71126 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 29, 2000 / Notices

UL 2106 Field Erected Boiler

Assemblies

UL 2157 Electric Clothes Washing

Machines and Extractors

UL 2158 Electric Clothes Dryers

UL 2161 Neon Transformers and

Power Supplies

UL 2250 Instrumentation Tray Cable

FMRC 3600 Electrical Equipment for

Use in Hazardous (Classified)

Locations, General Requirements 1

FMRC 3610 Intrinsically Safe

Apparatus and Associated Apparatus

for Use in Class I, II and III, Division

1 Hazardous (Classified) Locations 1

FMRC 3611 Electrical Equipment for

Use in Class I, Division 2; Class II,

Division 2; and Class III, Division 1

and 2 Hazardous Locations 1

FMRC 3615 Explosionproof Electrical

Equipment, General Requirements

UL 8730–2–3 Automatic Electrical

Controls for Household and Similar

Use; Part 2: Particular Requirements

for Thermal Motor Protectors for

Ballasts for Tubular Fluorescent

Lamps

Testing and certification of products

under this test standard is limited to

Class I locations. See also general note

and limitation for hazardous location

testing.1

These standards are approved for

equipment or materials intended for

use in commercial and industrial

power system applications. These

standards are not approved for

equipment or materials intended for

use in installations that are excluded

by the provisions of Subpart S in 29

CFR 1910, in particular Section

1910.302(b)(2).2

Note 1: All safety testing for Class I

locations is limited to recognized ITSNA

sites properly pre-qualified by ITSNA. Also

see general limitation on intrinsic testing

below.

Note 2: Testing and certification of gas

operated equipment is limited to equipment

for use with ‘‘liquefied petroleum gas.’’

The designations and titles of the

above test standards were current at the

time of the preparation of this current

notice.

Many of the above test standards are

approved as American National

Standards by the American National

Standards Institute (ANSI). However, for

convenience, we use the designation of

the standards developing organization

(e.g., UL 22) for some of these standards,

as opposed to the ANSI designation

(e.g., ANSI/UL 22). Under our

procedures, an NRTL recognized for an

ANSI approved test standard may use

either the latest proprietary version of

the test standard or the latest ANSI

version of that standard, regardless of

whether it is currently recognized for

the proprietary or ANSI version. Contact

ANSI or the ANSI web site to find out

whether or not a standard is currently

ANSI approved.

As previously noted, the NRTL

Program staff recommended certain

limitations on intrinsic testing, which is

partly described in the note and

footnote above and more fully below.

These limitations will apply to the

recognition of all test standards that

involve intrinsic testing and for which

ITSNA is recognized.

ITSNA may perform safety testing for

hazardous location products only at the

specific ITSNA sites that OSHA has

recognized, and that have been prequalified by the ITSNA Chief Engineer.

In addition, all safety test reports for

hazardous location products must

undergo a documented review and

approval at the Cortland testing facility

by a test engineer qualified in hazardous

location safety testing, prior to ITSNA’s

initial or continued authorization of the

certifications covered by these reports.

All the above limitations apply solely to

ITSNA’s operations as an NRTL.

Conditions

ITSNA must also abide by the

following conditions of the recognition,

in addition to those already required by

29 CFR 1910.7:

ITSNA may not test and certify any

products for a client that is a

manufacturer or vendor, and that is

either owned in excess of 2% by ITSLtd,

or affiliated organizationally with

ITSNA, including Compliance Design.

OSHA must be allowed access to

ITSNA’s facility and records for

purposes of ascertaining continuing

compliance with the terms of its

recognition and to investigate as OSHA

deems necessary;

If ITSNA has reason to doubt the

efficacy of any test standard it is using

under this program, it must promptly

inform the test standard developing

organization of this fact and provide

that organization with appropriate

relevant information upon which its

concerns are based;

ITSNA must not engage in or permit

others to engage in any

misrepresentation of the scope or

conditions of its recognition. As part of

this condition, ITSNA agrees that it will

allow no representation that it is either

a recognized or an accredited Nationally

Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL)

without clearly indicating the specific

equipment or material to which this

recognition is tied, or that its

recognition is limited to certain

products;

ITSNA must inform OSHA as soon as

possible, in writing, of any change of

ownership, facilities, or key personnel,

and of any major changes in its

operations as an NRTL, including

details;

ITSNA will meet all the terms of its

recognition and will always comply

with all OSHA policies pertaining to

this recognition;

ITSNA will continue to meet the

requirements for recognition in all areas

where it has been recognized; and

ITSNA will always cooperate with

OSHA to assure compliance with the

spirit as well as the letter of its

recognition and 29 CFR 1910.7.

