Agricultural Marketing Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Forest Service
Rural Utilities Service
Engineers Corps
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled
Inspector General Office, Health and Human Services Department
Refugee Resettlement Office
Census Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Army Department
Engineers Corps
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Fiscal Service
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
Inspector General Office, Health and Human Services Department
National Institutes of Health
Public Health Service
Refugee Resettlement Office
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
National Park Service
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Immigration and Naturalization Service
Employment Standards Administration
Labor Statistics Bureau
Fiscal Service
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements
Coast Guard
Federal Aviation Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Research and Special Programs Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Fiscal Service
Internal Revenue Service
Thrift Supervision Office
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Final rule.
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is raising user fees for cotton producers for 2002 crop cotton classification services under the Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act in accordance with the formula provided in the Uniform Cotton Classing Fees Act of 1987. The 2001 user fee for this classification service was $1.35 per bale. This final rule would raise the fee for the 2002 crop to $1.45 per bale. The fee and the existing reserve are sufficient to cover the costs of providing classification services, including costs for administration and supervision. Also because of insufficient demand, computer punch cards would be eliminated as an optional method of disseminating classing data to producers.
July 1, 2002.
Norma McDill, Deputy Administrator, Cotton Program, AMS, USDA, Room 2641-S, STOP 0224, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-0224. telephone (202) 720-2145, facsimile (202) 690-1718, or e-mail
A proposed rule detailing the revisions was published in the
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866; and, therefore has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive effect. This rule would not preempt any state or local laws, regulations, or policies unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. There are no administrative procedures that must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions so that small businesses will not be disproportionately burdened. There are an estimated 35,000 cotton growers in the U.S. who voluntarily use the AMS cotton classing services annually, and the majority of these cotton growers are small businesses under the criteria established by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR § 121.201). The increase above the 2001 crop level as stated will not significantly affect small businesses as defined in the RFA because:
(1) The fee increase represents a very small portion of the cost-per-unit currently borne by those entities utilizing the services. (The 2001 user fee for classification services was $1.35 per bale; the fee for the 2002 crop is increased to $1.45 per bale; the 2002 crop is estimated at 16,504,065 bales).
(2) The fee for services will not affect competition in the marketplace; and
(3) The use of classification services is voluntary. For the 2001 crop, 20,100,000 bales were produced; and, virtually all of these bales were voluntarily submitted by growers for the classification service.
(4) Based on the average price paid to growers for cotton from the 2000 crop of 49.8 cents per pound, 500 pound bales of cotton are worth an average of $249 each. The user fee for classification services, $1.45 per bale, is less than one percent of the value of an average bale of cotton.
(5) Due to insufficient demand, computer punch cards would be eliminated as an optional method of disseminating classing data to producers.
In compliance with OMB regulations (5 CFR part 1320), which implement the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
The user fee charged to cotton producers for High Volume Instrument (HVI) classification services under the Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act (7 U.S.C. 473a) was $1.35 per bale during the 2001 harvest season as determined by using the formula provided in the Uniform Cotton Classing Fees Act of 1987, as amended by Public Law 102-237. The fees cover salaries, costs of equipment and supplies, and other overhead costs, including costs for administration, and supervision. These changes will be made effective July 1, 2002, as provided by the Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act.
This final rule establishes the user fee charged to producers for HVI classification at $1.45 per bale during the 2002 harvest season.
Public Law 102-237 amended the formula in the Uniform Cotton Classing Fees Act of 1987 for establishing the producer's classification fee so that the producer's fee is based on the prevailing method of classification requested by producers during the previous year. HVI classing was the prevailing method of cotton classification requested by producers in 2001. Therefore, the 2002
The fee was calculated by applying the formula specified in the Uniform Cotton Classing Fees Act of 1987, as amended by Public Law 102-237. The 2001 base fee for HVI classification exclusive of adjustments, as provided by the Act, was $2.22 per bale. An increase of 2.51 percent, or 6 cents per bale increase due to the implicit price deflator of the gross domestic product added to the $2.22 would result in a 2002 base fee of $2.28 per bale. The formula in the Act provides for the use of the percentage change in the implicit price deflator of the gross national product (as indexed for the most recent 12-month period for which statistics are available). However, gross
The number of bales to be classed by the United States Department of Agriculture from the 2002 crop is estimated at 16,504,065 bales. The 2002 base fee was decreased 15 percent based on the estimated number of bales to be classed (1 percent for every 100,000 bales or portion thereof above the base of 12,500,000, limited to a maximum adjustment of 15 percent). This percentage factor amounts to a 35 cents per bale reduction and was subtracted from the 2002 base fee of $2.28 per bale, resulting in a fee of $1.93 per bale.
With a fee of $1.93 per bale, the projected operating reserve would be 51.3 percent. The Act specifies that the Secretary shall not establish a fee which, when combined with other sources of revenue, will result in a projected operating reserve of more than 25 percent. Accordingly, the fee of $1.93 must be reduced by 48 cents per bale, to $1.45 per bale, to provide an ending accumulated operating reserve for the fiscal year of 25 percent of the projected cost of operating the program. This would establish the 2002 season fee at $1.45 per bale.
Accordingly, § 28.909, paragraph (b) would be revised to reflect the increase of the HVI classification fee from $1.35 to $1.45 per bale.
As provided for in the Uniform Cotton Classing Fees Act of 1987, as amended, a 5 cent per bale discount would continue to be applied to voluntary centralized billing and collecting agents as specified in § 28.909 (c).
Growers or their designated agents receiving classification data would continue to incur no additional fees if only one method of receiving classification data was requested. The fee for each additional method of receiving classification data in § 28.910 would remain at 5 cents per bale. Computer punched cards would be eliminated as an optional method of disseminating classing data to producers for the 2002 and subsequent crops because there is an insufficient demand for the use of this method. Accordingly, this change would be reflected in § 28.910 (a). The fee in § 28.910 (b) for an owner receiving classification data from the central database would remain at 5 cents per bale, and the minimum charge of $5.00 for services provided per monthly billing period would remain the same. The provisions of § 28.910 (c) concerning the fee for new classification memoranda issued from the central database for the business convenience of an owner without reclassification of the cotton will remain the same.
The fee for review classification in § 28.911 would be increased from $1.35 to $1.45 per bale.
The fee for returning samples after classification in § 28.911 would remain at 40 cents per sample.
Administrative practice and procedure, Cotton, Cotton samples, Grades, Market news, Reporting and record keeping requirements, Standards, Staples, Testing, Warehouses.
7 U.S.C. 471-476.
(b) The cost of High Volume Instrument (HVI) cotton classification service to producers is $1.45 per bale.
(a) * * * The fee for review classification is $1.45 per bale.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special conditions; request for comments.
These special conditions are issued to Avidyne Corporation, 55 Old Bedford Road, Lincoln, Massachusetts, 01773 for a Supplemental Type Certificate for the Cirrus Design Corporation SR20/SR22 airplane. This airplane will have novel and unusual design features when compared to the state of technology envisaged in the applicable airworthiness standards. These novel and unusual design features include the installation of an electronic flight instrument system (EFIS) display Model 700-00006-XXX-( ) manufactured by Avidyne Corporation for which the applicable regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate airworthiness standards for the protection of these systems from the effects of high intensity radiated fields (HIRF). These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to the airworthiness standards applicable to this airplane.
The effective date of these special conditions is May 7, 2002. Comments must be received on or before June 24, 2002.
Comments may be mailed in duplicate to: Federal Aviation Administration, Regional Counsel, ACE-7, Attention: Rules Docket Clerk, Docket No. CE184, Room 506, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. All comments must be marked: Docket No. CE184. Comments may be inspected in the Rules Docket weekdays, except Federal holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m.
Ervin Dvorak, Aerospace Engineer, Standards Office (ACE-110), Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone (816) 329-4123.
The FAA has determined that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the approval design and thus delivery of the affected aircraft. In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA, therefore, finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon issuance.
Interested persons are invited to submit such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify the regulatory docket or notice number and be submitted in duplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered by the Administrator. The special conditions may be changed in light of the comments received. All comments received will be available in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons, both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this action must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. CE184.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.
On April 20, 2001, Avidyne Corporation, 55 Old Bedford Road, Lincoln, Massachusetts, 01773, made an application to the FAA for a new Supplemental Type Certificate for the Cirrus Design Corporation Models SR20/SR22 airplanes. The Cirrus SR20/SR22 are currently approved under TC No. A00009CH. The proposed modification incorporates a novel or unusual design feature, such as digital avionics consisting of an EFIS, that is vulnerable to HIRF external to the airplane.
Under the provisions of 14 CFR part 21, § 21.101, Avidyne Corporation must show that the Cirrus SR20/SR22 aircraft meet the following provisions, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change to the Cirrus SR20/SR22.
Equivalent Levels of Safety finding (ACE-96-5) made per the provisions of 14 CFR part 23, § 23.221; Refer to FAA ELOS letter dated June 10, 1998 for models SR20, SR22. Equivalent Levels of Safety finding (ACE-00-09) made per the provisions of 14 CFR part 23, §§ 23.1143(g) and 23.1147(b); Refer to FAA ELOS letter dated September 11, 2000, for model SR22. Equivalent Levels of Safety finding (ACE-01-01) made per the provisions of 14 CFR part 23, §§ 23.1143(g) and 23.1147(b); Refer to FAA ELOS letter dated February 14, 2000, for model SR20.
Special Condition (23-ACE-88) for ballistic parachute; Refer to FAA letter November 25, 1997, for models SR20, SR22.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness standards do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards because of novel or unusual design features of an airplane, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.
Special conditions, as appropriate, as defined in § 11.19, are issued in accordance with § 11.38 after public notice and become part of the type certification basis in accordance with 14 CFR part 21 § 21.101.
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model already included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under the provisions of § 21.101.
Carpenter Avionics Inc. plans to incorporate certain novel and unusual design features into an airplane for which the airworthiness standards do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for protection from the effects of HIRF. These features include EFIS, which are susceptible to the HIRF environment, that were not envisaged by the existing regulations for this type of airplane.
Recent advances in technology have given rise to the application in aircraft designs of advanced electrical and electronic systems that perform functions required for continued safe flight and landing. Due to the use of sensitive solid state advanced components in analog and digital electronics circuits, these advanced systems are readily responsive to the transient effects of induced electrical current and voltage caused by the HIRF. The HIRF can degrade electronic systems performance by damaging components or upsetting system functions.
Furthermore, the HIRF environment has undergone a transformation that was not foreseen when the current requirements were developed. Higher energy levels are radiated from transmitters that are used for radar, radio, and television. Also, the number of transmitters has increased significantly. There is also uncertainty concerning the effectiveness of airframe shielding for HIRF. Furthermore, coupling to cockpit-installed equipment through the cockpit window apertures is undefined.
The combined effect of the technological advances in airplane design and the changing environment has resulted in an increased level of vulnerability of electrical and electronic systems required for the continued safe flight and landing of the airplane.
These special conditions require qualification of systems that perform critical functions, as installed in aircraft, to the defined HIRF environment in paragraph 1 or, as an option to a fixed value using laboratory tests, in paragraph 2, as follows:
(1) The applicant may demonstrate that the operation and operational capability of the installed electrical and electronic systems that perform critical functions are not adversely affected when the aircraft is exposed to the HIRF environment defined below:
(2) The applicant may demonstrate by a system test and analysis that the electrical and electronic systems that perform critical functions can withstand a minimum threat of 100 volts rms per meter, electrical field strength, from 10 kHz to 18 GHz. When using this test to show compliance with the HIRF requirements, no credit is given for signal attenuation due to installation.
A preliminary hazard analysis must be performed by the applicant, for approval by the FAA, to identify either electrical or electronic systems that perform critical functions. The term “critical” means those functions whose failure would contribute to, or cause, a failure condition that would prevent the continued safe flight and landing of the airplane. The systems identified by the hazard analysis that perform critical functions are candidates for the application of HIRF requirements. A system may perform both critical and non-critical functions. Primary electronic flight display systems, and their associated components, perform critical functions such as attitude, altitude, and airspeed indication. The HIRF requirements apply only to critical functions.
Compliance with HIRF requirements may be demonstrated by tests, analysis, models, similarity with existing systems, or any combination of these. Service experience alone is not acceptable since normal flight operations may not include an exposure to the HIRF environment. Reliance on a system with similar design features for redundancy as a means of protection against the effects of external HIRF is generally insufficient since all elements of a redundant system are likely to be exposed to the fields concurrently.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to Cirrus Design Corporation SR20/SR22 airplanes. Should Avidyne Corporation apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well under the provisions of § 21.101.
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane.
The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. For this reason, and because a delay would significantly affect the certification of the airplane, which is imminent, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon issuance. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113 and 44701; 14 CFR part 21, § 21.16 and § 21.101; and 14 CFR 11.38 and 11.19.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Cirrus Design Corporation SR20/SR22 airplanes modified by Avidyne Corporation to add an EFIS.
1.
2. For the purpose of these special conditions, the following definition applies:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special conditions; request for comments.
These special conditions are issued to S-TEC Corporation, One S-TEC Way, Mineral Wells TX 76067 for a Supplemental Type Certificate for a single sided Electronic Flight Instrument System (EFIS) installed in the Mirage PA-46-350P airplane. This airplane will have novel and unusual design features when compared to the state of technology envisaged in the applicable airworthiness standards. These novel and unusual design features include the installation of electronic flight instrument system (EFIS) “Magic” display manufactured by Meggitt for which the applicable regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate airworthiness standards for the protection of these systems from the effects of high intensity radiated fields (HIRF). These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to the airworthiness standards applicable to this airplane.
The effective date of these special conditions is May 7, 2002. Comments must be received on or before June 24, 2002.
Comments may be mailed in duplicate to: Federal Aviation Administration, Regional Counsel, ACE-7, Attention: Rules Docket Clerk, Docket No. CE183, Room 506, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. All comments must be marked: Docket No. CE183. Comments may be inspected in the Rules Docket weekdays, except Federal holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
Ervin Dvorak, Aerospace Engineer, Standards Office (ACE-110), Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone (816) 329-4123.
The FAA has determined that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the approval design and thus delivery of the affected aircraft. In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA, therefore, finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon issuance.
Interested persons are invited to submit such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify the regulatory docket or notice number and be submitted in duplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered by the Administrator. The special conditions may be changed in light of the comments received. All comments received will be available in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons, both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this action must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. CE183.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.
On March 12, 2001, S-TEC Corporation, One S-TEC Way, Mineral Wells, TX 76067 made an application for a supplementary Type Certificate for a single sided EFIS installed in the Piper Mirage PA-46-350P airplane. The Piper Mirage PA-46-350P airplane is currently approved under TC No. A25SO. The modification incorporates a novel or unusual design feature, such as digital avionics consisting of an EFIS, that is vulnerable to HIRF external to the airplane.
Under the provisions of 14 CFR part 21, § 21.101, S-TEC Corporation, One S-TEC Way, Mineral Wells, TX 76067 must show that the single-sided EFIS installed in the Piper Mirage PA46-350P airplane meets the following provisions, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change to the Mirage PA-46-350P.
14 CFR part 23, effective February 1, 1965, as amended by Amendment 23-25, effective March 6, 1980: FAR 25.783(e) as amended by Amendment 25-54, effective October 14, 1980; 14 CFR part 25, § 25.831(c) and (d) as amended by Amendment 25-41, effective September 1, 1977, and 14 CFR part 36, Appendix F through Amendment 36-15, effective May 6, 1988, when equipped with a 2-bladed propeller or 14 CFR part 36, Appendix G through Amendment 36-16, effective December 18, 1988, when equipped with optional 3-blade propeller; Special Conditions No. 23-ACE-53, Docket No. 082CE; 14 CFR part 23, §§ 23.1309 and 23.1311 as amended by Amendment 49; and the special conditions adopted by this rule making action.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness standards do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards because of novel or unusual design features of an airplane, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.
Special conditions, as appropriate, as defined in § 11.19, are issued in accordance with § 11.38 after public notice and become part of the type certification basis in accordance with § 21.101.
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model already included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under the provisions of § 21.101.
S-TEC plans to incorporate certain novel and unusual design features into an airplane for which the airworthiness standards do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for protection from the effects of HIRF. These features include EFIS, which are susceptible to the HIRF environment, that were not envisaged by the existing regulations for this type of airplane.
Recent advances in technology have given rise to the application in aircraft designs of advanced electrical and electronic systems that perform functions required for continued safe flight and landing. Due to the use of sensitive solid state advanced
Furthermore, the HIRF environment has undergone a transformation that was not foreseen when the current requirements were developed. Higher energy levels are radiated from transmitters that are used for radar, radio, and television. Also, the number of transmitters has increased significantly. There is also uncertainty concerning the effectiveness of airframe shielding for HIRF. Furthermore, coupling to cockpit-installed equipment through the cockpit window apertures is undefined.
The combined effect of the technological advances in airplane design and the changing environment has resulted in an increased level of vulnerability of electrical and electronic systems required for the continued safe flight and landing of the airplane. Effective measures against the effects of exposure to HIRF must be provided by the design and installation of these systems. The accepted maximum energy levels in which civilian airplane system installations must be capable of operating safely are based on surveys and analysis of existing radio frequency emitters. These special conditions require that the airplane be evaluated under these energy levels for the protection of the electronic system and its associated wiring harness. These external threat levels, which are lower than previous required values, are believed to represent the worst case to which an airplane would be exposed in the operating environment.
These special conditions require qualification of systems that perform critical functions, as installed in aircraft, to the defined HIRF environment in paragraph 1 or, as an option to a fixed value using laboratory tests, in paragraph 2, as follows:
(1) The applicant may demonstrate that the operation and operational capability of the installed electrical and electronic systems that perform critical functions are not adversely affected when the aircraft is exposed to the HIRF environment defined below:
(2) The applicant may demonstrate by a system test and analysis that the electrical and electronic systems that perform critical functions can withstand a minimum threat of 100 volts per meter, electrical field strength, from 10 kHz to 18 GHz. When using this test to show compliance with the HIRF requirements, no credit is given for signal attenuation due to installation.
A preliminary hazard analysis must be performed by the applicant, for approval by the FAA, to identify either electrical or electronic systems that perform critical functions. The term “critical” means those functions whose failure would contribute to, or cause, a failure condition that would prevent the continued safe flight and landing of the airplane. The systems identified by the hazard analysis that perform critical functions are candidates for the application of HIRF requirements. A system may perform both critical and non-critical functions. Primary electronic flight display systems, and their associated components, perform critical functions such as attitude, altitude, and airspeed indication. The HIRF requirements apply only to critical functions.
Compliance with HIRF requirements may be demonstrated by tests, analysis, models, similarity with existing systems, or any combination of these. Service experience alone is not acceptable since normal flight operations may not include an exposure to the HIRF environment. Reliance on a system with similar design features for redundancy as a means of protection against the effects of external HIRF is generally insufficient since all elements of a redundant system are likely to be exposed to the fields concurrently.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to Piper Mirage PA-46-350P. Should S-TEC apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well under the provisions of § 21.101.
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane.
The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. For this reason, and because a delay would significantly affect the certification of the airplane, which is imminent, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon issuance. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113 and 44701; 14 CFR 21.16 and 21.17; and 14 CFR 11.38 and 11.19
1. Protection of Electrical and Electronic Systems from High Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF). Each system that performs critical functions must be designed and installed to ensure that the operations, and operational capabilities
2. For the purpose of these special conditions, the following definition applies: Critical Functions: Functions whose failure would contribute to, or cause, a failure condition that would prevent the continued safe flight and landing of the airplane.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final special conditions; request for comments.
These special conditions are issued Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) Model 1124 airplanes modified by Duncan Aviation, Inc. These modified airplanes will have novel and unusual design features when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. The modification incorporates the installation of an air data display unit that displays critical flight parameters to the flightcrew. The applicable airworthiness standards do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the protection of these systems from the effects of high-intensity radiated fields. The special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that provided by the existing airworthiness standards.
The effective date of these special conditions is May 16, 2002. Comments must be received on or before June 24, 2002.
Comments on these special conditions may be mailed in duplicate to: Federal Aviation Administration, Transport Airplane Directorate, Attn: Rules Docket (ANM-113), Docket No. NM221, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington, 98055-4056; or delivered in duplicate to the Transport Airplane Directorate at the above address. Comments must be marked: Docket No. NM221. Comments may be inspected in the Rules Docket weekdays, except Federal holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m.
Meghan Gordon, FAA, Standardization Branch, ANM-113, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington, 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-2138; facsimile (425) 227-1149.
The FAA has determined that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the approval design and thus delivery of the affected airplanes. In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon issuance.
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask that you send us two copies of written comments.
We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning these special conditions. The docket is available for public inspection before and after the comment closing date. If you wish to review the docket in person, go to the address in the
We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change these special conditions in light of the comments we receive.
If you want the FAA to acknowledge receipt of your comments on this proposal, include with your comments a pre-addressed, stamped postcard on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date on the postcard and mail it back to you.
On April 12, 2002, Duncan Aviation, Inc., 15745 South Airport Road, Battle Creek, MI, 49015, applied for a supplemental type certificate (STC) to modify the Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) Model 1124 airplane listed on Type Certificate No. A2SW. The Model 1124 is a twin engine, small transport airplane. It is capable of carrying two flightcrew members and up to ten passengers. The modification incorporates the installation of an air data display system. The air data display system displays critical flight parameters to the flightcrew. These systems can be susceptible to disruption to command and/or response signals as a result of electrical and magnetic interference. This disruption of signals could result in loss of all critical flight displays and announcement functions or present misleading information to the pilot.
Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101, Duncan Aviation must show that the Israel Aircraft Industries Model 1124 airplanes, as changed, continue to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations incorporated by reference in Type Certificate No. A2SW, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change. The regulations incorporated by reference in the type certificate are commonly referred to as the “original type certification basis.” The certification basis for the modified Israel Aircraft Industries Model 1124 airplane includes Civil Aviation Regulations (CAR) 4b, effective 31 December 1953, including amendments through 4b-11, 4b-12, paragraphs 4b.132(e), 4b.151(a), 4b.155, 4b.156, 4b.157, 4b.158, 4b.160, 4b.162, 4b.191, 4b.210(b)(5), 4b.603(k), 4b.711, and paragraphs pertaining to engine fire shielding 14 CFR part 25, dated February 1, 1965, including Amendments 25-1 through 25-20, as listed in the Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS) No. A2SW.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., part 25, as amended) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Israel Aircraft Industries Model 1124 airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model 1124 airplane
Special conditions, as defined in § 11.19, are issued in accordance with § 11.38 and become part of the type certification basis in accordance with § 21.101(b)(2).
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should Duncan Aviation, Inc. apply for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under the provisions of § 21.101(a)(1).
The Israel Aircraft Industries Model 1124 airplane will incorporate an air data display unit that displays critical flight parameters to the flightcrew. These systems can be susceptible to disruption to command and/or response signals as a result of electrical and magnetic interference. This disruption of signals could result in loss of all critical flight displays and announcement functions or present misleading information to the pilot. The current airworthiness standards (14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards that address protecting this equipment from the adverse effects of HIRF. Accordingly, these instruments are considered to be a novel or unusual design feature.
There is no specific regulation that addresses protection requirements for electrical and electronic systems from HIRF. Increased power levels from ground-based radio transmitters and the growing use of sensitive avionic/electronic and electrical systems to command and control airplanes have made it necessary to provide adequate protection.
To ensure that a level of safety is achieved equivalent to that intended by the regulations incorporated by reference, special conditions are needed for the Israel Aircraft Industries Model 1124, as modified by Duncan Aviation, Inc. These special conditions require that new avionic/electronic and electrical systems such as the air data display unit, which perform critical functions, be designed and installed to preclude component damage and interruption of function due to both the direct and indirect effects of HIRF.
With the trend toward increased power levels from ground-based transmitters, plus the advent of space and satellite communications, coupled with electronic command and control of the airplane, the immunity of critical digital avionics systems to HIRF must be established.
It is not possible to precisely define the HIRF to which the airplane will be exposed in service. There is also uncertainty concerning the effectiveness of airframe shielding for HIRF. Furthermore, coupling of electromagnetic energy to cockpit-installed equipment through the cockpit window apertures is undefined. Based on surveys and analysis of existing HIRF emitters, an adequate level of protection exists when compliance with the HIRF protection special condition is shown with either paragraph 1 OR paragraph 2, below:
1. A minimum threat of 100 volts rms per meter electric field strength from 10 KHz to 18 GHz.
a. The threat must be applied to the system elements and their associated wiring harnesses without the benefit of airframe shielding.
b. Demonstration of this level of protection is established through system tests and analysis.
2. A threat external to the airframe of the field strengths indicated in the table below for the frequency ranges indicated. Both peak and average field strength components from the table below are to be demonstrated.
The threat levels identified above are the result of an FAA review of existing studies on the subject of HIRF, in light of the ongoing work of the Electromagnetic Effects Harmonization Working Group of the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Israel Aircraft Industries Model 1124 airplane modified by Duncan Aviation, Inc. to include the air data display unit. Should Duncan apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well under the provisions of § 21.101(a)(1).
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on Israel Aircraft Industries Model 1124 airplanes modified by Duncan Aviation, Inc. It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane.
The substance of the special conditions for this airplane has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. For this reason, and because a delay would significantly affect the certification of the airplane, which is imminent, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon issuance. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
1.
2. For the purpose of these special conditions, the following definition applies:
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) that applies to certain Raytheon Aircraft Company (Raytheon) Model 58P, 60, A60, B60, and 65-88 airplanes. This AD requires you to install new exterior operating instruction placards for the exit doors. This AD is the result of Raytheon improving the visibility and understandability of the door operating instruction placards. This was done as a result of difficulty opening the emergency exits of a similar type design airplane. The actions specified by this AD are intended to assure that clear and complete operating instructions are visible for opening the emergency exit doors. If not visible and understandable, this could result in the inability to open the exit door during an emergency situation.
This AD becomes effective on July 8, 2002.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations as of July 8, 2002.
You may get the service information referenced in this AD from Raytheon Aircraft Company, P.O. Box 85, Wichita, Kansas 67201-0085; telephone: (800) 429-5372 or (316) 676-3140. You may view this information at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2001-CE-32-AD, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
Steven E. Potter, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road, Mid-Continent Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 946-4124; facsimile: (316) 946-4407.
The FAA believes that the instructions for opening the exit doors are either not visible or not easy to understand on Raytheon Model 58P, 60, A60, B60, and 65-88 airplanes. This is based on an accident involving a similar type design airplane that resulted in the issuance of AD 97-04-02. AD 97-04-02 was later superseded by AD 98-21-20 to incorporate more visible and understandable instructions.
If the exterior door operating instruction placards are not visible and understandable, this could result in the inability to open the exit doors during an emergency situation.
We issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply to certain Raytheon Model 58P, 60, A60, B60, and 65-88 airplanes. This proposal was published in the
The FAA encouraged interested persons to participate in the making of this amendment. We did not receive any comments on the proposed rule or on our determination of the cost to the public.
After careful review of all available information related to the subject presented above, we have determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed except for minor editorial corrections. We have determined that these minor corrections:
• Provide the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We estimate that this AD affects 850 airplanes in the U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to accomplish the modification:
The manufacturer will provide warranty credit for parts to the extent noted under
The compliance time of this AD is “within the next 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the effective date of this AD or within the next 12 calendar months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, unless already accomplished.”
The unsafe condition on these airplanes is not a result of the number of times the airplane is operated. Airplane operation varies among operators. For example, one operator may operate the airplane 50 hours TIS in 3 months while it may take another operator 12 months or more to accumulate 50 hours TIS. For this reason, the FAA has determined that the compliance time of this AD should be specified in both hours TIS and calendar time in order to assure this condition is not allowed to go uncorrected over time.
The regulations adopted herein will 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. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the final evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(1) Your alternative method of compliance provides an equivalent level of safety; and
(2) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), approves your alternative. Submit your request through an FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, Wichita ACO.
This AD applies to each airplane identified in paragraph (a) of this AD, regardless of whether it has been modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (e) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if you have not eliminated the unsafe condition, specific actions you propose to address it.
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, addition of new obstacles, or changes in air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
An effective date for each SIAP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
Incorporation by reference-approved by the Director of the Federal Register on December 31, 1980, and reapproved as of January 1, 1982.
Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located; or
3. The Flight Inspection Area Office which originated the SIAP.
1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located.
Donald P. Pate, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AMCAFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box, 25082 Oklahoma City, OK 73125) telephone: (405) 954-4164.
This amendment to part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 97) establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs). The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is contained in official FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and § 97.20 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). The applicable FAA Forms are identified as FAA Forms 8260-3, and 8260-4, and 8260-5. Materials incorporated by reference are available for examination or purchase as stated above.
The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the
This amendment to part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP as contained in the transmittal. Some SIAP amendments may have been previously issued by the FAA in a National Flight Data Center (NFDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for some SIAP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
Further, the SIAPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective no less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air traffic control, Airports, Navigation (air).
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120, 44701; and 14 CFR 11.49(b)(2).
By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, ISMLS, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, identified as follows:
The FAA published the following amendment in Docket No. 30306; Amdt. No. 3003 to Part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (67 FR 21990-21992; dated May 2, 2002) under section 97.27 effective 13 June 2002, which is hereby amended as follows:
The FAA published an Amendment in Docket No. 30306, Amdt No. 3003 to Part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (67 FR 21990-21992; dated May 2, 2002) under section 97.33 effective 13 June 2002, which is hereby rescinded:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval of a supplemental new animal drug application (NADA) filed by Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. The supplemental NADA provides for the use of lincomycin in swine feed for the control of porcine proliferative enteropathies (ileitis).
This rule is effective May 24, 2002.
Steven D. Vaughn, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-130), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 301-827-7584, e-mail: svaughn@cvm.fda.gov.
Pharmacia & Upjohn Co., 7000 Portage Rd., Kalamazoo, MI 49001-0199, filed a supplement to NADA 97-505 that provides for use of LINCOMIX 20 (lincomycin hydrochloride) and LINCOMIX 50 Feed Medications in medicated swine feeds for the control of porcine proliferative enteropathies (ileitis) caused by
In accordance with the freedom of information provisions of 21 CFR part 20 and 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a summary of safety and effectiveness data and information submitted to support approval of this supplemental application may be seen in the Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Under section 512(c)(2)(F)(iii) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360b(c)(2)(F)(iii)), this approval qualifies for 3 years of marketing exclusivity beginning February 28, 2002, because the application contains substantial evidence of the effectiveness of the drug involved, any studies of animal safety
The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.33(a)(1) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.
Animal drugs, Animal feeds.
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 558 continues to read as follows:
21 U.S.C. 360b, 371.
(a) * * *
(1) No. 000009 for 20 and 50 grams per pound.
(5) No. 043733 for 8 and 20 grams per pound.
(13) No. 017800 for 2.5 and 8 grams per pound.
(d)
(2)
(3) Lincomycin may also be used in combination with:
(i) Amprolium and ethopabate or amprolium and ethopabate with roxarsone in accordance with § 558.58.
(ii) Clopidol in accordance with § 558.175.
(iii) Decoquinate in accordance with § 558.195.
(iv) Fenbendazole as provided in § 558.258.
(v) Halofuginone in accordance with § 558.265.
(vi) Ivermectin as in § 558.300.
(vii) Lasalocid alone or with roxarsone in accordance with § 558.311.
(viii) Monensin alone or with roxarsone in accordance with § 558.355.
(ix) Nicarbazin alone or with narasin or roxarsone as in § 558.366.
(x) Pyrantel as in § 558.485.
(xi) Robenidine in accordance with § 558.515.
(xii) Roxarsone in accordance with § 558.530.
(xiii) Salinomycin with or without roxarsone as in § 558.550.
(xiv) Zoalene in accordance with § 558.680.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Final rule, approval of amendment.
We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), are approving an amendment to the Oklahoma regulatory program (Oklahoma program) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). The Oklahoma Department of Mines (Department or Oklahoma) proposed revisions to its rules about areas designated by act of congress as unsuitable for mining and coal exploration operations. Oklahoma intends to revise its program to be consistent with the corresponding Federal regulations.
May 24, 2002.
Michael C. Wolfrom, Director, Tulsa Field Office. Telephone: (918) 581-6430. Internet:
Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its program includes, among other things, “* * * a State law which provides for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the requirements of this Act * * * ; and rules and regulations consistent with regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to this Act.”
By letter dated November 20, 2001 (Administrative Record No. OK-988.02), Oklahoma sent us an amendment to its approved regulatory program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201
We announced receipt of the amendment in the December 21, 2001,
During our review of the amendment, we identified concerns relating to definitions at OAC 460:20-7-3, procedures at OAC 460:20-7-5, and various editorial errors. We notified Oklahoma of the concerns by letters dated December 13, 2001, January 16, 2002, and March 6, 2002 (Administrative Record Nos. OK-988.06, OK-988.08, and OK-988.12).
On February 21 and March 26, 2002, Oklahoma sent us revisions to its amendment (Administrative Record Nos. OK-988.10 and OK-988.14). Based upon Oklahoma's revisions, we reopened the public comment period in the April 5, 2002,
Following are the findings we made concerning the amendment under SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17. We are approving the amendment as described below. Any revisions that we do not specifically discuss below concern nonsubstantive wording or editorial changes.
Oklahoma proposed minor wording, editorial, punctuation, grammatical, and recodification changes to the following previously-approved rules:
OAC 460:20-7-5(b)(2), rights determination and OAC 460:20-7-5(g), applicability to lands designated as unsuitable by Congress.
Because these changes are minor, we find that they will not make Oklahoma's rules less effective than the Federal regulations.
Oklahoma deleted its definition of “surface coal mining operations which exist on the date of enactment” because this term no longer appears in its rules.
We are approving Oklahoma's deletion because it is consistent with OSM's deletion of the Federal counterpart definition of “surface coal mining operations which exist on the date of enactment.”
The State rules listed in the table below contain language that is the same as or similar to the corresponding sections of the Federal regulations.
Because Oklahoma's proposed rules contain language that is the same as or similar to the corresponding Federal regulations, we find that they are no less effective than the Federal regulations.
We asked for public comments on the amendment, but did not receive any.
On December 5, 2001, and February 26, 2002, under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and section 503(b) of SMCRA, we requested comments on the amendment from various Federal agencies with an actual or potential interest in the Oklahoma program (Administrative Record Nos. OK-988.03 and OK-988.11). We did not receive any comments.
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), we are required to obtain the written concurrence of EPA for those provisions of the program amendment that relate to air or water quality standards issued under the authority of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), we requested comments on the amendment from EPA (Administrative Record Nos. OK-988.03 and OK-988.11). EPA responded on January 2, 2002 (Administrative Record No. OK-988.04), that it had no comments.
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), we are required to request comments from the SHPO and ACHP on amendments that may have an effect on historic properties. On December 5, 2001, and February 26, 2002, we requested comments on Oklahoma's amendment (Administrative Record Nos. OK-988.03 and OK-988.11). The SHPO responded on January 3, 2002 (Administrative Record No. OK-988.05). The SHPO was concerned that several of Oklahoma's proposed rules did not consider properties that are “eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places.”
On January 29, 2002 (Administrative Record No. 988.09), we sent a letter telling the SHPO that Oklahoma's proposed rules are consistent with Section 522(e)(3) of SMCRA and the Federal regulations. We also explained that even though SMCRA and the Federal regulations do not require consideration of properties eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places when making a determination of whether a person has valid existing rights to mine in areas where surface coal mining operations are normally prohibited or limited, the permit application requirements and other provisions of the Oklahoma rules and the Federal regulations do require this consideration for these areas.
Based on the above findings, we approve the amendment Oklahoma sent to us on November 20, 2001, and as revised on February 21 and March 26, 2002.
We approve the rules proposed by Oklahoma with the provision that they be fully promulgated in identical form to the rules submitted to and reviewed by OSM and the public.
To implement this decision, we are amending the Federal regulations at 30 CFR part 936, which codify decisions concerning the Oklahoma program. We find that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this final rule effective immediately. Section 503(a) of SMCRA requires that the State's program demonstrate that the State has the capability of carrying out the provisions of the Act and meeting its purposes. Making this final rule effective immediately will expedite that process. SMCRA requires consistency of State and Federal standards.
In this rule, the State is adopting valid existing rights standards that are similar to the standards in the Federal definition at 30 CFR 761.5. Therefore, this rule has the same takings implications as the Federal valid existing rights rule. The takings implications assessment for the Federal valid existing rights rule appears in Part XXIX.E of the preamble to that rule. See 64 FR 70766, 70822-27, December 17, 1999.
This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.
The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and has determined that this rule meets the applicable standards of subsections (a) and (b) of that section. However, these standards are not applicable to the actual language of State regulatory programs and program amendments because each program is drafted and promulgated by a specific State, not by OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed State regulatory programs and program amendments submitted by the States must be based solely on a determination of whether the submittal is consistent with SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations and whether the other requirements of 30 CFR parts 730, 731, and 732 have been met.
This rule does not have Federalism implications. SMCRA delineates the roles of the Federal and State governments with regard to the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations. One of the purposes of SMCRA is to “establish a nationwide program to protect society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal mining operations.” Section 503(a)(1) of SMCRA requires that State laws regulating surface coal mining and reclamation operations be “in accordance with” the requirements of SMCRA. Section 503(a)(7) requires that State programs contain rules and regulations “consistent with” regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA.
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 which requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rule that is (1) considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and (2) likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Because this rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 and is not expected to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
This rule does not require an environmental impact statement because section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C).
This rule does not contain information collection requirements that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507
The Department of the Interior certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule: (a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million; (b) will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local governmental agencies or geographic regions; and (c) does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This determination is based upon the fact that the State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the Federal regulation was not considered a major rule.
This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any given year. This determination is based upon the fact that the State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the Federal regulation did not impose an unfunded mandate.
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
30 U.S.C. 1201
Financial Management Service, Fiscal Service, Treasury.
Interim rule with request for comments.
This interim rule amends 31 CFR Part 240, which governs the indorsement and payment of checks drawn on the United States Treasury (Treasury), by incorporating procedures relating to the implementation of the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (DCIA). In particular, this rule describes Treasury Check Offset, a new debt collection tool established by the DCIA. The DCIA authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to collect certain debts, owed to the Treasury by financial institutions presenting Treasury checks to a Federal Reserve Bank, by directing Federal Reserve Banks to withhold credit from such presenting banks. This rule also renumbers certain sections and updates various addresses provided in 31 CFR Part 240.
Effective May 24, 2002. Comments will be accepted until June 24, 2002.
All comments concerning this interim rule should be addressed to Lester Smalls, Reclamation Branch Manager, Financial Processing Division, Financial Management Service, Prince Georges Center II Building, 3700 East-West Highway, Room 724-D, Hyattsville, Maryland 20782. Comments also may be emailed to: Lester.Smalls@fms.treas.gov.
Lester Smalls, Reclamation Branch Manager, Financial Processing Division, at (202) 874-7945; Ronda Kent or Randall S. Lewis, Senior Attorneys, at (202) 874-6680.
This interim rule revises 31 CFR Part 240 by adding new provisions in a new § 240.9 relating to TCO, a debt collection tool authorized by the DCIA, Pub. L. 104-134, Title III, § 31001(d)(4), codified at 31 U.S.C. 3712(e). The DCIA authorizes the Secretary to collect amounts owed to the Treasury by financial institutions presenting Treasury checks to the Federal Reserve for payment by the United States (“presenting banks”). Under TCO, the Department of the Treasury (Department) will direct a Federal Reserve Bank to withhold credit from such presenting banks and apply the funds to satisfy a presenting bank's debt to the Treasury. In accordance with the DCIA, the Department will collect by means of TCO only if reclamation demand and protest as described in 31 CFR 240.7 and administrative offset as described in 31 CFR 240.8 are unsuccessful. This interim rule is unrelated to the Notices of Proposed Rulemaking published on September 21, 1995 (60 FR 48940) and May 30, 1997 (62 FR 29314).
It has been determined that this regulation is not a significant regulatory action. This interim rule will not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy, and will not adversely affect in a material way the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities. Further, this interim rule will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency, nor will it materially alter the budgetary effects of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights or obligations of their recipients. This interim rule does not raise novel legal or policy issues.
Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1, 1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language. We invite your comments on how to make this interim rule easier to understand. For example:
• Have we organized the material in this interim rule to suit your needs?
• Are the requirements in the interim rule clearly stated?
• Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that isn't clear?
• What else could we do to make this interim rule easier to understand?
Please send any comments you have on the clarity of this interim rule to the address specified in the
Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
We find good cause for issuing this interim rule without prior notice and comment. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, an agency is permitted to issue a rule without prior notice and comment when the agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). The provisions of the DCIA codified at 31 U.S.C. 3712(e) authorize the collection of amounts owed by presenting banks by means of the withholding of credit from financial institutions presenting Treasury checks for ultimate charge to the account of the Treasury. This rule merely incorporates the TCO provisions of the DCIA into 31 CFR part 240, and clarifies the interaction between the TCO provisions and pre-existing provisions relating to reclaiming amounts owed to the Treasury by presenting banks and collection of such amounts by means of administrative offset. With one exception, this interim rule does not substantively amplify the plain language of the DCIA. The only substantive revision to 31 CFR part 240 that is not included in the TCO provisions of the DCIA is the provision codified at 31 CFR 240.9(d) which provides that TCO does not apply to claims based on reclamations that have been outstanding for more than 10 years. Given that this provision limits the application of the TCO provisions of the DCIA and, therefore, in itself does not adversely affect presenting banks, we find that it is unnecessary to require prior notice and comment for that provision. Nevertheless, the public is invited to submit comments on the interim rule. Comments received will be
For the same reasons, it has been determined that a delayed effective date is not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
Banks, Banking, Checks, Counterfeit checks, Federal Reserve system, Forgery, Guarantees.
5 U.S.C. 301; 12 U.S.C. 391; 31 U.S.C. 3328, 3331, 3343, 3711, 3712, 3716, 3717; 332 U.S. 234 (1947); 318 U.S. 363 (1943).
(a) * * *
(1) That Treasury intends to collect the debt through administrative offset in accordance with § 240.8 if the reclamation is not paid within 120 days of the reclamation date, and if administrative offset is unsuccessful, that Treasury intends to collect the debt through Treasury Check Offset in accordance with § 240.9; * * *
(b) Requests for an appointment to inspect and copy Treasury's records with respect to a reclamation and requests to enter into repayment agreements should be sent in writing to: Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Financial Processing Division, Reclamation Branch, Room 700-D, P.O. Box 1849, Hyattsville, MD 20788.
(c)(1) If a presenting bank wishes to contest its liability for the principal amount demanded, it shall send a protest, i.e., a written statement and copies of all documentary evidence (e.g., affidavits, account agreements, signature cards) and other written information raising a question of law or fact which, if resolved in the presenting bank's favor, would show that the presenting bank is not liable, to: Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Financial Processing Division, Reclamation Branch, Room 700-D, P.O. Box 1849, Hyattsville, MD 20788. The Director, Financial Processing Division, who has supervisory authority over the Reclamation Branch, or his/her authorized subordinate, shall consider and decide any protest properly submitted under this paragraph. Neither the Director, Financial Processing Division, nor any of his/her subordinates, shall have any involvement in the process of making findings or demands under § 240.6(a). In order to be considered, and to be timely, a protest must be received not later than 90 days after the reclamation date. Treasury will refrain from collection in accordance with § 240.8 or § 240.9 while a timely protest is being considered. Unresolved protested items will be appropriately annotated on the monthly summary of debt statement.
(c) If Treasury is unable to collect an amount owed by use of the offset described in paragraph (a) of this section, Treasury shall take such action against the presenting bank as may be necessary to protect the interests of the United States, including Treasury Check Offset in accordance with § 240.9 or referral to the Department of Justice.
(a) If Treasury is unable to effect collection pursuant to § 240.7 or § 240.8 of this part, it will collect the principal amount of the reclamation, accrued interest, penalty, and administrative costs through Treasury Check Offset. Treasury Check Offset occurs when, at the direction of Treasury, a Federal Reserve Bank withholds, that is, offsets, credit from a presenting bank (e.g., a financial institution presenting a Treasury check for ultimate charge to the account of the United States Treasury). The amount of credit offset is applied to the principal amount of the reclamation, accrued interest, penalties, and administrative costs owed by the presenting bank. As provided by the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 3712(e), by presenting Treasury checks for payment, the presenting bank is deemed to authorize Treasury Check Offset.
(b) If Treasury effects offset under this section and it is later determined that the presenting bank paid the principal amount of the reclamation and accrued interest, penalties, and administrative costs thereon, or that a presenting bank was not liable for the amount of the reclamation, Treasury will promptly refund to the presenting bank the amount of its payment. Treasury may refund the amount either by applying the amount to another reclamation debt in accordance with this Part or other applicable law, or by returning the amount to the presenting bank.
(c) Treasury Check Offset is used for the purpose of collecting debt owed by a presenting bank to the Federal Government. As a consequence, presenting banks shall not be able to use the fact that Treasury checks presented for payment have not been paid as the basis for a claim against Treasury, a Federal Reserve Bank, or other persons or entities, including payees or other indorsers of checks, for the amount of the credit offset pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3712(e) and this section.
(d) This section does not apply to a claim based upon a reclamation that has been outstanding for more than 10 years from the date of delinquency.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Was issued in payment of principal or interest on U.S. securities, it shall be forwarded to the Bureau of the Public Debt, Division of Customer Service, P.O. Box 426, Parkersburg, WV 26106.
Coast Guard, DOT.
Notice of implementation.
The Coast Guard is implementing the special local regulations at 33 CFR 100.518 for the
33 CFR 100.518 is effective from 5 a.m. to 8 a.m. on May 26, 2002.
Ron Houck, Marine Information Specialist, Commander, Coast Guard Activities Baltimore, 2401 Hawkins Point Road, Baltimore, MD 21226-1971, at (410) 576-2674.
The U.S. Naval Academy will sponsor crew races on the waters of the Severn River at Annapolis, Maryland. The event will consist of intercollegiate crew rowing teams racing along a 2000-meter course on the waters of the Severn River. A fleet of spectator vessels is expected to gather near the event site to view the competition. In order to ensure the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels, 33 CFR 100.518 will be in effect for the duration of the event. Under provisions of 33 CFR 100.518, vessels may not enter the regulated area without permission from the Coast Guard Patrol Commander. Spectator vessels may anchor outside the regulated area but may not block a navigable channel.
In addition to this notice, the maritime community will be provided extensive advance notification via the Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, and area newspapers, so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.
Coast Guard, DOT.
Notice of implementation.
The Coast Guard is implementing the special local regulations at 33 CFR 100.501 for the Portsmouth 250th Birthday Party Fireworks, to be held May 26, 2002, over the waters of the Elizabeth River between Norfolk and Portsmouth, Virginia. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the event. The effect will be to restrict general navigation in the regulated area for the safety of spectators, participants and vessels transiting the event area.
33 CFR 100.501 is effective from 6:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. EDT on May 26, 2002.
Chief Petty Officer Jerry Saffold, Marine Events Coordinator, Commander, Coast Guard Group Hampton Roads, 4000 Coast Guard Blvd., Portsmouth, VA 23703, at (757) 483-8521.
On Saturday, May 26, 2002, Ports Events, Inc. will sponsor the Portsmouth 250th Birthday Party Fireworks over the waters of the Elizabeth River, between Norfolk and Portsmouth, Virginia. The event will consist of a pyrotechnics display lasting approximately 45 minutes. A fleet of spectator vessels is expected to gather near the event site to view the fireworks. In order to ensure the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels, 33 CFR 100.501 will be in effect for the duration of the event. Under provisions of 33 CFR 100.501, vessels may not enter the regulated area without permission from the Coast Guard Patrol Commander. Spectator vessels may anchor outside the regulated area but may not block a navigable channel.
In addition to this notice, the maritime community will be provided extensive advance notification via the Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, and area newspapers, so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.
Coast Guard, DOT.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for the waters of the Ohio River beginning at mile 355.5 and ending at mile 356.5, extending the entire width of the river. This safety zone is needed to protect spectators and vessels from the potential safety hazards associated with a fireworks display. Entry into this zone is prohibited, unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Huntington or his designated representative.
This rule is effective from 9:30 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 4, 2002.
Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket [COTP Huntington-02-004] and are available for inspection or copying at Marine Safety Office Huntington, 1415 6th Avenue, Huntington, West Virginia, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Chief Petty Officer, Rick Leffler, Marine Safety Office Huntington, Marine Event Coordinator at (304) 529-5524.
We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. Information was made available to the Coast Guard in insufficient time to publish a NPRM. Publishing a NPRM with a comment period would be contrary to public interest since action is needed to protect vessels and mariners from the hazards associated with a fireworks display.
