Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2000 / Notices 2439

(60 FR 12980, 3/9/95). This notice lists

nine (9) programs and procedures

(collectively, programs), eight of which

(called supplemental programs) an

NRTL may use to control and audit, but

not actually to generate, the data relied

upon for product certification. An

NRTL’s initial recognition will always

include the first or basic program,

which requires that all product testing

and evaluation be performed in-house

by the NRTL that will certify the

product. SGSUS has already received

recognition for two of the supplemental

programs, and the on-site review report

indicates that SGSUS appears to meet

the criteria for use of the following

supplemental programs for which it has

applied:

Program 3: Acceptance of product

evaluations from independent organizations,

other than NRTLs.

Program 9: Acceptance of services other

than testing or evaluation performed by

subcontractors or agents.

OSHA developed the program

descriptions to limit how an NRTL may

perform certain aspects of its work and

to permit the activities covered under a

program only when the NRTL meets

certain criteria. In this sense, they are

special conditions that the Agency

places on an NRTL’s recognition. OSHA

does not consider these programs in

determining whether an NRTL meets

the requirements for recognition under

29 CFR 1910.7. However, OSHA does

treat these programs as one of the three

elements that defines an NRTL’s scope

of recognition.

Conditions—Use of Programs

As previously mentioned, OSHA

included certain conditions in the

Federal Register notice for the renewal

of the SGSUS recognition, published on

August 28, 1998 (63 FR 46084). The

conditions applied to the recognition to

use the additional programs listed in

that notice, and also apply to the

programs listed in this current notice of

our preliminary finding. These

conditions are in addition to the

requirements detailed in the previously

cited March 9, 1995 Federal Register:

a. SGS U.S. Testing Company, Inc.,

Fairfield, New Jersey, will review and

approve the qualifications of all external

organizations prior to SGS U.S. Testing

Company, Inc., accepting test data from these

organizations.

b. SGS U.S. Testing Company, Inc.,

Fairfield, New Jersey, will review and

approve the qualifications of all external

organizations prior to SGS U.S. Testing

Company, Inc., using a site of any of these

organizations for witnessed test data.

Preliminary Finding on the Application

SGSUS has submitted an acceptable

request for expansion of its recognition

as an NRTL. In connection with the

request, OSHA performed an on-site

review of the SGSUS facility in

Fairfield, New Jersey, on June 7–8, 1999.

Discrepancies noted by the assessor

during the on-site review were

addressed by SGSUS following the onsite evaluation and are factored into the

recommendation in the on-site review

report (see Exhibit 15).

Following a review of the application

file, the on-site review report, and other

pertinent documents, the NRTL Program

staff has concluded that OSHA can

grant, to the SGS U.S. Testing Company,

Inc., facilities, listed above, the

expansion of recognition to use the

additional four (4) test standards, also

listed above, with the limitations to be

applied as noted. The staff also grants

use of the two (2) supplemental

programs, subject to the above

conditions. The staff therefore

recommended to the Assistant Secretary

that the application be preliminarily

approved.

Based upon the recommendation of

the staff, the Assistant Secretary has

made a preliminary finding that the SGS

U.S. Testing Company, Inc., facilities

listed above can meet the recognition

requirements, as prescribed by 29 CFR

1910.7, for the expansion of recognition,

subject to the above limitations and

conditions. This preliminary finding

does not constitute an interim or

temporary approval of the application.

OSHA welcomes public comments, in

sufficient detail, as to whether SGSUS

has met the requirements of 29 CFR

1910.7 for the expansion of its

recognition as a Nationally Recognized

Testing Laboratory. Your comment

should consist of pertinent written

documents and exhibits. To consider it,

OSHA must receive the comment at the

address provided above (see ADDRESS),

no later than the last date for comments

(see DATES above). You may obtain or

review copies of the SGSUS request, the

on-site review report, and all submitted

comments, as received, by contacting

the Docket Office, Room N2625,

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration, U.S. Department of

Labor, at the above address. You should

refer to Docket No. NRTL–2–90, the

permanent record of public information

on the SGSUS recognition.

The NRTL Program staff will review

all timely comments and, after

resolution of issues raised by these

comments, will recommend whether to

grant the SGSUS expansion request. The

Assistant Secretary will make the final

decision on granting the expansion and,

in making this decision, may undertake

other proceedings prescribed in

Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. OSHA

will publish a public notice of this final

decision in the Federal Register.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 5th day of

January, 2000.

Charles N. Jeffress,

Assistant Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–916 Filed 1–13–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Copyright Office

[Docket No. 2000–1 CARP]

Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panels;

List of Arbitrators

AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of

Congress.