Signed at Washington, DC this 20 day of

November, 2000.

Charles N. Jeffress,

Assistant Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–30412 Filed 11–28–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P

INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND

WATER COMMISSION

‘‘Reconstruction of the American

Canal Project,’’ Located in El Paso,

Texas; Notice of Draft Finding of No

Significant Impact

AGENCY: United States Section,

International Boundary and Water

Commission, United States and Mexico.

ACTION: Notice of draft Finding of No

Significant Impact for a draft

Environmental Assessment.

SUMMARY: Based on a draft

environmental assessment (EA), the

United States Section, International

Boundary and Water Commission

(USIBWC), finds that the proposed

action of reconstruction of the existing

American Canal is not a major federal

action that would have a significant

adverse effect on the quality of the

human environment. An environmental

impact statement will not be prepared

for the project unless additional

information which may affect this

decision is brought to the attention of

the USIBWC within thirty (30) days of

the date of this Notice. The draft

Finding of No Significant Impact

(FONSI) and draft EA have been

forwarded to the United States

Environmental Protection Agency and

various Federal, State and local agencies

and interested parties. The draft FONSI

and EA are also available at the

reference desk at University of Texas At

El Paso Library and El Paso Main

Library, and on the USIBWC Home Page

at http://www.ibwc.state.gov under

‘‘What’s New.’’ A limited number of

copies of these documents are available

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 29, 2000 / Notices 71127

for review and comment upon request

from USIBWC at the following address:

Ms. Sylvia Waggoner, Division

Engineer, USIBWC, 4171 North Mesa

Street, C–310, El Paso, TX 79902.

Telephone: (915) 832–4740, e-mail:

sylviawaggoner@ibwc.state.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Proposed Action

The proposed rehabilitation and

enlargement of the 1.98-mile-long

American Canal (also known as Reach F

of the Rio Grande American Canal

Extension or RGACE) involves

demolishing the deteriorating concrete

open channel segments of the canal and

replacing them with reinforced

concrete-lined canal segments. The

USIBWC is authorized under the Rio

Grande American Canal Extension Act

of 1990 (the Act of 1990), Public Law

101–438, dated October 15, 1990, to

construct, operate, and maintain an

extension of the existing American

Canal in El Paso, Texas; which ‘‘would

provide for a more equitable

distribution of waters between the

United States and Mexico, reduce water

losses, and minimize many hazards to

public safety.’’

Water for both irrigation and domestic

use in El Paso County is diverted into

the American Canal at the American

Dam located on the Rio Grande

approximately 3 miles upstream from

downtown El Paso. The American Dam

and American Canal were constructed

from 1937 to 1938, within United States

territory to divert United States waters

away from the Rio Grande, and to allow

into the international reach of the Rio

Grande only those waters assigned to

the United Mexican States under the

Convention of 1906. This ensured that

United States waters diverted at the

American Dam would be completely

retained within the United States.

In the Act of 1990, the United States

Congress also authorized the negotiation

of international agreements for the

RGACE to convey Mexican waters

authorized under the 1906 Convention.

In view of the conveyance water losses

and the safety issues inherent in

Mexico’s existing canal system, the

RGACE was designed to accommodate

Mexico’s annual 60,000 acre-foot

allotment of water at 335 cubic feet per

second (cfs), should Mexico request its

allotment delivered at this location.

Alternatives Considered

Five alternatives, including the Open

Channel Alternative (the Proposed

Action Alternative) and the No Action

Alternative, were considered during the

preparation of the environmental

assessment. All four action alternatives

include (1) increasing the canal capacity

to 1535 cfs, (2) demolition of existing

canal structures and open channel

concrete lining, (3) reconstructing and

enlarging the 400-foot open channel

segment immediately downstream from

the headgates and the 100-foot open

channel segment upstream from the

gaging station, (4) not repairing or

replacing the two closed conduit

segments under West Paisano Drive, (5)

installing fences to minimize entrance

into the canal, (6) installing safety

equipment to reduce canal drownings,

(7) removing the Smelter Bridge and the

abutments of Hart’s Mill Bridge, and (8)

providing mitigation of the loss of the

Smelter Bridge by preparing Historic

American Engineering Record (HAER)

Level III documentation of the structure

(including existing and original

construction drawings, captioned

photographs, and written data). The

alternatives are summarized below:

Alternative 1—Closed Conduit

Alternative: All existing open channel

segments (Upper, Middle, and Lower)

between the American Dam and

International Dam would be replaced

with closed conduits, with the two

excepted open reaches in the Upper

Open Channel segment. This

Alternative would be the most

expensive to construct and would lose

the historic open visual character of the

canal.