The Captain of the Port Huntington, is establishing a safety zone between mile 355.5 and 356.5 of the Ohio River, extending the entire width of the river. This safety zone is needed to protect spectators and vessels from the potential safety hazards associated with a fireworks display. All vessels are prohibited from transiting within this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Huntington or his designated representative.
This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979).
The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this proposal to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10(e) of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary. This regulation will only be in effect for a short period of time and notifications to the marine community will be made through broadcast notice to mariners. The impacts on routine navigation are expected to be minimal.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the Ohio River from mile 355.5 to 356.5, from 9:30 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 4, 2002. This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because this rule will be in effect for only a short period of time and mariners will be notified in advance of the zone through broadcast notice to mariners.
If you are a small business entity and are significantly affected by this regulation please contact Chief Petty Officer Rick Leffler, Marine Safety Office Huntington at (304) 529-5524.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we so discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that Order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
We have considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that under figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g), of Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available for inspection or copying where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191, 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6 160.5; 49 CFR 1.46.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage through the zone must request permission from the Captain of the Port Huntington, or his designated representative. They may be contacted via VHF-FM Channel 13 or 16 or via telephone at (304) 529-5524.
(3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Huntington and designated on-scene U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel. On-scene U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel include commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the U.S. Coast Guard.
Coast Guard, DOT.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for the certain waters of the Kanawha River. This safety zone is needed to protect spectators and vessels from the potential safety hazards associated with a fireworks display. Entry into this zone is prohibited, unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Huntington or his designated representative.
This rule is effective from 9:15 p.m. to 9:45 p.m. on June 2, 2002.
Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket [COTP Huntington-02-002] and are available for inspection or copying at Marine Safety Office Huntington, 1415 6th Avenue, Huntington, West Virginia, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Chief Petty Officer, Rick Leffler, Marine Safety Office Huntington, Marine Event Coordinator at (304) 529-5524.
We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM, and, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Captain of the Port Huntington, is establishing a safety zone between mile 56.0 and 57.0 of the Kanawha River, extending the entire width of the river. This safety zone is needed to protect spectators and vessels from the potential safety hazards associated with a fireworks display. All vessels are prohibited from transiting within this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Huntington or his designated representative.
This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979).
The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this proposal to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10(e) of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary. This regulation will only be in effect for a short period of time and notifications to the marine community will be made through broadcast notice to mariners. The impacts on routine navigation are expected to be minimal.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the Kanawha River from mile 56.0 to 57.0, from 9:15 p.m. to 9:45 p.m. on June 2, 2002. This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because this rule will be in effect for only a short period of time and mariners will be notified in advance of the zone through broadcast notice to mariners.
If you are a small business entity and are significantly affected by this regulation please contact Chief Petty Officer Rick Leffler, Marine Safety Office Huntington at (304) 529-5524.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we so discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that Order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
We have considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that under figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g), of Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available for inspection or copying where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191, 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6 160.5; 49 CFR 1.46.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage through the zone must request permission from the Captain of the Port Huntington, or his designated representative. They may be contacted via VHF-FM Channel 13 or 16 or via telephone at (304) 529-5524.
(3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Huntington and designated on-scene U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel. On-scene U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel include commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the U.S. Coast Guard.
Coast Guard, DOT.
Notice of implementation.
The Coast Guard is implementing safety zones for annual fireworks displays in the Captain of the Port Detroit Zone during June 2002. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life and property on navigable waters during these events. These zones will restrict vessel traffic from a portion of the Captain of the Port Detroit Zone.
Effective from 12:01 a.m.(Eastern Time) on June 1, 2002 to 11:59 p.m.(Eastern Time) on June 30, 2002.
Lieutenant Junior Grade Brandon Sullivan, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office Detroit, MI at (313) 568-9580.
The Coast Guard is implementing the permanent
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
In order to ensure the safety of spectators and transiting vessels, these safety zones will be in effect for the duration of the events. In cases where shipping is affected, commercial vessels may request permission from the Captain of the Port Detroit to transit the safety zone. Approval will be made on a case-by case basis. Requests must be made in advance and approved by the Captain of Port before transits will be authorized. The Captain of the Port may be contacted via U.S. Coast Guard Group Detroit on channel 16, VHF-FM.
Coast Guard, DOT.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for the waters of the Ohio River beginning at mile 307.0 and ending at mile 308.0, extending the entire width of the river. This safety zone is needed to protect spectators and vessels from the potential safety hazards associated with a fireworks display. Entry into this zone is prohibited, unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Huntington or his designated representative.
This rule is effective from 9:30 p.m. to 10:45 p.m. on June 29, 2002.
Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket [COTP Huntington-02-003] and are available for inspection or copying at Marine Safety Office Huntington, 1415 6th Avenue, Huntington, West Virginia, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Chief Petty Officer, Rick Leffler, Marine Safety Office Huntington, Marine Event Coordinator at (304) 529-5524.
We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. Information was made available to the Coast Guard in insufficient time to publish a NPRM. Publishing a NPRM with a comment period would be contrary to public interest since action is needed to protect vessels and mariners from the hazards associated with a fireworks display.
The Captain of the Port Huntington, is establishing a safety zone between mile 307.8 and 308.0 of the Ohio River, extending the entire width of the river. This safety zone is needed to protect spectators and vessels from the potential safety hazards associated with a fireworks display. All vessels are prohibited from transiting within this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Huntington or his designated representative.
This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT)(44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979).
The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this proposal to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10 (e) of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary. This regulation will only be in effect for a short period of time and notifications to the marine community will be made through broadcast notice to mariners. The impacts on routine navigation are expected to be minimal.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the Ohio River from mile 307.0 to 308.0, from 9:30 p.m. to 10:45 p.m. on June 29, 2002. This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because this rule will be in effect for only a short period of time and mariners will be notified in advance of the zone through broadcast notice to mariners.
If you are a small business entity and are significantly affected by this regulation please contact Chief Petty Officer Rick Leffler, Marine Safety Office Huntington at (304) 529-5524.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we so discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
We have considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that under figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g), of Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available for inspection or copying where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191, 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6 160.5; 49 CFR 1.46.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage through the zone must request permission from the Captain of the Port Huntington, or his designated representative. They may be contacted via VHF-FM Channel 13 or 16 or via telephone at (304) 529-5524.
(3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Huntington and designated on-scene U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel. On-scene U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel include commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the U.S. Coast Guard.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Final rule.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is amending its regulations to establish a restricted area in waters adjacent to the Everett Naval Base at
June 24, 2002.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ATTN: CECW-OR, 441 G Street, NW, Washington, DC 20314-1000.
Mr. Frank Torbett, Headquarters Regulatory Branch, Washington, DC at (202) 761-4618, or Mr. Jack Kennedy, Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Regulatory Branch, at (206) 764-6907.
Pursuant to its authorities in Section 7 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1917 (40 Stat. 266; 33 U.S.C. 1) and Chapter XIX, of the Army Appropriations Act of 1919 (40 Stat. 892; 33 U.S.C. 3) the Corps is amending the restricted area regulations in 33 CFR part 334 by adding a new section 334.1215 which establishes a restricted area in waters adjacent to Naval Station Everett at Everett, Washington.
This rule is issued with respect to a military function of the Defense Department and the provisions of Executive Order 12866 do not apply.
This rule has been reviewed under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Public Law 96-354) which requires the preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis for any regulation that will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (i.e., small businesses and small governments). The Corps expects that the economic impact of this restricted area would have practically no impact on the public, no anticipated navigational hazard or interference with existing waterway traffic and accordingly, certifies that this proposal will have no significant economic impact on small entities.
The Seattle District has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for this action. We have concluded, based on the minor nature of the proposed additional restricted area regulations, that this action will not have a significant impact to the quality of the human environment, and preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required. The EA may be reviewed at the Seattle District office listed at the end of
This rule does not impose an enforceable duty among the private sector and, therefore, is not a Federal private sector mandate and is not subject to the requirements of Section 202 or 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act. We have also found under Section 203 of the Act, that small Governments will not be significantly and uniquely affected by this rulemaking.
Pursuant to Section 801(a)(1)(A) of the Administrative Procedure Act, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, the Army has submitted a report containing this Rule to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the General Accounting Office. This Rule is not a major Rule within the meaning of Section 804(2) of the Administrative Procedure Act, as amended.
Danger zones, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Restricted areas, Waterways.
40 Stat. 266; (33 U.S.C. 1) and 40 Stat. 892; (33 U.S.C. 3)
(a)
(b)
(2) Mooring, anchoring, fishing and/or recreational boating shall not be allowed within the restricted area without prior written permission from the Commanding Officer, Naval Station Everettt.
(c)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
EPA is taking direct final rule action to add a new section which lists the pesticide chemicals that are exempt from the requirement of a tolerance
This direct final rule is effective on September 23, 2002, without further notice, unless EPA receives a relevant adverse comment by July 23, 2002. If EPA receives a relevant adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Comments may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as provided in Unit I. of the
Kathryn Boyle, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 305-6304; fax number: (703) 305-0599; e-mail address: boyle.kathryn@epa.gov.
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, pesticide manufacturer, or antimicrobial pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this table could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes are provided to assist you and others in determining whether or not this action might apply to certain entities. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket ID number OPP-2002-0021 in the subject line on the first page of your response. EPA also encourages you to submit your comments electronically, if at all possible, which will facilitate timely receipt by the Agency and avoid potential delays associated with the processing of government mail.
1.
2.
3.
Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. You may claim information that you submit to EPA in response to this document as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public version of the official record. Information not marked confidential will be included in the public version of the official record without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Offer alternative ways to improve the direct final rule.
7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this document.
8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
This direct final rule is issued pursuant to section 408(e) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Comestic Act (FFDCA), as amended by FQPA (21 U.S.C. 346a(e)). Section 408 of FFDCA authorizes the establishment of tolerances, exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance, modifications in tolerances, and revocation of tolerances for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on raw agricultural commodities and processed foods. Without a tolerance or tolerance exemption, food containing pesticide residues is considered to be unsafe and therefore “adulterated” under section 402(a) of FFDCA. If food containing pesticide residues is found to be adulterated, the food may not be distributed in interstate commerce (21 U.S.C. 331(a) and 342 (a)).
EPA is issuing this action as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency believes that this action is not controversial and is not likely to result in any adverse comments, inasmuch as this action simply shifts existing tolerance exemptions for certain polymers from one paragraph of 40 CFR 180.1001 to a new section in 40 CFR part 180. It will not alter the quantity or nature of residues that might lawfully be present in food or feed.
This direct final rule is effective on September 23, 2002, without further notice, unless EPA receives a relevant adverse comment by July 23, 2002. If however, EPA receives a relevant adverse comment during the comment period, then EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the
EPA is establishing a new § 180.960 to contain exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance for polymers that under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. The Agency has established a set of criteria to identify categories of polymers that should present low or no risk. The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b). The criteria for molecular weight (MW) and oligomeric material are specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e). The following exclusion criteria for identifying these low-risk polymers are described in 40 CFR 723.250(d).
1. The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic environment.
2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.
3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).
4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize.
5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or reactants that are already included on the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Chemical Substance Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.
6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number average MW greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons.
These polymers were approved for use in pesticide products using criteria that identify low-risk polymers. Given the use of these criteria for approving certain polymers, defining appropriate limitations or use patterns is unnecessary. All polymers approved using these criteria can be used as an inert ingredient in any pesticide chemical product, including antimicrobial pesticide products, provided that such use is in accordance with good agricultural or manufacturing practices. In fact, creation of the new section will streamline the tolerance exemptions in 40 CFR part 180 since low-risk polymers need only be listed once, instead of being separately listed in multiple sections.
EPA is taking direct final action to add a new section to part 180, subpart D which lists the pesticide chemicals that are polymers approved for use in pesticide products using the criteria in 40 CFR 723.250 that identify a low-risk polymer. This section contains those polymers whose tolerance exemptions were established post-FQPA based on the criteria described in 40 CFR 723.250 . Since this direct final rule does not impose any new requirements, it is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866, entitled
This direct final rule directly regulates food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, but does not affect States, local, or Tribal governments directly. This action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). This action will not have substantial direct effects on State or tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and States, or Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and States or Indian tribes. As a result, this action does not require any action under Executive Order 13132, entitled
Nor does it require special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Under section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346 (a) and 374.
Residues resulting from the use of the following substances, that meet the definition of a polymer and the criteria specified for defining a low-risk polymer in 40 CFR 723.250, as an inert ingredient in a pesticide chemical formulation, including antimicrobial pesticide chemical formulations, are exempted from the requirement of a tolerance under FFDCA section 408, if such use is in accordance with good agricultural or manufacturing practices.
i. The table in paragraph (c) is amended by removing the entries listed below:
ii. The table in paragraph (e) is amended by removing the entries listed below:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA is adding a new section which lists the pesticide chemicals that are exempted from the requirement of a tolerance based on the Agency's determination that these chemicals are of “minimal risk.” The pesticide chemicals listed in the new section include both active and inert ingredients. Development of the new section will be accomplished over time in a multi-step process. As the first step, the existing tolerance exemptions for commonly consumed food commodities, animal feed items, and edible fats and oils are recodified in the newly created section, albeit in a different format. This new format provides greater clarification in defining a minimal risk pesticide chemical as well as increasing the number of substances that are currently considered to be minimal risk.
With the creation of the new section, the existing tolerance exemptions (in other sections of the CFR) for these chemical substances are no longer necessary. Therefore, this document revokes the tolerance exemptions for 40 inert ingredients. The Agency is acting on its own initiative.
This final rule is effective on May 24, 2002. Objections and requests for hearings, identified by docket ID number OPP-2002-0030, must be received on or before July 23, 2002.
Written objections and hearing requests may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as provided in Unit III. of the
Kathryn Boyle, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 305-6304; fax number: (703) 305-0599; e-mail address: boyle.kathryn@epa.gov.
You may be potentially affected by this action if you formulate or market pesticide products. Potentially affected
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this table could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes are provided to assist you and others in determining whether or not this action might apply to certain entities. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
In the
However, since publication of the proposed rule the Agency has determined instead to create a new section, 40 CFR 180.950, to hold these tolerance exemptions.
Based on the reasons set forth in the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA is creating a new section in 40 CFR part 180, subpart D. All commonly consumed food items and all animal feed items with the exception of the exclusions discussed in this document, are exempt from the requirement of a tolerance under the newly established 40 CFR 180.950.
The following 40 tolerance exemptions are revoked:
1. In 40 CFR 180.1001 (c): Almond shells; apple pomace; citrus meal; cocoa shells; coconut oil; corn cobs; corn meal; corn oil; cornstarch; corn syrup; cottonseed oil; dextrose; fish oil; grape pomace, dried; lard; lactose; molasses; oatmeal; oats; orange pomace; peanut shells; rice bran; soybean oil; starch (potato, tapioca, and wheat); and sucrose.
2. In 40 CFR 180.1001 (d): Cinnamon; clove; coffee; corn; corn gluten meal, hydrolyzed; fenugreek; low erucic acid rapeseed oil, conforming to 21 CFR 184.1555(c) (CAS Reg. No. none); oat hulls; wheat; and wheat flour.
3. In 40 CFR 180.1001 (e): Corn syrup; dextrose, and sucrose.
4. Also, 40 CFR 180.1164 and 180.1194 are revoked.
However, only 39 can be counted toward tolerance reassessment.
The Agency is placing expiration dates on nine existing tolerance exemptions for known allergen-containing food commodities. At this time, the Agency cannot consolidate the overlapping and duplicative tolerance exemptions for allergen-containing commodities that currently exist in 40 CFR part 180.
These regulatory actions are part of the tolerance reassessment requirements of the FFDCA section 408(q), as amended by FQPA. By law, EPA is required to reassess 66% of the tolerances in existence on August 2, 1996, by August 2002, or about 6,400 tolerances. These regulatory actions, the reassessment of 39 tolerance exemptions, would be counted toward the August 2002 deadline.
This final rule is issued under FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, as amended by FQPA (Public Law 104-170). Section 408(e) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to establish, modify, or revoke tolerances, or exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on raw agricultural commodities and processed foods.
Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. Although the procedures in those regulations require some modification to reflect the amendments made to FFDCA by the FQPA of 1996, EPA will continue to use those procedures, with appropriate adjustments, until the necessary modifications can be made. The new FFDCA section 408(g) provides essentially the same process for persons to “object” to a regulation for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance issued by EPA under new FFDCA section 408(d), as was provided in the old FFDCA sections 408 and 409. However, the period for filing objections is now 60 days, rather than 30 days.
You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in this unit and in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number OPP-2002-0030 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before July 23, 2002.
1.
Mail your written request to: Office of the Hearing Clerk (1900), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. You may also deliver your request to the Office of the Hearing Clerk in Rm. C400, Waterside Mall, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. The Office of the Hearing Clerk is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Office of the Hearing Clerk is (202) 260-4865.
2.
EPA is authorized to waive any fee requirement “when in the judgement of the Administrator such a waiver or refund is equitable and not contrary to the purpose of this subsection.” For additional information regarding the waiver of these fees, you may contact James Tompkins by phone at (703) 305-5697, by e-mail at tompkins.jim@epa.gov, or by mailing a request for information to Mr. Tompkins at Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
If you would like to request a waiver of the tolerance objection fees, you must mail your request for such a waiver to: James Hollins, Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
3.
A request for a hearing will be granted if the Administrator determines that the material submitted shows the following: There is a genuine and substantial issue of fact; there is a reasonable possibility that available evidence identified by the requestor would, if established resolve one or more of such issues in favor of the requestor, taking into account uncontested claims or facts to the contrary; and resolution of the factual issues(s) in the manner sought by the requestor would be adequate to justify the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).
The Agency is acting on its own initiative under FFDCA section 408(e) in revoking these 40 tolerance exemptions and in establishing a new section in 40 CFR part 180, subpart D. Under Executive Order 12866 entitled,
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
This final rule simply establishes a new section in 40 CFR part 180, subpart D that contains a list of minimal risk pesticide chemicals. Under section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This final rule places expiration dates on nine existing tolerance exemptions for various known allergen-containing food commodities. Currently, the Agency's regulatory approach as written in various CFR paragraphs and sections is inconsistent. This 3-year transition period will allow sufficient time to examine the uses of these food commodities, and discuss product re-formulation with affected registrants. At the completion of this process there will be a single consistent approach for all food commodities used as pesticide chemicals.
This final rule also revokes 40 tolerance exemptions, including:
1. Revoking duplicative and overlapping tolerance exemptions for commonly consumed (non-allergen) food commodities.
2. Revoking and consolidating the existing tolerance exemptions for animal feed items.
Pursuant to the RFA, the Agency hereby certifies that establishing new tolerance exemptions for edible oils derived from allergens and animal feed items not previously exempted does not have significant negative economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. By contrast, the amendments and revisions that expand tolerance exemptions are beneficial to the regulated community by increasing the number of minimal risk inert ingredients for use in pesticide formulations.
Pursuant to the RFA, the Agency previously assessed whether revocations of tolerances or tolerance exemptions for pesticide products no longer in use in the United States might significantly impact a substantial number of small entities and concluded that, as a general matter, these actions do not impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This analysis was published on December 17, 1997 (62 FR 66020) (FRL-5753-1), and was provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Taking into account this analysis, the available information concerning the pesticide chemicals listed in this final rule, the transition time for the known allergen containing commodities and considering that all of the revoked tolerance exemptions are covered in the established 40 CFR 180.950, the Agency certifies that this action does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Furthermore, the Agency knows of no extraordinary circumstances that exist that change EPA's previous analysis.
In addition, the Agency has determined that this action does not have a substantial direct effect on 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346(a) and 374.
Unless specifically excluded, residues resulting from the use of the following substances as either an inert or an active ingredient in a pesticide chemical formulation, including antimicrobial pesticide chemicals, are exempted from the requirement of a tolerance under
(a)
(1) Included within the term commonly consumed food commodities are:
(i) Sugars such as sucrose, lactose, dextrose and fructose, and invert sugar and syrup.
(ii) Spices such as cinnamon, cloves, and red pepper.
(iii) Herbs such as basil, anise, or fenugreek.
(2) Excluded from the term commonly consumed food commodities are:
(i) Any food commodity that is adulterated under 21 U.S.C. 342.
(ii) Both the raw and processed forms of peanuts, tree nuts, milk, soybeans, eggs, fish, crustacea, and wheat.
(iii) Alcoholic beverages.
(iv) Dietary supplements.
(b)
(1) The hulls and shells of the commodities specified in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section, and cocoa beans.
(2) Bird feed such as canary seed.
(3) Any feed component of a medicated feed meeting the definition of an animal feed item.
(c)
(1) Included within the term edible fats and oils are oils (such as soybean oil) that are derived from the commodities specified in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section when such oils are highly refined via a solvent extraction procedure.
(2) Excluded from the term edible fats and oils are plant oils used in the pesticide chemical formulation specifically to impart their characteristic fragrance and/or flavoring.
(a) In the table in paragraph (c) remove the entries for: Almond shells; apple pomace; citrus meal; cocoa shells; coconut oil; corn cobs; corn meal; corn oil; cornstarch; corn syrup; cottonseed oil; dextrose; fish oil; grape pomace, dried; lard; lactose; molasses; oatmeal; oats; orange pomace; peanut shells; rice bran; soybean oil; starch (potato, tapioca, and wheat); and sucrose.
(b) In the table in paragraph (d) remove the entries for: Cinnamon; clove; coffee; corn; corn gluten meal, hydrolyzed; fenugreek; low erucic acid rapeseed oil, conforming to 21 CFR 184.1555(c) (CAS Reg. No. None); oat hulls; wheat; and wheat flour.
(c) In the table in paragraph (e) remove the entries for: Corn syrup; dextrose, and sucrose.
(a) Revising the following entries in the tables to paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) and
(b) Adding the entry “wheat, including flour, bran, and starch” to the table in paragraph (c).
(c) * * *
(d) * * *
(e) * * *
A time-limited tolerance exemption expiring May 24, 2005, is established for residues of whole egg solids (of at least feed grade quality) when used as an animal repellent in or on almonds and applied to the growing crop in accordance with good agricultural practices.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Final rule with comment period.
In accordance with the Secretary's announcement of his quality initiative, this technical regulation revises all references to “peer review organization” and “PRO” in chapters I, IV, and V of title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This regulation also makes conforming changes to the general definitions section.
In commenting, please refer to file code CMS-3088-FC. Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission. Mail written comments (one original and three copies) to the following address ONLY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS-3088-FC, P.O. Box 8010, Baltimore, MD 21244-8010.
Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received timely in the event of delivery delays.
If you prefer, you may deliver (by hand or courier) your written comments (one original and three copies) to one of the following addresses:
Room 445-G, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201, or Room C5-16-03, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.
(Because access to the interior of the HHH Building is not readily available to persons without Federal Government identification, commenters are encouraged to leave their comments in the CMS drop slots located in the main lobby of the building. A stamp-in clock is available for commenters wishing to retain a proof of filing by stamping in and retaining an extra copy of the comments being filed.)
Comments mailed to the addresses indicated as appropriate for hand or courier delivery may be delayed and could be considered late.
For information on viewing public comments, see the beginning of the
Valerie Mattison-Brown, (410) 786-5958.
Comments received timely will be available for public inspection as they are received, generally beginning approximately 3 weeks after publication of a document, at the headquarters of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850, Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. To schedule an appointment to view public comments, call (410) 786-9994.
Currently, the Social Security Act uses the term “utilization and quality control peer review organizations” to describe those entities which contract with CMS for the performance of the functions prescribed by title XI of the Social Security Act. The CMS regulations at 42 CFR 400.200, currently define a “peer review organization as an organization that has a contract with CMS, under part B of title XI of the Social Security Act, to perform utilization and quality control review of the health care furnished, or to be furnished, to Medicare beneficiaries.”
In November 2001, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) launched a quality initiative to provide Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries and their families with easy to understand, comparative information for selecting quality sources of healthcare such as nursing homes and hospitals. The peer review organizations will be instrumental in promoting this initiative. In accordance with the Secretary's quality initiative to provide Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries and their families with user friendly quality information, we are changing the name of peer review organizations to quality improvement organizations to better reflect their responsibilities. The definition and function of these organizations will remain the same. Therefore, we are revising all references to “peer review organization” and “PRO” in chapters I, IV, and V of title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
In 42 CFR chapters I, IV, and V we are revising all references to—
• “Peer review organization” to read “quality improvement organization”;
• “Peer review organizations” to read “quality improvement organizations”;
• “PRO” to read “QIO”;
• “PRO's” to read “QIO's”; and
• “PROs” to read “QIOs”.
In addition, we are making the following conforming changes in § 400.200 (General definitions):
• Removing the definition of “peer review organization”;
• Removing the definition of “PRO”;
• Adding the definition of “quality improvement organization”; and
• Adding the definition of “QIO”.
Because of the large number of items of correspondence we normally receive on
We ordinarily publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
This document does not impose information collection and recordkeeping requirements. Consequently, it need not be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
We have examined the impacts of this notice as required by Executive Orders 12866 and 13132. We have also examined the impacts of this notice according to the criteria set forth in the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (Public Law 96-354), and section 1102(b) of the Social Security Act.
Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for rules that constitute significant regulatory action, including rules that have an economic effect of $100 million or more annually (major rules). We have reviewed this rule and have determined that it is not a major rule. Therefore, we are not required to perform an assessment of the costs and benefits. We have also determined that it does not otherwise constitute significant regulatory action.
The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief of small businesses. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and governmental agencies. Most hospitals and most other providers and suppliers are small entities, either by nonprofit status or by having revenues of $5 million to $25 million or less annually (see 65 FR 69432). Individuals and States are not included in the definition of a small entity. We generally prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis that is consistent with the RFA unless we certify that a rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. We have not prepared an analysis for the RFA because we have determined, and certify, that this final rule with comment period would have no significant economic impact on small entities.
In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act requires us to prepare a regulatory impact analysis if a rule may have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. This analysis must conform to the provisions of section 604 of the RFA. For purposes of section 1102 (b) of the Act, we define a small rural hospital as a hospital that is located outside of a Metropolitan Statistical Area and has fewer than 100 beds. We have not prepared an analysis for section 1102(b) of the Act because we have determined that this final rule with comment period would not have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 also requires that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in an expenditure in any 1 year by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $110 million or more. We have determined that this final rule with comment period would not result in such an expenditure.
Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a rule that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has Federalism implications. We have reviewed this proposed rule under the threshold criteria of Executive Order 13132 and have determined that it would not have a substantial direct effect on the rights, roles, and responsibilities of States or local governments.
In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this regulation was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Grant programs-health, Health facilities, Health maintenance organizations (HMOs), Medicaid, Medicare, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Secs 1102 and 1871 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302 and 1395hh) and 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Closure.
NMFS is closing directed fishing for yellowfin sole by vessels using trawl gear in Bycatch Limitation Zone 1 (Zone 1) of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the 2002 bycatch allowance of red king crab specified for the trawl yellowfin sole fishery category in Zone 1.
Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), May 21, 2002, until 2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2002.
Mary Furuness, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The 2002 red king crab bycatch allowance specified for Zone 1 of the BSAI trawl yellowfin sole fishery category, which is defined at § 679.21(e)(3)(iv)(B)(1), is 16,664 animals (67 FR 956, January 8, 2002).
In accordance with § 679.21(e)(7)(ii), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the 2002 bycatch allowance of red king crab specified for the trawl yellowfin sole fishery in Zone 1 of the BSAI has been reached. Consequently, the Regional Administrator is closing directed fishing for yellowfin sole by vessels using trawl gear in Zone 1 of the BSAI.
Maximum retainable bycatch amounts may be found in the regulations at § 679.20(e) and (f).
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds that the need to immediately implement this action to avoid exceeding the red king crab bycatch allowance for the trawl yellowfin sole fishery category in Zone 1 of the BSAI constitutes good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) and 50 CFR 679.20(b)(3)(iii)(A), as such procedures would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Similarly, the need to implement these measures in a timely fashion to avoid exceeding the red king crab bycatch allowance for the trawl yellowfin sole fishery category in Zone 1 of the BSAI constitutes good cause to find that the effective date of this action cannot be delayed for 30 days. Accordingly, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), a delay in the effective date is hereby waived.
This action is required by 50 CFR 679.21 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
In an effort to continually look for ways to streamline requirements of borrowers and make regulations simple and direct, the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) proposes to eliminate regulations on Exceptions of RUS Operational Controls under Section 306E of the RE Act in its entirety. Because borrowers are now afforded the same exemptions from RUS operational controls by way of other provisions, RUS has determined that the regulations can now be removed.
Written comments must be received by RUS or carry a postmark or equivalent no later than June 24, 2002.
Written comments should be addressed to F. Lamont Heppe, Jr., Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 1522, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250-1522. RUS requests a signed original and three copies of all comments (7 CFR 1700.4). Comments will be available for public inspection during regular business hours (7 CFR 1.27(b)).
Patrick R. Sarver, Management Analyst, Rural Utilities Service, Electric Program, Room 4024 South Building, Stop 1560, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250-1560, Telephone: 202-690-2992, FAX: 202-690-0717, E-mail: psarver@rus.usda.gov.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This rule is excluded from the scope of Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Consultation, which may require consultation with State and local officials. See the final rule related notice titled “Department Programs and Activities Excluded from Executive Order 12372” (50 FR 47034) advising that RUS loans and loan guarantees from coverage were not covered by Executive Order 12372.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. RUS has determined that this proposed rule meets the applicable standards provided in section 3 of the Executive Order. In addition, all state and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this rule will be preempted; no retroactive effect will be given to this rule, and, in accordance with section 212(e) of the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6912 (e)), administrative appeals procedures, if any are required, must be exhausted before and action against the Department or its agencies.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule contains no additional information collection or recordkeeping requirements under OMB control number 0572-0032 that would require approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
This proposed rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provision of title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, this proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
The Administrator of RUS has determined that this proposed rule will not significantly affect the quality of human environment as defined by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
The program described by this proposed rule is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Programs under No. 10.850, Rural Electrification Loans and Loan Guarantees. This catalog is available on a subscription basis from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325, telephone number (202) 512-1800.
RUS currently treats the general subject of operational controls for recipients of electric loans and guarantees in three separate places, namely in RUS loan documents, in 7 CFR part 1717, subpart M, and in 7 CFR 1710.7. In the interests of eliminating confusion and to continue in its ongoing program to streamline RUS regulations, RUS is proposing to remove 7 CFR 1710.7. An understanding of how RUS treatment of operational controls evolved in the 1990's is essential to understanding this action.
In November of 1993, Congress enacted sec. 306e of the Rural
On December 29, 1995 (60 FR 67395), RUS published a final rule substantially revising the forms of its loan documents to extend the benefits of the treatment of 110 percent borrowers to virtually all RUS borrowers. That exercise made the most comprehensive changes to RUS loan documents in over 20 years and was guided by the practices of private lenders. Consequently, regardless of whether they were entitled to treatment as 110 percent borrowers, all borrowers using the updated forms of loan documents enjoyed their more contemporary treatment of the subject of operational controls. That treatment closely followed the treatment of 110 percent borrowers in 7 CFR 1710.7. In the same rulemaking, RUS promulgated 7 CFR part 1717, subpart M, which also treated the subject of operational controls. Subpart M was intended to manage the transition from old style loan documents to the more contemporary new forms in an orderly and equitable way. RUS was concerned that all of its borrowers would simultaneously request replacement of their existing loan documentation with the new forms. Constraints on RUS resources necessitated the phasing in of the new loan documents. RUS managed its concerns by promulgating subpart M to conform the requirements for existing loan documents to those being used in the new forms. Borrowers who have not yet replaced their loan documents with the new forms are referred to as “legacy” borrowers.
In the preamble to that 1995 rulemaking, RUS explained the relationship between these three separate treatments of the subject of operational controls: “The provisions of the new mortgage and loan contract and 7 CFR part 1717, subpart M, in many cases provide greater latitude to borrowers than established originally in 7 CFR 1710.7 for 110 percent borrowers. Therefore, § 1710.7 has been revised to reflect the greater latitude provided in the new loan documents and Subpart M.”
RUS also concluded that in its “judgement” and citing “prudent private lending practices,” the further relaxation of operational controls for 110 percent borrowers was not justified beyond what was provided for every borrower in the new loan documents and in subpart M for “legacy” borrowers. In other words, by changing 7 CFR 1710.7 only so far as necessary to avoid the anomaly of 110 percent borrowers being subjected to more restrictive covenants under 7 CFR 1710.7 then they otherwise would have been as a typical borrower operating under the new documents and regulations, RUS made operational controls for 110 percent borrowers coextensive with the relaxed operational controls in the new loan documents and subpart M. Thus, for all intents and purposes, on December 29, 1995, the treatment of operational controls for all three categories of electric borrowers converged around the less intrusive approach adopted by the new loan documents reflecting private lending practices.
Since 1995, almost all RUS electric borrowers have executed the new loan documents. About 100 electric borrowers still have the old forms, but the distinctions in operational controls have been eliminated by subpart M. It should also be noted that every 110 percent electric borrower either now has the new form of loan documents or has “legacy” loan documents, which have been modified by the promulgation of subpart M. Accordingly, the subject of operational controls is now treated essentially the same way for all distribution borrowers regardless of their 110 percent borrower status. In all instances, that treatment has been guided by the practices of private lenders. Since that treatment of operational controls conforms to the requirements of sec. 306e of the RE Act, 7 CFR 1710.7 now appears to be an anachronism that no longer serves any useful purpose.
RUS notes that sec. 306e of the RE Act also treats the subject of lien accommodations and subordinations for 110 percent borrowers. Although this remains important, the subject of lien accommodations and subordinations for 110 percent borrowers is separately treated in 7 CFR 1717.860 and 7 CFR 1717.904. Although 7 CFR 1717.904 contains some cross-references to 7 CFR 1710.7(c), these appear to be merely reader's aids. Accordingly, RUS proposes to amend 7 CFR 1717.904 by eliminating paragraphs (c) and (d) thereof and redesignating the existing paragraph (e) as paragraph (c). RUS considers these changes in 7 CFR 1717.904 to be of a conforming nature and no substantive change in the existing treatment of requests for lien accommodations or subordinations by 110 percent borrowers is intended. No changes in 7 CFR 1717.860 are necessitated by the proposed action and so none are being made.
For all of the above reasons, it appears that 7 CFR 1710.7 has become an anachronism because the subsequent promulgation of new loan documents and subpart M effectively conferred the benefits of 7 CFR 1710.7 to all borrowers. Borrowers who are relying on subpart M are encouraged to switch to the new forms of loan documents so that subpart M itself can eventually be removed at a later date once the universe of legacy borrowers has sufficiently contracted to the point that any remaining legacy borrowers could be dealt with either informally or on a case-by-case basis. RUS does not believe this proposed action will diminish or abrogate any rights or privileges conferred upon 110 percent borrowers by sec. 306e of the RE Act, and no such consequences are intended.
Electric power, Electric utilities, Loan programs—energy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rural areas.
Administrative practice and procedure, Electric power, Electric power rates, Electric utilities, Intergovernmental relations, Investments, Loan programs—energy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rural areas.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, chapter X of title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations, is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 1710 continues to read as follows:
7 U.S.C. 901
2. Section 1710.7 is removed and reserved.
3. The authority citation for part 1717 continues to read as follows:
7 U.S.C. 901
4. Section 1717.904 is amended by removing paragraphs (c) and (d) and redesignating paragraph (e) as paragraph (c).
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Proposed rule.
The Board of Governors is publishing for comment a proposed amendment to Regulation A that would replace the existing adjustment and extended credit programs with new discount window programs called primary credit and secondary credit, respectively. This proposed restructuring of Federal Reserve credit programs is designed to improve the functioning of the discount window and does not represent a change in the stance of monetary policy. The proposed rule also would reorganize and streamline existing provisions of Regulation A. The Board solicits comment on all aspects of the proposal.
Comments on the proposed rule must be received not later than August 22, 2002.
Comments should refer to docket number R-1123 and should be sent to Ms. Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20551 or mailed electronically to
Brian Madigan, Deputy Director (202/452-3828) or William Nelson, Senior Economist (202/452-3579), Division of Monetary Affairs; or Stephanie Martin, Assistant General Counsel (202/452-3198) or Adrianne Threatt, Senior Attorney (202/452-3554), Legal Division; for users of Telecommunication Devices for the Deaf (TDD) only, contact 202/263-4869.
Under existing Regulation A, the Reserve Banks may make credit available to depository institutions at the discount window by making advances secured by acceptable collateral or by discounting paper that meets the requirements of the Federal Reserve Act. Reserve Bank credit usually takes the form of an advance.
Reserve Banks make credit available at the discount window through three credit programs: adjustment credit, seasonal credit, and extended credit. Adjustment credit is available for short periods of time at a basic discount rate that, over the past decade, typically has been 25 to 50 basis points below the market rates that apply to overnight loans, as indexed by the federal funds rate. Reserve Banks also extend seasonal credit for longer periods than permitted under the adjustment credit program to help smaller depository institutions meet funding needs that result from expected patterns in their deposits and loans. Finally, Reserve Banks may provide extended credit to depository institutions where similar assistance is not reasonably available from other sources. The rates applied to seasonal and extended credit are at or above the basic discount rate.
When implementing monetary policy, the Federal Reserve relies primarily on open market operations to supply reserves to the banking system and currency to the public and to make short-run adjustments in reserves. However, lending to depository institutions through the discount window aids the Federal Reserve's open market operations in two important ways. First, discount window lending provides additional reserves to the overall banking system when the supply of reserves provided through open market operations falls short of demand. Second, discount window lending provides a temporary source of reserves and funding to financially sound individual depository institutions that have experienced an unexpected shortfall in reserves or funding. Discount window credit permits such an institution to make payments without incurring an overdraft in its Federal Reserve account or failing to meet its reserve requirements. Historically the Federal Reserve System has relied on the adjustment credit program to accomplish these two objectives.
The discount window also can, at times, serve as a useful tool for promoting financial stability by providing temporary funding to depository institutions that are experiencing significant financial difficulties. The provision of credit to a troubled depository institution can help to prevent the sudden collapse of the institution by easing liquidity strains while the institution is making a transition to more sound footing, or by facilitating an orderly closure of the institution. An institution obtaining credit in such a situation must be monitored appropriately to ensure that it does not take excessive risks in an attempt to return to profitability and does not use central bank credit in a manner that would increase costs to the deposit insurance fund of resolving the institution if resolution were to become necessary. Historically, the Federal Reserve System has relied on extended credit to aid depository institutions experiencing significant financial difficulties.
A below-market discount rate creates incentives for institutions to obtain adjustment credit to exploit the spread between the discount rate and the market rates for short-term loans. Regulation A therefore provides that a Reserve Bank cannot extend adjustment credit to a depository institution until
Because of the restrictions necessitated by a below-market discount rate, a substantial degree of Reserve Bank administration is associated with adjustment credit. In particular, the Reserve Bank may need to review each prospective borrower's funding situation to establish that the borrower has exhausted other reasonably available sources of funds and that the reason for borrowing is appropriate. Because that evaluation necessarily is subjective, achieving a reasonable degree of consistency in credit administration across the System is difficult.
The administration of and restrictions on discount window credit create a burden on depository institutions that reduces their willingness to seek credit at the discount window. In addition, the rules governing discount window credit have proved difficult to explain, and depository institutions often have cited uncertainty about their borrowing privileges as a disincentive to seek credit. Depository institutions also have expressed concern about the requirement that borrowers fully utilize other sources of funds before borrowing adjustment credit. Institutions have expressed concern that turning to the window after signaling in the market their need for funds could be interpreted as a sign of weakness, particularly during periods of financial stress. Concerns such as these have limited the willingness of depository institutions to borrow at the discount window, even in circumstances of extremely tight money markets where such borrowing would have been appropriate. The reluctance to borrow in turn has limited the discount window's effectiveness in buffering shocks to money markets.
In light of the drawbacks associated with the current below-market discount window programs, the Board believes that the interests of depository institutions, the Federal Reserve System, and the economy more generally would be served more effectively by an above-market lending program. Under the Board's proposed rule, Reserve Banks would extend credit under the primary credit program to institutions the Reserve Banks determine to be generally sound. Primary credit usually would be extended at an above-market rate, which should essentially eliminate the incentive for institutions to seek discount window credit simply to exploit the usual spread between the discount rate and short-term market rates. Eliminating this incentive would reduce sharply the need for administration regarding the extension and use of Federal Reserve credit. The streamlined eligibility criteria also should encourage greater uniformity in administration of the discount window across Federal Reserve districts. By minimizing a Reserve Bank's need to question potential borrowers, not requiring that an institution first attempt to borrow elsewhere, making the borrowing program significantly more transparent, and limiting extensions of primary credit to generally sound financial institutions, the proposed above-market lending program should reduce depository institutions' reluctance to borrow when money markets tighten sharply. As a result, the discount window should become a more effective policy instrument.
The Board reiterates that replacing the current below-market adjustment credit program with an above-market program would not signal a shift in the stance of monetary policy. Rather, the proposed changes represent a broad structural change that should enable the discount window to operate more efficiently as a source of funds for individual depository institutions and as a mechanism for implementing the policy objectives of the Federal Reserve System. The proposed structure of providing credit at the margin at above-market interest rates also would be similar to mechanisms adopted by other major central banks.
The Board proposes to replace the adjustment credit with a new lending program called primary credit and the extended credit program with a new program known as secondary credit. Although the proposed regulation retains the seasonal credit program with minor revisions, as discussed in more detail below the Board specifically requests comment on whether a seasonal credit program remains necessary and, if so, whether the interest rate on seasonal credit would more appropriately be set at the primary discount rate. As required by the Federal Reserve Act, all advances made under the proposed discount lending programs would have to be adequately collateralized. The Reserve Banks' collateral policies would be unchanged and they would continue to accept a broad range of financial assets as collateral for discount window loans.
The substantive changes to the lending programs are contained in § 201.4 of the proposed rule, which replaces existing § 201.3. The rates that apply to the proposed lending programs are described in § 201.51, which combines and replaces existing §§ 201.51-201.52.
Primary credit would replace adjustment credit, would be extended on a very short-term basis (usually overnight) at an above-market rate, and ordinarily would be available to generally sound depository institutions with little or no administrative burden on the borrower or the Reserve Banks. A Reserve Bank also could extend primary credit with maturities up to a few weeks to a depository institution if the Reserve Bank finds that the institution is in generally sound condition and cannot obtain such credit in the market on reasonable terms. The Board expects that institutions receiving longer-term primary credit would be relatively small institutions that lack access to national money markets.
Although the primary credit program is designed to make short-term credit available as a backup source of liquidity to generally sound institutions, a Reserve Bank is not obligated to extend primary credit. A Reserve Bank therefore may choose not to lend to a generally sound depository institution if the Reserve Bank determines that doing so would be inconsistent with the purposes of the primary credit program.
Section 201.4(a) of the proposed rule describes the primary credit program, and § 201.51(a) sets forth the rate that applies to primary credit.
The interest rate on primary credit ordinarily would be above short-term market interest rates, including the target federal funds rate, and would be set by the boards of directors of the Reserve Banks subject to review and determination by the Board of Governors. A substantial spread between the discount and market rates would encourage depository institutions to use primary credit only to meet short-term, unforeseen needs. If the spread were too wide, however, the primary discount rate would not cap the federal funds rate at a reasonable level above the rate targeted by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC).
The Board proposes to recommend that the boards of directors of the Reserve Banks, subject to the Board's review and determination, initially establish a primary discount rate that is
After establishment of the initial primary discount rate, the Federal Reserve System would change that rate through a process identical to the existing discretionary procedure for changing the basic discount rate. The boards of directors of the Federal Reserve Banks would establish a primary discount rate and other discount rates every two weeks subject to review and determination by the Board of Governors, as required by the Federal Reserve Act. The primary discount rate presumably would move broadly in line with the target federal funds rate, much as the basic discount rate does currently.
Under the proposed regulation, only depository institutions deemed generally sound in the judgment of the Reserve Bank would be eligible to obtain primary credit. Reserve Banks would classify depository institutions with borrowing agreements already on file as either eligible or ineligible for primary credit before a primary credit program takes effect and would notify each such institution of its status. A new applicant for Federal Reserve credit would be notified of its eligibility after filing borrowing documents with the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank. The Reserve Banks would notify an institution promptly of any change in the institution's eligibility status. An institution's eligibility status, which would be based in part on that institution's confidential supervisory and examination information, would be considered confidential information and the Federal Reserve System would handle it accordingly.
The Board expects that the Reserve Banks would adopt on a System-wide basis uniform guidelines for judging the degree of an institution's financial soundness and thus its eligibility for primary credit. The Board envisions that the guidelines for determining eligibility would be based primarily on supervisory ratings, but supplementary information, such as ratings issued by major rating agencies, spreads on subordinated debt, and information from supervisory exams in progress, also would be considered. The Board further expects that the majority of depository institutions would be eligible for the primary credit program under such guidelines.
The Board anticipates that Reserve Banks initially would adopt guidelines under which domestically chartered depository institutions with composite CAMELS ratings of 1 or 2 and U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banking organizations with Strength of Support Assessment (SOSA) composite rankings of 1 would be eligible for primary credit, unless supplementary information suggested that the financial condition of the depository institution had deteriorated since the most recent exam. Similarly, the Board expects that under the initial guidelines institutions rated CAMELS 3 or SOSA 2 would be eligible for primary credit if supplementary information suggested that they were generally sound. However, the funding situation of such institutions seeking credit would be reviewed and monitored more closely than that of stronger institutions. The Board expects that institutions rated CAMELS 4 or SOSA 3 would be ineligible for primary credit except in rare circumstances, such as an ongoing examination that indicated a substantial improvement in condition. The Board further anticipates that institutions rated CAMELS 5 would in no case be eligible for primary credit and could obtain only secondary credit.
Because lending to troubled institutions would be subject to careful monitoring, the expected eligibility criteria would be consistent with the intent of the guidelines for discount window lending included in section 10B(b) of the Federal Reserve Act, as added by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act. The criteria also would be consistent with the guidelines used by Federal Reserve Banks to determine institutions' access to daylight credit in the Payments System Risk policy. In general, the depository institutions that qualify for access to daylight credit would qualify for primary credit, and those that would not qualify for daylight credit would be restricted to secondary credit.
A depository institution that meets the eligibility criteria adopted by the Reserve Banks would not be required to exhaust other reasonable available sources of funds before obtaining primary credit. The removal of this requirement is consistent with the overall reduction in discount window administration under the proposed new discount window structure. In addition, depository institutions that receive primary credit would be free to sell federal funds to others. This would enhance the ability of the primary credit rate to serve as a cap on the federal funds rate when money markets tighten. The Board would encourage financially sound institutions to use primary credit to fund sales of federal funds if such transactions were in their financial interest.
Because of the reduced administration and corresponding reduction in the reluctance of depository institutions to borrow, the Board expects that primary credit would serve as a more effective safety valve for the banking system and a backup source of liquidity for individual depository institutions that are financially sound.
The proposal to adopt a primary credit program also is an aspect of the Federal Reserve's ongoing planning for contingencies. The Federal Reserve System expects to establish special procedures through which the System could lower discount rates quickly in an emergency. If, as the Board intends, the availability of primary credit significantly reduces the reluctance of depository institutions to use the discount window, the System should be able to cap the federal funds rate near the target during a crisis by reducing the primary discount rate to a level close to the federal funds target rate. During a financial market crisis, the proposed discount window structure therefore would provide a means of preventing an undue tightening of money markets if depository institutions' demands for excess reserves rose sharply, if disruptions inhibited the flow of funds through the banking system, or if the Federal Reserve's ability to carry out open market operations were impaired.
In addition, the Board expects that moving to an above-market primary credit program would be beneficial to the Federal Reserve System as the mechanisms by which the Board implements monetary policy evolve. For example, if Congress authorizes the Federal Reserve Banks to pay interest on reserve balances, an above-market lending program would allow the Reserve Banks to avoid lending to depository institutions at a below-market rate while paying interest to those institutions at a market-related rate. Also, if the level of required operating balances resumes the substantial downward decline
Secondary credit would replace extended credit and would be available to depository institutions that do not qualify for primary credit. Because some institutions that currently are eligible for adjustment credit would not qualify for primary credit, secondary credit potentially would be used more often than has the extended credit program. The text of the proposed regulation therefore seeks to eliminate the focus on longer-term credit extensions in the existing extended credit program and to recognize the somewhat broader class of borrowing situations that a Reserve Bank may handle under the secondary credit program.
Section 201.4(b) of the proposed rule describes the secondary credit program, and § 201.51(b) describes the interest rate that applies to secondary credit.