ACTION: Publication of the 2000–2001

CARP arbitrator list.

SUMMARY: The Copyright Office is

publishing the list of arbitrators eligible

for service on a Copyright Arbitration

Royalty Panel (‘‘CARP’’) during 2000

and 2001. This list will be used to select

the arbitrators who will serve on panels

initiated in 2000 and 2001 for

determining the distribution of royalty

fees or the adjustment of royalty rates.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 14, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David O. Carson, General Counsel, or

Tanya M. Sandros, Attorney-Advisor,

Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel,

P.O. Box 70977, Southwest Station,

Washington, DC 20024. Telephone:

(202) 707–8380. Telefax: (202) 252–

3423.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

For royalty rate adjustments and

distributions that are in controversy, the

Copyright Act requires the selection of

a Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel

(‘‘CARP’’) consisting of three arbitrators

from ‘‘lists provided by professional

arbitration associations.’’ See 17 U.S.C.

802(b). The Librarian of Congress selects

two of the arbitrators for a CARP from

a list of nominated arbitrators; those

selected then choose a third arbitrator to

serve as chairperson of the panel. If the

two arbitrators cannot agree, the

Librarian is instructed to select the third

arbitrator.

On December 7, 1994, the Copyright

Office issued final regulations

implementing the CARP selection

process. 59 FR 63025 (December 7,

1994). Subsequently, these rules were

2440 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2000 / Notices

amended to provide for the generation

of a new list of nominees biannually. 61

FR 63715 (December 2, 1996). Section

251.3(a) of the regulations allows any

professional arbitration association or

organization to nominate qualified

individuals, as described in § 251.5, to

serve as arbitrators on a CARP. The

regulations require that the submitting

arbitration association supply the

following information for each person:

(1) The full name, address, and

telephone number of the person.

(2) The current position and name of

the person’s employer, if any, along

with a brief summary of the person’s

employment history, including areas of

expertise, and, if available, a description

of the general nature of clients

represented and the types of

proceedings in which the person

represented clients.

(3) A brief description of the

educational background of the person,

including teaching positions and

membership in professional

associations, if any.

(4) A statement of the facts and

information which qualify the person to

serve as an arbitrator under § 251.5.

(5) A description or schedule

detailing fees proposed to be charged by

the person for service on a CARP.

(6) Any other information which the

professional arbitration association or

organization may consider relevant. 37

CFR 251.3(a).

Section 251.3(b) of the regulations

requires the Copyright Office to publish

a list of qualified persons and mandates

that this list must include between 30

and 75 names of persons who were

nominated from at least three arbitration

associations. The newly comprised list

of arbitrators will be in effect until the

end of the 2001 calendar year, and any

arbitrator selected for a CARP during

2000 and 2001 will come from this list.

The list includes the name of the

nominee and the nominating

association.

The publication of today’s list

satisfies the requirement of 37 CFR

251.3. The information submitted by the

arbitration association with respect to

each person listed is available for

copying and inspection at the Licensing

Division of the Copyright Office. Thus,

for example, if the Librarian is required

to convene a CARP in 2000 for a royalty

fee distribution, parties to that

proceeding may review that information

as a means of formulating objections to

listed arbitrators under § 251.4. The

Licensing Division of the Copyright

Office is located in the Library of

Congress, James Madison Building, LM–

458, 101 Independence Avenue, SE,

Washington, DC 20540.

Deadline for Filing Financial Disclosure

Statement

Section 251.32(a) of the CARP rules

provides that, within 45 days of their

nomination, each nominee must ‘‘file

with the Librarian of Congress a

confidential financial disclosure

statement as provided by the Library of

Congress.’’ The Copyright Office sent

financial disclosure statements to the

nominating associations, with specific

instructions for completing and filing

the statement, and asked each

organization to distribute the forms to

its nominees for the CARP arbitrator list.

The Librarian of Congress will use the

financial disclosure form to determine

what financial conflicts of interest, if

any, may preclude the nominee from

serving as an arbitrator in a CARP

proceeding. Unlike information

submitted by the arbitration associations

under § 251.3(a), the information

contained in the financial disclosure

statements is confidential and is not

available to the public or to the parties

to the proceeding. Each nominee has

filed a completed financial disclosure

form with the Librarian of Congress.

The 2000–2001 CARP Arbitrator List

The Honorable James M. Bailey—

Judicial Dispute Resolution, Inc.

William F. Baron, Esq.—American

Arbitration Association

The Honorable Tobias G. Barry—

Judicial Dispute Resolution, Inc.