Alternative 2—Closed Conduit/Open

Channel Alternative A: The Middle

Open Channel segment would be

replaced with a closed conduit. The

Upper and Lower Open Channel

segments would be reconstructed and

enlarged. This alternative would

accomplish all the objectives, but would

lose the historic open visual character of

the canal in the segment most visible to

the public. It would likely triple the

number of pedestrian traffic fatalities on

nearby highways.

Alternative 3—Closed Conduit/Open

Channel Alternative B: The Middle and

Lower Open Channel segments would

be replaced with closed conduits. The

Upper Open Channel segment would be

reconstructed and enlarged. This

alternative would accomplish all the

objectives, but at a cost second highest

among the action alternatives. It would

also likely triple the number of

pedestrian traffic deaths on nearby

highways.

Alternative 4—Open Channel

Alternative (the Proposed Action

Alternative): The Upper, Middle, and

Lower Open Channel segments would

be reconstructed and enlarged. This

Alternative would accomplish all the

necessary objectives at the lowest

construction cost. It would result in the

lowest number of pedestrian traffic

fatalities on nearby highways. Though

the original canal lining would be

replaced, this Alternative would

preserve the visual open character of the

canal.

Alternative 5—No Action Alternative:

The three open channel segments would

be left untouched, with no

replacements, enlargements, or repairs

of any canal segments. While this

alternative preserves intact the historic

Smelter Bridge, it does not accomplish

any of the stated objectives. The annual

number of drownings in the Canal

would not be reduced. Without

reconstruction or major repair of the

canal, a serious canal failure is likely

within the next five years, especially

during the peak irrigation period with

the highest canal flow. Such a canal

failure would likely close the American

Canal for at least one month during

costly emergency repairs. If the canal

flow was disrupted due to a month of

repairs, the El Paso Water Utilities

production of potable water would be

reduced by 80 to 120 million gallons per

day, and over a thousand El Paso

County farmers could lose their crops,

likely resulting in up to 500

bankruptcies. The No Action

Alternative is not considered to be a

viable alternative.

Environmental Assessment (EA)

The USIBWC completed the Draft EA

for the proposed action on August 22,

2000. The Draft EA is available for

review and comment at the previouslycited address.

The Draft EA finds that the proposed

action does not constitute a major

federal action that would cause a

significant local, regional, or national

adverse impact on the environment,

because the Proposed Action

Alternative would:

1. Improve structural stability of the

American Canal, ensuring an

uninterrupted flow of allotted water

from the Rio Grande to El Paso County

farms and to existing and planned El

Paso Water Utilities water treatment

facilities.

2. Minimize seepage loss through the

cracks in the canal lining;

3. Provide the full design capacity

(1535 cfs) influent into the RGACE;

4. Improve safety and reduce the risk

of accidental drownings in the

American Canal by installing fences and

safety equipment;

5. Preserve the historical open

channel character of the Canal, and

6. Preserve historical and

photographic documentation of the

71128 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 29, 2000 / Notices

historic Smelter Bridge per HAER Level

III Standard.

Based on the Draft Environmental

Assessment and the implementation of

the proposed historical mitigation, it has

been determined that the proposed

action will not have a significant

adverse effect on the environment, and

an environmental impact statement is

not warranted.

Dated: October 26, 2000.

William A. Wilcox, Jr.,

Attorney-Advisor (General).

[FR Doc. 00–30079 Filed 11–28–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7010–01–P

INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND

WATER COMMISSION

United States and Mexico

Notice of Availability of Final

Environmental Impact Statement for

the El Paso-Las Cruces Regional

Sustainable Water Project Sierra and

Don ̃a Ana Counties, New Mexico and

El Paso County, Texas

AGENCY: United States Section,

International Boundary and Water

Commission, United States and Mexico.

ACTION: Notice of availability of final

environmental impact statement.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(c)

of the National Environmental Policy

Act of 1969, as amended, the United

States Section, International Boundary

and Water Commission (USIBWC) in

conjunction with the El Paso Water

Utilities/Public Service Board has

prepared a final environmental impact

statement (FEIS) on the El Paso-Las

Cruces Regional Sustainable Water

Project in Sierra and Don ̃a Ana counties,

New Mexico and El Paso County, Texas

as proposed by the New Mexico-Texas

Water Commission. The FEIS analyzes

the no action alternative and the

impacts of five action alternatives from

construction and operation of the

project. No final decision can be made

on this proposal during the 30 days

following the filing of this FEIS, in

accordance with the Council on

Environmental Quality regulations, 40

CFR 1506.10(b)(2).