Under the proposal, Federal Reserve Banks may extend secondary credit to meet temporary funding needs of an institution if such a credit extension would be consistent with the institution's timely return to a reliance on market funding sources. A Reserve Bank also may extend secondary credit if it determines that such credit would facilitate the orderly resolution of serious financial difficulties of the borrowing institution. When extending secondary credit to an undercapitalized or critically undercapitalized depository institution, a Reserve Bank also must observe the requirements set forth at proposed § 201.5. The interest rate on secondary credit would be set by formula 50 basis points above the primary discount rate. This higher rate reflects the less-sound condition of borrowers of secondary credit.
Section 201.4 of the proposed rule makes only minor revisions to the existing seasonal credit provisions of Regulation A. The seasonal credit interest rate is based on short-term market rates, and historical interest rate relationships suggest that the rate for seasonal credit usually will be below the primary credit rate. Sections 201.4 and 201.51(c) of the proposed rule, which discuss the rate applicable to seasonal credit, would not contain existing language requiring the seasonal credit rate to be at least as high as the primary credit rate. In addition, the System for some time has not required that a seasonal credit borrower demonstrate that it could not obtain similar assistance from special industry lenders, and the proposed rule accordingly deletes this requirement.
The seasonal credit program originally was designed to address the difficulties that relatively small banks with substantial intra-yearly swings in funding needs faced because of a lack of access to the national money markets. Reserve Banks traditionally have extended seasonal credit to small institutions that demonstrate significant seasonal swings in their loans and deposits. However, funding opportunities for smaller depository institutions appear to have expanded significantly over the past few decades as a result of deposit deregulation and the general development of financial markets. The Board therefore specifically solicits comment on whether small depository institutions still lack reasonable access to funding markets; on the desirability of eliminating the seasonal lending program; and on the appropriate setting of the seasonal lending rate, particularly in view of the proposed establishment of a primary credit program with an above-market rate. Depending on the comments received, the Board may decide to adjust the rate applicable to seasonal credit or to eliminate the seasonal credit program altogether.
In addition to replacing the adjustment and extended credit programs with primary and secondary credit programs, respectively, the Board also proposes to reorganize much of existing Regulation A in order to streamline the text of the rule and make it easier to read and understand. In addition, the Board proposes to delete certain provisions of existing Regulation A that are obsolete or superfluous.
The Board previously amended Regulation A so that depository institutions would have access to an SLF from October 1, 1999, to April 7, 2000, to ease liquidity pressures unique to the century date change period. The SLF for U.S. depository institutions is described at existing § 201.3(e), and the circumstances under which a U.S. branch or agency of a foreign bank could use the facility are described at existing § 201.7(b). Sections 201.2(j)-(k) define two terms—“eligible institution” and “targeted federal funds rate,” respectively—that pertain only to the SLF provisions. Because the SLF is no longer in effect, the Board proposes to delete each of the four provisions discussed above. As discussed in more detail in connection with proposed § 201.3(d), the Board proposes to delete a portion of existing § 201.6(d) that allows a depository institution to use credit obtained from the SLF to fund sales of federal funds.
The Board proposes to amend the existing authority citations at § 201.1(a) to include sections 11(i)-11(j) and 14(d) of the Federal Reserve Act. Sections 11(i)-(j) provide the Board with rulemaking authority and general supervisory authority over the Reserve Banks, respectively, and section 14(d) authorizes the Reserve Banks, subject to the review and determination of the Board, to establish discount rates.
As in the existing regulation, § 201.1(b) of the proposed rule describes the purpose and scope of the Regulation A and states that the regulation governs lending by Reserve Banks to depository institutions and others. To gather all the provisions concerning the scope of Regulation A into one section, the proposed rule incorporates language from existing § 201.7(a) regarding the circumstances under which U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks are subject to the regulation.
This section would remain unchanged except for the deletion of five definitions. As discussed above, §§ 201.2(j)-(k) contain definitions that are unnecessary because they relate only to the SLF. The other three terms the Board proposes to delete are liquidation loss, increased loss, and excess loss, found at existing §§ 201.2(d)-(f), respectively.
Liquidation loss and increased loss are used to derive the term excess loss, which is the amount the Board would owe the FDIC under section 10B(b) of the Federal Reserve Act if outstanding Reserve Bank advances to a critically undercapitalized depository institution increased the FDIC's cost of liquidating that institution. Excess loss, the only one of these three terms used elsewhere in the regulation, appears in existing § 201.4(c). That section states that the Board would assess a Reserve Bank for any excess loss attributable to advances made by that Reserve Bank and
The Board believes the regulation would be less cumbersome but no less accurate if the assessment section incorporated the concept of excess loss by simply cross-referencing section 10B(b) of the Federal Reserve Act. Although the existing definitions explain accurately and in detail how the Board would calculate the excess loss, they produce the same result required by section 10B(b) of the statute.
This section would prescribe the Board's rules governing a Federal Reserve Bank's extension of credit. This section would permit Federal Reserve Banks to extend credit in the form of an advance or discount and would discuss requirements that both the Reserve Banks and the depository institutions receiving credit must observe. The text of proposed § 201.3 combines in one place all the existing provisions of Regulation A that relate to each of these topics.
Proposed paragraph (a) of § 201.3 would consolidate all the existing provisions of Regulation A concerning a Reserve Bank's authority to extend credit. Proposed § 201.3(a) mostly contains existing text from § 201.5 and provides that a Reserve Bank may extend credit to a depository institution in the form of an advance or a discount of certain types of paper described in the Federal Reserve Act. Like existing § 201.5, the proposed section states that credit to depository institutions generally will take the form of an advance but preserves a Reserve Bank's discretion to lend through discounting eligible paper if the Reserve Bank determines that a discount would be more appropriate for a particular depository institution. The proposed rule would delete existing § 201.8, which provides that a Reserve Bank may discount paper for an institution that is part of the farm credit system, and instead would discuss that authority at proposed § 201.3(a)(3). Rather than providing the lengthy discussion at existing § 201.8, proposed § 201.3(a)(3) simply cross-references section 13A of the Federal Reserve Act, which authorizes Reserve Banks to discount paper for such institutions.
Proposed § 201.3(b) contains the text of existing § 201.9, which states that a Reserve Bank has no obligation to make, increase, renew, or extend any advance or discount to a depository institution.
Proposed § 201.3(c) gathers in one place the existing provisions of Regulation A concerning the requirements a Reserve Bank must observe when it does extend credit. Section 201.3(c)(1) contains text from existing § 201.4(d) providing that a Reserve Bank should ascertain whether an institution is undercapitalized or critically undercapitalized before extending credit to that institution. This section adds text stating that, if the institution is undercapitalized or critically undercapitalized, the Reserve Bank must follow special lending procedures. These procedures are specified in proposed § 201.5, which contains the text of current § 201.4 and is discussed in more detail below.
Proposed §§ 201.3(c)(2)-(3) include text from existing §§ 201.6(b)-(c) regarding a Reserve Bank's duty to require any information it deems appropriate to ensure the acceptability of assets tendered as collateral or for discount, to ensure that credit is used consistent with Regulation A, and to keep itself informed of the general character and amount of loans and investments of a depository institution as required by section 4(8) of the Federal Reserve Act.
Proposed § 201.3(d) consists of existing § 201.6(d), with revisions, regarding how a depository institution may use Federal Reserve credit. In existing Regulation A, only depository institutions that received credit under the century date change SLF were permitted to use Federal Reserve credit to fund sales of federal funds without permission of the Reserve Bank extending the credit. Because the SLF no longer is in effect, the Board would delete the language that pertains to credit obtained through that facility. Instead, as explained more fully above in the section discussing primary credit, proposed § 201.3(d) would permit an institution that receives primary credit to use that credit to fund sales of federal funds without Reserve Bank permission. Recipients of secondary or seasonal credit would continue to need Reserve Bank permission to use Reserve Bank credit to fund sales of federal funds.
The Board proposes to delete existing § 201.6(a), which provides that a depository institution may not use Federal Reserve credit as a substitute for capital. Although the Board continues to believe this to be an appropriate policy, the Board believes that other provisions of the statutes and regulations that it administers address this issue. Thus, the Board sees no need to retain this provision in Regulation A.
The existing text of § 201.4 would be redesignated as § 201.5, with technical revisions. This section incorporates the limitations on advances to an undercapitalized or critically undercapitalized depository institution set forth in section 10B(b) of the Federal Reserve Act and also applies those limitations to discounts for such institutions. In addition, § 201.5 discusses section 10B(b)'s requirement that the Board pay a specified amount to the FDIC if a Reserve Bank advance to a critically undercapitalized depository institution increases the loss the FDIC incurs when liquidating that institution. The existing regulation explains in detail through the definitions of “liquidation loss,” “increased loss,” and “excess loss” how the Board would calculate that amount. The proposed rule, by contrast, would delete these three definitions and simply provide that the Board will assess the Federal Reserve Banks for any amount the Board pays to the FDIC in accordance with section 10B(b) of the Federal Reserve Act.
In accordance with section 3(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603(a)) the Board must publish an initial regulatory flexibility analysis with this proposed regulation. As discussed above, the proposed above-market discount rate structure is designed to enable the discount window to operate more efficiently as a back-up source of funds for individual depository institutions and as a mechanism for implementing the policy objectives of the Federal Reserve System. By limiting primary credit eligibility to generally sound institutions, minimizing a Reserve Bank's need to question potential borrowers, and making the borrowing programs more transparent, the proposal seeks to eliminate current disincentives for depository institutions to seek Federal Reserve credit when money markets tighten. The Board knows of no other regulations that overlap or conflict with, or duplicate, the proposed rule.
The proposed rule would apply to all depository institutions that are eligible to borrow at the discount window, including approximately 16,000 small depository institutions, and would not add any recordkeeping, reporting, or compliance requirements associated with discount window borrowing. The requirements of the proposed rule would be the same for all depository institutions regardless of their size.
The Board solicits comment on the likely impact the proposed rule would have on depository institutions, including those that are small business concerns. The Board particularly is interested in the public's view on how the increase in the discount rate relative to money market interest rates and the corresponding reduction in administrative burden would affect depository institutions of different sizes.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506; 5 CFR 1320 Appendix A.1), the Board has reviewed the proposed rule under the authority delegated to the Board by the Office of Management and Budget. The proposed rule contains no new collections of information and proposes no substantive changes to existing collections of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Credits.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board revises part 201 of subchapter A of Chapter II, Title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations to read as follows:
12 U.S.C. 248(i)-(j), 347a, 347b, 343
(a)
(b)
For purposes of this part, the following definitions shall apply:
(a)
(b)
(c)(1)
(i) An
(ii) A
(iii) A
(iv) An
(v) A
(vi) A
(2) The term “
(d)
(e)
(1) Is not a critically undercapitalized insured depository institution; and
(2)(i) Is deemed to be undercapitalized under section 38 of the FDI Act (12 U.S.C. 1831o(b)(1)(C)) and its implementing regulations; or
(ii) Has received from its appropriate federal banking agency a composite CAMELS rating of 5 under the Uniform Financial Institutions Rating System (or an equivalent rating by its appropriate federal banking agency under a comparable rating system) as of the most recent examination of such institution.
(f)
(a)
(2) An advance to a depository institution must be secured to the satisfaction of the Federal Reserve Bank that makes the advance. Satisfactory collateral generally includes United States government and federal-agency securities, and, if of acceptable quality, mortgage notes covering one-to four-family residences, state and local government securities, and business, consumer, and other customer notes.
(3) If a Federal Reserve Bank concludes that a discount would meet the needs of a depository institution or an institution described in section 13A of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 349) more effectively, the Reserve Bank may discount any paper indorsed by the institution, provided the paper meets the requirements specified in the Federal Reserve Act.
(b)
(c)
(2) Each Federal Reserve Bank shall require any information it believes appropriate or desirable to ensure that assets tendered as collateral for advances or for discount are acceptable and that the borrower uses the credit provided in a manner consistent with this part.
(3) Each Federal Reserve Bank shall:
(i) Keep itself informed of the general character and amount of the loans and investments of a depository institution as provided in section 4(8) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 301); and
(ii) Consider such information in determining whether to extend credit.
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) A Federal Reserve Bank may extend seasonal credit only if:
(i) The depository institution's seasonal needs exceed a threshold that the institution is expected to meet from other sources of liquidity (this threshold is calculated as a certain percentage, established by the Board of Governors, of the institution's average total deposits in the preceding calendar year); and
(ii) The Federal Reserve Bank is satisfied that the institution's qualifying need for funds is seasonal and will persist for at least four weeks.
(2) The Board may establish special terms for seasonal credit when depository institutions are experiencing unusual seasonal demands for credit in a period of liquidity strain.
(d)
(a)
(1) If, in any 120-day period, advances or discounts from any Federal Reserve Bank to that depository institution are not outstanding for more than 60 days during which the institution is an undercapitalized insured depository institution; or
(2) During the 60 calendar days after the receipt of a written certification from the chairman of the Board of Governors or the head of the appropriate federal banking agency that the borrowing depository institution is viable; or
(3) After consultation with the Board of Governors. In unusual circumstances, when prior consultation with the Board is not possible, a Federal Reserve Bank should consult with the Board as soon as possible after extending credit that requires consultation under this paragraph (a).
(b)
(1) During the 5-day period beginning on the date the institution became a critically undercapitalized insured depository institution; or
(2) After consultation with the Board of Governors. In unusual circumstances, when prior consultation with the Board is not possible, a Federal Reserve Bank should consult with the Board as soon as possible after extending credit that requires consultation under this paragraph (b).
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 16, 2002.
Federal Trade Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) solicits comments on whether to amend Rule 7(m) of the Rules and Regulations Under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act (“Textile Rules”) to establish a new generic fiber subclass name and definition as an alternative to the generic name “olefin” for a specifically proposed subclass of olefin fibers manufactured by the Dow Chemical Company (“Dow”), of Midland, Michigan. Dow suggested the name “lastol” for the fiber, which it described as an elastic, cross-linked olefin fiber capable of retaining its shape at high temperatures and referred to as “CEF.”
Comments will be accepted through August 12, 2002.
Comments should be submitted to: Office of the Secretary, Federal Trade Commission, Room 159, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington DC 20580. Comments should be identified as “16 CFR Part 303—Textile Rule 8 Dow Comment—P948404.”
Neil Blickman, Attorney, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC 20580; (202) 326-3038.
Rule 6 of the Textile Rules (16 CFR 303.6) requires manufacturers to use the generic names of the fibers contained in their textile products in making fiber content disclosures on labels, as required by the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act (“Textile Act”), 15 U.S.C. 70b(b)(1). Rule 7 of the Textile Rules (16 CFR 303.7) sets forth the generic names and definitions that the Commission has established for synthetic fibers. Rule 8 (16 CFR 303.8) describes the procedures for establishing new generic names.
Dow applied to the Commission on October 18, 2001, for a new olefin fiber subclass name and definition, and supplemented its application with additional information and test data on December 12, 2001, January 16, 2002, and March 19, 2002.
As a result of CEF's fiber structure, Dow maintained that CEF has the following distinctive properties: (1) Stretch and recovery power that is far superior to that of any olefin fiber; (2) shape retention at temperatures in excess of 170°C, which enables CEF to survive rigorous manufacturing and consumer care processes; and (3) chemical resistance to solvents that typically dissolve conventional olefins. Dow asserted that olefin, widely recognized as a dependable carpet fiber that has no stretch or elastic recovery and poor high temperature stability, is an inappropriate categorization for the elastic olefin fiber, CEF, which is targeted for apparel applications. According to Dow, CEF will offer consumers a wider choice in garments containing stretch fabric. Dow contends, in essence, that it would be confusing to consumers if CEF is called simply “olefin.”
Dow, therefore, petitioned the Commission to establish the generic name “lastol” as an alternative to, and a subclass of, “olefin.” In addition, Dow proposed that the Commission add the following sentence to the current definition of olefin in Rule 7(m) to define CEF and similar fibers as a subclass of olefin:
Where the fiber is a manufactured cross-linked elastic fiber in which a) the fiber-forming substance is a synthetic polymer, with low but significant crystallinity, composed of at least 99 percent by weight of ethylene and at least one other olefin unit, and b) the fiber exhibits substantial elasticity and heat resistance properties not present in traditional olefin fibers, the term lastol may be used as a generic description of the fiber.
After an initial analysis with the assistance of a textile expert, the Commission has determined that Dow's proposed new fiber technically falls within Rule 7(m)'s definition of
The Commission is soliciting comment on Dow's application generally, and on whether the application meets the Commission's criteria for granting applications for new generic fiber subclass names.
The Commission first articulated standards for establishing a new generic fiber “subclass” in the proceeding to allow use of the name “lyocell” as an alternative generic description for a specifically defined subcategory of “rayon” fiber, pursuant to 16 CFR 303.7(d).
60 FR 62352, 62353 (Dec. 6, 1995).
In its recent notice of proposed rulemaking regarding DuPont's proposal to establish a generic fiber subclass of “polyester,” 67 FR 7104 (Feb. 15, 2002), the Commission further articulated that a new generic fiber subclass may be appropriate in cases where the proposed subclass fiber: (1) Has the same general chemical composition as an established generic fiber category; (2) has distinctive properties of importance to the general public as a result of a new method of manufacture or substantially differentiated physical characteristics, such as fiber structure; and (3) the distinctive feature(s) make the fiber suitable for uses for which other fibers under the established generic name would not be suited, or would be significantly less well suited.
Within the established 24 generic names for manufactured fibers, there are three cases where such generic name alternatives may be used: (1) Pursuant to Rule 7(d), 16 CFR 303.7(d), within the generic category “rayon,” the term “lyocell” may be used as an alternative generic description for a specifically defined subcategory of rayon fiber; (2) pursuant to Rule 7(e), 16 CFR 303.7(e), within the generic category “acetate,” the term “triacetate” may be used as an alternative generic description for a specifically defined subcategory of acetate fiber; and (3) pursuant to Rule 7(j), 16 CFR 303.7(j), within the generic category “rubber,” the term “lastrile” may be used as an alternative generic description for a specifically defined subcategory of rubber fiber.
Dow's application may describe a subclass of generic olefin fibers with distinctive features resulting from physical characteristics of the fiber and its method of manufacture, which meets the above standard for allowing designation by the subclass name “lastol.” Alternatively, CEF may fit within the current definition of olefin in Rule 7(m), with or without need for clarification. This notice of proposed rulemaking, therefore, suggests three approaches to resolve the situation, and requests comment from the public on the relative merits of each:
1. Amend Rule 7(m) to broaden its definition for olefin to better describe the allegedly unique molecular structure and physical characteristics of CEF and any similar fibers (without creating a new subclass for CEF);
2. Amend Rule 7(m)'s definition for olefin by creating a separate subclass name and definition for CEF and other similar qualifying fibers within the olefin category; or
3. Deny Dow's application because CEF fiber fits within Rule 7(m)'s definition of olefin without need for any change.
In today's notice of proposed rulemaking, the Commission is soliciting comments on all aspects of the appropriateness of Dow's proposed amendment to Rule 7(m)'s definition of olefin. Although the Commission initially has determined that Dow's new fiber technically falls within the existing Rule 7(m), 16 CFR 303.7(m), definition of “olefin,” the Commission believes it is in the public interest to solicit comments on whether it should amend Rule 7(m) by creating a subclass to recognize CEF's characteristics, or otherwise address the petition. Before deciding whether to amend Rule 7, the Commission will consider any comments submitted to the Secretary of the Commission within the above-mentioned comment period.
Dow's petition and supplemental filings described in detail the CEF fiber. The following subsections are excerpted substantially verbatim.
According to Dow, CEF is the first manufactured olefin fiber founded on metallocene-based polyolefin elastomer chemistry. Dow's CEF fiber is manufactured using a melt spinning process. After spinning, the fiber is crosslinked in order to prevent dissolution and impart high-temperature dimensional stability. After the crosslinking process, the polymer chains in the fiber are linked to one another via covalent bonds.
The interpolymer
As a result of CEF's unique chemical structure, its high comonomer content, CEF has lower crystallinity and density than conventional olefin fibers. Unlike conventional olefin fiber where the polymer crystals are in lamellae form,
According to Dow, the most notable characteristic (and of greatest importance to consumers) of CEF is its elasticity, which is far superior to that of any conventional olefin fiber. This property is a direct result of CEF's fiber structure. Dow states that CEF's favorable stretch (at least five times its original length before breaking) and elasticity (stretching to twice its length and, when released, recovering to within 25 percent of its original length) are a consequence of its low but significant level of crystallinity. As a result, CEF can be successfully used in clothing applications where stretch is desirable.
In contrast, Dow states that conventional olefin fiber is highly crystalline, with a degree of crystallinity greater than 50 percent. The crystals of conventional olefin fiber are in lamellae form, unlike crystals in the CEF fiber-forming substance, which are in a fringe micelle form. As a result, conventional olefin fiber manufactured today is stiff and inelastic. According to Dow, typical olefin fibers (in their manufactured, “drawn,” form) exhibit very low elongation before breaking (typically less than 50%) and, therefore, cannot be used successfully in today's apparel markets for stretch clothing.
Dow states that CEF's covalent crosslinks connect adjacent polymer chains into a contiguous three-dimensional polymer network. This crosslinked polymer network structure allows CEF to maintain its shape and mechanical integrity above its crystalline melting temperature. In fact, Dow asserts that CEF retains its shape at temperatures up to 220°C, well in excess of conventional olefin's melting point, which occurs at or below 170°C.
According to Dow, CEF's ability to withstand high temperatures has compelling advantages for textile manufacturers who can use more efficient dye and process methods requiring temperatures in excess of 170°C. Dow states that CEF also has advantages for consumers who can repeatedly wash, dry, and iron fabrics containing CEF at typical temperatures (up to 210°C) without destroying CEF's stretch properties. In contrast, Dow asserts that since conventional olefin fiber manufactured today loses its shape and mechanical integrity at temperatures ranging from 105-170°C, it cannot withstand the rigors of high heat and repeated launderings. Consequently, conventional olefin fiber is not widely used in apparel applications today where the consumer seeks easy wash and wear care.
Dow states that CEF's crosslinked polymer network structure also allows CEF to maintain its integrity in solvents that typically dissolve the starting polymer. In contrast, according to Dow, conventional olefin fiber is not crosslinked and, therefore, loses shape and mechanical integrity and/or dissolves above its crystalline melting temperatures which range up to about 170°C.
The physical properties of CEF and conventional olefin fiber are summarized in the table below.
Dow asserted that CEF is suitable for uses for which olefin fibers are not suited, or not as well suited. Dow's petition stated:
Today's olefin—largely seen in carpet, thermal underwear, and socks—does not offer the consumer stretch or the easy-care characteristics gained through high temperature tolerance. To textile mill producers, CEF enables process economies and the production of new products with atypical stretch and performance properties. To the consumer, CEF offers a wider choice in garments containing stretch fabric plus the benefit of easy-care laundering at higher temperatures without degradation of the stretch fiber.
With respect to its commercialization plans, Dow stated that beginning in 1999, it identified and began working with developmental partners who are leaders in the fiber manufacturing and apparel industry around the world. Since the second quarter of 2001, CEF has been successfully made on commercial-scale spinning equipment, with resulting quantities subsequently produced and used in a wide range of fabrics, including both knits and wovens. These fabrics have been used to make a variety of goods, most notably for the apparel market. The market testing process of garments with leading retailers is presently underway, with completion expected within the near future. Dow expects commercialization of CEF to begin at the end of the second quarter of 2002. In effect, therefore, Dow has argued that granting the petition would facilitate the use of CEF fiber in consumer applications, and using a new generic term (like lastol) would help consumers identify products made from CEF. Thus, Dow has maintained that a new generic fiber subclass name would be important to the public at large, not just knowledgeable professionals.
The provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act relating to an initial regulatory analysis (5 U.S.C. 603-604) are not applicable to this proposal, because the Commission believes that the amendment, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission has tentatively reached this conclusion with respect to the proposed amendment, because the amendment would impose no additional obligations, penalties or costs. The amendment simply would allow covered companies to use a new generic name for a new fiber that may not appropriately fit within current generic names and definitions. The amendment would impose no additional labeling requirements.
To ensure that no substantial economic impact is being overlooked, however, the Commission requests public comment on the effect of the proposed amendment on costs, profits, and competitiveness of, and employment in, small entities. After receiving public comment, the Commission will decide whether preparation of a final regulatory flexibility analysis is warranted. Accordingly, based on available information, the Commission certifies, pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), that the proposed amendment, if promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed amendment does not constitute a “collection of information” under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PL 104-13, 109 Stat. 163) and its implementing regulations. (5 CFR 1320
Labeling, Textile, Trade Practices.
Sec. 7(c) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act (15 U.S.C. 70e(c)).
By direction of the Commission.
Coast Guard, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a permanent security zone on the navigable waters of Lake Erie in the Captain of the Port Zone Cleveland for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant. This security zone is necessary to protect the Perry Nuclear Power Plant from possible sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or possible acts of terrorism. This security zone is intended to restrict vessel traffic from a portion of Lake Erie.
Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before June 24, 2002.
Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket CGD09-02-006 and are available for inspection or copying at U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Cleveland, 1055 East Ninth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44126 between 7 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Lieutenant Junior Grade Allen Turner, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office Cleveland, at telephone number (216) 937-0111.
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD09-02-006), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8
On September 11, 2001, the United States was the target of coordinated attacks by international terrorists
Following the catastrophic nature and extent of damage realized from the attacks of September 11, this proposed rulemaking is necessary to protect the national security interests of the United States against potential future attacks.
On October 12, 2001 we published a temporary final rule establishing a security zone on the waters around Perry Nuclear Power Plant (66 FR 52043). The current rulemaking proposes to establish a permanent security zone in place of that temporary security zone. The size of the zone currently being proposed, however, is smaller than that of the original temporary security zone.
This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979).
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Marine Safety Office Cleveland (see
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. It has not been designated by the
The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this regulation and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g) of Commandant Instruction M16475.1C, it is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191, 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; 49 CFR 1.46.
2. Remove § 165.T09-111.
3. Add § 165.912 to read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(c)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule, request for comments.
NMFS proposes measures contained in Framework Adjustment 2 (Framework 2) to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). This action would extend the limited entry program for the
Public comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern standard time, on June 10, 2002.
Copies of Framework 2, including the Environmental Assessment (EA) and Regulatory Impact Review (RIR)/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), are available on request from Daniel T. Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 300 South New Street, Dover, DE 19904-6790. The EA/RIR/IRFA is accessible via the Internet at
Comments on Framework 2 should be sent to: Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, Northeast Regional Office, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298. Please mark the envelope, “Comments-SMB Framework Adjustment 2.” Comments also may be sent via facsimile (fax) to 978-281-9135. Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or Internet.
Paul H. Jones, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9273, fax 978-281-9135, e-mail Paul.H.Jones@noaa.gov.
In 1997, Amendment 5 to the FMP established a limited entry program for the
This action would also authorize the roll-over of the annual specifications for the Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish fisheries. In recent years, publication of the annual specifications
While the primary components of the overfishing definition for
This proposed action would allow specification of an annual quota associated with a target F of up to 90 percent of F
This action also proposes to allow maximum optimum yield (Max OY), allowable biological catch (ABC), optimum yield (OY) and domestic annual harvest (DAH) for Loligo squid to be specified for up to 3 years. If the annual review conducted by the Council through its Monitoring Committee indicates that it is necessary, such a multi-year specification would be revised in the annual specification process.
This action also proposes an outline for a timeframe to be followed for in-season adjustments to the annual specifications for
NMFS has disapproved the proposed measure to allow
This provision is being disapproved at the proposed rule stage because it has been found to be inconsistent with national standards 2 and 7 under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Because this action would limit vessels to a
Additionally, the Council did not consider the best scientific data available to it when it defined the exemption measure; thus the measure has been found to be inconsistent with national standard 2. The data examined by NMFS indicates that there are factors contributing to the
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Council prepared an IRFA that describes the economic impacts this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at in the
In addition to the measures described above, the Council considered several alternatives. The non-preferred
The alternative specification measures were: (1) If annual specifications are not published prior to the start of the fishing year, the fisheries would operate without specifications and Joint Ventures could not be conducted until specifications were published (no action/status quo); (2) if annual specifications are not published prior to the start of the fishing year, a set of default specifications would apply until the specifications are published; (3) if annual specifications are not published prior to the start of the fishing year, the fisheries would be closed until the final specifications are published; (4) if annual specifications for Atlantic mackerel are not published prior to the start of the fishing year, the previous year's specifications for Atlantic mackerel (excluding TALFF) would apply, until final specifications are published; and (5) if annual specifications for Atlantic mackerel are not published prior to the start of the fishing year, a set of default specifications (excluding TALFF) would apply until the specifications are published.
The alternative
The proposed action would extend the moratorium on entry of new vessels into the Illex fishery for one year; therefore no impact is expected on vessels in the fishery in 2002 (and the first half of 2003), compared to individual vessel revenues in 2001. The Council assumed that the market and prices are expected to remain stable. Any changes in individual vessel revenues would be the result of factors outside the scope of the moratorium (e.g., change in fishing practices for individual vessels, or changes in abundance and distribution of
New vessels entering the fishery would limit per vessel share of the
Under alternative 2, the IRFA review of revenue impacts examined the landings of vessels in the existing moratorium fishery and presumed that revenues derived from landing
Under alternative 3, the IRFA review of revenue impacts presumed that vessel revenues derived from landing
Under alternative 4, the IRFA review of revenue impacts presumed that vessel revenues derived from landing
The only alternative considered concerning quota specifications that would be expected to change gross vessel revenues would be the option that would close the fisheries if the final specifications are not published by the start of the fishing year. This measure would have significant negative economic consequences for vessels operating in the Atlantic mackerel,
None of the alternatives considered concerning the
However, the no action alternative could have severe economic consequences if the stock biomass falls below ½ B
It has been determined that this proposed rule does not contain policies with federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(a) * * *
(5) * * *
(i)
(b)
(a) * * *
(1) Initial OY (IOY), including research quota (RQ), domestic annual harvest (DAH), and domestic annual processing (DAP) for
(4) Initial OY (IOY), including research quota (RQ), domestic annual harvest (DAH), and domestic annual processing (DAP) for
(5) Inseason adjustment, upward or downward, to the specifications for
(d) * * *
(1) The Squid, Mackerel, and Butterfish Committee will review the recommendations of the Monitoring Committee. Based on these recommendations and any public comment received thereon, the Squid, Mackerel, and Butterfish Committee must recommend to the MAFMC appropriate specifications and any measures necessary to assure that the specifications will not be exceeded. The MAFMC will review these recommendations and, based on the recommendations and any public comment received thereon, must recommend to the Regional Administrator appropriate specifications and any measures necessary to assure that the specifications will not be exceeded. The MAFMC's recommendations must include supporting documentation, as appropriate, concerning the environmental, economic, and social impacts of the recommendations. The Regional Administrator will review the recommendations and, on or about November 1 of each year, will publish notification in the
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) announces a forthcoming meeting of the Advisory Committee on Universal Cotton Standards.
The meeting dates are: June 13, 2002, at 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Memphis, Tennessee. June 14, 2002, at 9 a.m. until the review is complete, Memphis, Tennessee.
The meeting locations are: June 13 at Peabody Hotel, 149 Union Avenue, Memphis, Tennessee 38103. June 14 at USDA, AMS, Cotton Programs offices at 3275 Applying Road, Memphis, Tennessee 38133. The meeting is open to the public.
Mail comments to James Knowlton, Standardization and Engineering Branch, Cotton Programs, AMS, USDA, 3275 Applying Road Memphis, Tennessee 38133, or send comments by electronic mail to:
The committee includes representatives of all segments of the U.S. cotton industry and the twenty-four overseas associations that are signatories to the Universal Cotton Standards Agreement, which is authorized under the United States Cotton Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 51-65). The purpose of the meeting is for the Committee to review the American Upland Cotton Standards, which are prepared by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and to make recommendations to USDA concerning establishment and revision of the standards. The marketing of U.S. cotton is supported and enhanced through the committee's participation in the development of standards for U.S. Upland Cotton.
Thursday June 13, 2002, at 9 a.m. with opening remarks and introductions the Advisory Committee convenes and the standards review and approval process is initiated. Friday June 14, 2002, at 9 a.m. the Committee reconvenes for the drawing of sets for the Arbitration Boards, discussion of proposals, and concludes the matching and approval process of remaining universal standards.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice of reopening and extension of comment period.
We are reopening and extending the comment period for a risk management analysis prepared by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service relative to a proposed rule currently under consideration that would allow the importation of clementines from Spain to resume. This action will allow interested persons additional time to prepare and submit comments.
We will consider all comments we receive on the risk management analysis that are postmarked, delivered, or e-mailed by June 14, 2002.
You may submit comments by postal mail/commercial delivery or by e-mail. If you use postal mail/commercial delivery, please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to: Docket No. 02-023-1, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3C71, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. 02-023-1. If you use e-mail, address your comment to
You may read any comments that we receive on Docket No. 02-023-1 in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 690-2817 before coming.
APHIS documents published in the
Dr. Ron A. Sequeira, Center for Plant Health Science and Technology, PPQ, APHIS, 1017 Main Campus Drive, Suite 2500, Raleigh, NC 27606-5202; (919) 513-2663.
On April 16, 2002, we published in the
Comments on the risk management analysis were required to be received on or before May 16, 2002. We are reopening and extending the comment period on Docket No. 02-023-1 until June 14, 2002. This action will allow interested persons additional time to
7 U.S.C. 166, 450, 7701-7772; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice.
This notice lists the newspapers that will be used by all ranger districts, forests, and the Regional Office of the Intermountain Region to publish legal notice of all decisions subject to appeal under 36 CFR 215 and 36 CFR 217. The intended effect of this action is to inform interested members of the public which newspapers will be used to publish legal notices of decisions, thereby allowing them to receive constructive notice of a decision, to provide clear evidence of timely notice, and to achieve consistency in administering the appeals process.
Publication of legal notices in the listed newspapers will begin with decisions subject to appeal that are made on or after June 1, 2002. The list of newspapers will remain in effect until December 1, 2002 when another notice will be published in the
Barbara Schuster, Regional Appeals Manager, Intermountain Region, 324 25th Street, Ogden, UT 84401, and Phone (801) 625-5301.
The administrative appeal procedures 36 CFR 215 and 36 CFR 217, of the Forest Service require publication of legal notice in a newspaper of general circulation of all decisions subject to appeal. This newspaper publication of notices of decisions is in addition to direct notice to those who have requested notice in writing and to those known to be interested and affected by a specific decision.
The legal notice is to identify: the decision by title and subject matter; the date of the decision; the name and title of the official making the decision; and how to obtain copies of the decision. In addition, the notice is to state the date the appeal period begins which is the day following publication of the notice.
The timeframe for appeal shall be based on the date of publication of the notice in the first (principal) newspaper listed for each unit.
The newspapers to be used are as follows:
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
Forest Service will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement on a proposal to emphasize forest health initiatives across the Bankhead National Forest in a systematic five-year program involving:
1. Intermediate thinning of approximately 13,200 acres of loblolly pine forest to favor conversion to native upland dry and very dry (xeric) oak forest and woodland communities, reduce short-term risks to Southern Pine Beetle (SPB) infestations, and reduce future forest fuel buildups.
2. Intermediate thinning of approximately 5,200 acres of loblolly pine forest to favor conversation to native shortleaf/bluestem woodland communities or very dry (xeric) pineoak forest and woodlands; reduce short-term risks to SPB infestations; and reduce future forest fuel buildups.
3. Intermediated thinning of approximately 3,200 acres of loblolly pine forest to favor conversion to native longleaf/bluestem woodland communities; reduce short-term risks to SPB infestations; and reduce future forest fuel buildups.
4. Natural reforestation and associated site preparation on approximately 4,700 acres of areas impacted by SPB to restore these areas to native upland dry and very dry (xeric) oak forest and woodland communities.
5. Artificial reforestation and associated site preparation on approximately 2,200 acres of ares impacted by SPB to restore these areas to native shortleaf/bluestem woodland communities.
6. Artificial reforestation and associated site preparation on approximately 800 acres of areas impacted by SPB to restore these areas
Comments concerning this analysis should be received in writing by July 6, 2002.
Send written comments to: District Ranger, Bankhead NF, P.O. Box 278, Double Springs, AL 35553.
Glen Gaines, District Ranger, John Creed, EIS Team Leader, Kathy Wallace, Silviculturist, Tom Counts, Wildlife Biologist, Telephone number: 205-489-5111, FAX Number: 205-489-3427.
The Forest Service proposes to implement a five-year schedule of work to emphasize sustaining short- and long-term forest health and the restoration of six (6) native upland forest community types, including all associated plant and wildlife species, on the Bankhead National Forest located in Winston, Lawrence, and Franklin Counties, Alabama. The proposed actions will focus on (1) areas that are currently occupied by loblolly pine forest that are between the ages of 15 and 45 years old and (2) areas 10 acres and larger impacted by recent SPB infestations. The actions will include intermediate thinning in loblolly pine forest, natural and artificial restoration to reforest SPB impacted areas, and silvicultural site preparation of SPB impacted areas to better insure successful reforestation efforts. Actions proposed include:
1. Intermediate thinning of approximately 13,200 acres of loblolly pine forest to favor conversion to native upland dry and very dry (xeric) oak forest and woodland communities, reduce short-term risks to SPB infestations, and reduce future forest fuel buildups.
2. Intermediate thinning of approximately 5,200 acreas of loblolly pine forest to favor conversion to native shortleaf/bluestem woodland communities or very dry (xeric) pine-oak forest and woodlands, reduce short-term risks to SPB infestations, and reduce future forest fuel buildups.
3. Intermediate thinning of approximately 3,200 acres of loblolly pine forest to favor conversion to native longleaf/bluestem woodland communities, reduce short-term risks to SPB infestations, and reduce future forest fuel buildups.
4. Natural reforestation and site preparation with hand tools on approximately 4,700 acres of areas impacted by SPB to restore these areas to native upland dry and very dry (xeric) oak forest and woodland communities. Prescribed firm may be used as a site preparation tool on some of these areas. Site specific information is available at the Bankhead Ranger District office in Double Springs, AL.
5. Artificial reforestation and site preparation by roller drum chopping and prescribe fire on approximately 2,000 acres of areas impacted by SPB to restore theses areas to native shortleaf/bluestem woodland communities. Site specific information is available at the Bankhead Ranger District office in Double Springs, AL.
6. Artificial reforestation and site preparation by roller drum chopping and prescribe fire on approximately 800 acres of areas impacted by SPB to restore these areas to native longleaf/bluestem woodland communities. Site specific information is available at the Bankhead Ranger District office in Double Springs, AL.
1. Begin the process of returning loblolly pine plantations to longleaf/bluestem, shortleaf/bluestem, or upland hardwood ecosystems by thinning.
2. Thinning will reduce the risk of SPB attack (Final Environmental Impact Statement For the Suppression of the Southern Pine Beetle).
3. Restore areas heavily impacted by SPB to longleaf/bluestem, shortleaf/bluestem, or upland hardwood by site preparation and planting or by natural regeneration with or without site preparation.
The Bankhead National Forest is in a unique position to implement natural resource management actions aimed at sustaining a representation of nine (9) forest community types that are native to the Southern Cumberland Plateau physiographic region. Emphasis will be placed on maintaining forest and plant community types not abundant on private lands. These communities include fire dependent upland pine/bluestem and oak woodland ecosystems, mid-to late-successional deciduous forests (including cove) hardwood/eastern hemlock forests), old-growth representation of all nine (9) forest community types, and eight (8) rare plant community types.
After the ice age receded approximately 10,000 years ago, the composition of deciduous and pine forests in eastern North America prior to European settlement was largely influenced by climate, natural events (both large-scale and small-scale) and the use of fire by Native Americans. There is increasing evidence that humans actively used woodland fires on a regular basis for a variety of reasons and the forests European settlers first encountered were a result of regular occurrence of fire. This included both upland hardwood forests/woodlands and pine woodlands.
Over the last 100-200 years, fire has been effectively excluded from forests throughout the southern Cumberland Plateau, including the area that is now the Bankhead National Forest. without fire, the range of native, fire dependent forest communities has not been maintained and is now very uncommon across the North Alabama landscape. These communities include the shortleaf/bluestem woodlands, very dry (xeric) oak-pine woodlands, dry and very dry (xeric) oak forest and woodlands, and the northern extent of longleaf/bluestem woodlands. The absence of fire, in combination with major land use changes, has also resulted in a decline of native grassland and shrub conditions that should be common in some of the upland forests. In turn, a decline in native plant and animal diversity across the region has occurred.
The Alabama National Forest (now the northern portion of the Bankhead National Forest) was established in 1914 as a result of the Weeks Act, for the primary purpose of helping to protect the nations watersheds and streams. During the early years the emphasis of the Forest Service was land acquisition and custodial responsibilities. Beginning in the 1930s, the Civilian Conservation Corp provided the labor needed to reestablish forests on abandoned farmland and previously cutover land, which was mostly in the uplands. The primary species used to reestablish forest conditions was loblolly pine. Beginning in the 1960s, the Forest Service initiated new efforts to improve forest economic yields by replacing some upland hardwood forests with faster growing loblolly pine. At the time, loblolly pine offered the best chance of high survival and success in reforestation. These efforts, along with some natural establishment of loblolly pine, have resulted in approximately 68,000 acres typed as loblolly pine on the Bankhead. While loblolly pine is a native tree species, the dominance of pure stands of loblolly pine is probably not typical of native, fire dependent woodlands occurring in the uplands.
Over the past decade, the Bankhead National Forest has been experiencing Southern Pine Beetle infestations at epidemic levels, primarily in loblolly pine forests. The epidemic peaked in the summer of 2000 and continued at
Approximately 47,000 acres typed as loblolly pine remain on the Bankhead. Of these acres, there are approximately 22,100 acres of loblolly pine forest between the age of 15 and 45 years old with an immediate need for intermediate thinning to reduce the risk of SPB attack (Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Suppression of the Southern Pine Beetle).
This proposal will restore and sustain six (6) upland forest and woodland communities on approximately 29,100 acres currently types as loblolly pine. The restoration will be initiated with intermediate commercial thinning on approximately 21,800 acres and reforestation actions on approximately 7,500 acres included within the scope of this decision.
1. Six (6) of the deciduous community types currently exist on approximately 85,295 acres throughout the Bankhead National Forest and are not within the scope of this decision. These areas will be characterized as mid- to late-successional deciduous forests. These forests will have a continuous dominant canopy of large trees, with occasional small gaps up to
These forests will contribute a range of habitat conditions that vary from suitable to optimal for those species of plants and animals typically found in association with forests of these successional stages. Some representatives of the species typically found within this range of habitat conditions in the mid to late successional stages of bottomland and other deciduous forest include the hooded warbler, cerulean warbler, summer tanager, wood thrush, Louisiana water thrush, Acadian flycatcher, white-tailed deer, eastern wild turkey, Indiana bat and the eastern gray squirrel.
2. Additional pine community types currently exist on approximately 61,532 acres throughout the Bankhead National Forest and are not within the scope of this decision. The conditions of these areas range from early successional (0-10 years of age) forests to mid- and late-successional forests. The early successional pine forests are in grass/shrub to seedling/sapling conditions. Some of these grass/forb areas contain sparse over-story pine. The mid-late successional forest have continuous dominant canopy of medium to large-sized trees of moderate tree density. The frequency of fire has not significantly influenced the composition of these communities so most have a well-developed shrub and/or mid-story canopy. The communities and approximate acres include:
These forests will contribute suitable and optimal habitat for southern pine plant and animal associates, mixed very dry (xeric) forest associates, early successional plant and animal associates, game species, and cave species (those requiring forest conditions for summer maternity/roosting).
The scoping period associated with this Notice of Intent (NOI) will be thirty (30) days in length, beginning the day after publication of this notice. Preliminary scoping for this proposal began in November 2001 when information was shared with the public on the proposal and plans to document the analysis in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Public meetings will be held on June 27, and June 29,2002, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. to discuss the proposal and visit some selected areas that may be treated.
The Bankhead National Forest is seeking additional information, comments, and assistance from Federal, State, and local agencies and other individuals or organizations that may be interested in or affected by the proposed action. This input will be used in preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The scoping process includes:
1. Identifying potential issues.
2. Identifying issues to be analyzed in depth.
3. Eliminating insignificant issues or those, which have been covered by a relevant previous environmental analysis.
4. Exploring additional alternatives.
5. Identifying potential environmental effects of the proposed action and alternatives.
1. Protection of soil and water resources.
2. Impacts of the proposed treatments on Federally listed species of plants and wildlife, which are defined by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended, Forest Service Regional Forester's Sensitive Species list, and upon locally rate species.
3. Short and long term impacts on recreational experiences on the Bankhead National Forest.
4. Protection of cultural resources.
5. Effects on management indicator species.
1. No Action: This alternative will serve as a baseline for comparison of alternatives. Present management activities will continue but the proposed project will not be done. This alternative will be fully developed and analyzed.
2. Proposed Action:
There will be intermediate thinning of approximately 13,200 acres of loblolly pine forest to favor conversion to dry and very dry (xeric) oak forest and woodlands, moderately moist (mesic) oak forests, and dry and moderately moist (mesic) oak-pine forests, reduce short-term risks to SPB infestations, and reduce forest fuel buildups.
The loblolly pine thinning program will reduce basal area to between 50 to
The thinning will allow the development of young oak, hickory, and other associated hardwood species in the understory that are intolerant of shade. In some cases, the thinning will actually shift the forest condition from predominantly pine forest to a predominatly deciduous forest condition.
Natural reforestation, with or without site preparation, as well as the possibility of artificial reforestation, will be conducted on approximately 4,700 acres of former loblolly pine forest impacted by SPB infestations. Site preparation may include mechanical treatment, prescribed burning or a combination of both. Some areas may be left to regenerate naturally without site preparation. These activities will restore these sites to dry and very dry (xeric) oak forest and woodlands, moderately moist (mesic) oak forests, and dry and moderately moist (mesic) oak-pine forests.
The dry and very dry (xeric) oak forest and woodland community type will be restored on the northern portion of the Bankhead National Forest. These areas will be characterized as mid- to late-successional forests. These forests are characterized as having canopies ranging from closed forest conditions to open woodland conditions, with occasional small gaps up to
These forests will contribute a range of habitat conditions that vary from suitable to optimal for those species of plants and animals typically found in association with forests of these successional stages. Some representatives of the species typically found within this range of habitat conditions in the mid to late successional stages of deciduous forest include the hooded warbler, pileated woodpecker, cerulean warbler, white-tailed deer, eastern wild turkey and the eastern gray squirrel.
The moderately moist (mesic) oak forest and dry and moderately moist (mesic) oak-pint forest community types will be restored on the northern portion of the Bankhead National Forest. These areas will be characterized as mid- to late-successional forests.
These forests will have a continuous dominant canopy of medium-sized trees, with occasional small gaps up to
These forests will contribute a range of habitat conditions that vary from suitable to optimal for those species of plants and animals typically found in association with forests of these successional stages. Some representatives of the species typically found within this range of habitat conditions in the mid to late successional stages of deciduous forest include the hooded warbler, pileated woodpecker, cerulean warbler, white-tailed deer, eastern wild turkey and the eastern gray squirrel.
There will be intermediate thinning of approximately 5,200 acres of loblolly pine forest to favor conversion to very dry (xeric) shortleaf/bluestem woodlands and very dry (xeric) pine-oak forest and woodlands. This action will also reduce short-term risks to SPB infestations and reduce forest fuel buildups.
The loblolly pine thinning program will reduce basal area to between 60 to 70 square feet per acre. Trees favored for retention in order of priority in these areas will include (1) shortleaf pine, (2) longleaf pine, (3) loblolly pine, and (4) dominant/codominant oaks/hickory. The favored hardwood species will include a variety of oak and hickory species. Consultation will be conducted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding coordination of restoration activities with Recovery Plans for Federally listed species. The top priority stands for thinning will be those between 15-45 years old, with high tree densities. It is proposed that all timber sale harvest options be available for this program.
The thinning will lower tree densities that will allow the development of understory, fire-dependent grasses and shrubs that are intolerant of shade. This thinning will precede future restoration activities that will gradually replace the existing loblolly pine with shortleaf pine as predominant species.
Artificial reforestation and site preparation will be conducted on approximately 2,000 acres of former loblolly pine forest impacted by SPB infestations. Site preparation may include mechanical treatment, prescribed burning or a combination of both. Shortleaf seedlings will be planted artificially to assure adequate stocking. In addition, prescribed burning will be utilized as an intermediate to help achieve the desired restoration. These activities will restore these sites to very dry (xeric) shortleaf/bluestem woodlands.