Marjory G. Basile, Esq.—American

Arbitration Association

Bernard J. Bonn III, Esq.—American

Arbitration Association

Dorothy K. Campbell, Esq.—American

Arbitration Association

The Honorable Luis A. Cardenas—

JAMS/Endispute

Virginia S. Carson, Esq.—American

Arbitration Association

Terry L. Clark, Esq.—American

Arbitration Association

Jerry Cohen, Esq.—JAMS/Endispute

John W. Cooley, Esq.—Judicial Dispute

Resolution, Inc.

Mark J. Davis, Esq.—American

Arbitration Association

The Honorable Gino L. DiVito—Judicial

Dispute Resolution, Inc.

Edward Dreyfus, Esq.—American

Arbitration Association

The Honorable Lenore G. Ehrig—

American Arbitration Association

The Honorable Jesse Etelson—Attorney/

Client Arbitration Board, The District

of Columbia Bar

The Honorable John B. Farmakides—

American Arbitration Association

The Honorable Thomas A. Fortkort—

American Arbitration Association

The Honorable Charles W. Fowler—

Arbitration and Mediation Services

William D. Friend, Esq.—American

Arbitration Association

David Geronemus, Esq.—JAMS/

Endispute

The Honorable Michael B. Getty—

JAMS/Endispute

The Honorable Cornelia Bright

Gordon—Arbitration and Mediation

Services

The Honorable Elizabeth E. Granville—

American Arbitration Association

The Honorable Jerry Grissom—JAMS/

Endispute

The Honorable Jeffrey S. Gulin—

Arbitration and Mediation Services

William E. Hartgering, Esq.—JAMS/

Endispute

Katherine Hendricks, Esq.—American

Arbitration Association

Harold Himmelman, Esq.—JAMS/

Endispute

The Honorable Louis N. Hurwitz—

Arbitration and Mediation Services

The Honorable Mel R. Jiganti—JAMS/

Endispute

Sheldon Kapustin, Esq.—American

Arbitration Association

Sheldon Karon, Esq.—American

Arbitration Association

B. Craig Killough, Esq.—American

Arbitration Association

Lewis Kurlantzick, Esq.—American

Arbitration Association

Christine Lepera, Esq.—American

Arbitration Association

The Honorable Lewis A. London—

Arbitration and Mediation Services

The Honorable Harlan A. Martin—

JAMS/Endispute

Gloria Messinger, Esq.—American

Arbitration Association

The Honorable James R. Miller, Jr.—

JAMS/Endispute

Cecilia H. Morgan, Esq.—JAMS/

Endispute

James D. Myers, Esq.—American

Arbitration Association

Cheryl I. Niro, Esq.—Judicial Dispute

Resolution, Inc.

David M. Ostfeld, Esq.—American

Arbitration Association

Timothy T. Patula, Esq.—American

Arbitration Association

Gerald F. Phillips, Esq.—American

Arbitration Association

Alex S. Polsky, Esq.—JAMS/Endispute

Sol Rosenthal, Esq.—American

Arbitration Association

Richard H. Sayler, Esq.—American

Arbitration Association

Peter C. Schaumber, Esq.—Center for

Litigation Alternatives

The Honorable Philip E. Schwab—

JAMS/Endispute

The Honorable Seymour Schwartz—

JAMS/Endispute

Vivien B. Shelanski, Esq.—JAMS/

Endispute

William Stuart Taylor, Esq.—American

Arbitration Association

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2000 / Notices 2441

Eric E. Van Loon, Esq.—JAMS/

Endispute

The Honorable Curtis E. von Kann—

JAMS/Endispute

Frank M. Wentworth, Jr., Esq.—

American Arbitration Association

The Honorable Ronald P. Wertheim—

JAMS/Endispute

Michael D. Young, Esq.—JAMS/

Endispute

Gregg R. Zegarelli, Esq.—American

Arbitration Association

Dated: January 11, 2000.

David O. Carson,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 00–973 Filed 1–13–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1410–33–P

INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND

WATER COMMISSION, UNITED

STATES AND MEXICO

United States Section; Notice of Intent

To Prepare an Environmental Impact

Statement for the Rio Grande

Rectification Project El Paso and

Hudspeth Counties, Texas

AGENCY: United States Section,

International Boundary and Water

Commission, United States and Mexico.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

SUMMARY: This notice advises the public

that pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the

National Environmental Policy Act of

1969 (NEPA), as amended, and

dependent on availability of funding,

the United States Section, International

Boundary and Water Commission

(USIBWC) proposes to gather

information necessary to analyze and

evaluate the impacts of a River

Management Plan by the USIBWC on

the existing Rio Grande Rectification

Project in El Paso and Hudspeth

counties, Texas and prepare an EIS to

document those effects. This notice is

being provided as required by the

Memorandum of Understanding

between the USIBWC and Southwest

Environmental Center, dated March 22,

1999; the Council on Environmental

Quality Regulations (40 CFR 1501.7);

and the USIBWC’s Operational

Procedures for Implementing Section

102 of the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969, published in the

Federal Register September 2, 1981 (46

FR 44083–44094) to obtain suggestions

and information from other agencies

and the public on the scope of issues to

be addressed in the EIS.

