62610 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 203 / Thursday, October 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

according to the manufacturer’s

specifications. These items are controlled

under ECCN 5A992.

Related Definitions: (1) The term ‘‘money

transactions’’ in paragraph (e) of Related

Controls includes the collection and

settlement of fares or credit functions. (2) For

the control of global navigation satellite

systems receiving equipment containing or

employing decryption (e.g., GPS or

GLONASS) see 7A005.

Items:

Technical Note: Parity bits are not

included in the key length.

a. Systems, equipment, application specific

‘‘electronic assemblies’’, modules and

integrated circuits for ‘‘information security’’,

and other specially designed components

therefor:

a.1. Designed or modified to use

‘‘cryptography’’ employing digital techniques

performing any cryptographic function other

than authentication or digital signature

having any of the following:

Technical Notes: 1. Authentication and

digital signature functions include their

associated key management function.

2. Authentication includes all aspects of

access control where there is no encryption

of files or text except as directly related to

the protection of passwords, Personal

Identification Numbers (PINs) or similar data

to prevent unauthorized access.

3. ‘‘Cryptography’’ does not include

‘‘fixed’’ data compression or coding

techniques.

Note: 5A002.a.1 includes equipment

designed or modified to use ‘‘cryptography’’

employing analog principles when

implemented with digital techniques.

a.1.a. A ‘‘symmetric algorithm’’ employing

a key length in excess of 56-bits; or

a.1.b. An ‘‘asymmetric algorithm’’ where

the security of the algorithm is based on any

of the following:

a.1.b.1. Factorization of integers in excess

of 512 bits (e.g., RSA);

a.1.b.2. Computation of discrete logarithms

in a multiplicative group of a finite field of

size greater than 512 bits (e.g., Diffie-Hellman

over Z/pZ); or

a.1.b.3. Discrete logarithms in a group

other than mentioned in 5A002.a.1.b.2 in

excess of 112 bits (e.g., Diffie-Hellman over

an elliptic curve);

a.2. Designed or modified to perform

cryptanalytic functions;

a.3. [Reserved]

a.4. Specially designed or modified to

reduce the compromising emanations of

information-bearing signals beyond what is

necessary for health, safety or

electromagnetic interference standards;

a.5. Designed or modified to use

cryptographic techniques to generate the

spreading code for ‘‘spread spectrum’’

systems, including the hopping code for

‘‘frequency hopping’’ systems;

a.6. Designed or modified to provide

certified or certifiable ‘‘multilevel security’’

or user isolation at a level exceeding Class B2

of the Trusted Computer System Evaluation

Criteria (TCSEC) or equivalent;

a.7. Communications cable systems

designed or modified using mechanical,

electrical or electronic means to detect

surreptitious intrusion.

5A992 Equipment not controlled by 5A002.

* * * * *

List of Items Controlled

Unit: $ value

Related Controls: N/A

Related Definitions: N/A

Items:

a. Telecommunications and other

information security equipment containing

encryption.

b. ‘‘Information security’’ equipment,

n.e.s., (e.g., cryptographic, cryptanalytic, and

cryptologic equipment, n.e.s.) and

components therefor.

5D992 ‘‘Information Security’’ ‘‘software’’

not controlled by 5D002.

* * * * *

List of Items Controlled

Unit: $ value

Related Controls: N/A

Related Definitions: N/A

Items: 1

a. ‘‘Software’’, as follows:

a.1 ‘‘Software’’ specially designed or

modified for the ‘‘development’’,

‘‘production’’, or ‘‘use’’ of

telecommunications and other information

security equipment containing encryption

(e.g., equipment controlled by 5A992.a);

a.2. ‘‘Software’’ specially designed or

modified for the ‘‘development’’,

‘‘production:, or ‘‘use’’ of information

security or cryptologic equipment (e.g.,

equipment controlled by 5A992.b).

b. ‘‘Software’’, as follows:

b.1. ‘‘Software’’ having the characteristics,

or performing or simulating the functions of

the equipment controlled by 5A992.a.

b.2. ‘‘Software’’ having the characteristics,

or performing or simulating the functions of

the equipment controlled by 5A992.b.

c. ‘‘Software’’ designed or modified to

protect against malicious computer damage,

e.g., viruses.

5E992 ‘‘Information Security’’

‘‘technology’’, not controlled by 5E002.