The very dry (xeric) shortleaf/bluestem woodland and very dry (xeric) pine-oak forest and woodland community types will be restored on the central portion of the Bankhead National Forest. These areas will be characterized as mid- to late-successional forests. These forests are characterized as having open woodland conditions, with occasional small gaps up to
If maintained by fire, this portion of the forest will contribute a range of habitat conditions that vary from suitable to optimal for those species of plants and animals typically found in association with forests of these open conditions. Some representatives of the species typically within this range of habitat conditions in the native shortleaf and bluestem woodland include the prairie warbler, orchard oriole, northern bobwhite quail, white-tailed deer, and eastern wild turkey.
There will be intermediate thinning of approximately 3,200 acres of loblolly pine forest to favor conversion to longleaf/bluestem woodlands, to reduce short-terms risks to SPB infestations, and to reduce forest fuel buildups.
The loblolly pine thinning program will reduce basal area to between 60 to 70 square feet per acre. These favored for retention in order of priority in these areas will include (1) longleaf pine, (2) shortleaf or loblolly pine, and (3) dominant/codominant oaks/hickory. The favored hardwood species will include a variety of oak and hickory species. Consultation will be conducted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding coordination of restoration activities with Recovery Plans for Federally listed species. The top priority stands for thinning will be those between 15-45 years old, with high tree densities. It is proposed that all timber sale harvest options be available for this program.
The thinning will lower tree densities that will allow the development of understory, fire-dependent grasses and shrubs that are intolerant of shade. This thinning will precede future restoration activities that will gradually replace the existing loblolly pine with longleaf pine as predominant species.
Artificial reforestation and site preparation will be conducted on approximately 800 acres of former loblolly pine forest impacted by SPB infestations. Site preparation may include mechanical treatment, prescribed burning or a combination of both. Longleaf seedlings will be planted artificially to assure adequate stocking. In addition, prescribed burning will be utilized as an intermediate treatment to help achieve the desired future conditions. These activities will restore these sites to very dry (xeric) longleaf/bluestem woodlands.
The longleaf/bluestem woodland community types will be restored on the southern portion of the Bankhead National Forest. These areas will be characterized as mid- to late-successional forests. These forests are characterized as having open woodland conditions, with occasional small gaps up to
These areas of the forest will contribute a range of habitat conditions for native species of plants and wildlife. This range of conditions will vary from suitable to optimal for those species of plants and animals typically found in association with forests of these open conditions. Maintenance by prescribed fire is necessary to have the optimal conditions. Some representatives of the wildlife species typically found within this range of habitat conditions in the native longleaf pine and bluestem woodlands include the prairie warbler, brown-headed nuthatch, red-cockaded woodpecker, northern bobwhite quail, white-tailed deer and eastern wild turkey.
There are no special permits required from any State or Federal agencies in order to implement this project. Consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as required by section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, will be conducted for all needed activities.
The USDA Forest Service is the lead agency for this project. The Bankhead Ranger District requests that comments be as specific as possible for this proposal, and be sent to: District Ranger Glen Gaines, USDA, Forest Service, P.O. Box 278, Double Springs, AL 35553.
It is estimated that the draft EIS will be available for public comment by July 31, 2003. It is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate at this time. To be helpful, comments on the DEIS should be as specific as possible and may address the adequacy of the statement or the merits of the alternatives discussed (see the Council on Environmental quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3)
In addition, Federal court decisions have established that reviewers of DEIS's must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts the agency to the reviewers' position and contentions:
After the comment period ends on the DEIS, the comments will be analyzed, considered, and responded to by the Forest Service in preparing the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). The FEIS is scheduled to be completed by November 17, 2003. The responsible official will consider the comments, responses, environmental consequences discussed in the final supplement, applicable laws, regulations, and policies in making a decision regarding this proposal. The responsible official will document the decision and reasons for the decision in the Record of Decision. That decision will be subject to appeal under 36 CFR 215. The responsible official for this project will be Glen Gaines, District Ranger for the Bankhead Ranger District, National Forests in Alabama at: P.O. Box 278, Double Springs, AL 35553.
Forest Service, USDA.
Meeting.
The Hood/Willamette Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet on Friday, June 21, 2002. The meeting is scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. and will conclude at approximately 4 p.m. The meeting will be held at the Salem Office of the Bureau of Land Management Office; 1717 Fabry Road SE; Salem, Oregon; (503) 375-5646. The tentative agenda includes: (1) Report on status of 2002 projects; (2) decision on overhead rate for 2003 projects; (3) presentation of 2003 Projects; and (4) public forum.
The Public Forum is tentatively scheduled to begin at 11 p.m. Time allowed for individual presentations will be limited to 3-4 minutes. Written comments are encouraged, particularly if the material cannot be presented within the time limits for the Public Forum. Written comments may be submitted prior to the June 21st meeting by sending them to Designated Federal Official Donna Short at the address given below.
For more information regarding this meeting, contact Designated Federal Official Donna Short; Sweet Home Ranger District; 3225 Highway 20; Sweet Home, Oregon 97386; (541) 367-9220.
Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed Additions to Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to add to the Procurement List a product and services to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3259.
Sheryl D. Kennerly, (703) 603-7740.
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C 47(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the possible impact of the proposed actions.
If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in the notice for each product or service will be required to procure the product and services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. If approved, the action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the product and services to the Government.
2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product and services to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the product and services proposed for addition to the Procurement List. Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information.
The following product and services are proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:
Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Additions to Procurement List.
This action adds to the Procurement List services to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
June 23, 2002.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3259.
Sheryl D. Kennerly, (703) 603-7740.
On February 15, and March 29, 2002, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (67 F.R. 7130, and 15175) of proposed additions to the Procurement List.
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the services listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the services to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the services.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following services are added to the Procurement List:
This action does not affect current contracts awarded prior to the effective date of this addition or options that may be exercised under those contracts.
DOC has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Madeleine Clayton, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202)482-3129, Department of Commerce, room 6608, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent via fax by June 7, 2002 to Susan Schechter, OMB Desk Officer, (202) 395-7245.
DOC has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
The economic census is the primary source of facts about the structure and functioning of the Nation's economy and features unique industry and geographic detail. Economic census statistics serve as part of the framework for the national accounts and provide essential information for government, business, and the general public. The Federal Government (
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Madeleine Clayton, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482-3129, Department of
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to Susan Schechter, OMB Desk Officer, room 10201, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Proposed collection; comment request.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
Written comments must be submitted on or before July 23, 2002.
Direct all written comments to Madeleine Clayton, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6608, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at mclayton@doc.gov).
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Sheldon G. Ziman, U. S. Census Bureau, Room 1183, Building 3, Washington DC 20233-6400 (301-457-3315), or via the Internet at
The business expenses survey is conducted as part of the economic census, which is required by law to be taken every five years under Title 13 of the United States Code. The 2002 Business Expenses Survey will be conducted on a sample basis for the collection of data on business operating expenses to complement data on sales and inventories compiled in current surveys. Together, these data are benchmarked to the economic census and are used to compile measures of value produced for selected industries. The collection of business expenses data is required for reliable measurement of the United States economy. As such, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), producer of gross domestic product estimates, is the primary user of these data. The BEA uses the expenses data for developing the national income and product accounts, input-output tables, and economic indexes, and to fill previously identified critical gaps in underlying data in these accounts.
Industrial sectors covered by the survey include wholesale trade, retail trade, and most of the transportation and service sectors, as based on the 1997 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
The information collected will produce statistics by kind of business on operating expenses such as labor costs, depreciation, rent, materials and supplies, utilities, and purchased services such as advertising, repairs, legal, accounting, and computer services. The primary strategy for minimizing burden in this survey is the use of sampling and sub-sampling, and where possible, supplementing the Census Bureau's business annual surveys as the data collection vehicle.
The 2002 Business Expenses Survey will be conducted using mailout/mailback procedures, where possible supplementing the Census Bureau's business annual surveys. The sample to be used was previously created for the business current surveys, covering wholesale trade, retail trade, and most of the transportation and service industrial sectors. Most multi-location companies included in the sample will receive a separate form to consolidate their data for each unique kind of business operated. Only employer businesses will be mailed. Data for non-employers for selected industries will be estimated based on administrative records. The questionnaires will be mailed from the Census Bureau's National Processing Center in Jeffersonville, Indiana. Three periodic mail follow-ups and a telephone follow-up will be conducted to minimize statistical error due to nonresponse. Upon closeout of data collection, the response data will be edited and reviewed.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
May 24, 2002.
The notice appearing in 67 FR 18586, on Tuesday, April 16, 2002, should be disregarded because it duplicates the notice appearing in 67 FR 18165, on Monday, April 15, 2002. Therefore, the effective date of the preliminary determination is April 15, 2002.
Vicki Schepker or Christopher Smith, at (202) 482-1756 or (202) 482-1442, respectively; AD/CVD Enforcement Group II Office 5, Import Administration, Room 1870, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
May 24, 2002.
Alex Villanueva or Amy Ryan at (202) 482-3208 and (202) 482-0961, respectively, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230.
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce (“Department”) regulations are to the regulations at 19 C.F.R. Part 351 (2001).
We determine that certain circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe (“pipe”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”), as provided in section 735 of the Act. The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation” section of this notice.
The preliminary determination in this investigation was published on December 31, 2001.
On January 16, 2002, pursuant to a request from Shuang Jie, the Department postponed the final determination until May 15, 2002.
Based on our analysis of verification findings and the comments received, we have made changes in the margin calculation. Therefore, the final determination differs from the
The period of investigation (“POI”) is October 1, 2000 through March 31, 2001. This period corresponds to the two most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition (
The products covered by this investigation are certain welded carbon-quality steel pipes and tubes, of circular cross-section, with an outside diameter of 0.372 inches (9.45 mm) or more, but not more than 16 inches (406.4 mm), regardless of wall thickness, surface finish (black, galvanized, or painted), end finish (plain end, beveled end, grooved, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or industry specification (ASTM, proprietary, or other), generally known as standard pipe and structural pipe.
Standard pipes and tubes are intended for the low-pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air, and other liquids and gases in plumbing and heating systems, air conditioning units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other related uses. Standard pipe may carry liquids at elevated temperatures but may not be subject to the application of external heat. It may also be used for light load-bearing and mechanical applications, such as for fence tubing, and for protection of electrical wiring, such as conduit shells, and for structural applications in general construction. It primarily is made to American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) A-53, A-135, and A-795 specifications, but can also be made to the British Standard (BS)-1387 specification.
Structural pipe is intended for use in the construction of bridges and buildings, and general structural applications. It also can be used for making steel scaffolding and for piling applications. It primarily is made to ASTM A-500 and A-252 specifications.
Hence, specifically included within the scope of this investigation are products stenciled to the ASTM standards A-53, A-135, A-795, A-120, A-500, A-252, or their equivalents. Standard and structural pipe products may also be produced to proprietary specifications rather than to industry standard. This is often the case with fence tubing, for example.
The scope does not include boiler tubes, pressure tubing, mechanical tubing, finished conduit, oil country tubular goods (OCTG), and line pipe. However, with regard to these excluded products, if petitioners or other interested parties provide to the Department reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that the products are being used in a standard or structural application, the Department may instruct the U.S. Customs Service to require end-use certifications. In addition, line pipe meeting the American Petroleum Institute (API) line pipe is excluded from the scope of this investigation, and any resultant antidumping duty order, if covered by the scope of another antidumping duty order from the same country.
The standard pipe products that are the subject of this investigation are currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7306.30.10 and 7306.30.50. This investigation also covers dual-certified A-53/API or single certified pipe that enters the United States if its is used in, or intended for use in, standard pipe or structural pipe applications. Such certified pipe may include API-5L or API-5L X-42 pipe. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive.
The Department has treated the PRC as a non-market economy (“NME”) country in all its past antidumping investigations.
In our
In the
For our final determination, consistent with our
For purposes of the final determination, we continue to find that India remains the appropriate surrogate country for the PRC. We received comments from a respondent in its brief, which are discussed in the accompanying
All issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this investigation are addressed in the
Based on our findings at verification, and analysis of comments received, we have made corrections to certain respondents' reported factor usage rates and surrogate values . We have also corrected certain clerical errors in our
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the information submitted by the mandatory respondents for use in our final determination. We used standard verification procedures including examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by the respondents. For changes from the
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, we are directing the Customs Service to continue to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise from the PRC (except certain merchandise exported by Baosteel and Weifang) that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after December 31, 2001. We will instruct the Customs Service to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount by which the normal value exceeds the U.S. price, as indicated in the chart below. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
Under the Department's NME methodology, the rate for each mandatory exporter is based on a comparison of the exporter's U.S. price and NV based on the factors of production of a specific producer (which may be a different party). Therefore, the exclusion of the above mentioned companies from an antidumping duty order (should one be issued) applies only to subject merchandise exported by Baosteel and produced by its suppliers during the period of investigation and to subject merchandise produced and exported by Weifang. As Baosteel's supplier names are proprietary, they have been identified as Supplier A and Supplier B for this public document. However, the supplier names have been identified in
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) of our determination. As our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will, within 45 days, determine whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing Customs officials to assess antidumping duties on all imports of subject merchandise entered for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) has received a timely request from Tianjin Tiancheng Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (Tiancheng) to conduct a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on glycine from the People's Republic of China (PRC). In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.214(d) of the Department's regulations, we are initiating this new shipper review.
May 24, 2002.
Matthew Renkey, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement VII, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2312.
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the current regulations, codified at 19 CFR Part 351 (2002).
On March 29, 2002, the Department received a timely request from Tiancheng, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(c), for a new shipper review of this antidumping duty order on glycine from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”), which has a March anniversary date. On April 29, 2002, the Department returned the submission because it did not meet the filing requirements of section 351.304(c) of the Department's regulations. See the Memorandum to the File entitled “Initiation of New Shipper Review of Glycine from the People's
As required by 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i), (ii), and (iii)(A), Tiancheng has certified that it is both an exporter and producer of glycine. It has also certified that it did not export glycine to the United States during the period of investigation (“POI”), and that it has never been affiliated with any exporter or producer which exported glycine to the United States during the POI.
Because Tiancheng has provided the required certifications and documentation under section 351.303(g) of the regulations, we are initiating a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on glycine from the PRC in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d).
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(g)(1)(i)(A) of the Department's regulations, the period of review (POR) for a new shipper review, filed in the the annual anniversary month, will be the one-year period immediately preceding the anniversary month. Therefore, the POR for this new shipper review is:
We will instruct the Customs Service to allow, at the option of the importer, the posting, until the completion of the review, of a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for each entry of the merchandise exported by Tiancheng. This action is in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(e).
The interested parties that need access to proprietary information in this new shipper review should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306.
This initiation and notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 351.214(d).
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative review.
On March 7, 2002, the Department of Commerce published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on synthetic indigo from the People's Republic of China with respect to China Jiangsu International Economic Technical Cooperation Corp., and Wonderful Chemical Industrial Ltd./Jiangsu Taifeng Chemical Industry. The period of review is September 15, 1999, through May 31, 2001. No interested party submitted comments on and we have made no changes to our preliminary results. Therefore, the final results do not differ from the preliminary results. The final margin is listed below in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice.
May 24, 2002.
David J. Goldberger, Office 2, AD/CVD Enforcement Group I, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4136.
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (the “Department's”) regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (2001).
This review covers the exporters China Jiangsu International Economic Technical Cooperation Corp. (CJIETCC) and Wonderful Chemical Industrial Ltd./Jiangsu Taifeng Chemical Industry (Wonderful/Jiangsu Taifeng).
On March 7, 2002, the Department of Commerce published in the
We invited parties to comment on the preliminary results of the review. No interested party submitted comments. The Department has conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.
The products subject to this order are the deep blue synthetic vat dye known as synthetic indigo and those of its derivatives designated commercially as “Vat Blue 1.” Included are Vat Blue 1 (synthetic indigo), Color Index No. 73000, and its derivatives, pre-reduced indigo or indigo white ( Color Index No. 73001) and solubilized indigo (Color Index No. 73002). The subject merchandise may be sold in any form (
The period of review covers the period September 15, 1999, through May 31, 2001.
Our final results remain unchanged from the preliminary results. As discussed in the
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service. The cash deposit rate for all shipments by CJIETCC or Wonderful/Jiangsu Taifeng of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, will be the PRC-wide rate of 129.60 percent, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act. The cash deposit rate for PRC exporters who received a separate rate in a prior segment of the proceeding for which there was no request for administrative review will continue to be the rate assigned in that segment of the proceeding. The cash deposit rate for the PRC NME entity will continue to be 129.60 percent, and the cash deposit rate for non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC will continue to be the rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulation and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213.
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce.
Notice and request for comments.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology announces its intent to update its electron ionization mass spectral library. The update will increase the number of spectra from 130,000 to approximately 175,000. Interested parties are invited to submit comments to the address below.
Comments must be received by June 24, 2002.
Comments should be sent to the attention of Dr. Stephen Stein at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Mail Stop 8380, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD, 20899-8520.
Dr. Stephen Stein by writing to the above address or by e-mail at
As part of its responsibilities under Title 15 U.S.C. 290 to collect, evaluate and publish high quality Standard Reference Data (SRD), NIST creates and maintains evaluated SRD databases. One such database is the Mass Spectral Database which is an evaluated data collection containing electron ionization mass spectra for discrete chemical substances. The database is primarily used to aid in the identification of chemical compounds by providing a source for reference spectra for comparison to spectra acquired by commercial instruments, especially spectra generated by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. For each spectrum, auxiliary information for chemical identification is provided, including chemical names, formulas, chemical structures and related information. The planned update will increase the number of spectra from 130,000 to approximately 175,000 spectra, representing a wide variety of substances. The updated spectra will provide wider coverage of compounds and a higher level of accuracy. This will increase the confidence of users of the library in identifying chemical substances. We invite comments concerning this update
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce.
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., notice is hereby given that the Computer System Security and Privacy Advisory Board (CSSPAB) will meet Tuesday, June 11, 2002, from 9 a.m. until 4 p.m., Wednesday, June 12, 2002, from 8:30 a.m. until 4 p.m. and on Thursday, June 13, 2002, from 8:30 a.m. until 3 p.m. All sessions will be open to the public. The Advisory Board was established by the Computer Security Act of 1987 (Pub. L. 100-235) to advise the Secretary of Commerce and the Director of NIST on security and privacy issues pertaining to federal computer systems. Details regarding the Board's activities are available at
The meeting will be held on June 11, 2002, from 9 a.m. until 4 p.m., June 12, 2002, from 8:30 a.m. until 4 p.m., and June 13, 2002, from 8:30 a.m. until 3 p.m.
The meeting will take place at the National Security Agency's National Cryptologic Museum, Colony 7 Road, Annapolis Junction, Maryland.
Note that agenda items may change without notice because of possible unexpected schedule conflicts of presenters.
Dr. Fran Nielsen, Board Secretariat, Information Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8930, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8930, telephone: (301) 975-3669.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Advisory Committee to the U.S. Section to ICCAT announces a summer workshop to evaluate historical landings of Atlantic bigeye, albacore, and yellowfin tunas and to assist in developing a program to improve statistical reporting for these species. The Advisory Committee will also meet with the Status Review Team (SRT) for the petition to list white marlin under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and to provide information to the SRT relative to the five ESA listing criteria.
The workshop will be open to the public and will be held on June 10, 2002, from 10 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. and on June 11, 2002, from 8:45 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Hilton Hotel Silver Spring, 8727 Colesville Road, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
Erika Carlsen at (301) 713-2276.
The Advisory Committee to the U.S. Section to ICCAT will meet in open session to review and discuss (1) NMFS efforts to-date to address bigeye, albacore, and yellowfin tunas data issues, (2) data inventories for bigeye, yellowfin, and albacore tunas on a state-by-state basis, (3) approaches to data monitoring and reporting for bigeye, albacore, and yellowfin tunas, (4) the process and timeline associated with the petition to list white marlin on the ESA, (5) white marlin stock assessment results, and (6) information relating to white marlin with respect to the ESA listing factors.
The meeting location is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Erika Carlsen at (301) 713-2276 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).
Issuing a directive to the Commissioner of Customs adjusting limits.
May 24, 2002.
Ross Arnold, International Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-4212. For information on the quota status of these limits, refer to the Quota Status Reports posted on the bulletin boards of each Customs port, call (202) 927-5850, or refer to the U.S. Customs website at http://www.customs.gov. For information on embargoes and quota re-openings, refer to the Office of Textiles and Apparel website at http://otexa.ita.doc.gov.
Section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended.
The current limits for certain categories are being adjusted for swing and recrediting of unused carryforward.
A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see
Dear Commissioner: This directive amends, but does not cancel, the directive issued to you on November 21, 2001, by the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. That directive concerns imports of certain cotton and man-made fiber textile products, produced or manufactured in Bangladesh and exported during the twelve-month period which began on January 1, 2002 and extends through December 31, 2002.
Effective on May 24, 2002, you are directed to adjust the limits for the following categories, as provided for under the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing:
The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements has determined that these actions fall within the foreign affairs exception of the rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1).
Sincerely,
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).
Issuing a directive to the Commissioner of Customs adjusting limits.
May 29, 2002.
Roy Unger, International Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-4212. For information on the quota status of these limits, refer to the Quota Status Reports posted on the bulletin boards of each Customs port, call (202) 927-5850, or refer to the U.S. Customs website at http://www.customs.gov. For information on embargoes and quota re-openings, refer to the Office of Textiles and Apparel website at http://www.otexa.ita.doc.gov.
Section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended.
The current limits for certain categories are being adjusted swing and carryforward.
A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see
Dear Commissioner: This directive amends, but does not cancel, the directive issued to you on January 3, 2002, by the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. That directive concerns imports of certain cotton, wool and man-made fiber textile products, produced or manufactured in Cambodia and exported during the twelve-month period which began on January 1, 2002 and extends through December 31, 2002.
Effective on May 29, 2002, you are directed to adjust the limits for the following categories, as provided for in the agreement between the Governments of the United States and Cambodia:
The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements has determined that these actions fall within the foreign affairs exception of the rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1).
Sincerely,
Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice of open meeting.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Public Law 92-463, The Federal Advisory Committee Act, this announces the forthcoming working group meeting:
As part of the deliberations, the working group of the AFEB will travel to the Massachusetts Military Reservation. The meeting location will be at the Massachusetts Military Reservation, Building 1204, Camp Edwards, MA 02542.
Lt. Col. James R. Riddle, Executive Secretary, Armed Forces Epidemiological Board, Skyline Six, 5109 Leesburg Pike, Room 682, Falls Church, Virginia 22041-3258, (703) 681-8012/3.
Any interested person may file statements with the committee to be considered at the time and in the manner permitted by the committee.
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice of open meeting.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C., App. 2), announcement is made of the following meeting:
Commander, U.S. Army Cadet Command, ATTN: ATCC-TT (Mrs. Johnson), Fort Monroe, VA 23651. Telephone number is (757) 788-4586.
This meeting is open to the public. Any interested person may attend, appear before, or file statements with the committee.
Department of the Army, DOD.
Notice.
In accordance with 37 CFR 404.6 and 404.7, announcement is made of the availability for licensing of the invention described in U.S. Patent Application no. 60/288,925 entitled “Lateral Visual Field Testing Device (LVFT),” filed May 7, 2001. The United States Government, as represented by the Secretary of the Army has rights in this invention.
Commander, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, ATTN: Command Judge Advocate, MCMR-JA, 504 Scott Street, Fort Detrick, Frederick, MD 21702-5012.
For patent issues, Ms. Elizabeth Arwine, Patent Attorney, (301) 619-7808. For licensing issues, Dr. Paul Mele, Office of Research & Technology Assessment, (301) 619-6664, both at telefax (301) 619-5034.
The LVFT is intended to test peripheral visual awareness of the lateral visual fields in a complex environment where multitasking is the norm.
Department of the Army, DOD
Notice.
In accordance with 37 CFR 404.6 and 404.7, announcement is made of the availability for licensing of U.S. Patent Application No. 09/465,276 entitled “Antibodies Against Type A Botulinum Neurotoxin,” filed December 16, 1999. The United States Government, as represented by the Secretary of the Army has rights in this invention.
Commander, U.S. army Medical Research and Materiel Command, ATTN: Command Judge Advocate, MCMR-JA, 504 Scott Street, Fort Detrick Frederick, MD 21702-5012.
For patent issues, Ms. Elizabeth Arwine, Patent Attorney, (301) 619-7808. For licensing issues, Dr. Paul Mele, Office of Research & Technology Assessment, (301) 619-6664, both at telefax (301) 619-5034.
Antibodies for binding epitopes of BoNT/A and hybridomas which produce such antibodies are described. The antibodies of the present invention can be used in a method for detecting BoNT/A in a sample and/or in a method for purifying BoNT/A from an impure solution. In addition, the antibodies can to be used for passive immunization against BoNT/A intoxication or as intoxication therapy. Another aspect of the invention is a kit for detecting BoNT/A in a sample.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of intent.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Jacksonville District intends to prepare an integrated Project Implementation Report/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (PIR/DEIS) for the ACME Basin B Discharge Project. The study is a cooperative effort between the Corps and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), which is also a cooperating agency for this DEIS. One of the recommendations of the final report of the Central & South Florida (C&SF) Comprehensive Review Study (Restudy) was the implementation of Other Project Elements (OPE) including the ACME Basin B Discharge Project. This project is intended to provide water quality treatment and possible temporary storage of stormwater for the Acme basin within the Village of Wellington prior to discharge to the Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge. Excess water may be used to meet water supply demands in central and southern Palm Beach County. This project is a component of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, a multi-year effort to restore the greater Everglades ecosystem while providing water supply and other water-related benefits to South Florida over many decades.
Mr. Brad Tarr, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Planning Division, Environmental Branch, P.O. Box 4970, Jacksonville, FL, 32232-0019, by email
The purpose of this feature is to provide water quality treatment and possible stormwater attenuation for runoff from Acme Basin B prior to discharge to the Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge or an alternative location. In the event that excess water (above the amount needed by the natural system) is available, an alternative discharge location will be determined.
The study will evaluate alternatives based on their ability to improve water deliveries to the natural system, manage agricultural and urban water supplies, protect and conserve water resources, protect or restore fish and wildlife and their associated habitat, restore and manage wetland and associated upland ecosystems, sustain economic and natural resources, improve water quality, and other performance criteria being developed by the Project Delivery Team.
The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) evaluation of the project will include an evaluation of adverse environmental impacts, including but not limited to, water quality, socio-economic, archaeological and biological. In addition to adverse impacts, the evaluation will also focus on how well the plans perform with regard to specific performance measures.
The EIS will also address environmental issues, water quality; impacts to the estuaries; flood protection; aesthetics and recreation; fish and wildlife resources, including protected species; cultural resources; and other impacts identified through scoping, public involvement, and interagency coordination.
Other public meetings will be held over the course of the study; the exact location, dates, and times will be announced in public notices and local newspapers.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of intent.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), New York District, is preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to ascertain compliance with and to lead to the production of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document in accordance with the President's Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) Rules and Regulations, as defined and amended in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), parts 1500-1508, USACE principals and guidelines as defined in Engineering Regulation (ER) 1105-2-100, and other applicable Federal and State environmental laws for the proposed Storm Damage Reduction Project at the Montauk Point Lighthouse in Montauk, New York. The study area consists of the Montauk Point Lighthouse bluff in the Town of East Hampton, Long Island, New York.
Christopher Ricciardi, Project Archaeologist, Planning Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, 26 Federal Plaza, Room 2131, New York, New York, 10278-0090 at (212) 264-0204 or at
This study is authorized by a U.S. House of Representatives Resolution adopted May 15, 1991 to provide, in part, storm damage protection for the bluff and lighthouse.
1. A public scoping meeting was held in November of 2001 and the results were collected in the Public Scoping Document. These results are available for review and additional scoping comments. All results from public and agency scoping coordination will be addressed in the DEIS. Parties interested in receiving the Scoping Document should contact Christopher Ricciardi at the above address.
2. A DEIS is due for completion by March 2003.
3. Federal agencies interested in participating as a Cooperating Agency are requested to submit a letter of intent
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of intent.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, the Baltimore District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) will conduct a study to evaluate the dredged material placement needs and opportunities for the Port of Baltimore, Maryland and develop a Dredged Material Management Plan (DMMP). The study area encompasses the Baltimore Harbor and the Chesapeake Bay approach channels, which extend from the mouth of the Bay in Virginia to Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, in the upper Bay, Maryland/Delaware. The purpose of the plan is to develop a long-term strategy for providing viable placement alternatives that meet the dredging needs of the Port of Baltimore Federal channels and include consideration of state and local dredging needs. The DMMP study will be evaluated through the preparation of a tiered EIS. As part of the process, the goals and objectives of the study will be clearly determined by all study participants. The DMMP will identify the quantity of material to be dredged from the Federal channels and how the dredged material can be managed in an economically and environmentally acceptable manner. Priority will be given to beneficial uses of the material. Beneficial uses include, but are not limited to, restoration of underwater grasses, islands, wetlands, shorelines, or fish and shellfish habitat. The DMMP will identify,evaluate, screen, prioritize, and ultimately optimize placement alternatives resulting in the recommendation of a plan for the placement of dredged materials for at least the next 20 years. The Baltimore District is actively seeking public opinion and advice to be incorporated into the plan. To this end, three public scoping meetings are planned throughout the study area. The meetings are tentatively scheduled at 7:00 p.m. for the following dates, in the following locations: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 at Queen Anne's County Library in Stevensville, MD; Tuesday, June 18, 2002 at Community College of Baltimore County, Dundalk Campus, Campus Community Center, in Baltimore, MD; and Thursday, June 20, 2002 at Anne Arundel Community College, Lecture Hall 101, in Arnold, MD.
The study will be conducted in compliance with Section 404 and Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the Clear Air Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Prime and Unique Farmlands, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Act. All appropriate documentation (i.e., Section 7, section 106 coordination letters, and public and agency comments) will be obtained and included as part of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
Questions about the proposed action and draft EIS can be addressed to Ms. Michele Bistany, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ATTN: CENAB-PL, 10 South Howard Street, PO Box 1715, Baltimore, MD 21203-1715, telephone 410-962-4934; e-mail address:
1. The Baltimore District Corps of Engineers is responsible for the maintenance of navigation channels in the Chesapeake Bay and Patapsco River known as the Baltimore Harbor and Channels project. Maintenance of these channels requires the annual placement of approximately 4.5 million cubic yards of dredged material. The DMMP study will include an associated programmatic tiered EIS to allow for identification of a suite of options or projects for future detailed study in order to provide for long-term optimized capacity of dredged material. The tiered EIS allows all interested parties the opportunity to participate in the process from inception. It also includes adequate environmental analysis so that future NEPA documentation can be based on a solid foundation.
2. The USACE, Engineering Regulation (ER) 1105-2-100 mandates that the Corps Districts develop DMMP plans for all Federal harbor projects where there is an indication of insufficient capacity to accommodate maintenance dredging for the next 20 years. The ER further states that the Districts are encouraged to consider options that provide opportunities for beneficial uses of dredged material for environmental purposes including habitat restoration. The DMMP process began with a Preliminary Assessment that was completed in September 2001. The Preliminary Assessment identified placement option shortfalls within the next 8-10 year time frame.
3. As part of the EIS process, recommendations of placement sites and options for dredged material management will be based on an evaluation of the probable impact of the proposed activity on the public interest. The decision will reflect the national concern for the protection and utilization of important resources. The benefit, which may reasonably be expected to accrue from the proposal, will be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. All factors that may be relevant to the proposal will be considered, among there are wetlands; fish and wildlife resources; cultural resources; land use; water and air quality; hazardous, toxic, and radioactive substances; threatened and endangered species; regional geology; aesthetics; environmental justice; and the general needs and welfare of the public.
4. The draft EIS for the DMMP is expected for public release in late 2004.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of intent.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Jacksonville District intends to prepare an integrated Draft Project Implementation Report/Environmental Impact Statement (DPIR/EIS) for the Southern Golden Gate Estates Hydrologic Restoration (SGGEHR). This DPIR/EIS is a cooperative effort between the Corps and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). The SGGEHR planning process is authorized
John Kremer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Planning Division, Environmental Branch, PO Box 4970, Jacksonville, FL, 32232-0019, by e-mail
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
We strongly encourage partnerships between LEAs and CBOs that propose school-based mentoring programs.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
To be eligible for funding, a project must propose mentoring programs and activities to serve children with the greatest need living in rural areas, high-crime areas, troubled home environments, or who attend schools with violence problems.
For FY 2002 this priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) we consider only applications that meet this priority.
The total number of points an application may earn is 105.
Projects funded under this priority must—
(A) Link children with mentors who—
(i) Have received training and support in mentoring;
(ii) Have been screened using appropriate reference checks, child and domestic abuse record checks, and criminal background checks; and
(iii) Are interested in working with children with greatest need;
(B) Be designed to achieve one or more of the following goals with respect to children with greatest need:
(i) Provide general guidance.
(ii) Promote personal and social responsibility.
(iii) Increase participation in, and enhance the ability to benefit from, elementary and secondary education.
(iv) Discourage illegal use of drugs and alcohol, violence, use of dangerous weapons, promiscuous behavior, and other criminal, harmful, or potentially harmful activity.
(v) Encourage participation in community service and community activities.
(vi) Encourage setting goals and planning for the future, including encouragement of graduation from secondary school and planning for postsecondary education or training.
(vii) Discourage involvement in gangs.
Grant funds must be used for activities that establish or implement a mentoring program, which may include:
1. Hiring of mentoring coordinators and support staff;
2. Providing for the professional development of mentoring coordinators and support staff;
3. Recruitment, screening, and training of mentors;
4. Reimbursement to schools, if appropriate, for the use of school materials or supplies in carrying out the mentoring program;
5. Dissemination of outreach materials; and
6. Evaluation of the mentoring program using scientifically based methods.
LEAs that receive a Mentoring Programs grant are required to provide for the equitable participation of eligible private school students and their teachers or other educational personnel. In order to ensure that grant program activities address the needs of private school children, timely and meaningful consultation with appropriate private school officials must occur during the design and development of the program. Administrative direction and control over grant funds must remain with the grantee.
An LEA may receive a grant under Mentoring Programs only if the State educational agency finds that the combined fiscal effort per student or the aggregate expenditures of the agency and the State with respect to the provision of free public education by the agency for the preceding fiscal year was not less than 90 percent of the combined fiscal effort or aggregate expenditures for the second preceding fiscal year.
Grant funds may not be used to (1) directly compensate mentors; (2) obtain educational or other materials or equipment that would otherwise be used in the ordinary course of the grantee's operations; or (3) support litigation of any kind.
Faith-based organizations are eligible to apply for grants under this competition provided they meet all statutory and regulatory requirements.
The Assistant Secretary may take into consideration the geographic distribution of the projects, including urban and rural locations, in addition to the rank order of applicants. To the extent practicable, the Assistant Secretary will select not less than one grant recipient from each State for which there is an eligible entity that submits an application of sufficient quality. Contingent upon the availability of funds, the Assistant Secretary may make additional awards in FY 2003 from the rank-ordered list of unfunded applications from this competition.
Applications submitted under this program must include the following:
(1) A description of the plan for the mentoring program the eligible entity proposes to carry out;
(2) Information on the children expected to be served by the mentoring program;
(3) A description of the mechanism the eligible entity will use to match children with mentors based on the needs of the children;
(4) Information regarding how mentors and children will be recruited to the mentoring program;
(5) Information regarding how prospective mentors will be screened;
(6) Information on the training that will be provided to mentors; and
(7) Information on the system that the eligible entity will use to manage and monitor information relating to the mentoring program's:
(i) Reference checks;
(ii) Child and domestic abuse record checks;
(iii) Criminal background checks; and
(iv) Procedure for matching children with mentors.
Applicants must provide the following assurances:
(1) An assurance that no mentor will be assigned to mentor so many children that the assignment will undermine the mentor's ability to be an effective mentor or the mentor's ability to establish a close relationship (a one-to-one relationship, where practicable) with each mentored child;
(2) An assurance that the mentoring program will provide children with a variety of experiences and support, including—
(i) Emotional support;
(ii) Academic assistance; and
(iii) Exposure to experiences that the children might not otherwise encounter on their own;
(3) An assurance that the mentoring program will be monitored to ensure that each child assigned a mentor benefits from that assignment and that the child will be assigned a new mentor if the relationship between the original mentor and the child is not beneficial to the child;
(4) An assurance from each CBO submitting an application that it is eligible under the definitions provided.
(1) The term “
(2) The term “
(3) The term “
(4) The term “
(5) The term “
(a) Has never received a grant or subgrant under the program from which it seeks funding;
(b) Has never been a member of a group application, submitted in accordance with 34 CFR 75.127-75.129, that received a grant under the program from which it seeks funding; and
(c) Has not had an active discretionary grant from the Federal Government in the five years before the deadline date for applications under the program. For the purposes of this requirement, a grant is active until the end of the grant's project or funding period, including any extensions of those periods that extend the grantee's authority to obligate funds.
In the case of a group application submitted in accordance with 34 CFR 75.127-75.129, to qualify as a novice applicant a group includes only parties that meet the requirements listed above.
(1)
In determining the need for the proposed project, the following factors are considered:
(a) The magnitude of the need for the services to be provided or the activities to be carried out by the proposed project. (10 points)
(2)
In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the following factors are considered:
(a) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable; (5 points)
(b) The extent to which parents, teachers, community-based organizations, and the local community have participated, or will participate, in the design and implementation of the proposed mentoring program; (5 points)
(c) The quality of the system that will be used to manage and monitor mentor reference checks, including child and domestic abuse record checks and criminal background checks; (15 points)
(d) The quality of the training that will be provided to mentors, including follow-up and support of each match between mentor and child; (10 points)
(e) The quality of the mechanism that will be used to match children with mentors, based on the needs of the children, and ensure that mentors will develop longstanding relationships with the children they mentor; (5 points)
(f) The extent to which the proposed project will serve children with the greatest need in the 4th and 8th grades, and continue to serve children from the 9th grade through graduation from secondary school, as needed; (5 points)
(g) The capability of the applicant to effectively implement its mentoring program; (5 points)
(h) The resources that will be dedicated to providing children with opportunities for job training or postsecondary education. (5 points)
(3)
In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers:
(a) The extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability; (5 points)
(b) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel; (5 points)
(c) The quality of the plan to recruit mentors. (10 points)
(4) Quality of the project evaluation. (15 points)
In determining the quality of the evaluation, the following factors are considered:
(a) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project; (10 points)
(b) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes. (5 points)
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-888-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document, or an application package in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the contact person listed at the beginning of this section. However, the Department is not able to reproduce in an alternative format the standard forms included in the application package.
You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the
To use PDF, you must have the Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) toll free at (888) 293-6498; or in the Washington, DC area at (202) 512-1530.
The official version of this document is the document published in the
Some of the procedures in these instructions for transmitting applications differ from those in the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) (34 CFR 75.102). Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed regulations. However, these amendments make procedural changes only and do not establish new substantive policy. Therefore, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), the Secretary has determined that proposed rulemaking is not required.
In FY 2002, the U.S. Department of Education is continuing to expand its pilot project of electronic submission of applications to include additional formula grant programs and additional discretionary grant competitions. The Mentoring Program is one of the programs included in the pilot project. If you are an applicant under this grant competition, you may submit your application to us in either electronic or paper format.
The pilot project involves the use of the Electronic Grant Application System (e-APPLICATION, formerly e-GAPS) portion of the Grant Administration and Payment System (GAPS). We request your participation in this pilot project. We will continue to evaluate its success and solicit suggestions for improvement.
If you participate in this e-APPLICATION pilot, please note the following:
• Your participation is voluntary.
• You will not receive any additional point value or penalty because you submit a grant application in electronic of paper format.
• You can submit all documents electronically, including the Application for Federal Assistance (ED 424), Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs, (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• Within three working days of submitting your electronic application, fax a signed copy of the Application for Federal Assistance (ED 424) to the Application Control Center after following these steps:
1. Print ED 424 from the e-APPLICATION system.
2. Make sure that the institution's Authorized Representative signs this form.
3. Before faxing this form, submit your electronic application via the e-APPLICATION system. You will receive an automatic acknowledgement, which will include a PR/Award number (an identifying number unique to your application).
4. Place the PR/Award number in the upper right corner of the ED 424.
5. Fax ED 424 to the Application Control Center at (202) 260-1349.
• We may request that you give us original signatures on all other forms at a later date.
You may access the electronic grant application for Mentoring Programs at
We have included additional information on the e-APPLICATION pilot project (
If you want to apply for a grant and be considered for funding, you must meet the deadline requirements listed above.
20 U.S.C. 7140.
These estimates are projections for the guidance of potential applicants. The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.)
The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education invites applications for new grant awards for FY 2002 for the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education program (Javits program). The Javits program has been rewritten in its entirety by P.L. 107-110, the No Child Left Behind Act, and is now located in Title V, Part D, Subpart 6 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), under which these grants are authorized (20 U.S.C. 7253
The Assistant Secretary also announces two final absolute priorities and final selection criteria to govern this competition and the FY 2002 awards of these grants. In accordance with § 5465(a) and (b) of the statute, the Assistant Secretary intends to give
Accordingly, the Assistant Secretary will make awards under the following two absolute priorities to encourage activities that will contribute to an understanding of the most effective ways to educate gifted and talented students who are economically disadvantaged, limited English proficient, or who have disabilities. These priorities will help to target funds to high-needs populations within the general program purpose of assisting States and local school districts to better serve gifted and talented students.
The Assistant Secretary's first priority implements section 5465(a) of the statute and focuses on projects that propose to develop, conduct, scale up, and evaluate programs that identify and serve gifted and talented students who are economically disadvantaged or limited English proficient, or who have disabilities and who may not be identified and served through traditional assessment methods. According to a 2002 report by the National Research Council titled “Minority Students in Special and Gifted Education,” these groups of students remain significantly under-represented at the highest levels of performance. Over the past decade, small-scale model projects and intervention strategies have produced some evidence of effectiveness in raising student achievement to high levels. The goal of this first priority is to expand upon, field test, and evaluate research-based interventions that have existing evidence of success in increasing the proportion of economically disadvantaged, limited English proficient, or disabled students performing at high levels of achievement. Based on the experience of previous grant recipients, the Assistant Secretary believes that these projects will be most successful if they are carried out by applicants that can demonstrate an expertise in: education research and program evaluation, one or more of the core academic subject areas (English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography), the needs of disadvantaged or other under-represented students, and gifted and talented education. In order to meet the absolute priority, projects must: (1) Build on successful interventions and strategies that show evidence that they have increased student achievement, (2) draw on expertise in research and program evaluation, disciplinary knowledge in the core subject areas, the needs of underrepresented groups, and gifted and talented education, (3) expand upon the intervention as it is carried out in multiple sites, and (4) propose a careful research and evaluation plan.
The Assistant Secretary establishes this first priority after having reviewed the relevant research base and the evaluations of previously funded projects, holding discussions with project directors, and consulting with experts in the field.
The Assistant Secretary's second absolute priority implements the “Special Rule” in § 5464(c) of the authorizing legislation that requires any funds available in a fiscal year that exceed the amount that was available in FY 2001 to be awarded to State educational agencies or local educational agencies, or both, to carry out such activities as: research and development on gifted and talented education and how it may be used to improve the education of all students, program evaluations and information collection activities, model projects and innovative strategies, technical assistance and information dissemination, distance learning opportunities, and professional development. Because the FY 2001 appropriation was $7.5 million and the FY 2002 appropriation is $11.25 million, $3.75 million is therefore available in FY 2002 for these purposes. To ensure the most effective use of funds for the above-stated purposes, under this second priority the Assistant Secretary will only fund projects submitted by State educational agencies that propose to collaborate with one or more local educational agencies to carry out a coordinated set of activities to build statewide capacity to serve gifted and talented students.
Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking: Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), the Secretary generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed regulations. However, to make timely awards in FY 2002, the Secretary has decided to issue these final priorities without first publishing them as proposals for public comment. These priorities will apply to the FY 2002 grant competition only. The Secretary takes this action under section 437(d)(1) of the General Education Provisions Act.
To meet this priority each project must include all of the following:
(1) Evidence from one or more scientifically based research and evaluation studies indicating the efficacy of the proposed approach in raising achievement of underrepresented groups to high levels of achievement in one or more core subject areas.
(2) Evidence that the applicant has significant expertise in research and program evaluation, knowledge in one or more core academic subject areas, experience working with underrepresented groups, and knowledge about gifted and talented education.
(3) A sound plan for implementing the model in multiple settings.
(4) A research and evaluation plan that will yield both formative and summative information on the effectiveness of the model, including student achievement data.
(1) Conducting scientifically based research on methods and techniques for identifying and teaching gifted and talented students and for using gifted and talented programs and methods for serving all students, and conducting program evaluations, surveys, and the collection, analysis, and development of information needed to accomplish the proposed project.
(2) Conducting professional development (including fellowships) for personnel (including leadership personnel) involved in the education of gifted and talented students.
(3) Establishing and operating model projects and exemplary programs for serving gifted and talented students, including innovative methods for identifying and educating students who may not be served by traditional gifted and talented programs (such as summer programs, mentoring programs, service learning programs, and cooperative programs involving business, industry, and education).
(4) Implementing innovative strategies, such as cooperative learning, peer tutoring, and service learning.
(5) Providing programs of technical assistance and information dissemination, including assistance and information with respect to how gifted and talented programs and methods, where appropriate, may be adapted for use by all students.
(6) Making materials and services available through State regional educational service centers, institutions of higher education, or other entities.
(7) Providing challenging, high-level course work, disseminated through technologies (including distance learning), for individual students or groups of students in schools and local educational agencies that would not otherwise have the resources to provide such course work.
The Assistant Secretary directs the applicants' attention to the requirements in section 5464(a)(2) of the statute, stating that each applicant requesting support under the Javits program must describe how:
(1) The proposed gifted and talented services, materials, and methods can be adapted, if appropriate, for use by all students, and
(2) The proposed programs can be evaluated.
(1)
In determining the significance of the proposed project, the following factors are considered:
(i) The potential contribution of the proposed project to the development and advancement of theory, knowledge, and practices in the field of study.
(ii) The potential for generalizing from the findings or results of the proposed project.
(2)
In determining the quality of the project design of the proposed project, the following factors are considered:
(i) The extent to which the proposed activities constitute a coherent, sustained program of research and development in the field, including, as appropriate, a substantial addition to an ongoing line of inquiry.
(ii) The extent to which the proposed project represents an exceptional approach to the priority established for the competition.
(iii) The quality of the methodology to be employed in the proposed project.
(3)
In determining the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project, the quality and sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equal access and treatment for eligible project participants who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability is considered. In addition, the following factors are considered:
(i) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project are appropriate to the needs of the intended recipients or beneficiaries of those services.
(ii) The likelihood that the services to be provided will lead to improvements in the achievement of students as measured against rigorous academic standards.
(iii) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project involve the collaboration of appropriate partners for maximizing the effectiveness of project services.
(4)
In determining the quality of project personnel, the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability is considered. In addition, the following factors are considered:
(i) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of the project director or principal investigator.
(ii) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel.
(5)
In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the following factors are considered:
(i) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment, supplies and other resources, from the applicant organization or the lead applicant organization.
(ii) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project.
(6)
In determining the quality of the project evaluation, the following factors are considered:
(i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project.
(ii) The extent to which the evaluation will provide guidance about effective strategies suitable for replication or testing in other settings.
(1)
In determining the need for the project, the extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services, infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be addressed by the proposed project, including the nature and magnitude of those gaps or weaknesses, is considered.
(2)
In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the following factors are considered:
(i) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable.
(ii) The extent to which the design of the proposed project is appropriate to, and will successfully address, the needs of the target population or other identified needs.
(iii) The extent to which the proposed project represents an exceptional approach to the priority established for the competition.
(3)
(i) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project reflect up-to-date knowledge from research and effective practice.
(ii) The likely impact of the services to be provided by the proposed project on the intended recipients of those services.
(4)
In determining the quality of the project personnel, the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability, is considered. In addition, the following factors are considered:
(i) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of the project director or principal investigator.
(ii) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of the key project personnel.
(5)
The adequacy of resources for the proposed project is considered.
(6)
In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the following factors are considered:
(i) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks.
(ii) The adequacy of the procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project.
(7)
(i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project.
(ii) The extent to which the evaluation will provide guidance about effective strategies suitable for replication or testing in other settings.
Emily McAdams, U.S. Department of Education, Room 5W252, 400 Maryland Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 260-8753 or the following email or Internet address:
If you use a telecommunications devise for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document, or an application package in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the contact person listed. However, the Department is not able to reproduce in an alternative format the standard forms included in the application package.