DATES: Written comments will be

accepted for an indefinite period of time

from the date of this notice and

continuing until receipt of

appropriation funds necessary for

completion of the EIS. Participation by

interested federal, state, and local

agencies as well as other interested

organizations and the general public is

encouraged during this indefinite

scoping period. Public comments on the

scope of the EIS, reasonable alternatives

that should be considered, anticipated

environmental problems, and actions

that might be taken to address them are

requested.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Comments will be accepted following

the date of this notice by Mr. Douglas

Echlin, Environmental Protection

Specialist, Environmental Management

Division, USIBWC, 4171 North Mesa

Street, C–310, El Paso, Texas 79902.

Telephone: 915/832–4741, Facsimile:

915/832–4167. E-mail:

dougechlin@ibwc.state.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

USIBWC proposes, pending

appropriation of funds, to gather

information necessary for the

preparation of an EIS to be used to

determine specific options for the

maintenance of the Rio Grande

Rectification Project (Rectification

Project) that could be implemented to

minimize, consistent with the law and

international agreements, the impact of

project maintenance on ecological and

environmental resources in the area and

to optimize the safety of people and

property through flood management.

The Rectification Project is located

along the Rio Grande in El Paso and

Hudspeth counties, Texas. It is an

international project that provides a

means of stabilizing the international

boundary line between the United

States and Mexico in the El Paso-Juarez

valley and also provides flood

protection to urban, suburban and

agricultural lands in this valley. In 1927,

the International Boundary Commission

(now the International Boundary and

Water Commission or IBWC),

formulated plans for the rectification of

the river and stabilization of the

international boundary line in the El

Paso-Juarez valley to serve as a basis for

a Convention between the United States

and Mexico authorizing the

construction of necessary works. The

initial construction on the Rectification

Project was begun in March, 1934, and

completed in 1938. Subsequently, in the

period from 1943 through 1950,

supplemental work was done which

consisted of raising levees upstream

from Riverside Canal Heading, revetting

levees opposite arroyo entrances,

revetting channel banks, and levelling

floodways.

The USIBWC as lead agency proposes

to collect information necessary for the

preparation of an EIS; to analyze flood

protection measures and alternatives to

current management, including

watershed-oriented and non-structural

alternatives and collaborative measures

with other agencies and landowners; to

determine to what extent project

management can support restoration of

native riparian and aquatic habitats, as

well as the restoration of natural fluvial

processes such as channel meanders

and overbank flooding. The EIS will

consider a range of alternatives,

including the no action alternative,

based on issues and concerns associated

with the project.

The EIS will identify, describe, and

evaluate the existing environmental,

cultural, sociological and economical,

and recreational resources; explain the

existing international flood protection

and boundary stabilization project; and

evaluate the impacts associated with the

alternatives under consideration.

Significant issues which have been

identified to be addressed in the EIS

include but are not limited to impacts

to water resources, water quality,

cultural and biological resources,

threatened and endangered species, and

recreation.

The USIBWC seeks funding for river

levee improvements along the

international boundary; and pending

appropriation of funds, proposed

construction activities that will be

studied in this EIS include

rehabilitation of existing levees, channel

improvements such as widening or

armoring with riprap, and installation of

grade control structures. Required work

consists of evaluating the integrity of the

levee system by conducting a series of

geotechnical explorations and analysis

to identify where levee rehabilitation is

required. The levee rehabilitation work

involves the replacement of unstable

reaches, reconditioning of the levee side

slopes, levee road resurfacing, and

replacement of existing structure gates.

The levee system would be evaluated

and arrangements worked with Mexico

for levee rehabilitation in both countries

with an equal distribution of costs. The

proposed project also seeks to evaluate

best management practices regarding

flood control, boundary river

preservation, and flood plain

management, taking into account the

project riparian ecosystem. In addition,

the EIS will study the environmental

effects of a long-range maintenance plan

that will be developed.

Coordination with the United States

Fish and Wildlife Service will ensure

compliance with the Fish and Wildlife

Coordination Act and section 7 of the