* * * * *

List of Items Controlled

Unit: N/A

Related Controls: N/A

Related Definitions: N/A

Items:

a. ‘‘Technology’’ n.e.s., for the

‘‘development’’, ‘‘production’’ or ‘‘use’’ of

telecommunications equipment and other

information security and containing

encryption (e.g., equipment controlled by

5A992.a) or ‘‘software’’ controlled by

5D992.a.1 or b.1.

b. ‘‘Technology’’, n.e.s., for the

‘‘development’’, ‘‘production’’ or ‘‘use’’ of

‘‘information security’’ or cryptologic

equipment (e.g., equipment controlled by

5A992.b), or ‘‘software’’ controlled by

5D992.a.2, b.2, or c.

Dated: October 11, 2000.

R. Roger Majak,

Assistant Secretary for Export

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–26646 Filed 10–18–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–33–P

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration

29 CFR Part 1952

North Carolina State Plan: Coverage of

the American National Red Cross;

Change in Level of Federal

Enforcement

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA), U.S.

Department of Labor.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document amends

OSHA regulations to reflect the

Assistant Secretary’s approval of a

change to the North Carolina

occupational safety and health state

plan excluding coverage of the

American National Red Cross and its

facilities from the plan and assumption

of Federal enforcement authority over

the American National Red Cross in

North Carolina.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 19, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bonnie Friedman, Director, Office of

Information and Consumer Affairs,

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration, U.S. Department of

Labor, Room N3637, 200 Constitution

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210,

(202) 693–1999.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

Section 18 of the Occupational Safety

and Health Act of 1970 (the Act), 29

U.S.C. 667, provides that States which

wish to assume responsibility for

developing and enforcing their own

occupational safety and health

standards may do so by submitting and

obtaining Federal approval of a State

plan. State plan approval occurs in

stages which include initial approval

under section 18(b) of the Act and,

ultimately, final approval under section

18(e).

The North Carolina State plan was

initially approved on February 1, 1973

(38 FR 3041). On December 18, 1996,

OSHA announced the final approval of

the North Carolina State plan pursuant

to section 18(e) and amended Subpart I

of 29 CFR part 1952 to reflect the

Assistant Secretary’s decision (61 FR

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 203 / Thursday, October 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 62611

66593). As a result, Federal OSHA

relinquished its authority with regard to

occupational safety and health issues

covered by the North Carolina plan.

Federal OSHA retained its authority

over Federal government employers and

employees; the U.S. Postal Service

(USPS), including USPS employees, and

contract employees and contractoroperated facilities engaged in USPS mail

operations; private sector maritime

activities; employment on Indian

reservations; enforcement relating to

any contractors or subcontractors on any

Federal establishment where the land

has been ceded to the Federal

Government; railroad employment; and

enforcement on military bases. 29 CFR 1952.155, which codifies

OSHA’s final approval decision,

provides that any hazard, industry,

geographical area, operation or facility

over which the State is unable to

effectively exercise jurisdiction for

reasons not related to the required

performance or structure of the plan

shall be deemed to be an issue not

covered by the plan and shall be subject

to Federal enforcement.

In response to jurisdictional questions

raised concerning a local chapter of the

American National Red Cross, the North

Carolina Department of Labor, the State

agency responsible for occupational

safety and health enforcement, sought a

determination from its Attorney General

regarding the State’s jurisdiction over

working conditions at American

National Red Cross facilities. On

February 4, 2000, the North Carolina

Attorney General’s Office issued a

determination which concluded the

‘‘Red Cross’’ to be an ‘‘instrumentality of

the federal government’’ within the

meaning of North Carolina General

Statute § 95–128, which provides that

the State Occupational Safety and

Health Act applies to all employers and

employees except ‘‘the federal

government, including its departments,

agencies and instrumentalities.’’ Thus,

North Carolina has concluded that it

does not have authority under State law

to regulate safety and health with regard

to working conditions of employees at

the American National Red Cross. The

State now has requested that such

facilities be excluded from coverage

under its State plan and that Federal

OSHA assume enforcement authority. Although Federal OSHA believes that

most States with OSHA-approved State

plans have authority under State law to

regulate working conditions of

employees of the American National

Red Cross and that the Red Cross is not

a Federal instrumentality, North

Carolina law has a somewhat different

provision which has been interpreted by

the State Attorney General’s Office to

preclude State OSHA coverage.

Therefore, since the State has excluded

the American National Red Cross from

coverage under its plan and Federal

OSHA has determined that Federal

coverage of American National Red

Cross facilities would be

administratively practicable, Federal

OSHA will assume jurisdiction over the

American National Red Cross facilities

in North Carolina.