To use PDF you must have the Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.
The official version of this document is the document published in the
20 U.S.C. 7253
National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, Department of Education.
This notice advises interested parties of changes concerning the upcoming meeting of the National Advisory Committee and amends information provided in the original meeting notice published in the March 21, 2002
Ms. Bonnie LeBold, the Executive Director of the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, U.S. Department of Education, room 7007, MS 7592, 1990 K St., NW., Washington, DC 20006, telephone: (202) 219-7009, fax: (202) 219-7008, e-mail:
Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Eastern time, Monday through Friday.
The changes to the agenda are as follows:
(1) The National Advisory Committee meeting originally scheduled from 8:30 a.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, June 5, 2002, as indicated in the March 21, 2002
(2) The agency listed below, which was originally scheduled for review during the National Advisory Committee's June 2002 meeting, will be postponed for review until a future meeting.
• Teacher Education Accreditation Council (Requested scope of recognition: the accreditation of professional education programs in institutions offering baccalaureate and graduate degrees for the preparation of teachers K-12)
Any third-party written comments regarding this agency that were received by March 18, 2002, in accordance with the
You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC area at (202) 512-1530.
The official version of this document is the document published in the
5 U.S.C. Appendix 2.
Pursuant to section 14(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law No. 92-463), in accordance with Title 41 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 102-3.65(a), and following consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration, notice is hereby given that the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board has been renewed for a two-year period beginning May 16, 2002. The Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board will provide advice and recommendations to the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management, appropriate Site Manager(s), and other U. S. Department of Energy officials the Assistant Secretary shall designate.
The Board provides information, advice and recommendations concerning issues affecting the Environmental Management program at various sites. These site-specific issues include clean-up standards and environmental restoration; waste management and disposition; stabilization and disposition of non-stockpile nuclear materials; excess facilities; future land use; long-term stewardship; risk assessment and management; and science and technology activities.
The renewal of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board has been determined to be essential to the conduct of Department of Energy business and to be in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the Department of Energy by law and agreement. The Board will operate in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and rules and regulations issued in implementation of this Act.
Further information regarding this Advisory Board may be obtained from Ms. Martha S. Crosland at (202) 586-5944.
Department of Energy.
Notice of Open Meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Oak Ridge. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, June 12, 2002, 6 p.m.-9:30 p.m.
DOE Information Center, 475 Oak Ridge Turnpike, Oak Ridge, TN.
Pat Halsey, Federal Coordinator, Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, EM-922, Oak Ridge, TN 37831. Phone (865) 576-4025; Fax (865) 576-5333 or e-mail:
Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE and its regulators in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.
Tentative Agenda:
1. Presentation to be Determined.
Take notice that on May 6, 2002, Reliant Energy HL&P (Reliant) filed a pleading entitled “Motion to Intervene and Comments,” stating that it does not oppose the Application filed in these dockets by Kiowa Power Partners, LLC and Oncor Electric Delivery Company (Oncor). Reliant explains that its' position is based on the understanding that certain changes will be made to
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's rules of practice and procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. All such motions or protests should be filed on or before the comment date, and, to the extent applicable, must be served on the applicant and on any other person designated on the official service list. This filing is available for review at the Commission or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
The following filings have been made with the Commission. The filings are listed in ascending order within each docket classification.
Take notice that on May 13, 2002, Consumers Energy Company (Consumers) submitted the compliance filing required by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) order of February 13, 2002 in the above-referenced proceedings. The filing includes First Revised Consumers Rate Schedule Nos. 116 and 117.
The filing was served on all parties on the Commission's official service list in these proceedings.
Take notice that on May 13, 2002, Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC (Michigan Transco LLC) submitted the compliance filing required by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) order of February 13, 2002 in the above-referenced proceedings.
Copies of the transmittal letter included as part of this filing were served on all parties on the Commission's official service list in these proceedings and on all affected state commissions.
Take notice that on May 9, 2002, Thermo Cogeneration (Thermo Cogeneration), a Delaware limited liability partnership, with its principal place of business at 6811 Weld County Road, Ft. Lupton, Colorado 80621, filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) an application for determination of exempt wholesale generator (EWG) status pursuant to Part 365 of the Commission's regulations
Thermo Cogeneration states that it will be engaged directly and exclusively in the business of owning or operating, or both owning and operating, a 272 MW gas-fired combined cycle power generation facility located in Ft. Lupton, Colorado (Facility). Under power purchase agreements with Public Service Co. of Colorado, Thermo Cogeneration will sell the capacity exclusively at wholesale.
A copy of the filing was served upon the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Public Utilities Commission of the State of Colorado.
Take notice that on May 14, 2002, Wisconsin Power and Light Company tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), a Refund Report in response to the Commission's Order dated March 15, 2002 in the above named dockets.
A copy of this filing has been served upon all affected customers and the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin.
Take notice that on May 14, 2002, Entergy Services, Inc., submits for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) on behalf of the five Entergy Operating Companies: Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Entergy Gulf States, Inc., Entergy Louisiana, Inc., Entergy Mississippi, Inc., and Entergy New Orleans, Inc. (together Entergy), this compliance filing is in response to the Commission's April 29, 2002 Order in the above-captioned docket. A copy of this filing has been served upon the state regulators of the Entergy operating companies.
Please take notice that on May 14, 2002 , Central Maine Power Company (CMP) tendered for filing an executed Local Network Operating Agreements (LNOA) and executed service agreements for Local Network Transmission Service (LNSA) entered into with United American Hydro, L.P. (UAH-Hydro Kennebec Limited Partnership). These agreements supersede agreements previously filed on March 4, 2002. Service will be provided pursuant to CMP's Open Access Transmission Tariff, designated rate schedule CMP-FERC Electric Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume No. 3, under the following Service Agreement Numbers:
Take notice that on May 10, 2002, Tri-State Power, LLC (TSP) tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) corrected copies of the long-term contract under which (TSP) will sell electricity under Rate Schedule FERC No. 1 to Tri-State Generation & Transmission Association, Inc. (TSGTA) in compliance with the April 25, 2002 letter from Michael A. Coleman, Director, Division of Tariffs and Rates—West. TSP also filed a corrected short-term agreement under which it will sell start-up test energy to TSGTA..
Take notice that on May 9, 2002, Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) submitted for filing a service agreement for non-firm point-to-point transmission service, a service agreement for short-term firm point-to-point transmission service, and a Network Operating Agreement between ComEd and Sempra Energy Solutions (Sempra) as well as a service agreement for firm point-to-point transmission service between ComEd and Edison Mission Marketing & Trading, Inc. (Edison Mission) (collectively the Agreements) under ComEd's FERC Electric Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 5.
ComEd seeks an effective date of April 9, 2002 for the Agreements and, accordingly, seeks waiver of the Commission's notice requirements. ComEd states that a copy of this filing has been served on Sempra, Edison Mission and the Illinois Commerce Commission.
Take notice that on May 13, 2002, Arthur Kill Power LLC tendered for filing its triennial review in compliance with the Commission's order in Rocky Road Power LLC, et al. Docket No. ER99-2157-000,
Take notice that on May 13, 2002, Huntley Power LLC tendered for filing its triennial review in compliance with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Order in Rocky Road Power LLC, et al. Docket No. ER99-2157-000,
Take notice that on May 13, 2002, Dunkirk Power LLC tendered for filing its triennial review in compliance with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Order in Rocky Road Power LLC, et al. Docket No. ER99-2157-000,
Take notice that on May 13, 2002, Astoria Gas Turbine Power LLC tendered for filing its triennial review in compliance with the Commission's order in Rocky Road Power LLC,
Take notice that on April 26, 2002, Go Green, Inc. tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), an Application for Certification of a Qualifying Facility.
Standard Paragraph:
E. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. All such motions or protests should be filed on or before the comment date, and, to the extent applicable, must be served on the applicant and on any other person designated on the official service list. This filing is available for review at the Commission or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2008(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link.
Please include the project number (P-3342-013) on any comments, protests, or motions filed.
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all interveners filing a document with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person in the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervener files comments or documents with the
k.
l. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
p.
Take notice that an informal settlement conference will be convened in this proceeding commencing at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, June 5, 2002, and continuing at 10 a.m. on Thursday, June 6, 2002, at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, for the purpose of exploring the possible settlement of the above-referenced docket.
Any party, as defined by 18 CFR 385.102(c), or any participant as defined by 18 CFR 385.102(b), is invited to attend. Persons wishing to become a party must move to intervene and receive intervenor status pursuant to the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 385.214).
For additional information, please contact Arnold H. Meltz at (202) 208-2161 or Carmen Gastilo at (202) 208-2182.
Take notice that an informal settlement conference will be convened in this proceeding commencing at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, May 29, 2002, and continuing at 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, May 30, 2002, at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, for the purpose of exploring the possible settlement of the above-referenced docket.
Any party, as defined by 18 CFR 385.102(c), or any participant as defined by 18 CFR 385.102(b), is invited to attend. Persons wishing to become a party must move to intervene and receive intervenor status pursuant to the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 385.214.
For additional information, please contact Arnold H. Meltz at (202) 208-2161 or Carmen Gastilo at (202) 208-2182.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of final order on petition to object to a state operating permit.
Pursuant to Clean Air Act section 505(b)(2) and 40 CFR 70.8(d), the EPA Administrator signed an order, dated April 1, 2002, denying a petition to object to a State operating permit issued by the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (Georgia EPD) to Caldwell Tanks Alliance, LLC, for its facility, located in Newnan, Coweta County, Georgia. This order constitutes final action on the petition submitted by Georgia Center for Law in the Public Interest on behalf of the Sierra Club. Pursuant to section 505(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act any person may seek judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit within 60 days of this document under section 307 of the Act.
Copies of the final order, the petition, and all pertinent information relating thereto are on file at the following location: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The final order is also available electronically at the following address:
Art Hofmeister, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, EPA, Region 4, telephone (404) 562-9115, e-mail
The Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) affords EPA a 45-day period to review, as appropriate, operating permits proposed by State permitting authorities under Title V of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7661-7661f (Title V). Section 505(b)(2) of the Act and 40 CFR 70.8(d) authorize any person to petition the EPA Administrator to object to a Title V operating permit within 60 days after the expiration of EPA's 45-day review period if EPA has not objected on its own initiative. Petitions must be based only on objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment period provided by the State, unless the petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise these issues during the comment period or the grounds for the issues arose after this period.
Section 505(b)(2) provides that the Administrator shall grant or deny such a petition within 60 days after it is filed, and that the Administrator shall object to the permit within that period if the petitioner demonstrates that the permit is not in compliance with the requirements of the CAA. Section 505(b)(2) further provides that the Administrator's duties under that paragraph may not be delegated to another officer. In addition, section 505(e) of the CAA authorizes the Administrator to terminate, modify, or revoke and reissue a permit for cause at any time. In accordance with EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 70.7(f) and 70.7(g), any person may petition EPA to reopen a permit for cause. However, there is no deadline by which EPA is required to respond to such petitions.
Georgia Center for Law in the Public Interest submitted a petition on behalf of the Sierra Club (GCLPI or Petitioner) to the Administrator on May 9, 2001, requesting that EPA object to a state Title V operating permit, issued by the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (Georgia EPD) to Caldwell Tanks Alliance, LLC (Caldwell Tanks) for its facility located in Newnan, Georgia.
GCLPI's petition was not filed within the statutory time period for filing a section 505(b)(2) petition for objection to a Title V permit. Petitioner claims that it relied upon erroneous information provided by the Georgia EPD which indicated that the permit had been re-proposed to EPA. Reproposal of the permit would have re-started EPA's review period and, in turn, extended the time allowed for filing petitions for objection to the permit. Because the petition was untimely, EPA informed Petitioner that EPA intended to treat it as a petition to reopen the permit for cause in accordance with 40 CFR 70.7(f) and 70.7(g) and to respond on the merits.
Accordingly, EPA sent a letter, dated January 28, 2002, from Winston A. Smith, Director of Region 4's Air, Pesticides & Toxics Management Division, to Petitioner's counsel, stating that the petition was not timely filed under section 505(b)(2) and 40 CFR 70.8(d) and that EPA was treating it as a petition to reopen the permit for cause in accordance with 40 CFR 70.7(f) and 70.7(g). EPA also denied the petition to reopen on the merits.
Because EPA had not responded to the petition within the statutory 60-day period for responding to section 505(b)(2) petitions for objection, the Petitioner filed a nondiscretionary duty suit pursuant to section 304(a)(2) of the CAA in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to compel EPA to grant or deny its petition. Two days after EPA responded to the Petitioner's petition, the court held that the doctrine of equitable tolling applies to that 60-day limitations period generally and applied against EPA in the Caldwell Tanks case to render the Petitioner's petition timely under section 505(b)(2). The court ordered the Administrator to consider the petition pursuant to section 505(b)(2) and to grant or deny the petition within 60 days of the court's order.
The Petitioner requested that EPA object to the Caldwell Tanks permit on the grounds that the permit is inconsistent with the Clean Air Act because the permit failed to: (1) Require the submittal of reports of any required monitoring at least every six months, as required under 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A); (2) allow all persons to enforce violations of the permit; (3) go through proper public notice procedures because it stated only that the permit is enforceable by EPA and the Georgia EPD without also stating that the permit is enforceable by members of the public; and (4) include an emission limit or require monitoring to assure that no visible emissions result from a shot blasting and baghouse operation that the permit classifies as an insignificant activity.
The order denying this petition explains the reasons behind EPA's conclusion that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Caldwell Tanks permit is not in compliance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act on the grounds raised.
Availability of EPA comments prepared pursuant to the Environmental Review Process (ERP), under section 309 of the Clean Air Act and section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act as amended. Requests for copies of EPA comments can be directed to the Office of Federal Activities at (202) 564-7167. An explanation of the ratings assigned to draft environmental impact statements (EISs) was published in FR dated April 12, 2002 (67 FR 17992).
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that the Drinking Water Committee (DWC) of the US EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) will meet via public teleconference on the date and at the time noted below. All times noted are Eastern Time. The meeting is open to the public, however, seating is limited and available on a first come basis.
The Drinking Water Committee of the US EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB), will conduct a public teleconference meeting on June 11, 2002. The meeting will begin at 1 pm and adjourn no later than 4 p.m. the same day. The meeting will be coordinated through a conference call connection in Room 6013 in the USEPA, Ariel Rios Building North, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. The public is encouraged to attend the meeting in the conference room noted above, however, the public may also attend through a telephonic link if lines are available. Additional instructions about how to participate in the conference call can be obtained by calling Ms. Mary Winston at (202) 564-4538, or via e-mail at
The primary goal of the Six Year Review is to identify, prioritize and target candidates for regulatory revision that are most likely to result in an increased level of public health protection and/or a substantial cost savings while maintaining the level of public health protection. To address this goal, EPA, in consultation with the National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) and other stakeholders, developed a systematic approach, or protocol, for the review of existing NPDWRs. The protocol focused on several key elements, including: (i) Health effects (to identify potential changes in the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG or health effects goal) and perhaps to the maximum contaminant level (MCL)); (ii) analytical feasibility (to identify potential changes in analytical feasibility for those contaminants where the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) was limited by the measurement feasibility and to review analytical feasibility limitations for contaminants that may have potential changes in the MCLG); (iii) treatment (to evaluate treatment feasibility if potential changes in MCLG/MCL are likely and to evaluate if there is an indication that the best available technology (BAT) or treatment technique (TT) requirements need review); (iv) other regulatory changes (to identify any potential non-MCLG/MCL or non-TT types of changes that apply to public water systems, are ready for rulemaking and are not being addressed under alternative mechanisms); (v) occurrence and exposure (to evaluate the extent of occurrence and exposure where a potential change in health or technology provides a potential basis for revising the regulation); and (vi) economics (to qualitatively consider economic impacts where a health or
The CCL was developed with considerable input from the scientific community and stakeholders and published in March of 1998. The CCL contains 60 contaminants (50 chemicals and 10 microbes) that are not subject to any current or proposed NPDWRs. In 1998, 20 of the 60 contaminants were classified as priorities for regulatory determination because EPA believed at that time that there were sufficient data to evaluate both exposure and risk to public health, and to support a determination of whether or not to proceed to promulgation of an NPDWR. Since then, 12 of the 20 priority contaminants were found to have insufficient information to support a regulatory determination. In addition, sodium was added to the list of regulatory determination priorities.
There are 9 contaminants that have sufficient data and information to consider a determination of whether or not to regulate: (i) Acanthamoeba (microscopic amoeba commonly found in the environment); (ii) aldrin and dieldrin (banned insecticides, used primarily on corn and cotton); (iii) hexachlorobutadiene (used primarily to make rubber compounds); (iv) manganese (essential nutrient, occurs naturally, and has a variety of uses); (v) metribuzin (herbicide used primarily on soybeans, potatoes, and alfalfa); (vi) naphthalene (intermediary manufacturing product and moth repellent; (vii) sodium (essential nutrient, naturally occurring element); and (viii) sulfate (present in the diet, naturally occurring element). After receiving public comments and conducting a stakeholders meeting EPA intends to publish a final determination (Fall of 2002). If EPA determines that regulations are necessary, they must be proposed within two years and promulgated eighteen months after the proposal.
SDWA requires consideration of three areas when EPA makes a determination to regulate: (i) Projected adverse health effects, (ii) extent of contaminant occurrence, and (iii) whether regulation would present a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction (see SDWA section 1412(b)(1)(A)) when EPA makes a determination to regulate.
EPA's evaluation approach is based on recommendations from National Research Council (NRC) and the National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC). For each of the nine contaminants, EPA evaluated: (i) The sufficiency of current analytical and treatment methods; (ii) the best available peer reviewed data on health effects; and (iii) analytical records on contaminant occurrence. For those contaminants with adequate methods, as well as health effects and occurrence data, EPA employed an approach to assist in making preliminary regulatory determinations that follows the themes recommended by the NRC and NDWAC to satisfy the three SDWA requirements under section 1412(b)(1)(A)(i)-(iii).
Specifically, EPA characterized the human health effects that may result from exposure to a contaminant found in drinking water, and based on this characterization, estimated a health-related bench-mark level for each contaminant. Then, for a given contaminant EPA estimated the number of public water systems and population served by those systems above these bench-mark values, and the geographic distribution using a large number of state occurrence data that broadly reflect national occurrence. Use and environmental release information, and ambient water quality data, were used to augment the State data and evaluate the likelihood of contaminant occurrence. The findings from these evaluations were used to make a preliminary determination on whether to regulate a contaminant based on the three SDWA statutory requirements.
Any member of the public wishing further information concerning this meeting or wishing to submit brief oral comments (3 minutes or less) must contact Thomas Miller, Designated Federal Officer, EPA Science Advisory Board (1400A), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone (202) 564-4558; FAX (202) 501-0582; or via e-mail at
It is the policy of the EPA Science Advisory Board to accept written public comments of any length, and to accommodate oral public comments whenever possible. The EPA Science Advisory Board expects that public statements presented at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously submitted oral or written statements.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; Extension of comment period.
In the
Comments, identified by docket ID number OPP-2002-0084, must be received on or before August 1, 2002.
Comments may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as provided in Unit I. of the
Jeff Kempter, Antimicrobials Division (7510C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 305-5448; fax number: (703) 308-6467; e-mail address: kempter.carlton@epa.gov.
This action is directed to the public in general although this action may be of particular interest to those persons who are required to register pesticides. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the information in this notice, consult the person listed under
1.
You may obtain an electronic copy of all PR Notices, both final and draft, at http://www.epa.gov/opppmsd1/PR_Notices.
2.
3.
You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket ID number OPP-2002-0084 in the subject line on the first page of your response.
1.
2.
3.
Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. You may claim information that you submit to EPA in response to this document as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public version of the official record. Information not marked confidential will be included in the public version of the official record without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Offer alternative ways to improve the notice.
7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice.
8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
In the
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces the amended filing of a pesticide petition proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities.
Comments, identified by docket control number OPP-2002-0075, must be received on or before June 24, 2002.
Comments may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as provided in Unit I.C. of the
By mail: Susan Stanton, Registration Support Branch, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 305-6100; e-mail address: stanton.susan@epa.gov.
You may be affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether or not this action might apply to certain entities. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number OPP-2002-0075 in the subject line on the first page of your response.
1.
2.
3.
Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. You may claim information that you submit to EPA in response to this document as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public version of the official record. Information not marked confidential will be included in the public version of the official record without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified under
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice.
7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket control number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
EPA has received a pesticide petition as follows proposing the establishment and/or amendment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a. EPA has determined that this petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.
Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives, Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The petitioner summary of the pesticide petition is printed below as required by section 408(d)(3) of the FFDCA. The summary of the petition was prepared by Bayer Corporation and represents the view of the petitioner. EPA is publishing the petition summary verbatim without editing it in any way. The petition summary announces the availability of a description of the analytical methods available to EPA for the detection and measurement of the pesticide chemical residues or an explanation of why no such method is needed.
In the
Summary information on cyfluthrin residue chemistry, toxicological profile, aggregate exposure, cumulative effects, safety determination and international tolerances was published in the original Notice of Filing of Pesticide Petition 0F6084 (65 FR 11052, March 1, 2000) and most recently in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; request for public comment.
Notice is hereby given that a proposed Prospective Purchaser Agreement (“PPA”) was executed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on March 18, 2002, subject to final approval by the U.S. Department of Justice. The proposed PPA would resolve potential claims under sections 106 and 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9606 and 9607, against the Utah Transit Authority (“UTA”), a public transit district and a political subdivision of the State of Utah, which is acquiring a railroad corridor and related property from the Union Pacific Railroad in order to construct a public transit “light-rail” system serving the greater Salt Lake area (the “Property”). By entering into the PPA, UTA agrees to provide EPA access to the Property, complete an environmental audit and conduct environmental sampling of the Property, to characterize soil which is excavated to construct the “light-rail” system, and to properly handle or dispose of soils which are found to be contaminated.
For Fifteen (15) days following the date of publication of this document, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the proposed settlement. Comments should be addressed to Richard Sisk (8ENF-L), Attorney, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Suite 300, 999 18th Street, Denver, Colorado 80202. and should refer to
Richard Sisk (8ENF-L), Attorney, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 999 18th Street, Denver, Colorado 80202. (303) 312-6638.
Federal Housing Finance Board.
Notice of public hearing.
Notice is hereby given that the Federal Housing Finance Board (Finance Board) will hold the following public hearing:
Only members of the board of directors of each Bank, as designated by the chair of each board, may testify in the hearing. Written submissions are welcome from all other interested parties. All testimony, including the written statements of each Bank, must be submitted in electronic format to the Finance Board no later than 48 hours before the hearing. In addition, 100 copies of testimony submitted for the record and of each Bank's statement must be delivered to the Cleveland Airport Marriott, Attention: Federal Housing Finance Board/June 5, 2002, before the start of the hearing.
Send testimony and comments to Elaine L. Baker, Secretary to the Board, by electronic mail to bakere@fhfb.gov, or by regular mail to the Federal Housing Finance Board, 1777 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006. Comments will be available for public inspection at this address. The 100 copies of testimony for the hearing must be delivered to the Cleveland Airport Marriott, Attention: Federal Housing Finance Board/June 5, 2002.
Elaine L. Baker, Secretary to the Board, 202-408-2837, or Thomas D. Casey, Counsel to the Chairman, 202-408-2957.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 20, 2002.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than June 17, 2002.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 20, 2002.
The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE), HHS.
Announcement of the availability of funds and request for applications from States for innovation grants.
ASPE invites state agencies to submit competitive grant applications for financial assistance in order to plan for, or implement, innovative approaches for the delivery of health and human services. This announcement has 2 tracks. Track 1 is for demonstration grants; track 2 is for planning grants. States may submit applications to either or both tracks. There is no limit on the number of applications that a state may submit.
You will receive e-mail confirmation to notify you that your application was received within 14 days of the closing date. If you do not receive confirmation within 14 days of the closing date, please contact: Michael J. Loewe at the address above.
The printed
Administrative questions should be directed to the Michael Loewe at the National Institute of Child and Human Development (NICHD) at the address or phone number listed above. Technical
Application materials are included in this package and are also available from the ASPE World Wide Web site:
This program announcement consists of four parts: Part I: Background—Legislative authority, Background information, Purpose, Technical assistance and process evaluation; Part II: Project and Applicant Eligibility—Eligible applicants, Available funds, Budget and project period, and Matching requirements; Part III: The Review Process—Intergovernmental review, Initial screening, and Competitive review and evaluation criteria; Part IV: The Application—Application development, and Application submission, Disposition of applications, and Components of a complete application; Part V: Questions and Answers; and Part VI: Appendix.
This announcement is authorized by section 1110 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1310) and section 301 of the Public Health Service Act and awards will be made from funds appropriated under the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002 (Pub. L. 107-116).
New approaches to integrating diverse funding streams, expanding services to new populations, or redesigned service delivery systems often emerge from innovations at the state or local level. Secretary Thompson initiated this grant program to stimulate states to develop new and creative approaches to program planning and health and human service delivery.
As laboratories for innovation, states are uniquely positioned to develop approaches for providing health and human services more efficiently. This grant program will encourage such creativity. It will build on activities already taking place at the state and local levels to devise better coordinated systems and programs tailored to the needs of specific populations. There are a broad array of interesting models focusing on particular issues, such as enhancing gateways to services (
The grants will be administered by ASPE in conjunction with the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. We will also facilitate information exchange among grantees, other States, and others interested in new and creative ways to deliver health and/or human services. This could be in the form of technical assistance, a conference, a website, and/or briefings.
This competitive grant program will allow selected States to design and/or demonstrate new models for delivering health care, long-term care, and/or human services to low-income adults, families, and children. We are interested in funding applicants that demonstrate their interest in implementing innovative ideas. The goals of this initiative are twofold: to increase the effectiveness of health and human services by fostering innovative approaches to service delivery; and to share information gained through this program with other state agencies and interested parties so that they may learn about, and potentially replicate, innovative approaches.
There are two “tracks” under this announcement. Track 1 applicants are expected to be those state agencies that are ready to implement proposed innovations or expand existing innovative strategies. Track 1 applicants likely will have innovative strategies developed and most or all aspects of the programs or services will have been piloted, if not fully implemented. Track 2 applicants are expected to be those state agencies that have innovative ideas, but need time for further planning to fully develop or finalize operational plans.
We are particularly interested in multi-disciplinary projects that seek to better coordinate healthcare, long-term care, and human services systems and services. We encourage states to submit ideas of their own choosing, but we have noted some examples below and in the appendix. States are not required to use any of the suggested ideas.
A. Streamlined Access to Health Care and/or Human Services and Benefits
B. State Data Enhancements
C. Comprehensive Support Services for Children and Families
D. Long-Term Care Services and Resources
By participating in this grant program, states will help to provide much-needed, credible information to government officials and others about how their programs affect families and children. HHS hopes that its sponsorship of this grant program will provide an opportunity for states to learn from one another's successes and experiences.
ASPE will fund an independent contractor to provide technical assistance. We expect that the contractor will provide on-site technical assistance and develop technical assistance and training materials for States. An independent process evaluation will also be conducted with ASPE funds. The process evaluation will, at a minimum, address key research questions:
1. What are the issues and challenges associated with implementing and operating the funded projects?
2. What are the expected short and long-term implications of this intervention for clients, as well as for agencies involved?
3. What other innovative ideas/projects may grow out of each funded project and the program as a whole?
The evaluation will address:
• Strategies undertaken to implement the innovation (
• Process and other outcomes for clients
• Changes in communication/collaboration between local agencies, states, and providers
• Potential organizational changes resulting from ideas generated through the design or implementation process (
• Potential for further research and evaluation on outcomes for service population
We expect that the work undertaken through this evaluation will result in important operational lessons and sound information about implementing innovative approaches. ASPE expects that this investment will benefit low-income clients and families, state and local health and human service administrators, others who work with low-income people, and the general public.
The District of Columbia and any of the 50 states are eligible to apply for funding.
In order to be considered under this announcement, applicants under either Track 1 or 2 should indicate their willingness and intention to participate in a process evaluation, under the direction of and with assistance from HHS and its contractor.
Approximately $2.5 million is expected to be available from ASPE funds appropriated for fiscal year 2002. We estimate that this level of funding will support between 4-6 Track 1 demonstration grants and between 10 and 20 Track 2 planning grants.
Awards made under this announcement for Track 1 will be for up to 12-month budget periods. States may propose projects up to 36 months in duration. Subject to the availability of funds, grantees with projects which last longer then 12 months will be allowed to submit subsequent applications for additional funding, at a lower level, for the additional budget period(s). Decisions on subsequent funding will be made on a noncompetitive basis based on the availability of funds, the adequate progress of the grantee, and such other similar criteria as the Department determines. Any requested additional funding will be reviewed to determine that the continuation of the project is consistent with the purposes of the announcement. Awards made under this announcement for Track 2 will be for up to 12-month budget periods and 17 month project periods.
After award, any purchase of computer hardware or software needs to be requested in writing by the grantee and approved in writing by the ASPE project officer and the grants officer. Purchases of computer hardware or software for routine uses will not be considered.
No funds may be paid as profit to grantees or subgrantees, i.e., any amount in excess of allowable direct and indirect costs of the recipient (45 CFR 74.81). Grant monies can be used for services to the extent that the cost of the services cannot be covered under existing programs.
Grantees must provide at least 10 percent of the total approved cost of the project. The total approved cost of the project is the sum of the Federal share and the non-Federal share. The non-Federal share may be met by cash or in-kind contributions, although applicants are encouraged to meet their match requirements through cash contributions. For example, a state with a project with a total budget (both direct and indirect costs) of $500,000 may request up to $450,000 in federal funds. Matching requirements cannot be met with funds from other federally-funded programs.
If a proposed project activity has approved funding support from other funding sources, the amount, duration, purpose, and source of the funds should be indicated in materials submitted under this announcement. If completion of the proposed project activity is contingent upon approval of funding from other sources, the relationship between the funds being sought elsewhere and from ASPE should be discussed in the budget information submitted as a part of the abstract. In both cases, the contribution that ASPE funds will make to the project should be clearly presented.
DHHS has determined that this program is not subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.” Applicants are not required to seek intergovernmental review of their applications within the constraints of E.O. 12372.
Each application submitted under this program announcement will undergo a pre-review to determine that (1) the application was received by the closing date and submitted in accordance with the instructions in this announcement (2) the applicant is eligible for funding, (3) must include assurance that they and other relevant participating organizations will be willing to field test strategies and to participate in a process evaluation (this must be indicated on the page with the project abstract—see part IV, section E, 8(a)), and (4) is within the page limit (
Applications that pass the initial ASPE pre-review screening will be evaluated and rated by an independent review panel on the basis of specific evaluation criteria. The evaluation criteria are designed to assess the quality of the proposed project and to determine the likelihood of its success. The evaluation criteria are closely related and are considered as a whole in judging the overall quality of an application. Points are awarded only to applications that are responsive to the evaluation criteria as provided in this program announcement.
In order to ensure that the interests of the Federal Government are met, in making the final selections, ASPE may consider additional factors, in addition to the review criteria identified below such as the applicants' capacity for innovation (we encourage states with historically limited capacity to apply for grants), the potential impact of the innovation on the target population, the potential for building upon funded activities, the extent of partnerships with local entities, the overall diversity of program activities within the applicant pool, and the overall diversity of geographic areas within the applicant pool.
Although the review criteria are the same for applications submitted under either Track 1 or Track 2, the level of detail contained in the application is expected to be greater for Track 1 applications given that the applicant has likely progressed further in formulating the proposed approach (
Proposed projects will be reviewed using the following evaluation criteria:
(1)
The application will be judged on the extent to which the proposed approaches to project activities are
Track 1 applicants should include a discussion of the proposed approach for implementing and operating the innovative strategies identifying specific steps to be undertaken. Track 2 applicants should discuss the approach for implementing planning activities. If alternative strategies are already operating, the discussion should indicate how long they have been in place and ways in which they will be affected by the proposed innovation. For track 1, the approach should include a discussion of the time frame and action steps necessary before the project becomes operational (
The application should include a brief discussion of the location of the proposed project. Maps or other graphic aids may be attached. Applications should include appropriate information about the size of the target population in the proposed site/area and other data or information available that relate to the project activity.
It may be necessary for agencies to provide data to an evaluation contractor. The types of data likely to be required under this project include administrative data, including data on program attendance, or other participation data. Data may also be collected from program managers and staff and from individuals participating in the demonstration program. The proposed approach should indicate the availability of such data, the source of the data, the extent to which it can be obtained or accessed by the applicant organization, the existence of data exchange agreements with other agencies that are the source of needed data, and the willingness of the applicant agency to obtain data needed for the evaluation. Any limitations regarding data availability or access should be discussed, including any fees for data.
Any application for a project involving the use of personally-identifiable information about patients or clients that grantees collect should describe how the project intends to address the privacy and confidentiality issues presented by the data collection. The description should not include details of collection, consent, security and the like. It should describe the organizational and planning approaches that will ensure that the project addresses these issues in a thoughtful way, respectful of the patients' and clients' privacy and dignity, in accord with all applicable law, and, if appropriate, taking particular account of the special privacy issues created by systems that integrate or link administrative data across several programs that serve the same population.
This supplemental information on MIS/data system development will be reviewed separately by a technical review panel. The supplemental descriptions should also include the following:
• The goals of the MIS/data project and how they fit into the overall goals and needs of the applicant's current system.
• The current and intended system, including plans to manage data and create or purchase software; connectivity such as wide area networks, web-based access, smart cards and expanded connections to existing mainframe systems; compliance with Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) requirements for patient privacy and confidentiality, and security plans.
• The implementation steps, the current status of implementation, and planned training for users of the system.
• The decision-making process for MIS including how the proposed activities were selected, who was consulted, and how ongoing decisions related to data elements and definitions will be reached.
• What is expected to be funded under the grant (hardware, software, personnel, consultants)?
• How system maintenance and upgrades will be sustained after the grant.
The applications should describe (1) issues and challenges which the applicant has considered and dealt with to date in designing and/or implementing strategies for system improvements, including an assessment of the current delivery system and the most urgent needs of the project's target population or system, and (2) the proposed innovation strategy and ways in which it will significantly enhance performance. A description of existing resources and programs for the target population, barriers in the current delivery system, and gaps in service delivery should also be included. The applicant should include any supporting data or available information which suggest why the innovation is needed. Applications will be judged on the relevance of the discussion to the program objectives set out within this announcement. The application will also be judged on the extent to which the innovation proposed will help to address the target population's needs, build the knowledge base, and have applicability to a range of states and localities.
The application should describe how the proposed innovation will address the identified needs and improve the delivery of services or activities. The application should identify specific outcome measures (goals) to be achieved through the innovation (Examples of innovative strategies are attached).
Goals should be tied to discrete, measurable objectives. Examples include: Increase in the proportion of participants entering jobs at higher wage levels; increased partnerships between agencies and employers to support working families; increased access to health and human services benefits; increased integration of programs or services targeting clients with multiple barriers; increased innovation related to “consumer-directed” approaches to home and community-based long-term care services; more rapid access to program and client date; etc. The application will be judged on the extent to which the proposed program design
In committing to participate in a process evaluation, applicants should be able to report baseline information, including the size of the target population and the expected number of individuals or families to be served by the project, as appropriate. Interim and final program reports will be required.
The application should include a listing of key individuals who will oversee and work on the project, specifically identifying the key individuals from the applicant agency who will serve as the primary contacts for ASPE and contractor staff, indicating their positions, areas of responsibility and authority, and the proportion of time that will be available for project activity.
Applications will be judged on the extent to which individuals with appropriate authority, positions, and experience will work on the project and the adequacy of time allocated for key staff to the project. In addition, the application will be judged on the extent to which there is a commitment to the project evidenced by the participation of senior state and local officials and managers and on the adequacy of the proposed plans for obtaining advice and direction regarding project work and involvement and assistance to resolve issues or problems, as appropriate.
Track 1 applicants should provide details about how demonstration projects will be implemented, and Track 2 applicants should provide details about how the planning processes will evolve. Applications should delineate tasks for completing the work, indicate staff assignments for each task, and provide a schedule for completing each task. Applicants should also describe mechanisms that will be put in place to maintain quality control over the project. The application will be judged on the appropriateness and timeliness of the work schedule and tasks, staff assignments, and quality assurance plan.
The application must include a narrative description and justification for proposed budget line items and demonstrate that the project's costs are adequate, reasonable and necessary for the activities or personnel to be supported. The budget and narrative should have a clear relationship to the approach. The budget must include 2 trips to Washington, DC. The application will be judged on the extent to which adequate staffing and other resources will be provided as required to successfully carry out the tasks and activities proposed. (Applicants should refer to the budget information presented in the Standard Forms 424 and 424A, which can be found at
In order to be considered for an award under this program announcement, an application must be submitted on the forms supplied and in the manner prescribed by ASPE. Application materials including forms and instructions are attached to this announcement. Additional copies are available from Brenda Benesch or may be obtained electronically from the ASPE World Wide Web site:
Applicants should refer to the attached application kit for instructions regarding which forms, certifications and assurances are required and for instructions on completing the forms and preparing and submitting the application. Each application package must include an
Applications must be received in the following format:
• 12 point font size
• Single line spacing
• 1 inch top, bottom, left, and right margins
• Applications under Track 1 should be 10-20 pages. Applications submitted under Track 2 applications should be 5-10 pages. Page limits apply to items Section IV, E, 8(b-e) only; page limits do not include standard forms, certificates, and the like. Forms are available from Brenda Benesch or may be obtained electronically from the ASPE world Wide Web site:
1. Mailed applications postmarked after the closing date will be classified as late.
2.
If applicants use a commercial mail service, they must ensure that a legibly dated, machine produced postmark of a commercial mail service is affixed to the envelope/package containing the application. To be acceptable as proof of timely mailing, a postmark from a commercial mail service must include the logo/emblem of the commercial mail service company and must reflect the date the package was received by the commercial mail service company from the applicant. Private Metered postmarks shall not be acceptable as proof of timely mailing. (Applicants are cautioned that express/overnight mail services do not always deliver as agreed.)
Applications hand-carried by applicants, applicant couriers, or by other representatives of the applicant shall be considered as meeting an announced deadline if they are received on or before the deadline date, between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. EST, at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Grants Management Branch National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 8A01 Bethesda Maryland 20892-7510 (Regular Mail), Rockville Maryland 20852 (Express Mail) ) The address must appear on the envelope/package containing the application with the note “Attention: ( Michael J. Loewe, Deputy Grants Management Officer “
An application sent via the U.S. Postal Service will be considered as having met the deadline if it is postmarked before midnight three days prior to July 23, 2002, and received in time to be considered during the competitive review process (within two weeks of the deadline).
Applications transmitted by fax or through other electronic means will not be accepted regardless of date or time of submission or receipt.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
A complete application consists of the following items in this order:
1. Application for Federal Assistance (Standard Form 424);
2. Budget Information—Non-construction Programs (Standard Form 424A);
3. Assurances—Non-construction Programs (Standard From 424B);
4. Table of Contents;
5. Budget Justification for Section B Budget Categories;
6. Proof of Non-profit Status, if appropriate;
7. Copy of the applicant's Approved Indirect Cost Rate Agreement, if necessary;
8. Project Narrative Statement, organized in six sections, addressing the following topics (b through e are limited to twenty (20) single-spaced pages for Track 1 and ten (10) pages single-spaced pages for Track 2):
(a) Abstract (must include assurance of willingness to participate in a process evaluation),
(b) Goals, Objectives and Usefulness of the Project,
(c) Methodology and Design,
(d) Background of the Personnel and Organizational Capabilities,
(e) Work plan (timetable), and
(f) Budget narrative.
9. Any appendices or attachments;
10. Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace;
11. Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, or other Responsibility Matters;
12. Certification and, if necessary, Disclosure Regarding Lobbying;
13. Supplement to Section II—Key Personnel;
14. Application for Federal Assistance Checklist.
Standard forms are available from Brenda Benesch or may be obtained electronically from the ASPE World Wide Web site:
There are two “tracks” under this announcement. Track 1 applicants are expected to be those state agencies that are ready to implement proposed innovations or expand existing innovative strategies. Track 1 applicants likely will have innovative strategies developed and most or all aspects of the programs or services will have been piloted, if not fully implemented. Track 2 applicants are expected to be those state agencies that have innovative ideas, but need time for further planning to fully develop or finalize operational plans.
ASPE expects that approved applications under Track 1 will be for a period of 1 year (with the possibility of an additional 2 years of funding at a lower level) and applications under Track 2 will be for a period of 17 months.
Any state agency may apply. However, refer to Section I, part C, regarding the purpose of the program.
ASPE expects that the project will be conducted in a defined geographic area (
As indicated in the announcement, the state can propose more than one project and can apply under either Track 1 or 2, or under both tracks (for different projects).
Yes. If the state agency wishes to propose and apply to have more than one project awarded under either Track 1 or 2, they should submit an application for each proposed project. Sufficient budget detail must be provided to allow ASPE to determine the costs associated with
If the state agency wishes to submit applications under both Track 1 and Track 2 for different projects, separate applications for each track must be submitted. (Note: there are different submission deadlines for each track).
Yes.
Yes, there are page limits for the applications. Applicants are requested to be concise. The announcement
An original and two copies of the complete application should be sent: to Michael J. Loewe, Deputy Grants Management Officer, Grants Management Branch, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 8A01, Bethesda, Maryland 20892-7510 (Regular Mail), Rockville, Maryland 20852 (Express Mail) , Phone: (301) 435-6995.
Applications that are hand-carried will be considered as meeting the deadline if they are
Applications transmitted by fax or through other electronic means will not be accepted regardless of date or time of submission or receipt.
The complete package, announcement and standard forms, are available on the ASPE Web site at:
The following are intended as examples that States may pursue through innovation grants. Although we have grouped the examples into subcategories, several of them describe cross-cutting issues. States are encouraged to submit ideas of their choosing, and are not required to use one of the ideas suggested below.
• Many states are interested in expanding access to private health insurance for low-income workers. Funds from state innovation grants could be used for the design or infrastructure development of programs such as the following:
•
•
• States could adopt a number of strategies to address lack of access to dental care and affordable dental insurance, which is particularly a problem among the poor, racial and ethnic minorities, and people living in rural areas. For example, states could form public/private partnerships to increase the number of providers or the availability of dental insurance.
• Coordination between adequate income, food, social services, and health care is especially important in rural communities and areas with high concentration of poverty where services and providers are limited. Although health and social welfare are strongly associated with one another, Federal, State, and local planning efforts continue to address primary health care, behavioral health care, and social services separately. States could use innovation grants to improve coordination and compatibility of services, processing requirements, eligibility, and financial accountability.
• Many states are interested in providing coverage for personal care and other community-based services to be provided to Medicaid beneficiaries in assisted living facilities (ALFs). However, in order to serve Medicaid beneficiaries in ALFs, financing sources must be found to pay the room and board components of the cost of care since Medicaid law prohibits such coverage. The Department of Housing and Urban Development has a grants program specifically for conversion of Section 202 housing to assisted living, and HUD is interested in working with State Medicaid agencies. States may choose to apply for a State Innovation Grant to do some preliminary interagency planning to come up with new approaches that will enable them to access HUD funds for 202 conversions to ALFs.
• States could enhance their data management systems to integrate or link administrative data across a range of programs that serve similarly situated families; expand eligibility screening processes; application of Geographic Information System (GIS) techniques for program planning and operations; or expand use of new technologies, such as Personal Digital Assistants.
• States and providers often face burdensome, duplicative, inconsistent data collection and reporting requirements in their health and long-term care systems. States may elect to use a State Innovation Grant to work on the development of an electronic health information system that will support effective clinical management of patients; improve quality of care; enhance, expand, and support the role of patients in health care decision making; and reduce regulatory burden imposed on providers.
• Many states are developing a comprehensive set of early childhood services and family support programs to promote school-readiness in all young children. To support high-risk families, working families, and children with special needs, states could integrate federal support systems that address different facets of early childhood (
• States are beginning to realize that there is tremendous overlap between adults in the criminal justice system and the adults and children served in many of the health and human services programs targeting low-income families. States could build connections between support programs for families of prisoners, prisoner/re-entry programs, and health and social service delivery systems.
• There is growing recognition of the critical importance of primary and secondary prevention of youth risk behavior through approaches and supports targeting all youth, and particularly high-risk youth. States can make a significant effort to provide program interventions to compensate for those that may be missing within the current system by: involving multiple youth serving sectors to develop core indicators and encouraging state data agencies to monitor these indicators; providing cross-training to facilitate interagency education and
• State or local agencies might partner with employers to support low-income working families by matching the employer's provision of paid release time to take job-related classes. Agencies could also partner with employers to offer lunchtime classes on such topics as choosing a child care provider, conflict resolution, or repairing bad credit.
• States interested in experimenting with “consumer-directed” approaches to home and community-based long-term care services could undertake a variety of innovative practices, for example: developing the specialized infrastructure needed for consumers to recruit and manage home care workers directly, without having to take on the business-related tasks of issuing paychecks and making required tax filings; providing consumer-directed service options within managed care structures; providing options for particular constituencies, such as elders with Alzheimer's disease and their families; or growing small pilot programs to scale and adapting those originally funded with state revenues to conform to Medicaid requirements.
• States could develop campaigns to make residents aware of their risk for long-term care and their options for planning ahead, including purchasing private long-term care insurance. States could use their existing aging infrastructure to ensure that persons nearing retirement age are offered the resources and assistance necessary for successful planning, or they could use the grant resources to investigate the best and most cost-effective mechanisms for educating citizens so that future resources will be well targeted.
• Allegations of poor quality, abuse, and neglect in nursing homes are giving rise to an increasing number of private lawsuits and, as a result, liability insurance premiums for facilities in a number of states have gone sky high. States may choose to apply for state innovation grants to develop working partnerships with private liability insurers to identify “best practices” for nursing homes that, if adopted by facilities, can be linked to liability premium discounts.
• States, providers, consumers and others are increasingly struggling with a serious crisis in recruiting and retaining a quality, committed workforce to provide long-term care services in institutional and home and community-based settings. States may opt to use state innovation funds to develop and implement programs to address the shortage. For example, states could experiment with providing new training programs, establishing alternative approaches to management and supervision, improving benefits for direct care workers, or creating career ladders.
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), HHS.
Request for public comments.
To inform its response to a legislative mandate to develop and disseminate methods or systems to rate scientific evidence found in health care research studies (
The RTI/UNC EPC completed their study and submitted to AHRQ the report “Systems to Rate the Strength of Scientific Evidence”. The report includes the EPC's methodological approach (
The comprehensive report “Systems to Rate the strength of Scientific Evidence, is available on AHRQ's web page at
There are a variety of audiences for the guidance that the Agency will disseminate on this subject, who we hope will be interested in evaluating the usefulness of this EPC report for their purposes and who will also describe the type of guidance that would be most helpful to them. Obtaining comment on how the AHRQ can best fulfill its legislative mandate to identify and disseminate guidance on systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence, is essential to fulfill its commitment to inform all segments of the health care community. We are interested in receiving comments on the report's overall clarity, usefulness, and thoroughness, and we also welcome suggestions on the type of guidance that would be most helpful to researchers, policymakers, provider systems, professional societies, practitioners, patients, and others. For example, what do professional societies, practitioners, payors, policymakers need to know about grading scientific evidence? What parts of the EPC report will be used in day-to-day health care decision making? Is some part this information useful to patients? What are the most useful format(s) for the guidance that AHRQ should use for its dissemination strategy with particular audiences or users?
For particular audiences or uses, or explanation of particular rating systems to be considered for incorporation and discussion in the guidance AHRQ will provide in the near future in accordance with its legislative mandate, written comments must be received by August 22, 2002. Comments should be sent to Jacqueline Besteman (e-mail attached file preferred), at
Jacqueline Besteman, J.D., M.A., Director, EPC Program, Center for Practice and Technology Assessment AHRQ, 6010 executive Blvd., Suite 300, Rockville, MD 20852; Phone: (301) 594-4017; Fax: (301) 594-4027; e-mail:
AHRQ is the lead Federal agency for enhancing the quality, appropriateness, and effectiveness of healthcare services and access to such services. In carrying out this mission, AHRQ conducts and funds research that develops and presents evidence-based information on healthcare outcomes, quality, cost, use and access. Included in AHRQ's legislative mandate is support of syntheses of scientific clinical and behavioral studies on particular treatments and technologies, and wide-spread dissemination of the resultant evidence reports and technology assessments. The mandate includes dissemination of guidance on methods or systems for rating the strength of scientific evidence. These research findings, syntheses, and guidance are intended to assist providers, clinicians, payers, patients, and policymakers in making evidence-based decisions
Section 911(a), part B, Title IX, Healthcare Research and Quality Act of 1999, requires in part that AHRQ, in collaboration with experts from the public and private sectors, identify methods or systems to assess health care research results, particularly “methods or systems to rate the strength of the scientific evidence underlying health care practice, recommendations in the research literature, and technology assessments.” The Agency is to make methods or systems for rating evidence, widely available. To inform its response to this mandate, AHRQ invites public comments on the RTI/UNC EPC study noted above.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, call the CDC Reports Clearance Officer on (404) 498-1210.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments to Anne O'Connor, CDC Assistant Reports Clearance Officer, 1600 Clifton Road, MS-D24, Atlanta, GA 30333. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.
