleblowers, available at the

conclusion of the employee

whistleblower action.

(3) Covered contractors and

subcontractors must segregate legal

costs, including costs of in-house

counsel, incurred in the defense of an

employee whistleblower action so that

the costs are separately identifiable.

(4) If a contracting officer

provisionally disallows costs associated

with an employee whistleblower action

for a covered contractor or

subcontractor, funds advanced by the

Department may not be used to finance

costs connected with the defense,

settlement and award of an employee

whistleblower action.

(5) Contractor defense, settlement and

award costs incurred in connection with

the defense of suits brought by

employees under section 2 of the Major

Fraud Act of 1988 are excluded from

coverage of this section.

PART 970—DOE MANAGEMENT AND

OPERATING CONTRACTS

3. The authority citation for Part 970

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42

U.S.C. 2201); Department of Energy

Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101, et seq.);

and National Nuclear Security

Administration Act (50 U.S.C. 2401, et seq.)

4. Section 970.3102–20, Cost

prohibitions related to legal and other

proceedings, is amended by adding

paragraph (c), Costs Associated with

Whistleblower Actions, to read as

follows:

970.3102–20 Costs related to legal and

other proceedings.

* * * * *

(c) Costs Associated with

Whistleblower Actions. Section

62302 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 18, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

931.205–47(h) of this chapter is

applicable to management and operating

contracts under this part and must be

included in the contract’s cost

reimbursement subcontracts.

[FR Doc. 00–26333 Filed 10–17–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AE87

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants: Threatened Status for the

Colorado Butterfly Plant (Gaura

neomexicana ssp. coloradensis) From

Southeastern Wyoming, Northcentral

Colorado, and Extreme Western

Nebraska

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife

Service (Service), have determined

threatened status under the Endangered

Species Act of 1973, as amended, for

Gaura neomexicana ssp. coloradensis

(Colorado butterfly plant). A short-lived,

perennial herb, G. n. ssp. coloradensis is

endemic to moist soils in mesic or wet

meadows of floodplain areas in north

central Colorado, extreme western

Nebraska, and southeastern Wyoming.

This subspecies occurs primarily in

habitats created and maintained by

streams active within their floodplains,

with vegetation that is relatively open

and not overly dense or overgrown. The

primary threats to G. n. ssp.

coloradensis is the indiscriminate

spraying of broadleaf herbicides and the

disturbance of riparian areas that

contain native grasses due to

agricultural conversion, water

diversions, channelization, and urban

development.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 17, 2000.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this

rule is available for inspection, by

appointment, during normal business

hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 4000 Airport Parkway,

Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mike Long, Field Supervisor, Wyoming

Field Office (see ADDRESSES section),

telephone 307/772/2374; facimile 307/

772–2358.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Background

Gaura neomexicana ssp. coloradensis

was initially described as G.

coloradensis by Rydberg (1904) based

on material collected near Fort Collins,

Colorado, in 1895. Munz (1938)

transferred G. coloradensis to G.

neomexicana and reduced it to variety

coloradensis. This taxon is now

recognized as G. n. ssp. coloradensis

(Raven and Gregory 1972).

Gaura neomexicana ssp. coloradensis

is a perennial herb that lives

vegetatively for several years before

bearing fruit once and then dying. It has

one or a few reddish, hairy stems that

are 50–80 centimeters (cm) (2–3 feet (ft))

tall. The lower leaves are lance-shaped

with smooth or wavy-toothed margins

and average 5–15 cm (2–6 inches (in.))

long, while those on the stem are

smaller and reduced in number. Flowers

are arranged in a branched, elongate

pattern above the leaves. Only a few

flowers are open at any one time and

these are located below the rounded

buds and above the mature fruits.

Individual flowers are 5–14 millimeters

(1⁄4–1⁄2in.) long with four reddish sepals

(modified leaves surrounding the

flower) and four white petals that turn

pink or red with age. The hard, nutlike

fruits are 4-angled and have no stalk.

Nonflowering plants consist of a

stemless, basal rosette of oblong,

hairless leaves 3–18 cm (1–7 in.) long

(Marriott 1987; Fertig 1994; Fertig et al.

1994).

Gaura neomexicana ssp. coloradensis

occurs on subirrigated, alluvial (stream

deposited) soils on level or slightly

sloping floodplains and drainage

bottoms at elevations of 1,524–1,951

meters (5,000–6,400 ft). Colonies are

often found in low depressions or along

bends in wide, active, meandering

stream channels a short distance

upslope of the actual channel. The plant

requires early-to mid-succession

riparian (river bank) habitat. It

commonly occurs in communities

dominated by Agrostis stolonifera

(redtop) and Poa pratensis (Kentucky

bluegrass) on wetter sites, and

Glycyrrhiza lepidota (wild licorice),

Cirsium flodmanii (Flodman’s thistle),

Grindelia squarrosa (curlytop

gumweed), and Equisetum laevigatum

(smooth scouring rush) on drier sites.

Both these habitat types are usually

intermediate in moisture between wet,

streamside communities dominated by

sedges (Carex spp.), rushes (Juncus

spp.), and cattails (Typha spp.), and dry,

upland shortgrass prairie. Typical G. n.

ssp. coloradensis habitat is open,

without dense or overgrown vegetation.

Salix exigua (coyote willow) and

Cirsium arvense (Canada thistle) may

become dominant in G. n. ssp.

coloradensis habitat that are not

periodically flooded or otherwise

disturbed. The plant occurs on soils

derived from conglomerates,

sandstones, and tuffaceous mudstones

and siltstones of the Tertiary White

River, Arikaree, and Oglalla Formations

(Love and Christiansen 1985). These

soils are common in eastern Colorado

and Wyoming.

Gaura neomexicana ssp. coloradensis

is an early successional plant (although

probably not a pioneer) adapted to use

stream channel sites that are

periodically disturbed. Historically,

flooding was probably the main cause of

disturbances in the plant’s habitat,

although wildfire and grazing by native

herbivores also may have been

important. Although flowering and

fruiting stems may undergo increased

mortality because of these events,

vegetative rosettes appear to be little

affected (Mountain West Environmental

Services 1985). However, the survival

rate of the vegetative rosettes appears to

be very dependent on available soil

moisture. In wet years, such as the past

few years, a large number of rosettes

have survived; however, in dry years or

during extended droughts, fewer

rosettes appear to survive to reach the

size necessary for flowering and

fruiting. Because the long-term viability

of this taxa relies on successful

flowering and fruiting, as well as the

difficulty in identifying small rosettes,

only the flowering plants are counted to

estimate population size and trends.

The establishment and survival of

seedlings appears to be enhanced at

sites where tall and dense vegetation

has been removed by some form of

disturbance. In the absence of

occasional disturbance, the plant’s

habitat can become choked out by dense

growth of willows (Salix spp.), grasses

(including red top (Agrostis stolinifera)),

baltic rush (Juncus balticus), and exotic

plants (such as Canada thistle (Cirsium

arvense) and leafy spurge (Euphorbia

esula)), which prevents new seedlings

from becoming established and

replacing plants that have died (Floyd

1995a; Fertig 1996).

Little is known about the historical

distribution of Gaura neomexicana ssp.

coloradensis. Prior to 1984, no extensive

documentation of the plant’s range had

been conducted. The plant was known

from several historical (and presumably

extirpated (Fertig 1994)) locations in

southeastern Wyoming, and at least four

historical (and presumably extirpated

(Fertig 1994)) locations in northern

Colorado; and from three extant

populations in Laramie County,