B. Location of Supplement for

Inspection and Copying

A copy of the North Carolina Attorney

General determination referenced in this

notice as well as information on the

North Carolina plan is available during

normal business hours at the following

locations:

Office of State Programs, Occupational

Safety and Health Administration,

U.S. Department of Labor, 200

Constitution Avenue NW, Room

N3700, Washington, DC 20210; Office of the Regional Administrator,

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration, U.S. Department of

Labor, Atlanta Federal Center, 61

Forsyth Street, SW, Room 6T50,

Atlanta, Georgia 30303; and Office of the Commissioner, North

Carolina Department of Labor, 4 West

Edenton Street, Raleigh, North

Carolina 27601–1092.

For electronic copies of this notice,

visit OSHA’s Web Page at http://

www.osha.gov/.

C. Public Participation

Under 29 CFR 1953.2(c), the Assistant

Secretary may prescribe alternative

procedures to expedite the review

process or for other good cause which

may be consistent with applicable laws.

North Carolina’s Final Approval

determination issued after an

opportunity for public comment in

1996, specifically provides that Federal

standards and enforcement will apply to

safety or health issues the State is

unable to cover under its State plan, and

this notice implements that provision.

Accordingly, OSHA finds that further

public participation is not necessary.

D. Decision

To assure worker protection under the

OSH Act, Federal OSHA will assume

jurisdiction over the American National

Red Cross and its facilities in North

Carolina. OSHA is hereby amending 29

CFR part 1952, Subpart I, to reflect this

change in the scope of the State plan

and the level of Federal enforcement in

North Carolina

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

OSHA certifies pursuant to the

Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) that this action will

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities. No additional burden will be

placed upon the State government

beyond the responsibilities already

assumed as part of the approved State

plan.

F. Federalism

Executive Order 13132 on

‘‘Federalism’’ emphasizes consultation

between Federal agencies and the States

and establishes specific review

procedures the Federal government

must follow as it carries out policies

which affect State or local governments.

OSHA has included in the

Supplementary Information section of

today’s notice a general explanation of

the relationship between Federal OSHA

and the State Plan States under the

Occupational Safety and Health Act.

OSHA has consulted with the State on

its decision on this issue. Although

OSHA has determined that the

requirements and consultation

procedures provided in Executive Order

13132 are not applicable to State

decisions on the extent of State Plan

coverage under the OSH Act which have

no effect outside the particular State,

OSHA has reviewed the decision

approved today and believes it has been

made in a manner consistent with the

principles and criteria set forth in the

Executive Order.

This document was prepared under

the direction of Charles N. Jeffress,

Assistant Secretary of Labor for

Occupational Safety and Health. It is

issued under section 18 of the OSH Act,

(29 U.S.C. 667), 29 CFR Part 1902, and

Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 1–90 (55

FR 9033).

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1952

Intergovernmental relations, Law

enforcement, Occupational safety and

health, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Signed at Washington, D.C. this 13 day of

October 2000.

Charles N. Jeffress,

Assistant Secretary.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 29 CFR part 1952 is hereby

amended as set forth below:

PART 1952—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 1952

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Sec 18, 84 Stat, 1608 (29 U.S.C.

667); 29 CFR part 1902, Secretary of Labor’s

Order No. 1–90 (55 FR 9033).

62612 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 203 / Thursday, October 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Subpart I—North Carolina

2. Section 1952.154 is amended by

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

§ 1952.154 Final approval determination.

* * * * *

(b) Except as otherwise noted, the

plan which has received final approval

covers all activities of employers and all

places of employment in North

Carolina. The plan does not cover

Federal government employers and

employees; the U.S. Postal Service

(USPS), including USPS employees, and

contract employees and contractoroperated facilities engaged in USPS mail

operations; the American National Red

Cross; private sector maritime activities;

employment on Indian reservations;

enforcement relating to any contractors

or subcontractors on any Federal

establishment where the land has been

ceded to the Federal Government;

railroad employment; and enforcement

on military bases.

* * * * *

3. Section 1952.155 is amended by

revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as

follows:

§ 1952.155 Level of Federal enforcement.