Evaluation of Customer Satisfaction of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Internet Home Page and Links (OMB. No. 0920-0449)—Extension—CDC and ATSDR proposes to continue to conduct consumer satisfaction research around its Internet site in order to determine whether the information, services, and materials on this web site are presented in an appropriate technological format and whether it meets the needs, wants, and preferences of visitors or “customers” to the Internet site. The re-authorized survey will be conducted over the next three years and survey results will be analyzed and interpreted semiannually. Customers on the web site will only be asked to respond once.
Information on the site focuses on disease prevention, health promotion, and epidemiology. The site is designed to serve the general public, persons at risk for disease, injury, and illness, and health professionals. This research will ensure that these audiences have the opportunity to provide “customer feedback” regarding the value and effectiveness of the information, services, and products of the CDC and ATSDR Web site and whether these materials are easy to access, clear and informative. There are no costs to respondents.
This gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463) of October 6, 1972, that the National Task Force on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Fetal Alcohol Effect, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of the Department of Health and Human Services, has been renewed for a 2-year period extending through May 17 2004.
For further information, contact Dixie E. Snider, Jr., M.D., Acting Executive Secretary, National Task Force on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Fetal Alcohol Effect, 1600 Clifton Road, NE, m/s D-50, Atlanta, Georgia 30333. Telephone 404/639-7240, or fax 404/639-7341.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the availability of fiscal year (FY) 2002 funds for a cooperative agreement program to support research on interventions to reduce sexual risk for HIV transmission in substance-using men who have sex with men (MSM). This program addresses the “Healthy People 2010” focus HIV.
The purpose of the research is to develop and test behavioral interventions that focus on reducing risk for HIV transmission by altering the sexual risk behavior of substance using and abusing MSM. Under this program, the primary outcome of the project will be the development of effective interventions for substance-using MSM which may then be adapted and replicated by community-based HIV prevention and substance abuse agencies among sub-populations of substance-using MSM throughout the U.S. This announcement addresses goals of CDC's HIV Prevention Strategic Plan.
Measurable outcomes of the program will be in alignment with one or more of the following performance goals for the National Center for HIV, STD & TB Prevention. Through the implementation of HIV prevention programs, reduce the number of cases of HIV infection and AIDS: 1. acquired heterosexually, 2. related to injecting drug use, 3. associated with male-to-male homosexual contact, and 4. acquired perinatally.
Applications may be submitted by public and private nonprofit organizations and by governments and their agencies; that is, universities, colleges, research institutions, hospitals, other public and private nonprofit organizations, faith-based organizations, State and local governments or their bona fide agents, including the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of Samoa, Guam, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau, and federally recognized Indian tribal governments, Indian tribes, or Indian tribal organizations.
Approximately $1,200,000 is expected to be available in FY 2002 to fund up to four awards for the first year of project activities. It is expected that the average award will be approximately $300,000 in the first year to support development of an intervention in additional years and will begin on or before September 30, 2002. The award will be made for a 12-month budget period, within a project period of up to five years. Funding estimates are expected to increase once recruitment and intervention activities begin. Continuation awards within an approved project period will be made on the basis of satisfactory progress as evidenced by required reports, satisfactory participant accrual, and the availability of funds. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number is 93.943.
Funding decisions will attempt to achieve regional diversity of the four sites (e.g., Northeast, South, Central, West). Funding decisions will also take into consideration geographical locations that afford sufficient numbers of men from which to sample.
In conducting activities to achieve the purpose of these programs, the recipient will be responsible for the activities listed under Recipient Activities, and CDC will be responsible for conducting activities listed under CDC Activities:
The program will support four sites to work collaboratively with each other and with Federal investigators in conducting an intervention study to reduce sexual risk-taking among substance abusing MSM. At each site, it is expected that grantees will newly enroll a minimum of 375 men, including non-injection drug and other substance-using (including alcohol) gay identified and non-gay identified MSM.
The interventions to be tested should be theory-based, group-level interventions appropriate for use among a culturally-diverse population of MSM who reside within a challenging socio-cultural context. Intervention strategies should be sufficiently brief and of a technical level that would facilitate rapid dissemination among community-based organizations. Approximately one-third of the men should identify as African American, one-third as Hispanic/Latino and one-third as Caucasian at each study site. Men who are recruited into the study must currently use drugs and/or alcohol at a heavy level and have been sexually active within the past three months. Men recruited into the study can be poly-drug users (including alcohol), but without current intravenous drug use. Men can be recruited from a variety of venues, including drug using venues, bars, public sex environments known also to be sites for drug/alcohol use as well as substance abuse treatment organizations. The design of the study should include an attention control strategy, so that men randomized to the control condition are invited to equivalent time spent in groups that focus on an issue of interest to this population.
Applicants should develop (1) sampling and recruitment strategies that ensure that the study includes a demographically diverse group of MSM, (2) culturally-sensitive measures of antecedent and outcome variables, including both quantitative and qualitative assessments, (3) an intervention plan that relates directly to an identified theoretical model of sexual risk reduction, (4) a core set of measures that will facilitate assessment of substance use and sexual risk behavior, (5) a sampling plan that will successfully recruit and retain a large number of research participants whose substance use is associated with high risk sexual behavior at some level, and (6) stringent safeguards for protecting confidentiality of participants.
Applicants must develop protocols and assessment instruments that will increase understanding of a broad array of sociocultural, structural, psychological, and behavioral factors as they relate to HIV infection risk in substance-using MSM. These factors must be addressed in the design of intervention activities, so that the forces that are promoting high risk sexual activity within these populations are addressed in the intervention. Clear hypotheses should be developed to test how these variables—and drug and alcohol use themselves—mediate or moderate target risk behaviors. After sites are funded, but before research activities begin, grantees and Federal investigators will work collaboratively to refine the protocols so that they fit together across sites and address
Collaborate with other Federally sponsored researchers, including developing and using common data collection instruments and data management procedures, as determined in post-award grantee planning conferences.
Recipients will be required to pool data for analysis and publication, but can also conduct independent site-specific analyses, as agreed to by the multi-site study group. Recipients are also required to work collaboratively as a study group to:
a. Attend meeting(s) at CDC to develop collaborative research protocol.
b. Develop the research study protocols and standardized data collection forms across sites, including standardized measures of drug and alcohol use and high risk sexual behaviors.
c. Prepare an IRB protocol for approval at the local and CDC levels.
d. Identify, recruit, obtain informed consent from, and newly enroll an adequate number of study participants as determined by the study protocols and the program requirements.
e. Follow study participants as determined by the study protocols.
f. Develop the intervention and intervention procedures in collaboration with the other funded investigators and implement the intervention as defined in study protocols.
g. Establish procedures to maintain the rights and confidentiality of all study participants.
h. Perform laboratory tests (when appropriate) and data analysis as determined in the study protocols.
i. Collaborate and share data (when appropriate) with other collaborators to answer specific research questions.
j. Conduct data analysis with all collaborators.
k. Present and publish research findings.
l. Participate in conference calls with all collaborators.
m. Attend scheduled meetings with other funded grantees.
a. Provide technical assistance as needed in intervention development and in the design and conduct of research.
b. Assist in the development of a research protocol for Institutional Review Board (IRB) review by all cooperating institutions participating in the research project. The CDC IRB will review and approve the protocol initially and on at least an annual basis until the research project is completed.
c. Assist as needed in designing a data management system.
d. Assist as needed in performance of selected laboratory tests.
e. Work collaboratively with investigators to help facilitate research activities across sites involved in the same research project.
f. Analyze data and present findings at meetings and in publications.
Use the information in the Program Requirements, Other Requirements, and Evaluation Criteria sections to develop your application. Your application will be scored based on the criteria listed in the Evaluation Criteria, so it is important to follow them in laying out your program plan. The narrative should be no more than 20 double-spaced pages, printed on one side with one inch margins in a 12-point font or greater. Follow the directions for completing the application that are found in the Public Health Service (PHS) 398 kit.
Submit the original and two copies of PHS-398 (OMB Number 0925-0001) (adhere to the instructions on the Errata Instruction Sheet for PHS 398). Forms are in the application kit and at the following Internet address:
Technical Information Management Section, PA #02136, Procurement and Grants Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2920 Brandywine Road, Room 3000, Atlanta, GA 30341-4146.
Received on or before the deadline date.
Applicants are required to provide Measures of Effectiveness that will demonstrate the accomplishment of the various identified objectives of the grant or cooperative agreement. Measures of Effectiveness must relate to the performance goal (or goals) as stated in section “A. Purpose” of this announcement. Measures must be objective and quantitative and must measure the intended outcome. These Measures of Effectiveness shall be submitted with the application and shall be an element of evaluation.
Each application will be evaluated individually against the following criteria by an independent review group appointed by CDC. Applications will be ranked on a scale of 100 maximum points. Applications will be reviewed and evaluated based on the evidence submitted and the applicant's abilities to meet the following criteria:
a. Extent of the applicant's knowledge of issues faced by study population, including substance use and sexual risk behaviors, access to the study population and experience in working with the population.
b. Existence of linkages to facilitate recruitment from and referral to community-based programs providing services for the study population, including letters of support given in an appendix.
c. Feasibility of plans to involve the study population, their advocates, or service providers in the development of research activities and to inform them of research results.
d. Feasibility of plans for recruitment and outreach to new study participants (e.g. not men currently enrolled in an ongoing study).
a. Quality of the review of the scientific literature pertinent to the proposed study, including the theoretical basis for the investigation and relevance of research questions.
b. The originality of the research, including the extent to which it addresses important gaps in knowledge and has strong relevance for guiding behavioral interventions.
c. Applicant's understanding of the research objectives as evidenced by the quality of the proposed research plan, specific study design and the choice of the theory to guide the intervention activities as well as the quality of the plan to operationalize intervention activities.
d. Feasibility of plan to sample, recruit, obtain informed consent and newly enroll 375 study participants in a culturally and linguistically appropriate manner. This includes plans for achieving a demographically diverse sample within the African-American and Hispanic populations, conducting multi-venue sampling.
e. Feasibility of plan for collecting both quantitative and qualitative formative research data and to follow research participants over time.
f. Comprehensiveness of the plan to protect the rights and confidentiality of all participants.
g. Thoroughness of statistical analysis plans, including data cleaning, management, and substantive analyses, and plans for timely provision of data for pooled analyses.
h. Extent to which study proposal demonstrates agreement to comply with multi-site research requirements (e.g., common protocol, data collection, and computer and data management systems).
i. The degree to which the applicant has met the HHS Policy requirements regarding the inclusion of ethnic and racial groups in the proposed research. This includes: (1) the proposed plan for the inclusion of racial and ethnic minority populations for appropriate representation; (2) the proposed justification when representation is limited or absent; (3) a statement as to whether the design of the study is adequate to measure differences when warranted;
j. Provide a statement as to whether the plans for recruitment and outreach for study participants include the process of establishing partnerships with communities and recognition of mutual benefits.
k. Provide general time line for conducting the research and a detailed time line for the first year of the study, including measurable process objectives for the first year of the study.
a. Applicant's ability to carry out the proposed research as demonstrated by the training, experience, and expertise of the principal investigator and the proposed research team and organizational setting, including demonstration of ability to collect, manage, and analyze accurate data in a timely manner.
b. Evidence of plan for establishing a partnership with at least one community based organization to link participants with prevention and medical services as needed, and to consult on study procedures as needed.
c. Demonstration of epidemiologic, behavioral intervention, clinical, administrative, and management expertise needed to conduct the proposed research.
d. Demonstration that principal investigator and staff have experience working with the targeted population of study participants.
e. Demonstration that investigative team includes a staff member with expertise in qualitative formative data analysis.
a. Availability of qualified personnel with realistic and sufficient percentage-time commitments (including an estimated staffing plan for years in which intervention activities will occur); clarity of the described duties and responsibilities of project personnel including clear lines of authority and supervisory capacity over the behavioral, epidemiologic, clinical, administrative, data management, and statistical aspects of the research.
b. Adequacy of the facilities, equipment, data processing and analysis capacity, and systems for management of data security and participant confidentiality.
c. Adequacy of base staff to keep pace with anticipated workload.
d. Adequacy of time-line for conducting the research.
a. Budget: The extent to which it is reasonable, clearly justified, consistent with the intended use of funds, and allowable. All budget categories should be itemized.
b. Human Subjects: The application adequately address the requirements of Title 45 CFR Part 46 for the protection of human subjects.
Provide CDC with original plus two copies of
1. annual progress reports;
2. financial status report, no more than 90 days after the end of the budget period; and
3. final financial status and performance reports, no more than 90 days after the end of the project period.
Send all reports to the Grants Management Specialist identified in section J (“Where to Obtain Additional Information”) of this document.
The following additional requirements are applicable to this program. For a complete description of each, see Attachment 1 in the application kit.
This program is authorized under sections 301(a) and 317 (k)(2)of the Public Health Service Act, [42 U.S.C. section 241(a) and 247b(k)(2)], as amended. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number is 93.943.
This and other CDC announcements can be found on the CDC home page Internet address—
If you have questions after reviewing the contents of all the documents, business management technical assistance may be obtained from:
Lynn Mercer, Grants Management Officer, Grants Management Branch, Procurement and Grants Office, Announcement #02136, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2920 Brandywine Rd. Room 3000, Mailstop E-15, Atlanta, GA 30341, Telephone: (770) 488-2810, E-mail address:
For program technical assistance, contact: Craig Studer, Deputy Chief, Behavioral Intervention Research Branch, Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention—IRS, National Center for HIV, STD, TB Prevention ,Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Mailstop E-37, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, Telephone: (404) 639-1900, E-mail address:
Mine Safety and Health Research Advisory Committee (MSHRAC) Meeting—Cancelled.
11 a.m.-2 p.m., May 22, 2002.
Teleconference call will originate at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institutes for Occupational Safety and Health, Atlanta, Georgia. Please see
Meeting cancelled. Published in the
Dr. Lewis Wade, Executive Secretary, MSHRAC, NIOSH, CDC, HHHB HHH 715H, P12, Washington, DC 20201-0004, telephone 202/401-2192.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following committee meeting:
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Proposed notice.
This proposed notice announces the receipt of an application from the American Osteopathic Association (AOA), for recognition as a national accreditation program for ambulatory surgical centers that wish to participate in the Medicare or Medicaid programs. The Social Security Act requires that the Secretary publish a notice identifying the national accreditation body making the request, describing the nature of the request, and providing at least a 30-day public comment period.
We will consider comments if we receive them at the appropriate address, as provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on June 24, 2002.
In commenting, please refer to file code CMS-2141-PN. Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission. Mail written comments (one original and three copies) to the following address ONLY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS-2141-N, P.O. Box 8013, Baltimore, MD 21244-8013.
Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be timely received in the event of delivery delays.
If you prefer, you may deliver (by hand or courier) your written comments (one original and three copies) to one of the following addresses: Room 443-G, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201, or Room C5-14-03, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.
Comments mailed to the addresses indicated as appropriate for hand or courier delivery may be delayed and could be considered late.
For information on viewing public comments, see the beginning of the
Laura A. Weber, (410) 786-0227.
This
Under the Medicare program, eligible beneficiaries may receive covered services in an ambulatory surgical center (ASC) provided that the ASC meets certain requirements. Section 1832(a)(2)(F)(i) of the Social Security Act (the Act) includes requirements that an ASC have an agreement in effect with the Secretary and that it meet health, safety, and other standards specified by the Secretary in regulations. Requirements concerning supplier agreements are located in 42 CFR part 489 and those pertaining to the survey and certification of facilities are set forth in 42 CFR part 488.
In 42 CFR part 416, we specify the conditions that an ASC must meet in order to participate in the Medicare program, the scope of covered services, and the conditions for Medicare payment for facility services.
For an ASC to enter into an agreement, a State survey agency must first certify that the ASC complies with our conditions or requirements. Following that certification, the ASC is subject to routine monitoring by a State survey agency to ensure continuing compliance. As an alternative to surveys by State agencies, section 1865(b)(1) of the Act provides that, if the Secretary finds that, through accreditation by a national accreditation body, a provider entity demonstrates that all of our applicable conditions and requirements are met or exceeded, the Secretary will deem that the provider entity has met the applicable Medicare requirements.
Section 1865(b)(2) of the Act further requires that the Secretary's findings consider the applying accreditation organization's—
• Requirements for accreditation;
• Survey procedures;
• Ability to provide adequate resources for conducting required surveys;
• Ability to supply information for use in enforcement activities;
• Monitoring procedures for provider entities found out of compliance with the conditions or requirements; and
• Ability to provide the Secretary with necessary data for validation.
Section 1865(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that the Secretary publish a notice within 60 days of receipt of a completed application; the notice must—
• Identify the national accreditation body making the request;
• Describe the nature of the request; and
• Provide at least a 30-day public comment period.
In addition, we must publish a finding of approval or denial of the application within 210 days from the receipt of the completed request.
The American Osteopathic Association (AOA) previously applied to us for deeming authority which we announced in the
A national accrediting organization may request the Secretary to recognize its program. The Secretary then examines the national accreditation organization's requirements to determine if they meet or exceed Medicare standards. If the Secretary recognizes an accreditation organization in this manner, any provider accredited by the national accrediting body's program that we have approved for that service will be “deemed” to meet the Medicare conditions of coverage. To date, three such organizations have been recognized to have deeming authority for their ambulatory surgical programs: The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Organizations, the Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care, and the American Association for Accreditation of Ambulatory Surgery Facilities, Inc.
The purpose of this notice is to notify the public of the request of the AOA for approval of its request that the Secretary find that its accreditation program for ASCs meets or exceeds Medicare conditions and requirements. This notice also solicits public comments on the ability of this organization to develop and apply standards that meet or exceed the Medicare conditions for coverage to ASCs. Our regulations concerning approval of accrediting organizations are set forth in 42 CFR § 488.4, 488.6, and 488.8.
The regulations specifying the Medicare conditions for coverage for ASCs are located in 42 CFR part 416. These conditions implement section 1832(a)(2)(F)(i) of the Act, which provides for Medicare Part B coverage of facility services furnished in connection with surgical procedures specified by the Secretary under section 1833(i)(1)(a) of the Act.
Under section 1865(b)(2) of the Act and our regulations in 42 CFR 488.8 (Federal review of accreditation organizations) our review and evaluation of a national accreditation organization will be conducted in accordance with, but not necessarily limited to, the following factors:
• The equivalency of an accreditation organization's requirements for an entity to our comparable requirements for that entity.
• The organization's survey process to determine the following:
+ The composition of the survey team, surveyor qualifications, and the ability of the organization to provide continuing surveyor training.
+ The comparability of its processes to that of State agencies, including survey frequency, and the ability to investigate and respond appropriately to complaints against accredited facilities.
+ The organization's procedures for monitoring providers or suppliers found by the organization to be out of compliance with program requirements. These monitoring procedures are used only when the organization identifies noncompliance. If noncompliance is identified through validation reviews, the survey agency monitors corrections as specified in 42 CFR 488.7(d).
+ The ability of the organization to report deficiencies to the surveyed facilities and respond to the facility's plan of correction in a timely manner.
+ The ability of the organization to provide us with electronic data in ASCII comparable code, and reports necessary for effective validation and assessment of the organization's survey process.
+ The adequacy of staff and other resources, and its financial viability.
+ The organization's ability to provide adequate funding for performing required surveys.
+ The organization's policies with respect to whether surveys are announced or unannounced.
• The accreditation organization's agreement to provide us with a copy of the most current accreditation survey together with any other information related to the survey as we may require (including corrective action plans).
Upon completion of our evaluation, including our review of comments received as a result of this notice, we will publish a notice in the
Because of the large number of comments we normally receive on
We have examined the impact of this notice as required by Executive Order 12866 (September 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 16, 1980, Pub. L. 96-354), section 1102(b) of the Social Security Act, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), and Executive Order 13132.
Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects; distributive impacts; and equity).
The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief for small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and government agencies. Most hospitals and most other providers and suppliers are small entities, either by nonprofit status or by having revenues of $5 million to $25 million or less in any 1 year (for details, see the Small Business Administration's publication that set forth size standards for health care industries at 65 FR 69432). For purposes of the RFA, States and individuals are not considered small entities.
Also, section 1102(b) of the Act requires the Secretary to prepare a regulatory impact analysis for any notice that may have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. Such an analysis must conform to the provisions of section 603 of the RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of the Act, we consider a small rural hospital as a hospital that is located outside of a Metropolitan Statistical Area and has fewer than 100 beds.
This notice merely recognizes AOA as a national accreditation organization that has requested approval for deeming authority for ambulatory surgical centers that are participating in the Medicare program. Since these provider entities must be routinely monitored to determine compliance with Medicare requirements, we believe that this organization's accreditation program has the potential to reduce both the regulatory and administrative burdens associated with the Medicare program requirements.
This notice is not a major rule as defined in Title 5, United States Code, section 804(2) and is not an economically significant rule under Executive Order 12866.
Therefore, we have determined, and the Secretary certifies, that this proposed notice would not result in a significant impact on small entities and would not have an effect on the operations of small rural hospitals. Therefore, we are not preparing analyses for either the RFA or section 1102(b) of the Act.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in expenditure in any 1 year by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $110 million. This notice would have no consequential effect on State, local, or tribal governments. We believe the private sector costs of this notice would fall below this threshold as well.
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, this notice would not significantly affect the rights of States and would not significantly affect State authority. This notice describes only processes that must be undertaken to fulfill our obligation to enforce our regulations as required by the April 8, 1997 (62 FR 16985) regulation.
In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this notice was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Section 1865(b)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395bb(b)(3)(A)).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of information by July 23, 2002.
Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/oc/dockets/edockethome.cfm. Submit written comments on the collection of information to the Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.
Mark L. Pincus, Office of Information Resources Management (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1471.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
FDA will collect and use information gathered through the focus group vehicle. This information will be used to develop programmatic proposals, and as such complements other important research findings to develop these proposals. Focus groups do provide an important role in gathering information because they allow for a more indepth understanding of consumers' attitudes, beliefs, motivations, and feelings than do quantitative studies.
Also, information from these focus groups will be used to develop policy and redirect resources, when necessary, to our constituents. If this information is not collected, a vital link in information gathering by FDA to develop policy and programmatic proposals will be missed causing further delays in policy and program development.
FDA estimates the burden for completing the forms for this collection of information as follows:
The total annual estimated burden imposed by this collection of information is 2,884 hours annually.
Annually, FDA projects about 29 focus group studies using 187 focus groups lasting an average of 1.71 hours each. FDA has allowed burden for unplanned focus groups to be completed so as not to restrict the agency's ability to gather information on public sentiment for its proposals in its regulatory as well as other programs.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to the public.
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please notify Thomas H. Perez at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to the public.
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Carolyn Jones at 301-827-7001 at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, (Pub. L. 92-463), announcement is made of the following National Advisory Committee scheduled to meet during the month of June 2002.
The meeting is open to the public.
Public comment will be permitted before lunch and at the end of the Committee meeting on June 25, 2002. Oral presentations will be limited to 5 minutes per public speaker. Persons interested in providing an oral presentation should submit a written request, with a copy of their presentation to: Bernice A. Parlak, Executive Secretary, Division of State, Community, and Public Health, Bureau of Health Professions, Health Resources and Services Administration, Room 9-105, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857, Telephone (301) 443-1898.
Requests should contain the name, address, telephone number, and any business or professional affiliation of the person desiring to make an oral presentation. Groups having similar interests are requested to combine their comments and present them through a single representative. The Division of State, Community and Public Health will notify each presenter by mail or telephone of their assigned presentation time.
Persons who do not file a request in advance for a presentation, but wish to make an oral statement may register to do so at the Doubletree Hotel, Rockville, Maryland on June 24, 2002. These persons will be allocated time as the Committee meeting agenda permits.
Anyone requiring information regarding the Committee should contact Bernice A. Parlak, Division of State, Community, and Public Health, Bureau of Health Professions, Health Resources and Services Administration, Room 9-105,5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857, Telephone (301) 443-1898.
Proposed agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
Office of Inspector General, HHS.
Notice of program exclusions.
During the month of April 2002, the HHS Office of Inspector General imposed exclusions in the cases set forth below. When an exclusion is imposed, no program payment is made to anyone for any items or services (other than an emergency item or service not provided in a hospital emergency room) furnished, ordered or prescribed by an excluded party under the Medicare, Medicaid, and all Federal Health Care programs. In addition, no program payment is made to any business or facility, e.g., a hospital, that submits bills for payment for items or services provided by an excluded party. Program beneficiaries remain free to decide for themselves whether they will continue to use the services of an excluded party even though no program payments will be made for items and services provided by that excluded party. The exclusions have national effect and also apply to all Executive Branch procurement and non-procurement programs and activities.
National Institutes of Health (NIH), PHS, DHHS.
Notice.
The NIH is announcing that Appendix M-I-C-3 and Appendix M-I-C-4 of the
Allan C. Shipp, NIH Office of Biotechnology Activities by phone at 301-435-2152, by e-mail at
On November 19, 2001, NIH OBA published a notice of amendments to the
Further, Appendix M-I-C-3 as published in the
Other minor, non-substantive changes have been made to the
All of these changes are listed in detail in a Summary of Amendments and Corrections that can be accessed, along with the new version of the
Hexavalent chromium (CAS number 18540-29-9) was nominated to the NTP for study of its potential toxicity and carcinogenicity when administered to animals in drinking water (
The purpose of this notice is to announce:
(1) The availability of data from studies designed to assess the absorption of chromium by rats, mice and guinea pigs receiving hexavalent chromium, as sodium dichromate dihydrate, in drinking water;
(2) The design and availability of data from 90-day oral toxicity studies in rats and mice receiving hexavalent chromium in drinking water;
(3) A proposed design for 2-year rodent cancer studies of hexavalent chromium in drinking water;
(4) A public meeting to discuss these data and the proposed design for 2-year studies; and
(5) A request for public comments on these data and the proposed design for the 2-year studies.
A public meeting will be held July 24, 2002 in the Rodbell Auditorium, Rall Building, South Campus, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), 111 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. The meeting will begin at 8:30 AM and is open to the public. Attendance at this meeting is limited only by the space available. Individuals who plan to attend are asked to register with the NTP executive secretary (
A tentative agenda is provided below and includes opportunity for oral public comment. A scientific panel of experts (“the Panel”) will discuss the data, to date, obtained from NTP studies of hexavalent chromium administered as sodium dichromate dihydrate and the proposed study design for 2-year rodent cancer studies (
The NTP meeting on hexavalent chromium is open to the public and public comment is welcome on the data from the 21-day and 90-day studies, the proposed NTP 2-year study plans, and any other issues related to the evaluation of the toxicity and carcinogenicity of hexavalent chromium in drinking water. Time will be provided at the meeting for oral public comments and persons requesting time for an oral presentation are asked to contact the NTP Executive Secretary Dr. Mary S. Wolfe, (P.O. Box 12233, MD A3-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, phone: 919-541-0530, fax: 919-541-0295, e-mail:
Written comments, in lieu of an oral presentation, are also welcome. The comments should include contact information, including name, affiliation, mailing address, phone, fax, e-mail, and sponsoring organization (if any) and preferably be received by July 15, 2002, to enable review by the Panel and NTP staff prior to the meeting as well as to supplement the record.
Hexavalent chromium (CAS number 18540-29-9) was nominated to the NTP for study of its potential toxicity and carcinogenicity when administered to animals in the drinking water. Hexavalent chromium is a known human carcinogen (
To address these considerations, the NTP carried out studies in which rats, mice and guinea pigs (which lack a forestomach) received drinking water containing sodium dichromate dihydrate for 21 days. After that time, the animals were sacrificed and blood, kidney and bone were collected and analyzed for total chromium. The complete protocol and data from these studies are available on the NTP Web site (
Additionally, the NTP has completed 90-day toxicity studies of standard design in which F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice of both sexes received control water or one of 5 concentrations (62.5, 125, 250, 500, or 1000 mg/L) of hexavalent chromium in their drinking water. The studies included measurements of clinical chemistry indices and the animals received a complete histopathological evaluation. The protocol outline for these studies is also available on the NTP Web site and data from the 90-day studies are anticipated to be available on the NTP Web site approximately one month prior to the meeting.
Also available on the NTP Web site is a draft protocol that outlines 2-year toxicity and carcinogenicity studies of hexavalent chromium in rats and mice. The NTP will establish the final design for these studies following completion and evaluation of the 90-day studies, evaluation of the data for total chromium tissue concentration from the 21-day studies, and consideration of input from the Panel, all written received in response to this notice, and oral public comments received at the public meeting.
Chromium is a naturally occurring element, present in several valence states. The most common valence states are trivalent (Chromium III), hexavalent (Chromium VI), and elemental chromium (0). Chromium III is an essential nutrient forming part of a complex known as the glucose tolerance factor. Chromium compounds are stable in the trivalent state and occur in nature most commonly at this oxidation level. Hexavalent chromium compounds are the next most stable forms, although these rarely occur in nature and are typically associated with anthropogenic (human activities) sources.
Hexavalent chromium is more toxic than trivalent chromium, and is absorbed from the gut more readily than trivalent chromium. Hexavalent chromium is an oxidant and it reduces to trivalent chromium, passing through the intermediate reactive V and IV valence states. The toxicity of hexavalent chromium is thought to result from either direct binding of these intermediates to cellular constituents or through the generation of free radicals.
Prolonged inhalation of hexavalent chromium is an established cause of occupational lung cancer in chromate production workers and people engaged in the manufacture of chromate pigments. This finding is supported by inhalation studies in rats and mice that have shown lung tumors following exposure to calcium chromate or sodium dichromate.
Orally administered chromium compounds are relatively poorly absorbed, with most estimates in the range of 0.5 to 2%. The absorption of trivalent chromium is approximately one quarter that of the hexavalent form. Hexavalent chromium reduces to trivalent chromium in the stomach, and this reduction may potentially limit its systemic availability. This “protective” mechanism is not complete, however, because studies have shown that orally administered hexavalent chromium, when given at doses far below those where trivalent chromium showed no adverse effect, caused liver and kidney toxicity. Other concerns with hexavalent chromium given orally involve gastrointestinal effects. Acute gastritis is a common finding in humans who accidentally or intentionally ingested various hexavalent chromium compounds. Also, in a study reported in 1968, a small increase in primarily benign forestomach papillomas was seen in mice exposed to potassium chromate in the drinking water at 9 mg/kg Chromium VI for three generations over 880 days.
The National Toxicology Program (NTP) announces the availability of the background documents for four nominations under consideration for listing in the Report on Carcinogens (RoC), Eleventh Edition (“the Eleventh RoC”). The background documents are available for the nominations:
The background documents for these four nominations are the first to be released for nominations under consideration for the Eleventh RoC. These documents are being made available at this time in response to the October, 1999 public meeting that discussed the preparation and review of the Report on Carcinogens where concerns were expressed regarding the need to increase the time allotted for public review and comment on the RoC
The NTP has identified the nominations under consideration for listing in the Eleventh RoC in previous
The RoC is an informational, scientific, and public health document that identifies and discusses agents, substances, mixtures, and exposure circumstances that may pose a carcinogenic hazard to human health. The report is prepared biennially in response to section 301 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended. The NTP welcomes nominations for listing in or changing the current listing in the RoC at any time. Additional information about the nomination process, the criteria for listing a nomination in the RoC, and the formal multi-step review process for nominations is available on the NTP Web site (
Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), ACF, HHS.
Request for Applications for projects to increase awareness about human trafficking and to support services for individuals determined to be victims of a severe form of trafficking. This notice supersedes the notice published in the
This ORR announcement invites submission of grant applications for funding, on a competitive basis, in three categories: Category 1—Local/Community Outreach and/or Services for Victims of a Severe Form of Trafficking; Category 2—Technical Assistance and Training; and Category 3—Information Discovery for National Outreach/Educational Campaign.
July 31, 2002 is the closing date for all categories. Please note that all applications must be received (as opposed to postmarked) in ACF by this date or they will be considered late.
For all categories, contact Jay Womack, (202) 401-5525, jwomack@acf.hhs.gov or Neil Kromash, (202) 401-5702,
This program announcement consists of four parts:
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 16 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and reviewing the collection of information. The following information collections are included in the program announcement for categories 1-3: OMB Approval No. 0970-0139, ACF UNIFORM PROJECT DESCRIPTION (UPD) attached as Appendix A, which expires 12/30/03 and OMB Approval No. 0970-0036, ORR Quarterly Performance Report (QPR) and Schedule C which expire 7/31/02. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Since 1994, ORR has provided assistance for social services to meet the needs of newly arriving refugees through a standing announcement. In May 2001, ORR modified that announcement to include services to victims of a severe form of trafficking. However, in February 2002, ORR further modified Category 3 of the existing standing announcement by removing services to victims of a severe form of trafficking in order to proceed with a new and separate announcement specifically aimed at promoting awareness about human trafficking and addressing the service needs of victims of a severe form of trafficking. That notice of modification was published in the
This new Announcement establishes a new set of three categories designed to increase awareness about trafficking in persons and provide assistance to victims of a severe form of trafficking.
These grants are authorized by three provisions of law: section 107(b)(1)(B) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA), section 412(c)(1)(A) of the
Section 107(b)(1)(B) of the TVPA, Pub. L. 106-386, Division A, 114 Stat. 1464 (2000), provides that “[federal agencies] shall expand benefits and services to victims of severe forms of trafficking in persons in the United States, without regard to the immigration status of such victims.” Section 107(b) of the TVPA also provides that individuals who are determined to be victims of a severe form of trafficking will be issued a certification letter (for adults) or eligibility letter (for minors under the age of 18) from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). In conducting a benefits eligibility determination for a victim of a severe form of trafficking, benefit-granting agencies should accept the HHS certification letter or HHS eligibility letter for minors in lieu of documentation from the Immigration and Naturalization Service and as proof of a status that confers eligibility for benefits.
Section 412(c)(1)(A) of the INA authorizes the Director “to make grants to, and enter into contracts with, public or private nonprofit agencies for projects specifically designed—(i) to assist refugees in obtaining the skills which are necessary for economic self-sufficiency, including projects for job training, employment services, day care, professional refresher training, and other re-certification services; (ii) to provide training in English where necessary (regardless of whether the refugees are employed or receiving cash or other assistance); and (iii) to provide where specific needs have been shown and recognized by the Director, health (including mental health) services, social services, educational and other services.”
Section 106(b) of the TVPA provides: “The President, acting through the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of State, shall establish and carry out programs to increase public awareness, particularly among potential victims of trafficking, of the dangers of trafficking and the protections that are available for victims of trafficking.
In FY 2002, ORR expects to award an estimated $3.9 million in funds that were appropriated to carry out the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000. ORR expects to make approximately 8-10 grants under Category 1—Local/Community Outreach and/or Services for Victims of a Severe Form of Trafficking ranging from $50,000 to $250,000 for a total of up to $2,500,000; renewable on a yearly basis for up to 3 years, subject to availability of funds; one grant under Category 2—Technical Assistance and Training ranging from $300,000 to $500,000 for a total of up to $500,000 per year, renewable on a yearly basis for up to 3 years, subject to availability of funds; and one grant under Category 3—Information Discovery for National Outreach/Educational Campaign for a total of up to $900,000 per year, renewable on a yearly basis for up to 3 years, subject to availability of funds.
The Director reserves the right to award less or more than the funds described in this announcement. In the absence of worthy applications the Director may decide not to make an award if deemed in the best interest of the government. Funding availability for future years is at the Director's discretion.
In Categories 1 and 2 public and private nonprofit organizations, including faith-based organizations, are eligible to apply for these grants (see § 412(c) of the INA). ORR expects that applicants will coordinate with other local organizations in considering projects and proposing services. In Category 3, any entity is eligible to apply (see section 106(b) of the TVPA), although HHS funds may not be paid as profit to any recipients even if the recipient is a commercial organization (45 CFR 74.81).
Any private nonprofit organization submitting an application must submit proof of its nonprofit status at the time of submission. A nonprofit agency can accomplish this by providing a copy of the applicant's listing in the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) most recent list of tax-exempt organizations described in section 501(c)(3) of the IRS code or by providing a copy of the currently valid IRS tax exemption certificate.
An applicant may submit more than one application under this announcement, but must apply separately for each category.
This announcement is inviting applications in Categories 1, 2, and 3 for project periods of up to three years. Awards, on a competitive basis, will be for a one-year budget period although project periods may be up to three years. Applications for continuation grants funded under these awards, beyond the one-year budget period but within the three-year project period, will be entertained in subsequent years on a noncompetitive basis, subject to availability of funds, satisfactory progress of the grantee and a determination that continued funding would be in the best interest of the Government.
The purpose of Category 1, Local/Community Outreach and/or Services for Victims of a Severe Form of Trafficking, is multifaceted. It combines the need to increase local/community awareness about the burgeoning problem of human trafficking with the need to provide resources that will address the needs of individuals determined to be victims of a severe form of trafficking. Category 1 applications may choose to concentrate exclusively on one of these two areas, or focus more comprehensively on a combination of activities that incorporates both.
The emphasis on Category 1 is to provide state and local law enforcement, public and private service providers, non-governmental organizations, immigrant and refugee communities, and individual community members with opportunities to learn about the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA). The TVPA has presented an unprecedented opportunity to address the previously hidden problem of human trafficking. However, knowledge of the TVPA is limited among service professionals, law enforcement agencies, and the general public. Knowledge of benefits available to victims is similarly limited, especially among groups that do not normally access benefits or have connections with benefit-providing agencies and organizations.
Educational opportunities need to be extended to these groups to allow them to learn about the existence of human trafficking within the United States and to recognize trafficking, particularly in their local communities. Integral in these outreach activities should be familiarity with the legal definition of “severe forms of trafficking in persons” as described in the TVPA. Subsequently, a clear understanding should be established of the criteria necessary to qualify as a victim of a severe form of trafficking for benefits and services purposes.
Once trafficking victims have been identified, organizations must be empowered to provide victims with additional information and resources to access services available to them. Law enforcement agencies that have contact with immigrant or refugee populations must also be educated to look below the surface of people's circumstances in such areas as prostitution and immigrant labor. Service providers need to learn about the varied backgrounds from where the victims come and most importantly the unique issues that trafficking victims will present following their emancipation.
Organizations must establish that within their geographic locality/area there is a reasonable expectation that victims of a severe form of trafficking may be identified. Successful applicants will consider which services need to be enhanced or increased in light of increased community awareness of trafficking.
ORR is interested in providing resources for organizations to cover the costs of reaching out to community-based organizations so that victims are identified where they have the best chance for receiving assistance. In turn, communities where outreach and educational opportunities are being extended may experience an increase in the numbers of victims being identified and requesting services.
Through Category 1, Services to Victims of a Severe Form of Trafficking, ORR seeks to provide resources that will address the needs of individuals determined to be victims of a severe form of trafficking. Victims must be the recipients of a certification or eligibility letter from HHS in order to gain access to this assistance. We believe that enhanced case management, education, culturally and linguistically appropriate linkages and coordination with other service providers contribute to the overall well-being of trafficking victims. Victims may also require initial assistance accessing refugee and/or mainstream services for which they are eligible. The services funded through Category 1 should enhance the likelihood of victims of a severe form of trafficking receiving needed support as they work with the criminal justice system to assist in the investigation and prosecution of trafficking crimes. In all instances, activities must be designed to supplement, rather than supplant, the existing array of refugee services available in the community.
An applicant should provide anecdotal evidence that there have been victims of a severe form of trafficking within their community and/or a reasonable assumption that there may be additional unidentified victims in that community.
This grant program is intended to support services that address the special conditions of victims of a severe form of trafficking. ORR's expectation is that victims of trafficking will most likely, after a brief period of time, access mainstream services. Therefore, grantees should view these resources as a temporary solution.
According to post award requirements, grantees are expected to file periodic program reports. In the last two Program Performance Reports, grantees will discuss the transition of services indicating whether the services are now supported by the State, other public or private resources, or are no longer needed. These reports must provide supporting information on the impact of the services provided to the target population.
Allowable activities for local/community outreach include hosting community forums (including coordination and facilitation of outreach events) to raise general awareness about the problem of trafficking in their local community. In addition, applicants should emphasize the development of advertising and marketing anti-trafficking materials that reflect the broad scope of the various forms of trafficking (including debt bondage, peonage, forced labor and forced prostitution) and that are linguistically and culturally accessible, appropriate, and sensitive.
Applications focusing on Local/Community Outreach should indicate approximate timelines for development, dissemination, and review of actions presented to measure the effectiveness of the communication.
Allowable activities for Services to Victims of a Severe Form of Trafficking are restricted solely to individuals who are the recipients of a certification (for adults) or eligibility (for minors) letter from HHS. Some of the services needed for victims of a severe form of trafficking might include:
• Special medical care that is not otherwise available to the individual;
• Assistance with temporary transportation needs;
• Temporary housing;
• Temporary housing for young adults with limited experience living in families;
• Independent living skills and cultural orientation;
• Access to appropriate educational programs;
• Legal assistance/referrals and administrative costs (excluding T-visa application fees and/or attorney fees).
• Case management, to include information and referral to needed services in the community, either funded refugee services or mainstream services as appropriate;
• Special mental health services, such as trauma counseling, and
• Other services needed to bridge the time between the certification or eligibility date indicated directly on the Department's letter, and the receipt of public benefits and support services.
Applicants focusing on Services to Victims of a Severe Form of Trafficking should indicate how they will ensure that services are appropriate and accessible both linguistically and culturally.
Funds will not be awarded to applicants for the purpose of engaging in activities of a distinctly political nature, activities designed exclusively to promote the preservation of a specific cultural heritage, or activities with an international objective (i.e., activities related to events in the refugees' country of origin).
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
This program is to provide technical and issue-specific assistance and training to organized groups, organizations, and individuals regarding the background and impact of the TVPA, with specific emphasis on the provision of benefits as it relates to the needs of trafficking victims. The program is also aimed at providing and disseminating research and resources for benefit-issuing agencies, law enforcement agencies, and others relating to issues of trafficking in persons.
We believe that strong technical assistance for the provision of benefits is needed by organizations and individuals that have limited experience working with victims of a severe form of trafficking. Victims of a severe form of trafficking have distinct and acute needs for assistance that may differ from the needs of other refugees. Programs targeted at domestic victims of crime are not necessarily prepared to address the specific needs of trafficking victims (e.g., culturally appropriate and sensitive trauma counseling, language translation, legal and immigration process referrals). Likewise, many refugee benefit-issuing organizations do not have experience in identifying the needs of a trafficking victim as distinct from the needs of other refugee populations.
The target audience requires guidance on: The types of benefits and services available to victims; barriers to victims receiving benefits; successful methodologies to ensure that victims access benefits and services available to them; and how to provide case assessments (needs assessments) of victims, including how to conduct clinical assessments.
Organizations and individuals also need to learn more about the TVPA including the legislative background, programmatic impact, technical details of the Act, and the processes that enable victims to receive certain types of benefits. Additional background regarding the history of trafficking prior to the TVPA, including precipitating factors to the enactment of the law, will also provide a better understanding of the potential impact of the TVPA for both victims and service providers.
To ensure that service organizations, law enforcement agencies and others have all the necessary information that enables them to provide assistance to victims, the development of research and background materials is critical. As resources and information continue to be developed, these resources need to be disseminated to ensure that the growing base of knowledge can be used to create effective and lasting programmatic advances for victim assistance.
We expect that applicants to this program category will have strong knowledge of and demonstrate significant experience working with victims of a severe form of trafficking in areas including direct services, legal assistance referrals, and case management.
ORR will accept applications under this announcement for projects that propose services that enhance the knowledge base and service ability of other potential grantees, current grantees, law enforcement agencies, benefit-issuing agencies and other concerned populations who are working with or may be working with victims of a severe form of trafficking.
Specific activities may include:
•
•
(Note—all international travel must be approved in advance by ORR project officer.)
•
•
•
Acceptable applications will include the development of curricula that can be disseminated to other organizations. Curricula should follow the above objectives and address the provision of benefits, methodologies for successful implementation, as well as follow-up resource development. Included in the development process should be allowances for training other organizations on the curricula and follow-up as needed.
Funds will not be awarded to applicants for the purpose of engaging in activities of a distinctly political nature, activities designed exclusively to promote the preservation of a specific cultural heritage, or activities with an international objective (i.e., activities related to events in the trafficking victims' country of origin).
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The purposes of this project are: (A) To determine the extent of community awareness regarding the problem of human trafficking among both the general United States population and the organizations that serve victims; and (B) to better understand the successful approaches that might encourage victims to come forward for identification and assistance. The resultant information will be used as the basis for an array of culturally appropriate Public Service Announcements (PSAs) designed to increase the number of victims identified and encourage the development and implementation of additional programs intended to protect and care for victims of severe forms of trafficking.
There is a critical need for information discovery regarding public awareness of trafficking, of provisions of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA), and identification of factors that encourage victims to come forward to access protection and services. Given the relatively recent passage of this legislation and the TVPA's impact upon the welfare of trafficking victims, ORR believes it is important for this information to be gathered and analyzed without delay in order to identify and assist additional victims.
In comparison to other immigrant populations (
It is also important to describe how victims interact with community organizations and service providers. Many of these organizations currently play a vital role in identifying and providing support to trafficking victims and may be called upon for additional support. For example, organizations that are the front line service providers at hospitals, clinics, or domestic violence shelters may not realize that many of the people they have assisted are actually trafficking victims. Similarly, community organizations (e.g., mutual assistance associations) and religious institutions can play an important role in the lives of trafficking victims. This project will seek to improve our understanding of those roles and how they are affected by the TVPA.
1. The Grantee should propose a project work plan that describes conditions within the topic areas underlined below. The project should explore the knowledge and relationships among trafficking victims (including child and elderly victims), service providers, and community organizations within each topic. Questions listed next to each topic suggest the type of information in which ORR has particular interest.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Special consideration will be given to applications that demonstrate a concerted effort to examine organizations and individuals who are reaching out to victims of severe forms of trafficking and pursuing actions that encourage victims to come forward. Applicants should focus on at least two communities with high densities of trafficking victims.
The applicant's proposal should also seek to answer the relevant questions above from the standpoint of victims, service providers, and community organizations. The methodology for accomplishing this approach is at the discretion of the grantee; however, many organizations that initially come into contact with victims may be excellent sources of information. These could include, but are not limited to, hospitals, clinics, police and other law enforcement agencies, immigrant-serving community-based organizations, social service providers, child care facilities, and public health authorities. Information from these organizations should describe the relationship between trafficking victims and the community, the types of support community organizations provide to immigrant families, and, to the extent possible, any outreach efforts being undertaken.
2. Category three of this announcement is the only category that will be a cooperative agreement. In the spirit of the cooperative agreement, the Grantee should provide monthly updates to inform the Federal Project Officer of research developments and the status of project activities.
3. With input from the Federal Project Officer, the Grantee should select an Advisory Panel to provide guidance in project development. The Advisory Panel may participate in subsequent meetings between the Federal Project Officer and the Grantee. The Grantee may be responsible for the Advisory Panel's travel and related expenses, if any.
4. Prior to completion of the work plan (analysis plan), the Grantee should meet with relevant Federal personnel in Washington, DC to discuss the preliminary methodology and design of the research project including what research questions will be answered and what methodology the Grantee will employ to answer the questions. Federal personnel will have the opportunity to provide input and suggestions in these areas. If applicable, the Federal Project Officer should be invited to participate in other meetings in which the Grantee is involved during discussions regarding critical aspects of the project with other funding sources.
5. After consultation, the Grantee should submit a final work plan that is based on any updates to the work plan submitted in the original application. The plan should:
(a) Include a complete list of research questions the project will answer and the variables that will be used to answer each question. These variables could include (but are not limited to) immigration status and demographic information for all victims, including income level and source; type of victimization; benefit eligibility and history, employment history; and health status.
(b) Identify and describe the methodology used to gather information on trafficking with respect to these variables and the analysis to be performed.
(c) Identify how the proposed variables and data sets will be used by the Grantee to answer the research questions described in the work plan.
(d) Identify important questions/issues for which data currently are not available, and strategies for dealing with this lack of data when it pertains to the research questions in the work plan.