ADDRESSES: The FEIS may be inspected

by appointment during normal business

hours at: El Paso Water Utilities, 1154

Hawkins Boulevard, El Paso, Texas; and

United States Section, International

Boundary and Water Commission, 4171

North Mesa Street, Suite C–315, El Paso,

Texas. Public libraries that have the

FEIS available for review are: Branigan

Memorial Library, 200 East Picacho

Avenue, Las Cruces, New Mexico; El

Paso Public Library, 501 North Oregon

Street, El Paso, Texas; New Mexico State

University Library, Las Cruces, New

Mexico; and University Library, The

University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso,

Texas.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Douglas Echlin, Environmental

Protection Specialist, Environmental

Management Division, USIBWC, 4171

North Mesa Street, C–310, El Paso,

Texas 79902 or call 915/832–4741. Email: dougechlin@ibwc.state.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The New

Mexico-Texas Water Commission,

established in 1991 to help meet the

water resource challenges of the region,

proposed the El Paso-Las Cruces

Regional Sustainable Water Project to

secure future drinking water supplies

from surface sources for the El Paso-Las

Cruces region. The project includes the

acquisition, conveyance, treatment, and

distribution of a drinking water supply,

and upgrading or constructing facilities

for water conveyance, treatment,

distribution, and aquifer storage and

recovery. These activities comprise the

following three project purposes to

provide a year-round drinking water

supply from the Rio Grande Project that

is of sufficient quantity and quality to

meet the anticipated municipal needs of

Hatch, Las Cruces, northern and

southern Don ̃a Ana County, New

Mexico and El Paso, Texas; to protect

and maintain the sustainability of the

Mesilla Bolson (ground water basin or

aquifer); and to extend the longevity of

the Hueco Bolson.

Project alternatives presented in this

FEIS were designed to achieve these

three project purposes. In addition, the

project will strive to provide high

quality water needed to achieve

successful treatment and to meet federal

drinking water standards; to deliver

water efficiently and promote water

conservation; and provide overall

benefits to the riverine ecosystem,

particularly aquatic and riparian

habitats.

The project recognizes and accepts

existing institutional and social

constraints, including continuing to

meet treaty, compact, and contract

requirements for delivery of Rio Grande

Project waters. The project would not

adversely affect the quantity and quality

of water deliveries to agricultural users;

impose new responsibilities on state or

federal governments; or preclude other

opportunities to enhance the Rio Grande

ecosystem. The need for this project is

based on the region’s future drinking

water supply requirements. The project

is necessary to avoid both potentially

permanent impacts on the Mesilla and

Hueco Bolsons and critical drinking

water shortages in the El Paso-Las

Cruces region. Population growth rates

have increased sharply, increasing the

demand for drinking water. It is

projected that the Texas portion of the

Hueco Bolson will be exhausted of all

fresh water by the year 2025 because

water is being pumped from the aquifer

faster than it can be naturally

replenished. If additional surface waters

are not made available to supplement

the drinking water supply, water

shortages in the region will likely lead

to severe health and sanitation

problems.

Copies of the FEIS have been sent to

agencies, organizations and individuals

who participated in the scoping process

and to those who have requested copies

of the FEIS. A limited number of the

FEIS may be obtained upon request

from the contact person identified

above. A Record of Decision will be

prepared on this proposal after a

minimum of 30 days following the filing

of the FEIS. Any comments on the Final

EIS must be received no later than 30

days after the date of publication of the

notice of availability by the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

in the Federal Register. No action will

be taken on the proposed action before

30 days following publication of the

notice of availability of the EIS by EPA.

Dated: November 17, 2000.

William A. Wilcox, Jr.,

Legal Advisor.

[FR Doc. 00–30224 Filed 11–28–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710–03–U

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Reactor Oversight Process Initial

Implementation Evaluation Panel;

Meeting Notice

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory

Committee Act of October 6, 1972 (Pub.

L. 94–463, Stat. 770–776) the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC),

on October 2, 2000, announced the

establishment of the Reactor Oversight

Process Initial Implementation

Evaluation Panel (IIEP). The IIEP

functions as a cross-disciplinary

oversight group to independently

monitor and evaluate the results of the

first year of implementation of the

Reactor Oversight Process (ROP). A

Charter governing the IIEP functions as

a Federal Advisory Committee was filed

with Congress on October 17, 2000, after

consultation with the Committee

Management Secretariat, General

Services Administration. The IIEP will