* * * * *

(b)(1) In accordance with section

18(e), final approval relinquishes

Federal OSHA authority only with

regard to occupational safety and health

issues covered by the North Carolina

plan. OSHA retains full authority over

issues which are not subject to State

enforcement under the plan. Thus,

Federal OSHA retains its authority

relative to safety and health in private

sector maritime activities and will

continue to enforce all provisions of the

Act, rules or orders, and all Federal

standards, current or future, specifically

directed to private sector maritime

activities (occupational safety and

health standards comparable to 29 CFR

Parts 1915, shipyard employment; 1917,

marine terminals; 1918, longshoring;

and 1919; gear certification, as well as

provisions of general industry and

construction standards (29 CFR Parts

1910 and 1926) appropriate to hazards

found in these employments);

employment on Indian reservations;

enforcement relating to any contractors

or subcontractors on any Federal

establishment where the land has been

ceded to the Federal Government;

railroad employment, not otherwise

regulated by another Federal agency;

and enforcement on military bases.

Federal jurisdiction is also retained with

respect to Federal government

employers and employees; the U.S.

Postal Service (USPS), including USPS

employees, and contract employees and

contractor-operated facilities engaged in

USPS mail operations; and the

American National Red Cross.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–26946 Filed 10–18–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Minerals Management Service

30 CFR Part 206

RIN 1010–AC72

Amendments to Gas Valuation

Regulations for Indian Leases

AGENCY: Minerals Management Service

(MMS), Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: MMS is removing the special

timing requirements for adjustments

and audits of royalties on gas produced

from Indian leases in Montana and

North Dakota. If not removed, these

timing requirements could force tribal

and MMS auditors to expend additional

time and money or postpone ongoing

audits to meet the restricted time

periods. Removing these timing

restrictions should increase royalties

collected for Indian leases in these

States.

DATES: The effective date of this final

rule is November 20, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David S. Guzy, Chief, Rules and

Publications Staff, Minerals

Management Service, Royalty

Management Program, P.O. Box 25165,

MS 3021, Denver, CO 80225–0165;

telephone (303) 231–3432; fax (303)

231–3385; or e-mail

David.Guzy@mms.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

principal author of this final rule is

Richard Adamski, Royalty Valuation

Division, Royalty Management Program

(RMP), MMS.

I. Background

On August 10, 1999, MMS published

a final rule titled ‘‘Amendments to Gas

Valuation Regulations for Indian

Leases,’’ (64 FR 43506) with an effective

date of January 1, 2000. These

regulations apply to all gas production

from Indian (tribal or allotted) oil and

gas leases (except leases on the Osage

Indian Reservation). The new

regulations resulted from a negotiated

rulemaking among Indian tribes and

allottees, the oil and gas industry, and

MMS.

Among the newly adopted regulations

was a provision at 30 CFR 206.174(l)

requiring that for Indian leases in

Montana and North Dakota, lessees

must make adjustments to reported

royalty values sooner, and MMS must

complete its audits sooner, than either

has done historically. This provision

does not apply to Indian leases in other

States.

The final rule limited the adjustment

and audit period for Indian leases in

Montana and North Dakota because,

unlike most other producing regions,

there are no acceptable published

indexes applicable to that area (64 FR

43510). Accordingly, in areas such as

Montana and North Dakota, valuation

must be based on other criteria that are

more difficult to determine than index

prices.

After the final rule was promulgated,

tribal auditors informed MMS that the

special timing requirements at 30 CFR

206.174(l) could force tribal and MMS

auditors to expend additional time and

money or postpone ongoing audits in

Montana and North Dakota to meet the

restricted time periods. Moreover, MMS

believes that the reason for only placing

time limits on Indian leases in Montana

and North Dakota is not compelling.

Consequently, on June 15, 2000, MMS

published a proposed rulemaking (65

FR 37504) to remove the requirements.

The proposed rulemaking provided for

a 30-day comment period that ended

July 17, 2000.

II. Comments on Proposed Rule

During the comment period for the

proposed rule, MMS received two

written comments: one from an Indian

tribe (tribe) and one from industry. After

careful consideration of the comments,

MMS has decided to issue this final rule

removing the special timing

requirements for adjustments and audits

of royalties on gas produced from Indian

leases in Montana and North Dakota.

This amendment to the regulations will

apply prospectively to gas produced on

or after the effective date specified in

the DATES section above.

General Comments

The industry commenter opposed the

removal of the time limitations. The

commenter believes that industry

received the earlier valuation certainty

in return for agreeing to an increase in

the major portion calculation percentage

to the 75th percentile. The commenter

suggested that if MMS removes the

adjustment and audit time limits then

MMS should also change the major

portion calculation to reflect the

historical major portion value at the

50th percentile.