(e) Identify how the confidentiality will be protected of any research subjects involved in the project.
(f) Describe the results that will be produced and construct examples of tables illustrating how these results will be presented.
(g) Identify steps to coordinate with any federal or contractor staff assigned responsibility for designing and implementing the national outreach/educational campaign.
6. Once initial analyses have been conducted, the Grantee should meet with relevant federal personnel in Washington, DC to discuss preliminary findings and the format for the final report. In the spirit of a cooperative agreement, the Grantee should work with federal personnel to determine the need for additional collection or analysis of information.
7. After completing their analysis, the Grantee will prepare a final report describing the procedures used to gather information and conduct the analysis, barriers encountered in completing the
8. Following the completion of the final report, the Grantee should conduct a briefing in Washington, DC for federal personnel regarding the results of the analyses. The Grantee should be responsible for assembling and copying any necessary briefing materials. The briefing should take place before the completion of the project.
9. The Grantee will make data and analysis completed as a result of this project available to the research community and the government.
1. Provide input into the final work plan, including methodology, analysis, and dissemination plan.
2. Provide consultation and technical assistance in planning and operating program activities.
3. Work with the Grantee to resolve any methodological or analytical issues.
4. Assist in the transfer of information to appropriate federal, state and local entities, including any PSA developer(s).
5. Review Grantee activities and provide feedback to ensure that objectives and award conditions are being met. ORR retains the right to withhold future year funding if technical performance requirements are not met.
Funds will not be awarded to applicants for the purpose of engaging in activities of a distinctly political nature, activities designed exclusively to promote the preservation of a specific cultural heritage, or activities with an international objective (i.e., activities related to events in the refugees' country of origin).
1.
2.
3.
The proposed methodology accurately describes victims' status as suggested by the topics listed in this announcement, as well as the interaction between victims, their communities and service providers. To the extent that projects seek to examine the impact of the TVPA, the applicant's proposed methodology reliably attributes impacts. (20 points)
4.
5.
• All States and Territories except Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wyoming, and Palau have elected to participate in the Executive Order process. Applicants from these twenty-seven jurisdictions need take no action regarding E.O. 12372. Applicants for projects to be administered by Federally-recognized Indian Tribes are also exempt from the requirements of E.O. 12372. Applicants should contact their Single-Points-of-Contact (SPOC) as soon as possible to alert them of the
Under 45 CFR 100.8(a)(2), a SPOC has 60 days from the application deadline to comment on proposed new or competing continuation awards.
SPOCs are encouraged to eliminate the submission of routine endorsements as official recommendations.
Additionally, SPOCs are requested to clearly differentiate between mere advisory comments and those official State process recommendations which may trigger the “accommodate or explain” rule.
When comments are submitted directly to ACF, they should be addressed to: Grants Management Officer, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Refugee Resettlement, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., 4th floor, Washington DC 20447.
A list of the Single Points of Contact for each participating State and Territory can be found on the web at:
Applications received for each Category will be scored and ranked only within the Category designated on the SF 424, e.g. in one of the three program areas.
In order to be considered for a grant under this program announcement, an application must be submitted on the forms supplied and in the manner prescribed by ACF. Selected elements of the ACF Uniform Project Description (UPD) relevant to this program announcement are attached as Appendix A.
The closing date for receipt of applications is (4:30 p.m. Eastern Time Zone) July 31, 2002. Please note that all applications must be received in ORR (as opposed to postmarked) by the closing date. Mailed and hand-carried applications received after the 4:30 p.m. (Eastern Time Zone) deadline on the closing date will be classified as late.
Mailed applications shall be considered as meeting an announced deadline if they are either received on or before the deadline time and date at the: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Grants Management, Division of Discretionary Grants, Attention: Grants Management Officer, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20447. Applicants are responsible for mailing applications well in advance to ensure that applications are received on or before the deadline time and date.
Applications hand-carried by applicants, applicant couriers, overnight/express mail couriers, or by other representatives on behalf of the applicant shall be considered as meeting an announced deadline if they are received on or before the deadline date, between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., EST, at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Grants Management, Division of Discretionary Grants, Attention: Grants Management Officer, 4h Floor, Aerospace Building, 901 D Street, SW., Washington, DC 20447 between Monday and Friday (excluding federal holidays). The address must appear on the envelope/package containing the application with the note “Attention: Grants Management Officer.” (Applicants are cautioned that express/overnight mail services do not always deliver as agreed.)
ACF cannot accommodate transmission of applications by fax or through other electronic media. Therefore, applications transmitted to ACF electronically will not be accepted regardless of date or time of submission and time of receipt.
The federal government has experienced periodic delays in mail delivery through the U.S. Postal Service since fall 2001. In some instances, mail has been delayed up to or over four months. To ensure that ACF receives your application by the (4:30 p.m. Eastern Time Zone) July 31, 2002 deadline, you may wish to send your application via an express mailing service. Also, please send an electronic notification that you have sent an application to Jay Womack at
Applicants must provide a signed certification regarding lobbying with their applications, when applying for an
Applicants must make the appropriate certification of their compliance with the Drug Free Workplace Act of 1988. By signing and submitting the application, the applicant is providing the certification and need not mail back the certification with the application.
Applicants must make the appropriate certification that they are not presently debarred, suspended or otherwise ineligible for an award. By signing and submitting the application, the applicant is providing the certification and need not mail back the certification with the applications.
The project description provides a major means by which an application is evaluated and ranked to compete with other applications for available assistance. The project description should be concise and complete and should address the activity for which federal funds are being requested. Supporting documents should be included where they can present information clearly and succinctly. Applicants are encouraged to provide information on their organizational structure, staff, related experience, and other information considered relevant. Awarding offices use this and other information to determine whether the applicant has the capability and resources necessary to carry out the proposed project. It is important, therefore, that this information be included in the application. However, in the narrative the applicant must distinguish between resources directly related to the proposed project from those that will not be used in support of the specific project for which funds are requested. Please refer to the UPD sections in the appendix.
Please do not include books or videotapes as they are not easily reproduced and are, therefore, inaccessible to the reviewers.
Funds awarded must be accounted for, and reported under, the distinct grant number ascribed. Although ORR does not expect the proposed projects to include evaluation activities, it does expect grantees to maintain adequate records to track and report on project outcomes and expenditures. The official receipt point for all reports and correspondence is the Grants Management Officer, Administration for Children and Families/Office of Grants Management, Division of Discretionary Grants, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20447, Telephone: (202) 401-4577. An original and one copy of each report shall be submitted within 30 days of the end of each reporting period directly to the Office of Grants Management.
A Final Financial and Program Report shall be due 90 days after the project expiration date or termination of federal budget support.
The project description is approved under OMB control number 0970-0139 which expires 12/31/03.
The project description provides a major means by which an application is evaluated and ranked to compete with other applications for available assistance. The project description should be concise and complete and should address the activity for which Federal funds are being requested. Supporting documents should be included where they can present information clearly and succinctly. In preparing your project description, all information requested through each specific evaluation criteria should be provided. Awarding offices use this and other information in making their funding recommendations. It is important, therefore, that this information be included in the application.
ACF is particularly interested in specific factual information and statements of measurable goals in quantitative terms. Project descriptions are evaluated on the basis of substance, not length. Extensive exhibits are not required. Cross referencing should be used rather than repetition. Supporting information concerning activities that will not be directly funded by the grant or information that does not directly pertain to an integral part of the grant funded activity should be placed in an appendix.
Pages should be numbered and a table of contents should be included for easy reference.
Applicants required to submit a full project description shall prepare the project description statement in accordance with the following instructions and the specified evaluation criteria. The instructions give a broad overview of what your project description should include while the evaluation criteria expands and clarifies more program-specific information that is needed.
Provide a summary of the project description (a page or less) with reference to the funding request.
Clearly identify the physical, economic, social, financial, institutional, and/or other problem(s) requiring a solution. The need for assistance must be demonstrated and the principal and subordinate objectives of the project must be clearly stated; supporting documentation, such as letters of support and testimonials from concerned interests other than the applicant, may be included. Any relevant data based on planning studies should be included or referred to in the endnotes/footnotes. Incorporate demographic data and participant/beneficiary information, as needed. In developing the project description, the applicant may volunteer or be requested to provide information on the total range of projects currently being conducted and supported (or to be initiated), some of which may be outside the scope of the program announcement.
Identify the results and benefits to be derived.
Outline a plan of action which describes the scope and detail of how the proposed work will be accomplished. Account for all
Provide quantitative monthly or quarterly projections of the accomplishments to be achieved for each function or activity in such terms as the number of people to be served and the number of activities accomplished. When accomplishments cannot be quantified by activity or function, list them in chronological order to show the schedule of accomplishments and their target dates.
If any data is to be collected, maintained, and/or disseminated, clearance may be required from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This clearance pertains to any “collection of information that is conducted or sponsored by ACF.”
List organizations, cooperating entities, consultants, or other key individuals who will work on the project along with a short description of the nature of their effort or contribution.
Provide a biographical sketch for each key person appointed and a job description for each vacant key position. A biographical sketch will also be required for new key staff as appointed.
Provide information on the applicant organization(s) and cooperating partners such as organizational charts, financial statements, audit reports or statements from CPAs/Licensed Public Accountants, Employer Identification Numbers, names of bond carriers, contact persons and telephone numbers, child care licenses and other documentation of professional accreditation, information on compliance with Federal/State/local government standards, documentation of experience in the program area, and other pertinent information. Any non-profit organization submitting an application must submit proof of its non-profit status in its application at the time of submission.
The non-profit agency can accomplish this by providing a copy of the applicant's listing in the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) most recent list of tax-exempt organizations described in section 501(c)(3) of the IRS code,
Include written agreements between grantees and subgrantees or subcontractors or other cooperating entities. These agreements must detail scope of work to be performed, work schedules, remuneration, and other terms and conditions that structure or define the relationship.
Provide statements from community, public and commercial leaders that support the project proposed for funding. All submissions should be included in the application
Provide line item detail and detailed calculations for each budget object class identified on the Budget Information form. Detailed calculations must include estimation methods, quantities, unit costs, and other similar quantitative detail sufficient for the calculation to be duplicated. The detailed budget must also include a breakout by the funding sources identified in Block 15 of the SF-424.
Provide a narrative budget justification that describes how the categorical costs are derived. Discuss the necessity, reasonableness, and allocability of the proposed costs.
The following guidelines are for preparing the budget and budget justification. Both Federal and non-Federal resources shall be detailed and justified in the budget and narrative justification. For purposes of preparing the budget and budget justification, “Federal resources” refers only to the ACF grant for which you are applying. Non-Federal resources are all other Federal and non-Federal resources. It is suggested that budget amounts and computations be presented in a columnar format: First column, object class categories; second column, Federal budget; next column(s), non-Federal budget(s), and last column, total budget. The budget justification should be a narrative.
Description: Costs of employee salaries and wages.
Justification: Identify the project director or principal investigator, if known. For each staff person, provide the title, time commitment to the project (in months), time commitment to the project (as a percentage or full-time equivalent), annual salary, grant salary, wage rates, etc. Do not include the costs of consultants or personnel costs of delegate agencies or of specific project(s) or businesses to be financed by the applicant.
Description: Costs of employee fringe benefits unless treated as part of an approved indirect cost rate.
Justification: Provide a breakdown of the amounts and percentages that comprise fringe benefit costs such as health insurance, FICA, retirement insurance, taxes, etc.
Description: Costs of project-related travel by employees of the applicant organization (does not include costs of consultant travel).
Justification: For each trip, show the total number of traveler(s), travel destination, duration of trip, per diem, mileage allowances, if privately owned vehicles will be used, and other transportation costs and subsistence allowances. Travel costs for key staff to attend ACF-sponsored workshops should be detailed in the budget.
Description: “Equipment” means an article of nonexpendable, tangible personal property having a useful life of more than one year and an acquisition cost which equals or exceeds the lesser of (a) the capitalization level established by the organization for the financial statement purposes, or (b) $5,000. (Note: Acquisition cost means the net invoice unit price of an item of equipment, including the cost of any modifications, attachments, accessories, or auxiliary apparatus necessary to make it usable for the purpose for which it is acquired. Ancillary charges, such as taxes, duty, protective in-transit insurance, freight, and installation shall be included in or excluded from acquisition cost in accordance with the organization's regular written accounting practices.)
Justification: For each type of equipment requested, provide a description of the equipment, the cost per unit, the number of units, the total cost, and a plan for use on the project, as well as use or disposal of the equipment after the project ends. An applicant organization that uses its own definition for equipment should provide a copy of its policy or section of its policy which includes the equipment definition.
Description: Costs of all tangible personal property other than that included under the Equipment category.
Justification: Specify general categories of supplies and their costs. Show computations and provide other information which supports the amount requested.
Description: Costs of all contracts for services and goods except for those which belong under other categories such as equipment, supplies, construction, etc. Third-party evaluation contracts (if applicable) and contracts with secondary recipient organizations, including delegate agencies and specific project(s) or businesses to be financed by the applicant, should be included under this category.
Justification: All procurement transactions shall be conducted in a manner to provide, to the maximum extent practical, open and free competition. Recipients and subrecipients, other than States that are required to use Part 92 procedures, must justify any anticipated procurement action that is expected to be awarded without competition and exceed the simplified acquisition threshold fixed at 41 U.S.C. 403(11) currently set at $100,000. Recipients might be required to make available to ACF pre-award review and procurement documents, such as request for proposals or invitations for bids, independent cost estimates, etc.
Whenever the applicant intends to delegate part of the project to another agency, the applicant must provide a detailed budget and budget narrative for each delegate agency, by agency title, along with the required supporting information referred to in these instructions.
Enter the total of all other costs. Such costs, where applicable and appropriate, may
Justification: Provide computations, a narrative description and a justification for each cost under this category.
Description: Total amount of indirect costs. This category should be used only when the applicant currently has an indirect cost rate approved by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) or another cognizant Federal agency.
Justification: An applicant that will charge indirect costs to the grant must enclose a copy of the current rate agreement. If the applicant organization is in the process of initially developing or renegotiating a rate, it should immediately upon notification that an award will be made, develop a tentative indirect cost rate proposal based on its most recently completed fiscal year in accordance with the principles set forth in the cognizant agency's guidelines for establishing indirect cost rates, and submit it to the cognizant agency. Applicants awaiting approval of their indirect cost proposals may also request indirect costs. It should be noted that when an indirect cost rate is requested, those costs included in the indirect cost pool should not also be charged as direct costs to the grant. Also, if the applicant is requesting a rate which is less than what is allowed under the program, the authorized representative of the applicant organization must submit a signed acknowledgment that the applicant is accepting a lower rate than allowed.
Description: The estimated amount of income, if any, expected to be generated from this project.
Justification: Describe the nature, source and anticipated use of program income in the budget or refer to the pages in the application that contain this information.
Description: Amounts of non-Federal resources that will be used to support the project as identified in Block 15 of the SF-424.
Justification: The firm commitment of these resources must be documented and submitted with the application in order to be given credit in the review process. A detailed budget must be prepared for each funding source.
[Self-explanatory]
Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), ACF, DHHS.
Notice of availability of FY 2002 social services discretionary funds for refugee microenterprise development projects.
The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) invites eligible entities to submit competitive grant applications for microenterprise development projects for refugees.
The closing date for submission of applications is July 8, 2002.
Henley Portner, Division of Community Resettlement, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Administration for Children and Families, at (202) 401-5363 or
This program announcement consists of four parts:
The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) has supported the field of microenterprise development since 1991 with discretionary grants to various State governments, community economic development agencies, community action and other human service agencies, local mutual assistance associations, and voluntary agencies. Organizations with successful programs have typically been those with a long-term commitment to microenterprise and to its adaptation to the refugee experience. They have committed agency resources to support refugee programs; and their work in refugee microenterprise has been consistent with the overall agency mission. A public or private non-profit agency interested in receiving funding under this announcement must analyze its organizational capacity to work with refugees who are economically poor, who have limited English language proficiency, and who have neither assets nor American business experience. Many newly arrived refugees do not qualify for commercial loans or for admission into mainstream microenterprise development programs for these reasons.
Refugees bring positive attributes to microenterprise development projects, including a diverse and rich array of business ideas, skills, experiences, and ambitions. These characteristics have been largely responsible for the success
Building on the experience of the last ten years, ORR seeks in this announcement to continue support to this field, particularly on behalf of those refugees who, because of language and cultural barriers, are unlikely to gain access to commercial loans or business training through other programs. To be successful in this competition, refugee-serving organizations must demonstrate their agency's capacity to provide the technical expertise to help refugees start or expand businesses. Economic development agencies must show how they will modify their existing programs to serve refugees effectively.
The Director reserves the right to award less, or more, than the funds described, in the absence of worthy applications, or under such other circumstances as may be deemed to be in the best interest of the government. Applicants may be required to reduce the scope of projects based on the amount of the approved grant award.
Applicants may request funds for microenterprise development projects to include business technical assistance or short-term training, credit in the form of microloans, the administrative costs of managing the project, and, if applicable, a revolving microloan fund. Projects should be designed in a manner that is culturally and linguistically appropriate for the refugee population.
Projects should be designed to be appropriate for the characteristics of the local refugee populations, including characteristics such as employment rates, welfare status, length of time in the U.S., interest in micro-businesses, and English language proficiency. Applicants should also be familiar with the capital needs and capital market gaps for refugee entrepreneurs and should demonstrate how refugees will gain access to business credit.
Successful applicants will demonstrate an understanding of the economic opportunities in the community for refugees and will have established working partnerships with the communities' refugee resettlement services network, with existing microenterprise organizations (where they are present), and with financial institutions.
ORR will not fund applicants who propose to subgrant or contract all or most of the proposed activities under this initiative to an unrelated entity. This does not bar subgranting or contracting for specific services or activities.
Microloans consist of small amounts of credit that are less than $15,000 and are extended to low-income entrepreneurs for start-ups of microenterprises or for expansion or stabilization of existing microenterprises. Applicants may elect to establish cooperative relationships with one or more of the community's financial institutions to obtain access to commercial loan funds. Alternatively, ORR funds may be used for microloans to individual refugee entrepreneurs in sums not to exceed $15,000 (of ORR monies). These funds may be disbursed through individual loans or through peer lending mechanisms, through a revolving loan fund. Requests for ORR grant funds for a revolving loan fund may not exceed $50,000 in the first budget period. Grantees will be responsible for establishing written lending policies and procedures and for collecting and servicing loan repayments.
ORR supports the use of commercial lending institutions for refugee borrowers to leverage the limited amount of ORR funds available for this purpose and to provide borrowers with the opportunity to establish credit-worthy histories with traditional lenders. To that end, ORR does not encourage the use of below-market rates of interest for the loan funds. Conversely, grantees may not charge refugees interest rates that exceed four
Microloans will have a maximum maturity of three years. They may be used for working capital, inventory, supplies, furniture, fixtures, machinery, tools, equipment, building renovation, and/or leasehold improvements.
Microloan funds may not be used for the following types of businesses:
• As venture capital for established businesses that are attempting major expansion;
• For enterprises engaged in gambling or speculation;
• For any illegal activity or production or for the service or distribution of illegal products;
• For purposes not related to microenterprise development; e.g., for the purchase of a personal-use automobile.
Any fees or charges imposed on refugee clients by the grantee or its subcontractors or affiliates (e.g., loan processing or training fees) must be disclosed in the application and pre-approved by ORR.
Successful grantees will be expected to coordinate their policies and procedures for developing and administering refugee microenterprise projects with the existing refugee microenterprise services network. To ensure an exchange of technical and training information among programs, all grantees are encouraged to attend two ORR training meetings during each year of their participation in this program area. Grant funds may be used to offset the cost of attendance.
The project description provides a major means by which an application is evaluated and ranked to compete with other applications for available assistance. The project description should be concise and complete and should address the activity for which Federal funds are being requested. Supporting documents should be included where they can present information clearly and succinctly. In preparing your project description, all information requested through each specific evaluation criteria should be provided. Awarding offices use this and other information in making their funding recommendations. It is important, therefore, that this information be included in the application.
ACF is particularly interested in specific factual information and statements of measurable goals in quantitative terms. Project descriptions are evaluated on the basis of substance, not length. Extensive exhibits are not required. Cross-referencing should be used rather than repetition. Supporting information concerning activities that will not be directly funded by the grant or information that does not directly pertain to an integral part of the grant-funded activity should be placed in an appendix. Pages should be numbered and a table of contents should be included for easy reference.
Applicants required to submit a full project description shall prepare the project description statement in accordance with the following instructions and the specified evaluation criteria. The instructions give a broad overview of what your project description should include while the evaluation criteria expands and clarifies more program-specific information that is needed.
Provide a summary of the project description (a page or less) with reference to the funding request.
Clearly identify the physical, economic, social, financial, institutional, and/or other problem(s) requiring a solution. The need for assistance must be demonstrated and the principal and subordinate objectives of the project must be clearly stated; supporting documentation, such as letters of support and testimonials from concerned interests other than the applicant, may be included. Any relevant data based on planning studies should be included or referred to in the endnotes/footnotes. Incorporate demographic data and participant/beneficiary information, as needed. In developing the project description, the applicant may volunteer or be requested to provide information on the total range of projects currently being conducted and supported (or to be initiated), some of which may be outside the scope of the program announcement.
Identify the results and benefits to be derived. For example, ORR is particularly interested in the number of businesses established, expanded, or stabilized; the employment generated by the businesses; the number and size of loans provided to refugees; the amount of additional funds leveraged by the ORR funds for microenterprise loans, and the impact of the businesses assisted on the refugees' movement toward self-sufficiency.
Outline a plan of action that describes the scope and detail of how the proposed work will be accomplished. Account for all functions or activities identified in the application. Cite factors that might accelerate or decelerate the work and state your reason for taking the proposed approach rather than others. Describe any unusual features of the project such as design or technological innovations, reductions in cost or time, or extraordinary social and community involvement.
Provide quantitative monthly or quarterly projections of the accomplishments to be achieved for each function or activity in such terms as the number of people to be served and the number of activities accomplished. When accomplishments cannot be quantified by activity or function, list them in chronological order to show the schedule of accomplishments and their target dates.
If any data is to be collected, maintained, and/or disseminated, clearance may be required from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This clearance pertains to any “collection of information that is conducted or sponsored by ACF.”
List organizations, cooperating entities, consultants, or other key individuals who will work on the project along with a short description of the nature of their effort or contribution.
Describe the precise location of the project and boundaries of the area to be served by the proposed project. Maps or other graphic aids may be attached.
Following are requests for additional information that need to be included in the application:
Provide a biographical sketch for each key person appointed and a job description for each vacant key position. A biographical sketch will also be required for new key staff as appointed.
Provide information on the applicant organization(s) and cooperating partners such as organizational charts, financial statements, audit reports, or statements from CPAs/Licensed Public Accountants, Employer Identification Numbers, names of bond carriers, contact persons and telephone numbers, child care licenses, and other documentation of professional accreditation, information on compliance with Federal/State/local government standards, documentation of experience in the program area, and other pertinent information. Any non-profit organization submitting an application must submit proof of its non-profit status in its application at the time of submission.
The non-profit agency can accomplish this by providing a copy of the applicant's listing in the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) most recent list of tax-exempt organizations described in Section 501(c)(3) of the IRS code or by providing a copy of the currently valid IRS tax exemption certificate or by providing a copy of the articles of incorporation bearing the seal of the State in which the corporation or association is domiciled.
Include written agreements between grantees and subgrantees or subcontractors or other cooperating entities. These agreements must detail scope of work to be performed, work schedules, remuneration, and other terms and conditions that structure or define the relationship.
Provide statements from community, public and commercial leaders that support the project proposed for funding. All submissions should be included in the application OR by application deadline.
Provide line item detail and detailed calculations for each budget object class identified on the Budget Information form. Detailed calculations must include estimation methods, quantities, unit costs, and other similar quantitative detail sufficient for the calculation to be duplicated. The detailed budget must also include a breakout by the funding sources identified in Block 15 of the SF-424.
Provide a narrative budget justification that describes how the categorical costs are derived. Discuss the necessity, reasonableness, and allocability of the proposed costs.
The following guidelines are for preparing the budget and budget justification. Both Federal and non-Federal resources shall be detailed and justified in the budget and narrative justification. For purposes of preparing the budget and budget justification, “Federal resources” refers only to the ACF grant for which you are applying. Non-Federal resources are all other Federal and non-Federal resources. It is suggested that budget amounts and computations be presented in a columnar format: first column, object class categories; second column, Federal budget; next column(s), non-Federal budget(s), and last column, total budget. The budget justification should be a narrative.
Whenever the applicant intends to delegate part of the project to another agency, the applicant must provide a detailed budget and budget narrative for each delegate agency, by agency title, along with the required supporting information referred to in these instructions.
Enter the total of all other costs. Such costs, where applicable and appropriate, may include but are not limited to insurance, food, medical and dental costs (noncontractual), professional services costs, space and equipment rentals, printing and publication, computer use, training costs, such as tuition and stipends, staff development costs, and administrative costs.
This program is covered under Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” and 45 CFR part 100, “Intergovernmental Review of Department of Health and Human Services Programs and Activities.” Under the Order, States may design their own processes for reviewing and commenting on proposed Federal assistance under covered programs.
The following jurisdictions have elected not to participate in the Executive Order process. Applicants from these jurisdictions need take no action in regard to E.O. 12372: Alabama, Alaska, American Samoa, Colorado, Connecticut, Kansas, Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Palau, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington.
Although the jurisdictions listed above no longer participate in the process, entities which have met the eligibility criteria of the program may still apply for a grant even if a State, Territory, Commonwealth, etc., does not have a SPOC. All remaining jurisdictions participate in the Executive Order process and have established SPOCs. Applicants from participating jurisdictions should contact their SPOCs as soon as possible to alert them of the prospective applications and receive instructions. Applicants must submit any required material to the SPOCs as soon as possible so that the program office can obtain and review SPOC comments as part of the award process. The applicant must submit all required materials, if any, to the SPOC and indicate the date of this submittal (or the date of contact if no submittal is required) on the Standard Form 424, item 16a. Under 45 CFR 100.8(a)(2), a SPOC has 60 days from the application deadline to comment on proposed new or competing continuation awards.
SPOCs are encouraged to eliminate the submission of routine endorsements as official recommendations. Additionally, SPOCs are requested to differentiate clearly between mere advisory comments and those official State process recommendations, which may trigger the “accommodate or explain” rule.
When comments are submitted directly to ACF, they should be addressed to: Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Grants Management, Attention: Daphne Weeden, Grants Officer, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Fourth Floor West, Washington, DC 20447.
A list of the Single Points of Contact for each State and Territory is included with the application materials for this program announcement.
Each application submitted under this program announcement will undergo a pre-review to determine that (1) the application was mailed by the closing date and submitted in accordance with the instructions in this announcement and (2) the applicant is eligible for funding.
Applications, which pass the initial ACF screening, will be evaluated and rated by an independent review panel on the basis of specific evaluation criteria. The evaluation criteria were designed to assess the quality of a proposed project and to determine the likelihood of its success. The evaluation criteria are closely related and are considered as a whole in judging the overall quality of an application. Points are awarded only to applications that are responsive to the evaluation criteria within the context of this program announcement.
Applications will be reviewed using the following evaluation criteria:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1. Mailed applications postmarked after the closing date will be classified as late.
2.
3.
4.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, HHS.
Notice of funding availability.
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) announces the availability of FY 2002 funds for grants for the following activity. This notice is not a complete description of the activity; potential applicants
The actual amount available for the award may vary, depending on unanticipated program requirements and the number and quality of applications received. FY 2002 funds for the activity discussed in this announcement were appropriated by the Congress under Public Law No. 106-310. SAMHSA's policies and procedures for peer review and Advisory Council review of grant and cooperative agreement applications were published in the
The PHS 5161-1 application form and the full text of the activity are also available electronically via SAMHSA's World Wide Web Home Page: http://www.samhsa.gov.
When requesting an application kit, the applicant must specify the particular activity for which detailed information is desired. All information necessary to apply, including where to submit applications and application deadline instructions, are included in the application kit.
This program responds to the health emergency in African-American, Hispanic/Latino, American Indian/Alaska Native, and Asian-American/Pacific Islander communities described by the Congressional Black and Hispanic Caucuses. It includes two initiatives:
• Planning Grants
• Services Grants
Funds under this Planning Grant initiative are available to establish the infrastructure and leadership necessary to be able to provide effective Substance Abuse Prevention (SAP) and HIV Prevention (HIVP) and other related services to the minority communities they serve. Funds will also support efforts and activities that will build awareness and consensus, and develop action plans for services to help ensure access to effective SAP and HIVP interventions in their communities.
CSAP's Minority SAP and HIVP programs include two separate funding opportunities in FY 2002:
• This GFA provides instructions on applying for Planning Grants
• A separate GFA is available to provide instructions on applying for Services Grants.
For questions regarding grants management issues, contact: Steve Hudak, Division of Grants Management, OPS/SAMHSA, Rockwall II, 6th floor, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, (301) 443-9666, E-Mail:
Community-based nongovernmental service providers who are not transmitting their applications through the State must submit a PHSIS to the head(s) of the appropriate State and local health agencies in the area(s) to be affected not later than the pertinent receipt date for applications. This PHSIS consists of the following information:
(a) A copy of the face page of the application (Standard form 424).
(b) A summary of the project (PHSIS), not to exceed one page, which provides:
(1) A description of the population to be served.
(2) A summary of the services to be provided.
(3) A description of the coordination planned with the appropriate State or local health agencies.
State and local governments and Indian Tribal Authority applicants are not subject to the Public Health System Reporting Requirements. Application guidance materials will specify if a particular FY 2002 activity is subject to the Public Health System Reporting Requirements.
The due date for State review process recommendations is no later than 60 days after the specified deadline date for the receipt of applications. SAMHSA does not guarantee to accommodate or explain SPOC comments that are received after the 60-day cut-off.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, HHS.
Notice of funding availability.
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) announces the availability of FY 2002 funds for grants for the following activity. This notice is not a complete description of the activity; potential applicants
The actual amount available for the award may vary, depending on unanticipated program requirements and the number and quality of applications received. FY 2002 funds for the activity discussed in this announcement were appropriated by the Congress under Public Law No. 106-310. SAMHSA's policies and procedures for peer review and Advisory Council review of grant and cooperative agreement applications were published in the
The PHS 5161-1 application form and the full text of the activity are also available electronically via SAMHSA's World Wide Web Home Page:
When requesting an application kit, the applicant must specify the particular activity for which detailed information is desired. All information necessary to apply, including where to submit applications and application deadline instructions, are included in the application kit.
This program responds to the health emergency in African-American, Hispanic/Latino, American Indian/Alaska Native, and Asian-American/Pacific Islander communities described by the Congressional Black and Hispanic Caucuses. It includes two initiatives:
Funds under this Services Grant initiative are available to support effective, integrated Substance Abuse Prevention (SAP) and HIV Prevention (HIVP) services for youth and other at-risk populations.
• This GFA provides instructions on applying for Services Grants
• A separate GFA is available to provide instructions on applying for Planning Grants.
For questions regarding grants management issues, contact: Steve Hudak, Division of Grants Management, OPS/SAMHSA, Rockwall II, 6th floor, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, (301) 443-9666, E-Mail:
Community-based nongovernmental service providers who are not transmitting their applications through the State must submit a PHSIS to the head(s) of the appropriate State and local health agencies in the area(s) to be affected not later than the pertinent receipt date for applications. This PHSIS consists of the following information:
(a) A copy of the face page of the application (Standard form 424).
(b) A summary of the project (PHSIS), not to exceed one page, which provides:
(1) A description of the population to be served.
(2) A summary of the services to be provided.
(3) A description of the coordination planned with the appropriate State or local health agencies.
State and local governments and Indian Tribal Authority applicants are not subject to the Public Health System Reporting Requirements. Application guidance materials will specify if a particular FY 2002 activity is subject to the Public Health System Reporting Requirements.
The due date for State review process recommendations is no later than 60 days after the specified deadline date for the receipt of applications. SAMHSA does not guarantee to accommodate or explain SPOC comments that are received after the 60-day cut-off.
Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given of the following meetings of SAMHSA Special Emphasis Panels I in June, July, August and September 2002.
A summary of the meetings and a roster of the members may be obtained from: Ms. Coral Sweeney, Review
Substantive program information may be obtained from the individual named as Contact for the meeting listed below.
The meetings will include the review, discussion and evaluation of individual grant applications. These discussions could reveal personal information concerning individuals associated with the applications. Accordingly, these meetings are concerned with matters exempt from mandatory disclosure in Title 5 U.S.C. 552b(6) and 5 U.S.C. App.2, § 10(d).
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless.
May 24, 2002.
Mark Johnston, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Room 7262, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 1-800-927-7588.
In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in
Office of the Secretary, Department of the Interior.
Notice of Availability of Proposed Information Quality Guidelines.
The U.S. Department of the Interior, is issuing these proposed Information Quality Guidelines in order to comply with the guidance published by the Office of Management and Budget in the
Persons interested in reviewing the proposed Information Quality Guidelines issued by the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, are encouraged to contact the Office of the Chief Information Officer (Attn: Nancy Trent) 1849 C Street, NW., Mail Stop 5312, Washington, DC 20240, phone: 202-208-6051. The guidelines may also be reviewed at Web site:
The U.S. Department of the Interior, its offices, and its eight component bureaus disseminate a wide variety of information to the public regarding the Nation's Federal lands, National Parks, natural resources, geographic and spatial data, wildlife and fisheries, and Indian lands. This document is the basis for Department policy to ensure quality of information disseminated. Interested parties may submit comments not later than 30 days from the date of this
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of application.
The following applicants have applied for scientific research permits to conduct certain activities with endangered species pursuant to sections 10(a)(1)(A) and 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531,
The applicant currently possesses a permit to take (survey and hold) Gray bat (
The applicant requests a permit to take (capture and release) the following listed unionid mussel species: fanshell (
The applicant requests a permit to take male Mitchell's satyr (
Written data or comments should be submitted to the Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Operations, 1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111-4056, and must be received within 30 days of the date of this publication.
Documents and other information submitted with this application are available for review by any party who requests a copy from the following office within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Operations, 1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111-4056, peter_fasbender@fws.gov, Telephone (612) 713-5343, or Fax (612) 713-5292.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of document availability.
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the availability of the draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Delta Management at Fort St. Philip Project. A more detailed description of the project is outlined in the Supplementary Information section below. A copy of the draft EA may be obtained by sending a written request to our Louisiana Field Office (see
We specifically request information, views, and opinions from the public through this Notice on the Federal action, including the identification of any other aspects of the human environment not already identified in the our EA.
Written comments on the draft EA must be received on or before June 24, 2002.
Persons wishing to review the draft EA may obtain a copy by writing to the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 646 Cajundome Boulevard, Suite 400, Lafayette, Louisiana 70506. If you wish to comment, you may submit comments by any one of several methods. You may mail comments to the Louisiana Field Office at the address listed above. You also may comment via the Internet to
Mr. Kevin Roy, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, (
The Delta Management at Fort St. Philip Project, is being funded through the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act on the Tenth Priority Project List. The project purpose is to promote the formation of emergent marsh through the construction of artificial crevasses and earthen terraces. The project is located near the east bank of the Mississippi River adjacent to Fort St. Philip in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana. The project area has experienced extensive marsh loss since the mid 1970s, with loss rates as high as 8 percent per year.
We solicit written comments on the draft EA described. All comments received by the date specified above will be considered in our decision-making process.
Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the administrative record. We will honor such requests to the extent allowable by law. There may also be circumstances in which we would withhold from the administrative record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. We will not, however, consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.
The primary author of this document is Kevin Roy (
The authority for this action is the National Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1970, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4371
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability and receipt of application.
This notice advises the public that Lee J. Dahle has applied to the Fish and Wildlife Service for an incidental take permit pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended. The proposed permit would authorize the incidental take of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse (
We announce the receipt of the applicant's incidental take permit application that includes a proposed Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for the Preble's meadow jumping mouse for the Dahle Property. The proposed HCP is available for public comment. It fully describes the proposed project and the measures the applicant would undertake to minimize and mitigate project impacts to the Preble's meadow jumping mouse. All comments on the HCP and permit application will become part of the administrative record and will be available to the public.
Written comments on the permit application, and Habitat Conservation Plan should be received on or before June 24, 2002.
Comments regarding the permit application and HCP should be addressed to LeRoy Carlson, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Field Office, 755 Parfet Street, Suite 361, Lakewood, Colorado 80215.
Ms. Kathleen Linder, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Colorado Field Office, telephone (303) 275-2370.
Individuals wishing copies of the HCP and associated documents for review should immediately contact the above office. Documents also will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.
Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulation prohibit the “take” of a species listed as endangered or threatened. Take is defined under the Act, in part, as to kill, harm, or harass a federally listed species. However, the Service may issue permits to authorize “incidental take” of listed species under limited circumstances. Incidental Take is defined under the Act as take of a listed species that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity under limited circumstances. Regulations governing permits for threatened species are promulgated in 50 CFR 17.32.
The Dahle Property is located at 17 El Dorado Lane, Lot 5, Block 4 in Thunderbird Estates Subdivision, along Monument Creek, in the Section 6, Township 13 South, Range 66 West, Southwest
Alternatives considered in addition to the Proposed Action were awaiting approval of the El Paso County Regional Habitat Conservation Plan, and no action. The last alternative eliminated potential take of Preble's. The onsite, offsite, and cumulative impacts of the proposed Project and all associated development and construction activities and mitigation activities proposed by the HCP will have no significant impact on other threatened or endangered species, vegetation, wildlife, wetlands, geology/soils, land use, water resources, air and water quality, or cultural resources. None of the proposed impacts occur within the riparian corridor. All of the proposed impacts are in upland areas inside the 100-year floodplain. Utilizing the mouse protection habitat definition, the proposed development could impact up to 0.15 acre of potential mouse habitat for the residential lot. The mitigation will likely provide a net benefit to the Preble's mouse and other wildlife by improving or creating new riparian areas, planting of native grasses, and protecting existing habitat
Only one federally listed species, the threatened Preble's meadow jumping mouse, occurs onsite and has the potential to be adversely affected by the project. To mitigate impacts that may result from incidental take, the HCP provides mitigation for the residential site by protection of the Monument Creek corridor onsite and its associated riparian areas from all future development through the enhancement of 0.5 acre through native grass planting, shrub planting, weed control, preservation in a native and unmowed condition, and the placement of the proposed building site closer to the road and farther away from mouse habitat. Measures will be taken during construction to minimize impact to the habitat including limited site access and the placement of spoils piles only at the front end of the lot, away from the creek. All of the proposed mitigation area is within the boundaries of the Dahle property, all of which is included in the drainage basin of Monument Creek.
This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the Act. We will evaluate the permit application, the Plan, and comments submitted therein to determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the Act. If it is determined that those requirements are met, a permit will be issued for the incidental take of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse in conjunction with the construction and occupation of a single-family residential lot on the Dahle Property. The final permit decision will be made no sooner than 30 days from the date of this notice.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs, on behalf of the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest Service, the California Department of Fish and Game, and the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, announces the release for public review of the Leviathan Mine Natural Resource Damage Assessment Plan—Public Release Draft (Assessment Plan). The Plan was developed by the Leviathan Mine Council Natural Resource Trustees, consisting of representatives of the Tribe and agencies listed above, to assess injuries to natural resources resulting from releases of hazardous substances from the Leviathan Mine in Alpine County, California. The Assessment Plan describes the proposed approach for determining and quantifying natural resource injuries and calculating damages associated with these injuries.
Comments on the Assessment Plan must arrive by June 24, 2002.
You may mail or hand deliver written comments to Mr. Wayne Nordwall, Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Western Regional Office, P.O. Box 10, Phoenix, AZ 85001; or 400 N. Fifth Street, Phoenix, AZ 85004; or by facsimile (602) 379-4413.
The Assessment Plan is available for review, by appointment and during normal business hours, at the office locations of the following officials: (1) Curtis Milsap, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Western Nevada Agency, 1677 Hot Springs Road, Carson City, Nevada 89706, telephone (775) 887-3570; (2) John Krause, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Western Regional Office, 400 N. Fifth Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85004, telephone (602) 379-3723; (3) Robert Greenbaum, Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California, 919 U.S. Hwy. 395 South, Gardnerville, Nevada 89410, telephone (775) 265-4191 ext. 155; (4) Stan Wiemeyer, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish & Wildlife Office, 1340 Financial Blvd., Suite 234, Reno, Nevada 89502, telephone (775) 861-6300; and (5) Melanie Markin, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage Way, W-2605, Sacramento, California 95825, telephone (916) 414-6638. In addition, the Assessment Plan is available for review at the Alpine County Library, 270 Laramie Street, Markleeville, California 96120, telephone (530) 694-2120; and on the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection Web site at
Robert Greenbaum, (775) 265-4191 ext. 155.
In 1951, the Anaconda Copper Mining Company purchased the Leviathan Mine property, the former site of small copper sulfate and sulfur underground mining operations, in Alpine County, California. Anaconda developed the former underground mine into an open pit sulfur mine and operated the Mine through 1962. Anaconda sold the Mine in early 1963, but no further mining operations took place thereafter.
Releases of hazardous substances from the Mine began in the 1950s and continue today. Infiltration of precipitation into and through the adits (tunnels from the former underground mine), open pit, and overburden piles, along with direct contact of mine wastes with surface waters, has created acid mine drainage (AMD), which has been released, and continues to be released into the environment. AMD, which contains arsenic, copper, sulfuric acid, and other hazardous substances, has continued to be released into groundwater and into the surface waters and sediments in Aspen and Leviathan Creeks, and from there into Bryant Creek and the East Fork Carson River. Bryant Creek begins in California and crosses into Nevada, passing through several Indian Trust Allotments. Bryant Creek then flows into the East Fork Carson River. Releases of AMD from the Mine have resulted in fish kills in Leviathan and Bryant Creeks and the East Fork Carson River.
From the early 1980s, when the State of California acquired ownership of the Mine, through the late 1990s, the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (LRWQCB) constructed and operated the Leviathan Mine Pollution Abatement Project. However, this project did not eliminate the releases of hazardous substances, and it redirected several sources of AMD to new discharge points. Despite additional efforts by the LRWQCB, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Atlantic Richfield Company (ARC), the successor in interest to its wholly owned subsidiary, Anaconda, to reduce the release of hazardous substances from the Mine, releases of AMD continued to have deleterious effects on natural resources at the Mine and downstream.
In May 2000, EPA added the Leviathan Mine Superfund Site to the National Priorities List [65 FR 30482]. Also in 2000, EPA issued separate orders to the LRWQCB and ARC pursuant to section 106(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA) [42 U.S.C. 9606(a)] to engage in hazardous waste removal actions. EPA's order to ARC also requires ARC to develop long-term response plans, including a
Pursuant to section 107(f) of CERCLA [42 U.S.C. 9607(f)], the Leviathan Mine Council Natural Resource Trustees (Trustees) are representatives of federal, state, and tribal government entities with trust authority over natural resources potentially injured by releases of hazardous substances from the Leviathan Mine. While EPA's focus is protecting human health and the environment, the Trustees have the authority to seek compensation from potentially responsible parties (PRPs) for past, present, and future injuries to trust natural resources caused by releases from the Mine. Such resources include, but are not limited to, groundwater, surface water, sediment, fish (including Lahontan Cutthroat Trout) and other aquatic biota, floodplain soils, riparian vegetation, and wildlife in and around the Leviathan Creek and Bryant Creek drainages, and a portion of the East Fork Carson River drainage. The assessment area includes the area surrounding and downstream from the Leviathan Mine in Alpine County, California; the Toiyabe National Forest; Indian Trust Allotments; Douglas County, Nevada; and the Washoe Indian Community of Dresslerville.
The Assessment Plan developed by the Trustees is intended to assess injuries to natural resources resulting from releases of hazardous substances from the Leviathan Mine. The Assessment Plan describes the proposed approach for determining and quantifying natural resource injuries and calculating damages associated with these injuries. By developing an Assessment Plan, the Trustees can ensure that the natural resource damage assessment will be completed at a reasonable cost. The Trustees also intend for the Assessment Plan to communicate proposed assessment methods to PRPs and to the public in an effective manner so that they can productively participate in the assessment process. The ultimate goal of the assessment is to seek damages from PRPs for the purpose of developing projects which will restore, rehabilitate, replace, or acquire the equivalent of the injured natural resources and the services they previously provided [43 CFR 11.81(a)(1)]. The Trustees may amend the Assessment Plan, but any significant amendments will be made available for public review [43 CFR 11.32(e)].
Comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the mailing addresses shown in the
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 43 CFR 10.10 (a)(3), of the intent to repatriate cultural items in the possession of the Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology, Phillips Academy, Andover, MA, that meet the definition of “sacred objects” under Section 2 of the Act.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service’s administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 43 CFR 10.2 (c). The determinations within this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of these cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations within this notice.
Between 1915 and 1929, these cultural items were recovered from several locations at Pecos Pueblo, NM, during excavations conducted by the Phillips Academy under the direction of Alfred Vincent Kidder. The 63 objects are 16 pipes, fragments of 3 ceramic vessels, 4 effigies, 25 whole and fragmented shell beads, 1 shell pendant, 8 bird bone flutes, 3 fragments of quartz, 2 fragments of mica, and 1 fragment of turquoise.
Based on the ceramic types recovered from this site, Pecos Pueblo was occupied between A.D. 1300 and 1700. Historic records document occupation at the site until 1838 when the last inhabitants left the pueblo and went to the Pueblo of Jemez. In 1936, an Act of Congress recognized the Pueblo of Jemez as a “consolidation” and “merger” of the Pueblo of Pecos and the Pueblo of Jemez; this act further recognizes that all property, rights, titles, interests, and claims of both pueblos were consolidated under the Pueblo of Jemez.
In consultation with members of the Eagle Watcher’s Society, as well as other traditional religious leaders of the Pueblo of Jemez, it has been determined by officials of the Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology that these objects are integral to present-day religious practice at the Pueblo.
Based on the above-mentioned information, officials of the Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology have determined that, pursuant to 43 CFR 10.2 (d)(3), these cultural items are specific ceremonial objects needed by traditional Native American religious leaders for the practice of traditional Native American religions by their present-day adherents. Officials of the Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology also have determined that, pursuant to 43 CFR 10.2 (e), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between these sacred objects and the Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico.
This notice has been sent to officials of the Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico. Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with these sacred objects should contact Malinda Blustain, Interim Director, Robert S. Peabody Museum, Phillips Academy, Andover, MA, telephone (978) 749-4496 before June 24, 2002. Repatriation of these sacred objects to the Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico, may begin after that date if no additional claimants come forward.
General wage determination decisions of the Secretary of Labor are issued in accordance with applicable law and are based on the information obtained by the Department of Labor from its study of local wage conditions and data made available from other sources. They specify the basic hourly wage rates and fringe benefits which are determined to be prevailing for the described classes of laborers and mechanics employed on construction projects of a similar character and in the localities specified therein.
The determinations in these decisions of prevailing rates and fringe benefits have been made in accordance with 29 CFR part 1, by authority of the Secretary of Labor pursuant to the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act of March 3, 1931, as amended (46 Stat. 1494, as amended, 40 U.S.C. 276a) and of other Federal statutes referred to in 29 CFR part 1, Appendix, as well as such additional statutes as may from time to time be enacted containing provisions for the payment of wages determined to be prevailing by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with the Davis-Bacon Act. The prevailing rates and fringe benefits determined in these decisions shall, in accordance with the provisions of the foregoing statutes, constitute the minimum wages payable on Federal and federally assisted construction projects to laborers and mechanics of the specified classes engaged on contract work of the character and in the localities described therein.
Good cause is hereby found for not utilizing notice and public comment procedure thereon prior to the issuance of these determinations as prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 553 and not providing for delay in the effective date as prescribed in that section, because the necessity to issue current construction industry wage determinations frequently and in large volume causes procedures to be practical and contrary to the public interest.
General wage determination decisions, and modifications and supersedeas decisions thereto, contain no expiration dates and are effective from their date of notice in the
Any person, organization, or government agency having an interest in the rates determined as prevailing is encouraged to submit wage rate and fringe benefit information for consideration by the Department.
Further information and self-explanatory forms for the purpose of submitting this data may be obtained by writing to the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment Standards Administration, Wage and Hour Division, Division of Wage Determinations, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room S-3014, Washington, DC 20210.
The number of the decisions listed to the Government Printing Office document entitled “General Wage Determination Issued Under the Davis-Bacon and related Acts” being modified are listed by Volume and State. Dates of publication in the
General wage determinations issued under the Davis-Bacon and related Acts, including those noted above, may be found in the Government Printing Office (GPO) document entitled “General Wage determinations Issued Under the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts”. This publication is available at each of the 50 Regional Government Depository Libraries and many of the 1,400 Government Depository Libraries across the country.
General wage determinations issued under the Davis-Bacon and related Acts are available electronically at no cost on the Government Printing Office site at
Hard-copy subscriptions may be purchased from: Superintendent of Documents, U.S.
When ordering hard-copy subscription(s), be sure to specify the State(s) of interest, since subscriptions may be ordered for any or all of the six separate Volumes, arranged by State. Subscriptions include an annual edition (issued in January or February) which includes all current general wage determinations for the States covered by each volume. Throughout the remainder of the year, regular weekly updates will be distributed to subscribers.
Notice.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance 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 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. Currently, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is soliciting comments concerning the proposed new collection of the “Current Population Survey (CPS) Volunteer Supplement.” A copy of the proposed information collection request (ICR) can be obtained by contacting the individual listed below in the addresses section of this notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addresses section of this notice on or before July 23, 2002.
Send comments to Amy A. Hobby, BLS Clearance Officer, Division of Management Systems, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Room 4080, 2 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Washington, DC 20212, telephone number 202-691-7628 (this is not a toll free number).
Amy A. Hobby, BLS Clearance Officer, telephone number 202-691-7628. (
The September 2002 CPS Volunteer Supplement will be conducted at the request of the USA Freedom Corps. The Volunteer Supplement will provide information on the total number of individuals in the U.S. involved in unpaid volunteer activities, factors that motivate volunteerism, measures of the frequency or intensity with which individuals volunteer, types of organizations that facilitate volunteerism, and activities in which volunteers participate.
Because the Volunteer Supplement is part of the CPS, the same detailed demographic information collected in the CPS will be available on respondents to the Supplement. Comparisons of volunteer activities will be possible across characteristics such as sex, race, age, and educational attainment of the respondent. It is intended that the Supplement will be conducted with some regularity in order to gauge changes in volunteerism.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics is particularly interested in comments that:
• 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,
Office of Management and Budget clearance is being sought for the CPS Volunteer Supplement.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Council on Disability (NCD).
4 p.m., EDT, June 13, 2002 (teleconference); 4 p.m. EDT, July 24, 2002 (meeting); 4 p.m. EDT, September 18, 2002 (teleconference).
National Council on Disability, 1331 F Street, NW., Suite 850, Washington, DC.
All parts of these meetings will be open to the public. Those interested in participating in either the meeting or the conference call should contact the appropriate staff member listed below. Due to limited resources, only a few telephone lines will be available for the conference call.
Roll call, announcements, reports, new business, adjournment.
Gerrie Drake Hawkins, Ph.D., Program Specialist, National Council on Disability, 1331 F Street NW., Suite 850, Washington, DC 20004; 202-272-2004 (voice), 202-272-2074 (TTY), 202-272-2022 (fax),
AmerenUE (Licensee) is the holder of License No. NPF-30 issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) on October 18, 1984. The license authorizes the Licensee to operate the Callaway Nuclear Plant in accordance with the conditions specified therein.
An investigation of the Licensee's activities was completed in November 2000. The results of the investigation indicated that the Licensee had not conducted its activities in full compliance with NRC requirements. A written Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice) was served upon the Licensee by letter dated May 14, 2001. The Notice stated the nature of the violation, the provisions of the NRC's requirements that the Licensee had violated, and the amount of the civil penalty proposed for the violation.
The Licensee responded to the Notice in a letter dated January 22, 2002. In its response, the Licensee denied the violation, requesting withdrawal of the violation and remission of the proposed civil penalty.
After consideration of the Licensee's response and the statements of fact, explanation, and argument for mitigation contained therein, the NRC staff has determined that the violation occurred as stated in the May 14, 2001 Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty. Therefore, the NRC has determined that the civil penalty proposed for this violation should be imposed.
In view of the foregoing and pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Act), 42 U.S.C. 2282, and 10 CFR 2.205,
The Licensee pay a civil penalty in the amount of $55,000 within 30 days of the date of this Order, in accordance with NUREG/BR-0254. In addition, at the time of making the payment, the licensee shall submit a statement indicating when and by what method payment is made, to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-2738.
The Licensee may request a hearing within 30 days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. A request for a hearing should be clearly marked as a “Request for an Enforcement Hearing” and shall be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement at the same address, and to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region IV, 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington, Texas 76011.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of the hearing. If the Licensee fails to request a hearing within 30 days of the date of this Order (or if written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing has not been granted), the provisions of this Order shall be effective without further proceedings. If payment has not been made by that time, the matter may be referred to the Attorney General for collection.
In the event the Licensee requests a hearing as provided above, the issues to be considered at such hearing shall be: Whether the Licensee was in violation of the Commission's requirements as set forth in the Notice of Violation referenced in Section II, and whether on the basis of such violation, this Order should be sustained.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
On May 14, 2001, a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice) was issued for a violation of 10 CFR 50.7 identified during an NRC investigation. The Licensee responded to the Notice in a letter dated January 22, 2002. In its response, the Licensee denied the violation, requesting withdrawal of the violation and remission of the proposed civil penalty. The NRC's evaluation and conclusion regarding the licensee's response are as follows:
10 CFR 50.7(a) prohibits discrimination by a Commission licensee against an employee for engaging in certain protected activities. Discrimination includes discharge or other actions relating to the compensation, terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. Under 10 CFR 50.7(a)(1)(i), the activities that are protected include, but are not limited to, the reporting by an employee to his employer information about alleged regulatory violations.
Contrary to the above, The Wackenhut Corporation (TWC), a contractor of Union Electric, a 10 CFR part 50 licensee, and Union Electric discriminated against a security officer and a training instructor for having engaged in protected activity. Specifically, on October 27, 1999, the security officer and the training instructor identified to TWC a violation of NRC requirements at the Callaway Nuclear Plant, namely that TWC had hired and assigned an individual to the security organization when that individual did not have a high school diploma or equivalent. The hiring of this individual was in violation of 10 CFR part 73, Appendix B, Section I.A.1.a, which provides that prior to employment or assignment to a security organization, an individual must possess a high school diploma or pass an equivalent performance examination. Based at least, in part, on this protected activity, TWC unfavorably terminated the security officer's employment for lack of trustworthiness and gave a written reprimand to the training instructor on November 19, 1999, and Union Electric revoked the security officer's unescorted access authorization for lack of trustworthiness.
This is a Severity Level III violation (Supplement VII). Civil Penalty—$55,000
The Licensee denied the violation, asserting that there is no evidence that decisions made by AmerenUE's Access Control Supervisor were motivated by an intent to retaliate against the security officer. AmerenUE stated that based on the information known to the Access Control Supervisor at the time these decisions were made, the Access Control Supervisor acted reasonably and in good faith. The Licensee's specific arguments were:
(1) AmerenUE did not knowingly rely on a biased investigation and report by TWC to revoke the security officer's Access Authorization because the Access Control Supervisor had no reason to suspect that the TWC Investigation was biased. The Access Control Supervisor spoke to the TWC Project Manager on November 20, 1999, to inquire about the security officer's termination. The TWC Project Manager informed her that TWC discovered during the course of an investigation that the security officer misrepresented herself as a representative of Callaway when the security officer called the high school principal. The Access Control Supervisor was informed that the investigation was independent and was conducted by an off-site auditor. The Access Control Supervisor reasoned that an individual whose employment was terminated due to her lack of trustworthiness should not maintain her unescorted access authorization, and therefore the security officer's unescorted access authorization was revoked. The Access Control Supervisor did not see the TWC report until after the security officer's access was revoked and did not have cause to suspect the TWC investigation was biased. Accordingly, she could not have knowingly relied on a biased investigation report. AmerenUE could not have violated 10 CFR 50.7 unless the preponderance of the evidence shows that the Access Control Supervisor revoked the security officer's access authorization with the intention of retaliating against the security officer for her protected activity.
(2) The Access Control supervisor made a good faith effort to determine whether a temporary watchman knowingly misrepresented his educational qualifications by interviewing the high school principal on December 2, 1999. The principal stated his belief that the temporary watchman likely did not know he had not graduated, and “cited circumstances from the high school program to support this view.” When AmerenUE subsequently became aware of information suggesting that the temporary watchman likely knew he had not graduated from high school, his access was revoked. The Access Control Supervisor's failure to discover particular information in her initial investigation does not amount to bad faith. The Access Control Supervisor had no motive to treat the temporary watchman more favorably than she treated the security officer.
AmerenUE's principal argument is that AmerenUE, and the Access Control Supervisor in particular, were not motivated by an intent to retaliate against the security officer. AmerenUE then argues that there can be no violation of 10 CFR 50.7 on the part of AmerenUE without showing such intent. AmerenUE provides many facts in support of its arguments. The central issues are whether a violation of 10 CFR 50.7 occurred, and whether AmerenUE is responsible for that violation.
AmerenUE has provided no new information regarding whether a violation of 10 CFR 50.7 occurred, and did not address whether its contractor, TWC, engaged in discriminatory action. The NRC has reviewed the information in AmerenUE's January 22, 2002 response, as well as the information TWC provided in response to this violation in a January 23, 2002 letter, and concludes that a violation of 10 CFR 50.7 occurred. As stated in the Notice of Violation, the security officer and the training instructor engaged in protected activity, each was subjected to adverse action, and the adverse action occurred, at least in part, because of the protected activity.
AmerenUE's argument that the NRC must show retaliatory intent on the part of AmerenUE personnel is mistaken. Discriminatory intent on the part of its Access Control Supervisor is not necessary for AmerenUE to have violated 10 CFR 50.7. A violation of 10 CFR 50.7 by a licensee's contractor may be grounds for imposition of a civil penalty upon the licensee. 10 CFR 50.7(c)(2).
The NRC has concluded that this violation occurred as stated, and that AmerenUE has not provided a basis for withdrawal of the Notice of Violation or the civil penalty. Consequently, the proposed civil penalty in the amount of $55,000 should be imposed.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 USC 3501
sbull Rule 17a-22 Supplemental Material of Registered Clearing Agencies
Rule 17a-22 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
The respondents to Rule 17a-22 generally are registered clearing agencies.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Please direct your written comments to Michael E. Bartell, Associate Executive Director, Office of Information Technology, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 5th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The CBOE proposes to amend its rules to allow for $0.50 strike price intervals for options based on certain exchange-traded funds. The text of the proposed rule change follows. Proposed new language is italicized.
(a)-(c) No change.
* * * Interpretations and Policies:
.01 The interval between strike prices of series of options on individual stocks will be:
(a) $2.50 or greater where the strike price is $25.00 or less; less, or where the stock represents an interest in a registered investment company that satisfies the criteria set forth in Interpretation and Policy .06 under Rule 5.3 and where the strike price is $200.00 or less;
(b) $5.00 or greater where the strike price is greater than $25.00, or where the stock represents an interest in a registered investment company that satisfies the criteria set forth in Interpretation and Policy .06 under Rule 5.3 and where the strike price is more than $200,00;
(c) $10.00 or greater where the strike price is greater than $200.00;
.02-.05 No change.
.06 Notwithstanding Interpretation and Policy .01 above, the interval between strike prices may be $0.50 or greater for options based on IPSs that correspond generally to the price and yield performance of
In its filing with the Commission, the CBOE included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The CBOE has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to establish $0.50 strike price intervals for options based on DIAMONDS ®, an exchange-traded fund that represents ownership in a unit investment trust established to hold a portfolio of stocks replicating the Dow Jones Industrial Average. DIAMONDS ® currently trade on several national securities exchanges. The Exchange intends to list options on DIAMONDS ® pursuant to existing listing standards set forth in CBOE Rule 5.3, Interpretation and Policy .06.
The Exchange believes that it is appropriate to amend CBOE Rule 5.5 (Series of Option Contracts Open for Trading) to provide that options on DIAMONDS ® be set to $0.50 or greater strike price intervals. These
CBOE notes that the Commission has previously approved a similar rule change filing adopting $0.50 strike price intervals for options on the iShares S&P 100 Index Fund (ticker symbol OEF).
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act,
The CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest; provided that the Exchange has provided the Commission with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the CBOE. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2002-25 and should be submitted by June 14, 2002.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Act,
The proposed rule change will allow the continued operation of the National Market Execution System (“NNMS” or “SuperSoes”) so as to trade through the inside quotations of market participants that are inaccessible through the SuperSoes system. Below is the text of the proposed rule change. Proposed deletions are in brackets.
[(10) In the event that there are no NNMS Market Makers at the best bid (offer) disseminated by Nasdaq, market orders to sell (buy) entered into NNMS will be held in queue until executable, or until 90 seconds has elapsed, after which such orders will be rejected and returned to their respective order entry firms.]
In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. Nasdaq has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
In July of 2001, Nasdaq implemented SuperSoes, which provides for automatic execution against most market participant quotes in Nasdaq National Market Securities. While a great improvement over the order-delivery environment prevalent in Nasdaq before its adoption, the current operation and functionality of SuperSoes can, in a specific instance, inappropriately inhibit the smooth functioning of the Nasdaq market. This occurs when non-SuperSoes, and thus non-auto-executable, Electronic Communications Networks (“ECNs”) that link to the market via Nasdaq's SelectNet order-delivery system are alone in posting the best price to buy or sell a particular security. SuperSoes will automatically execute only at the best-displayed bid or offer. If an ECN is alone in displaying either the best price to buy or sell a particular security, all SuperSoes orders entered into the system on the opposite side of the market where the ECN's best price remains alone are held by the SuperSoes system for up to 90 seconds, or until the ECN moves its quote, or until a market participant accessible via SuperSoes also moves to the inside price. During the period an ECN remains alone at the best price, the SuperSoes system, in effect, shuts down. The suspension of the SuperSoes system's operation in this circumstance prevents other market participants from automatically accessing liquidity at and near the inside and significantly degrades market quality and functionality for the overwhelming majority of Nasdaq market participants, including public investors. These negative impacts are borne out by a recent analysis by Nasdaq's Economic Research Department of execution times in the SuperSoes system. That analysis is summarized below.
First, the analysis indicates approximately 42% of total SuperSoes orders are significantly slowed down (taking over
These delays are also related to just how often SuperSoes is prevented from performing at all. In Nasdaq 100 stocks, ECNs that do not take automatic execution are alone at either the bid or offer an average 70% of the time (for the median stock, 75% of the time). This means that Nasdaq's SuperSoes system is not processing normally on either the bid or offer side of market the majority of the time in one or more of Nasdaq's most active securities.
Not surprisingly, these delays also have a material impact on the execution that a party entering a SuperSoes order can expect. Nasdaq's analysis indicates that a party entering an order into SuperSoes when an ECN is alone at the inside has just a 33% chance that its order will be executed in full. When SuperSoes has an auto-ex participant at the inside, the system continues to operate, and the chance of getting an order executed in full rises dramatically to over 70%. In short, Nasdaq's analysis shows that the continuous shutting down of Nasdaq's primary execution facility has dramatic detrimental consequences for the investing public.
In response, Nasdaq has determined to modify the operation of SuperSoes as it relates to the processing of orders where an ECN is alone at the best price. In short, SuperSoes will be modified so as to not automatically shut down when an ECN is alone at the inside. Market participants will be able, consistent with ongoing best execution obligations, to continue to send market orders, or marketable limit orders, to SuperSoes
By enhancing SuperSoes to allow it to automatically access liquidity on an ongoing basis, Nasdaq market participants will be given the maximum amount of flexibility to protect and service their customers. In addition, the removal of the potential single point of failure represented by a single ECN quote at the inside market which is accessible only through a separate, and non-automatic, execution linkage ensures that the main trading system of the Nasdaq market continues to operate throughout the day without the potential for disruptive, intermittent suspensions that negatively impact both the price-discovery and trading process for the vast bulk of the Nasdaq market community.
Based on the above, Nasdaq believes this proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of section 15A(b)(6) of the Act
Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) by order approve such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549-0609. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the NASD. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NASD-2002-23 and should be submitted by June 14, 2002.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The NASD is filing with the Commission a proposed structure for fees to be charged in connection with the NASD's creation of a corporate bond trade reporting and transaction dissemination facility. The facility is currently referred to as the Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine or “TRACE.” TRACE replaces Nasdaq's Fixed Income Pricing System (“FIPS”). The proposed rule change is in addition to the NASD's Rule 6200 Series for TRACE.
[(1) The following charges shall apply to the operation of Full Function and Limited Function FIPS terminals. Charges for Full Function and Limited Function FIPS terminals will also
(A) Full Function FIPS terminals:
$1,000/month for the first terminal plus $350/month for each additional terminal.
Full Function FIPS terminals provide access to the full range of quotation and trade reporting capabilities of FIPS through dedicated communication circuits.
(B) Limited Function FIPS terminals:
$300/month for each terminal plus dial-up communication charges assessed based on actual costs incurred.
Limited Function FIPS terminals provide access to the full range of quotation and trade reporting capabilities of FIPS through a dial-up service.]
[(2) For each transaction in a high-yield security that is reportable to the Association pursuant to Rule 6240 of the FIPS Rules, there shall be a $1 charge assessed against the member responsible for reporting the transaction under paragraphs (a)(3) or (b)(3) thereof.]
[(3) There shall be a $50 monthly charge assessed against members using the FIPS service desk. Pursuant to Rule 6240(a)(2)(B), members that do not have access to a FIPS terminal and average five or fewer trades per day in high yield securities, inclusive of FIPS securities, during the previous calendar quarter may utilize the FIPS service desk to report trades in high yield bonds effected in the over-the-counter market.]
[(4) Bond Quotation Data Service (BQDS)
The charge to be paid by the subscriber for each interrogation or display device receiving Full BQDS information is $50 per month. Full BQDS information includes the bids and offers of all FIPS participants registered in each FIPS security, the inside bid/ask quotation for each FIPS security, and hourly summary transaction information on FIPS securities.
The charge to be paid by the subscriber for each interrogation or display device receiving Limited BQDS information is $5 per month. Limited BQDS information includes the inside bid/ask quotation for each FIPS security and hourly summary transaction information of FIPS securities.]
The following charges shall be paid by participants for the use of the Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine (“TRACE”):
(A)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
In its filing with the Commission, the NASD included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. NASD has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The NASD proposed, and the Commission approved, in a separate filing with the Commission, the adoption of the new Rule 6200 Series relating to the creation of TRACE and the elimination of Nasdaq's FIPS high yield reporting system.
In 1998, the SEC, in recognition of the relative lack of transparency in the corporate debt market, called upon the NASD to do the following: (1) Adopt rules requiring NASD members to report all transactions in corporate bonds to the NASD and to develop systems to receive and distribute transaction prices on an immediate basis; (2) create a database of transactions in corporate bonds to enable regulators to take a proactive role in supervising the corporate debt market; and (3) create a surveillance program, in conjunction with the development of a database to better detect fraud and foster investor confidence in the fairness of the corporate bond market.
Since the SEC mandate, the NASD has developed TRACE, which is a reporting facility developed by the NASD that, among other things, accommodates reporting and dissemination of transaction reports in TRACE-eligible
Participation in TRACE is mandatory for all NASD members that transact business in eligible corporate debt securities. Market participants have specified obligations for the use of the TRACE system when entering, or correcting trade details on TRACE. Under proposed rule 6230(a), SR-NASD-2002-46, participants are obligated to report transaction information within one hour and fifteen minutes after trade execution. The participant may use, among other means, a web browser (either over the Internet or a private data network (“PDN”)), Computer-to-Computer Interface (“CTCI”), or a third-party intermediary.
The NASD represents that the purpose of the proposed rule change is to establish a TRACE fee structure. The NASD represents that developmental costs of TRACE, to date, are approximately $7.2 million. In addition, the NASD represents that total operating costs for the TRACE system are estimated to be approximately $6 million annually. The NASD represents that the proposed fees are intended to help the NASD recover the development costs of the new system, fund ongoing operational costs, and fund the regulatory activities necessary for surveillance of the market, all with a view towards making TRACE financially self-sustaining.
The proposed fees are divided into three general categories: (1) System fees paid by member firms based on the method chosen by the member to report corporate bond transactions to the NASD (members will have several options on how to report trades and the fees will vary accordingly); (2) transaction reporting fees paid by members to file trade reports and cancel or correct trade reports; and (3) market data fees paid by members and non-members that use or distribute the data collected through the TRACE system and disseminated by the NASD.
Members may report transaction information manually through a web browser using their own Internet provider.
Members also may report transaction data through the CTCI operated by Nasdaq for most of its transaction reporting facilities. Nasdaq currently leases dedicated lines from WorldCom, Inc. and provides direct connection from a member firm to the NASD. The NASD monthly charge for reporting through a CTCI is $25 per month, per line, whether or not such line is used exclusively for TRACE, and does not include Nasdaq charges for its designated network provider.
The NASD believes the fees set forth above are reasonably related to the costs of developing the new facility and to meeting the estimated operating expenses of the TRACE system. The NASD represents that the fees are also designed to fund the regulatory activities necessary to survey the market. In addition, the NASD believes the proposed fees are non-discriminatory because members may select the technology link that best suits their particular needs. Further, the NASD states that the proposed fees are consistent with similar fees that are being charged by other transaction reporting facilities.
The NASD proposes to charge a cancel or correct trade fee of $3.00 per trade. The NASD also proposes to charge an “As of” trade late fee of $3.00 per trade. Under proposed rule 6230(a)(2), SR-NASD-2002-46, a transaction that is executed after the close of the market must be reported within the first 1 hour and 15 minutes after the open of the market on the following business day to be reported on time “As of.”
In order to standardize corporate bond reporting obligations and minimize industry technology burdens, NASD has
The NASD believes that the proposed market data fees are reasonable. The NASD represents that the various fee levels of proposed market data fees are intended to provide market participants with the flexibility to select the usage level that best meets their needs. In determining the proposed market data fees, the NASD represents that its staff reviewed comparable industry fees for market data. The NASD states that the proposed market data fees are designed to allow the NASD to recover its developmental and operational costs of the TRACE system and the costs of related regulatory activities, while still allowing vendors to resell the data at competitive prices.
Market participants and others who wish to receive real-time TRACE data directly from the NASD will be required to enter into appropriate agreements with the NASD. For example, a vendor or broker/dealer firm that wishes to distribute TRACE real-time data externally will be required to enter into a vendor agreement, which among other things will standardize display facilities and require the vendor to collect specified dissemination fees from its end users for remittance to the NASD. Vendors or broker/dealer firms that wish to receive real-time TRACE data directly from the NASD and subsequently disseminate real-time TRACE data internally will also be required to execute agreements with the NASD, which among other things, will require firms to represent that the TRACE real-time data will not be disseminated externally.
In determining the proposed fees the NASD represents that its staff reviewed the existing FIPS fees, Nasdaq fees, and other comparable industry fees. The NASD states that its staff also consulted with members of the industry. In addition, the NASD established the Bond Transaction Reporting Committee (“BTRC”) that has ten members, one-half of whom are recommended by the NASD, and the other half of whom are recommended by The Bond Market Association. The NASD states that its staff presented the proposed TRACE fees to the BTRC for additional industry input, and modified certain aspects of the initial fee proposal in response to concerns raised by the BTRC. The NASD represents that, with such modifications, the BTRC voted to approve the proposed TRACE fees, subject to a commitment by the NASD staff to reassess the proposed TRACE fees after TRACE is effective.
The NASD represents that, as part of the initiative by the Commission to create price transparency in the corporate bond market, the NASD has worked diligently to develop the TRACE system. Overall, the NASD believes that the proposed fees are necessary to achieve a practical, market-driven system for processing and disseminating reliable and uniform corporate bond data. The NASD believes that the TRACE system will allow the NASD to take a proactive role in supervising the corporate bond market and promote investor confidence in the fairness of the corporate bond market generally.
Based on the above, the NASD believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(5)
The NASD believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
The NASD does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. Specifically, the NASD believes that the proposal allows for competition in the collection of trade reports, and limits the NASD's role to: (1) Collecting trade reports directly only from members that choose to report directly to the NASD; (2) consolidating trade reports for regulatory purposes; and (3) disseminating the consolidated data to broker-dealers and those interested in reselling the data but not competing in the market for resale of these data. The NASD notes that the proposed fees which the NASD is seeking to impose for performing these functions are subject to Commission review and approval under the standards set forth for these purposes under Sections 11A and 15A of the Exchange Act.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve such proposed rule change, as amended, or
(B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change, as amended, should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549-0609. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the NASD. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NASD-2002-63 and should be submitted by June 14, 2002.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The NASD, through Nasdaq, proposes to establish a uniform process for opening daily trading in Nasdaq's future Order Display and Collector Facility (“SuperMontage”).
The text of the proposed rule change, as amended, is available at the Office of the Secretary, Nasdaq and at the Commission.
In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. Nasdaq has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
As part of its ongoing preparation for the launch of SuperMontage, Nasdaq is engaging in a continuing review of the system's functionality and rules with a view to constant improvement. As a result of this review, and in consultation with industry professionals, Nasdaq has determined to alter the method originally approved for opening daily trading in SuperMontage. Through a combination of rules and system processing, Nasdaq's proposed new opening process proposes to cure, and thereafter prevent, locked and crossed market conditions immediately prior to the 9:30 a.m. market open, while allowing the continued execution of pre-market priced orders during that same time period.
Specifically, Nasdaq proposes to:
(1) Clarify that the system will accept market orders prior to 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time;
(2) Modify the opening process by providing for the automatic clearing of locked/crossed quotes beginning at 9:29:30 a.m. Eastern Time, and by matching off of locked/crossed quotes between the most aggressive orders, at the price of the newest of those orders; and
(3) Amend its Trade-or-Move Rule to conform to the changes in the opening process.
Currently, the SuperMontage system rules do not explicitly permit the entry of Non-Directed market orders prior to 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time. Under the approved SuperMontage rules, market participants may enter Non-Directed limit orders prior to the market open, subject to certain qualifiers.
Currently, SuperMontage's opening process resolves locked and crossed markets by pairing off the oldest in time sell quote/order with the oldest in time buy quote/order, and then executing the buying/selling interest at the price of the oldest quote/order. Under approved SuperMontage rules, this process begins at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time, and is repeated until an unlocked and uncrossed inside market in Nasdaq is generated.
Nasdaq proposes to change and streamline the above process as follows. At 9:29:30 a.m. Eastern Time, the system will begin an automated process to clear any locked or crossed markets that then exists, using a new matching and pricing formula. First, the system will pair off the most aggressively priced buy quote/order against the most aggressively priced sell quote/orders. Once this “best-priced pair” is determined, the system will execute the two identified orders at the price of the newer order until the older order is fully satisfied. Nasdaq represents that, in essence, price improvement accrues to the older order. If the displayed size becomes exhausted at that price level, SuperMontage will continue to execute against available reserve size at that price level. This process will be repeated until an unlocked and uncrossed market results. Non-Attributable Orders that are displayed under SIZE will also participate in this process and will be subject to execution logic described above.
Once the lock/cross is cleared, any additional locking or crossing quotes/orders entered between 9:29:30 a.m. and 9:30:00 a.m. will be turned into an order and will be executed against the quote/order in Nasdaq that it would lock/cross. The execution will occur at the price of the quote/order that would be locked/crossed consistent with the locking/crossing process applicable during market hours.
Since these trades will be executed prior to the 9:30 a.m. market open, these trades will be designated as “.T” to reflect that they were executed outside of normal market hours.
Nasdaq proposes to amend its Trade-or-Move Rule to reflect that the system will begin the unlocking/uncrossing process at 9:29:30 a.m., thus market participants would be required to send Trade-or-Move Directed Orders
Accordingly, Nasdaq believes that its proposed process will significantly improve the Nasdaq market opening by ensuring that quotes in Nasdaq securities are not locked or crossed at the start of normal trading. In addition, Nasdaq believes that its proposed approach of basing pre-market executions on the prices of individual quotes/orders provides maximum flexibility for market participants to price and potentially execute their own trading interest, while still maintaining an orderly market going into the open.
Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A of the Act,
Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Nasdaq neither solicited nor received written comments with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
A. By order approve such proposed rule change, or
B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the NASD. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NASD-2002-56 and should be submitted by June 14, 2002.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Small Business Administration.
Notice of Reporting Requirements Submitted for OMB Review.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), agencies are required to submit proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to publish a notice in the
Submit comments on or before June 24, 2002. If you intend to comment but cannot prepare comments promptly, please advise the OMB Reviewer and the Agency Clearance Officer before the deadline.
Address all comments concerning this notice to: Agency Clearance Officer, Jacqueline White, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20416; and OMB Reviewer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Jacqueline White, Agency Clearance Officer, (202) 205-7044.
As a result of the President's major disaster declaration on May 16, 2002, I find that Clinton and Essex Counties in the State of New York constitute a disaster area due to damages caused by an earthquake occurring on April 20, 2002. Applications for loans for physical damage as a result of this disaster may be filed until the close of business on July 15, 2002 and for economic injury until the close of business on February 17, 2003 at the address listed below or other locally announced locations: U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster Area 1 Office, 360 Rainbow Blvd., South 3rd Fl., Niagara Falls, NY 14303-1192.
In addition, applications for economic injury loans from small businesses located in the following contiguous counties may be filed until the specified date at the above location: Franklin, Hamilton, Warren and Washington Counties in the State of New York; and Addison, Chittenden and Grand Isle Counties in the State of Vermont.
The interest rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 341402. For economic injury the number is 9P7600 for New York; and 9P7700 for Vermont.
Notice.
The Office of Exchange Coordination and Designation, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs; 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Exchange Visitor Program Application—Form DS-3036; Update of Information on Exchange Visitor Program Sponsor—Form DS-3037. OMB Approval Number 1405-0120.
Public comments are being solicited to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
Copies of the proposed information collection and supporting documents may be obtained from Sally J. Lawrence, Chief, Private Sector Division, Office of Exchange Coordination and Designation, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, U.S. Department of State, 301 Fourth Street, SW, Room 734, Washington, DC 20547; telephone 202-401-9810. Public comments and questions should be directed to the State Department Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Washington, DC 20530, who may be reached on 202-395-3897.
Coast Guard, DOT.
Notice of intent to prepare a Supplemental Program Environmental Assessment.
The U.S. Coast Guard intends to prepare a Supplemental Program Environmental Assessment (SPEA) for the National Distress and Response System Modernization Project (NDRSMP). The SPEA will supplement our July 1998 Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) with respect to modernizing and deploying the National Distress and Response System (NDRS) and it will examine reasonable alternatives for the deployment of dual mode VHF/UHF radio equipment to either an existing NDS antenna tower site, antenna tower space leased from a commercial provider, or new construction of an antenna tower site. We are requesting early public input on these alternatives and the potential for environmental impacts as a result of implementing them.
Comments and related material must reach the Docket Management Facility on or before June 24, 2002.
To make sure your comments and related material are not entered more than once in the docket, please submit them by only one of the following means:
(1) By mail to the Docket Management Facility (USCG-1998-3584), U.S. Department of Transportation, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
(2) By delivery to Room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.
(3) By fax to the Docket Management Facility at 202-493-2251.
(4) Electronically through the Web Site for the Docket Management System at
In choosing among these means, please give due regard to recent difficulties and delays associated with delivery of mail through the U.S. Postal Service to Federal facilities.
The Docket Management Facility maintains the public docket for this notice. Comments and material received from the public, as well as this notice, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at Room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this docket on the Web Site at
If you have questions on this notice, the proposed project, or the associated assessment, call Donna M. Meyer, Environmental Program Manager, National Distress and Response System Modernization Project, U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 202-267-1496 or e-mail her at
We encourage you to submit comments and related material on our Supplemental Program Environmental Assessment. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this notice (USCG-1998-3584), and provide background support for each comment. You may submit your comments and material by mail, hand delivery, fax, or electronic means to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
We do not now plan to hold a public hearing. But you may submit a request for one to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
The National Distress and Response System forms the backbone of the Coast Guard's Short Range Communication System (SRCS) that supports Coast Guard Activity, Group, Marine Safety Office (MSO), Vessel Traffic Service (VTS), Air Station, Cutter and Station operations. As part of the SRCS, the NDRS incorporates the use of VHF-FM radios to provide two-way voice communications coverage for the majority of Coast Guard missions in coastal areas and navigable waterways where commercial and recreational traffic exists. The system, consisting of approximately 300 remotely controlled VHF transceiver sites, monitors the international VHF-FM maritime distress frequency (Channel 16), and is the primary command and control network to coordinate Coast Guard search and rescue (SAR) response activities. The secondary function is to provide command, control, and communications for the Coast Guard missions of national security, maritime safety, law enforcement, and marine environmental protection.
In July 1998, the Coast Guard published a Programmatic Environmental Assessment that considered general concepts to modernize the current obsolete and nonstandard system. The alternatives we considered included:
Alternatives B, C, and D would all require approximately the same number of additional antenna sites. Since 1998, new circumstances and relevant information regarding the deployment of the system to an existing antenna site, or leasing an antenna site, or constructing a new antenna site as well as the Coast Guard's preference for
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, and the President's Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), we intend to prepare a Supplemental Program Environmental Assessment for the National Distress and Response System Modernization Project.
Information, data, and comments obtained throughout the course of the Scoping process may be used in the preparation of the SPEA. The purpose of this notice of intent is to inform the public, local, State, and Federal government agencies that a Supplemental PEA will be prepared.
In addition, the SPEA will provide those interested with an opportunity to present their comments, information, or other relevant observations concerning alternatives and potential environmental impacts relating to the deployment and installation of the NDRSMP. Alternatives under consideration include: (1) Taking no action; (2) deployment to existing antenna tower sites; (3) leasing antenna space on an existing tower; and (4) new construction of a tower site.
Our efforts to coordinate with appropriate Federal, State and local agencies, and private organizations and citizens who have expressed interest in this proposal will continue. The SPEA will be made available for public and agency review and comment. To ensure that the full range of issues related to the proposed action are addressed and that all significant issues are identified, we invite your comments and suggestions.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of meeting.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
Notice of receipt of petition for decision that nonconforming 1997-2000 Mercedes Benz SL Class (W129) passenger cars are eligible for importation.
This document announces receipt by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a petition for a decision that 1997-2000 Mercedes Benz SL Class (W129) passenger cars that were not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards are eligible for importation into the United States because (1) they are substantially similar to vehicles that were originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States and that were certified by their manufacturer as complying with the safety standards, and (2) they are capable of being readily altered to conform to the standards.
The closing date for comments on the petition is June 24, 2002.
Comments should refer to the docket number and notice number, and be submitted to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590. [Docket hours are from 9 am to 5 pm].
George Entwistle, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202-366-5306).
Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not originally manufactured to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards shall be refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that the motor vehicle is substantially similar to a motor vehicle originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States, certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of the same model year as the model of the motor vehicle to be compared, and is capable of being readily altered to
Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice in the
Automobile Concepts, Inc. of North Miami, Florida (“AMC”) (Registered Importer 01-278) has petitioned NHTSA to decide whether 1997-2000 Mercedes Benz SL Class (W129) passenger cars are eligible for importation into the United States. The vehicles which AMC believes are substantially similar are 1997-2000 Mercedes Benz SL Class (W129) passenger cars that were manufactured for importation into, and sale in, the United States and certified by their manufacturer as conforming to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
The petitioner claims that it carefully compared non-U.S. certified 1997-2000 Mercedes Benz SL Class (W129) passenger cars to their U.S.-certified counterparts, and found the vehicles to be substantially similar with respect to compliance with most Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
AMC submitted information with its petition intended to demonstrate that non-U.S. certified 1997-2000 Mercedes Benz SL Class (W129) passenger cars, as originally manufactured, conform to many Federal motor vehicle safety standards in the same manner as their U.S. certified counterparts, or are capable of being readily altered to conform to those standards.
Specifically, the petitioner claims that non-U.S. certified 1997-2000 Mercedes Benz SL Class (W129) passenger cars are identical to their U.S. certified counterparts with respect to compliance with Standard Nos. 102 Transmission Shift Lever Sequence * * *, 103
In addition, the petitioner claims that the vehicles comply with the Bumper Standard found in 49 CFR part 581.
The petitioner also contends that the vehicles are capable of being readily altered to meet the following standards, in the manner indicated:
Standard No. 101
Standard No. 108
Standard No. 110
Standard No. 111
Standard No. 114
Standard No. 118
Standard No. 201
Standard No. 208
Standard No. 214
The petitioner states that a vehicle identification plate must be affixed to the vehicles near the left windshield post and a reference and certification label must be affixed in the area of the left front door post to meet the requirements of 49 CFR part 565.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the petition described above. Comments should refer to the docket number and be submitted to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh St., SW, Washington, DC 20590. (Docket hours are from 9 am to 5 pm). It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.
All comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will be considered, and will be available for examination in the docket at the above address both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the closing date will also be considered. Notice of final action on the petition will be published in the
49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
Research and Special Programs Administration, DOT.
List of Applications for Modification of Exemptions.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application
Comments must be received on or before June 10, 2002.
Records Center, Research and Special Programs Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the exemption number.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, Nassif Building, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC or at
This notice of receipt of applications for modification of exemptions is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.
Notice: Protecting buried pipelines by using safe excavation practices.
RSPA is issuing this advisory notice to operators of natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines to remind them of the importance of safe excavation practices. We have also asked our partners in the Common Ground Alliance, a new national non-profit damage prevention organization, and the Associated General Contractors of America and the National Utility Contractors Association, to help distribute this advisory.
Several recent incidents have provided the impetus to remind the pipeline operators of the importance of safe excavation practices. Increase in construction activity coincides with the arrival of spring in many parts of the country and extends through the summer months. Construction activity requires excavators to work around buried pipelines and other underground facilities, such as water, sewer, electrical and phone lines. Many private citizens also undertake excavation projects in the spring and summer months such as gardening, installing mailboxes, outdoor lights and other projects that require digging. Figures for excavation damage from RSPA's Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) show an upward trend in the warmer months.
To protect construction workers and the general public and to guard the integrity of the nation's underground infrastructure, RSPA has implemented several damage prevention programs.
These programs were developed in partnership with pipeline operators, excavators, one-call centers, locators, state pipeline safety agencies, and others involved in damage prevention for underground facilities.
The Common Ground Study, issued by OPS, contains best practices for all
The Common Ground Study can be viewed on line at
These best practices have been adopted by many professional associations including the Associated General Contractors, the National Utility Contractors Association, National Utility Locating Contractors Association and others in the damage prevention community. Promotion of these practices is now under the auspices of the Common Ground Alliance (CGA) which represents virtually every segment of the damage prevention community. CGA has also assumed responsibility for promotion of the Dig Safely Campaign launched by DOT in 1999 which identified four key steps in safe excavation:
The National Transportation Safety Board has recommended an important additional step, that excavators should notify the pipeline operator immediately if their work damages a pipeline and that excavators should call 911 immediately if the damage results in a release of natural gas or other hazardous substances or potentially endangers, life, health or property.
We ask pipeline operators to undertake the following steps as part of their damage prevention efforts:
BHP Nevada Railroad Company (BHP Nevada) filed a notice of exemption under 49 CFR part 1152 Subpart F-
BHP Nevada certified that: (1) No local traffic has moved over the line for at least 2 years; (2) there is no overhead traffic on the line; (3) no complaint filed by a user of rail service on the line (or by a state or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the line either is pending with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) or with any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of complainant within the 2-year period; and (4) the requirements at 49 CFR 1105.7 (environmental reports), 49 CFR 1105.8 (historic reports), 49 CFR 1105.11 (transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met.
As a condition to this exemption, any employee adversely affected by the discontinuance shall be protected under
Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) has been received, this exemption will be effective on June 25, 2002, unless stayed pending reconsideration. Petitions to stay and formal expressions of intent to file an OFA under 49 CFR 1152.27(c)(2)
A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to applicants' representative: Edward D. Greenberg, Galland, Kharasch, Greenberg, Fellman & Swirsky, P.C., Canal Square, 1054 Thirty-First Street, NW., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20007.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
Board decisions and notices are available on our website at “WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.”
By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings.
On May 7, 2002, Duluth, Missabe and Iron Range Railway Company (DM&IR) filed with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) a petition under 49 U.S.C. 10502 for exemption from the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 10903 to abandon a 2-mile portion of the line known as the Sliver Branch, between milepost S-0.0 and milepost S-2.0, in the City of Virginia in St. Louis County, MN. The line traverses United States Postal Service Zip Code 55792.
The line does not contain any federally granted rights-of-way. Any documentation in DM&IR's possession will be made available promptly to those requesting it.
The interest of railroad employees will be protected by the conditions set forth in
By issuing this notice, the Board is instituting an exemption proceeding pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502(b). A final decision will be issued by August 23, 2002.
Any offer of financial assistance (OFA) under 49 CFR 1152.27(b)(2) will be due no later than 10 days after service of a decision granting the petition for exemption. Each OFA must be accompanied by the filing fee, which is currently set at $1,100.
All interested persons should be aware that, following abandonment of rail service and salvage of the line, the line may be suitable for other public use, including interim trail use. Any request for a public use condition under 49 CFR 1152.28 or for trail use/rail banking under 49 CFR 1152.29 will be due no later than June 13, 2002. Each trail use request must be accompanied by a $150 filing fee.
All filings in response to this notice must refer to STB Docket No. AB-101 (Sub-No. 17X) and must be sent to: (1) Surface Transportation Board, Case Control Unit, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001; and (2) Thomas R. Ogoreuc, 135 Jamison Lane, Monroeville, PA 15146. Replies to the DM&IR petition are due on or before June 13, 2002.
Persons seeking further information concerning abandonment procedures may contact the Board's Office of Public Services at (202) 565-1592 or refer to the full abandonment or discontinuance regulations at 49 CFR part 1152. Questions concerning environmental issues may be directed to the Board's Section of Environmental Analysis (SEA) at (202) 565-1552. [TDD for the hearing impaired is available at 1-800-877-8339.]
An environmental assessment (EA) (or environmental impact statement (EIS), if necessary) prepared by SEA will be served upon all parties of record and upon any agencies or other persons who commented during its preparation. Other interested persons may contact SEA to obtain a copy of the EA (or EIS). EAs in these abandonment proceedings normally will be made available within 60 days of the filing of the petition.
The deadline for submission of comments on the EA will generally be within 30 days of its service.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at “www.stb.dot.gov.”
By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings.
On May 7, 2002, Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) filed with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) a petition under 49 U.S.C. 10502 for exemption from the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 10903-05
The line does not contain federally granted rights-of-way. Any documentation in UP's possession will be made available promptly to those requesting it.
The interest of railroad employees will be protected by
By issuance of this notice, the Board is instituting an exemption proceeding pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502(b). A final decision will be issued by August 23, 2002.
Any OFA under 49 CFR 1152.27(b)(2) will be due no later than 10 days after service of a decision granting the petition for exemption. Each OFA must be accompanied by the filing fee, which currently is set at $1,100.
All interested persons should be aware that, following abandonment of rail service and salvage of the South Segment of the line, it may be suitable for other public use, including interim trail use. Any request for a public use condition under 49 CFR 1152.28 or for trail use/rail banking under 49 CFR 1152.29 will be due no later than June 13, 2002.
All filings in response to this notice must refer to STB Docket No. AB-33 (Sub-No. 167X) and must be sent to: (1) Surface Transportation Board, Case Control Unit, 1925 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20423-0001; and (2) Mack H. Shumate, Jr., Senior General Attorney, 101 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1920, Chicago, IL 60606. Replies to the UP petition are due on or before June 13, 2002.
Persons seeking further information concerning abandonment and discontinuance procedures may contact the Board's Office of Public Services at (202) 565-1592 or refer to the full abandonment or discontinuance regulations at 49 CFR part 1152. Questions concerning environmental issues may be directed to the Board's Section of Environmental Analysis (SEA) at (202) 565-1552. [TDD for the hearing impaired is available at 1-800-877-8339.]
An environmental assessment (EA) (or environmental impact statement (EIS), if necessary) prepared by SEA will be served upon all parties of record and upon any agencies or other persons who commented during its preparation. Other interested persons may contact SEA to obtain a copy of the EA (or EIS). EAs in these abandonment proceedings normally will be made available within 60 days of the filing of the petition. The deadline for submission of comments on the EA will generally be within 30 days of its service.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at “WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.”
By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, Treasury.
Notice of alterations to two Privacy Act systems of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), Department of the Treasury (Treasury), gives notice of proposed alterations to existing systems of records entitled the “Suspicious Activity Reporting System—Treasury/DO .212” and the “Bank Secrecy Act Reports System—Treasury/DO .213”. The systems of records were last published in their entirety on February 19, 2002, at 67 FR 7496, and 67 FR 7498, respectively.
Comments must be received no later than June 24, 2002. The revised systems of records will be effective as of July 3, 2002, unless comments are received that result in a contrary determination and notice is published to that effect.
Written comments should be sent to: FinCEN, P.O. Box 39, Vienna, VA 22183-0039, Attention: Revisions to PA Systems of Records—Comments. Comments may also be submitted by electronic mail to the following Internet address—regcomments@fincen.treas.gov—with the above caption in the body of the text. Comments may be inspected at FinCEN between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m., in the FinCEN Reading Room in Washington, DC. Persons wishing to inspect the comments submitted must request an appointment by telephoning (202) 354-6400.
Albert R. Zarate, Senior Regulatory Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, FinCEN, (703) 905-3590.
The systems of records contain information collected under the authority of the Bank Secrecy Act, the popular name for Titles I and II of Public Law 91-508, as amended, and codified at 12 U.S.C. 1829b, 12 U.S.C. 1951-1959, and 31 U.S.C. 5311-5331. The regulations implementing the authority contained in the Bank Secrecy Act are found at 31 CFR part 103. The authority to administer 31 CFR part 103 has been delegated to FinCEN.
The systems of records are being revised to reflect certain changes in the law made by the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001, Public Law 107-56 (October 26, 2001). The USA PATRIOT Act, among other things, provides the Treasury with additional authorities relating to the collection, use, and dissemination of information, including Bank Secrecy Act information, to help prevent, detect, and prosecute money laundering and the financing of terrorism.
Specifically, the routine uses for the systems of records are being amended, consistent with section 358 of the USA PATRIOT Act, to make clear that Bank Secrecy Act information may be provided to United States intelligence agencies for the purpose of conducting intelligence or counterintelligence, including analysis, to protect against international terrorism.
The Suspicious Activity Reporting System also is being altered, consistent with section 314 of the USA PATRIOT Act, to reflect that it may contain information relating to individuals, entities, and organizations reasonably suspected of engaging in terrorist and other criminal activities, including information provided to FinCEN from financial institutions regarding such individuals, entities, and organizations. Existing routine use (7) for the Suspicious Activity Reporting System would permit FinCEN to disclose information within that System to financial institutions to the extent necessary to elicit information pertinent to the investigation, prosecution, or enforcement of civil or criminal statutes, rules, regulations, or orders.
The Bank Secrecy Act Reports System also is being amended, consistent with section 358 of the USA PATRIOT Act, to reflect that BSA reports may be provided to appropriate self-regulatory organizations when relevant to the responsibilities of those organizations. Existing routine use (3) for the Suspicious Activity Report System already contains similar language.
Finally, the Bank Secrecy Act Reports System also is being amended to clarify that FinCEN Form 8300 information reported under the Bank Secrecy Act and its implementing regulations, as authorized by section 365 of the USA PATRIOT Act, is covered by that system. For purposes of clarity, other technical changes to the systems of records are being made, as indicated later in this document.
Because information in the systems of records may be retrieved by personal identifier, the Privacy Act of 1974 requires the Treasury to give general notice and seek public comments when making substantive changes to these Systems.
The altered system of records report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), has been submitted to the Committee on Government Reform in the House of Representatives, the Committee on Governmental Affairs in the Senate, and Office of Management and Budget, pursuant to Appendix I to OMB Circular A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” November 30, 2000.
For the reasons set forth above, FinCEN proposes to alter the Suspicious Activity Reporting System and the Bank Secrecy Act Reports System as follows:
Suspicious Activity Report System (the “SAR System”)—Treasury/DO.
“(10) Individuals, entities and organizations suspected of engaging in terrorist and other criminal activities and any person who may be affiliated with such individuals, entities or organizations;
(11) Individuals or entities named by financial institutions as persons to be contacted for further assistance by government agencies in connection with individuals, entities or organizations suspected of engaging in terrorist or other criminal activities;
(12) Individuals or entities involved in evaluating or investigating any matters in connection with individuals, entities or organizations suspected of engaging in terrorist or other criminal activity.”
“The SAR System contains information reported to FinCEN by a financial institution (including, but not limited to, a depository institution, a money services business, a broker-dealer in securities, and a casino) on a Suspicious Activity Report (“SAR”) that is filed voluntarily or as required under the authority of FinCEN, one or more of the Federal Supervisory Agencies, or under any other authority. The SAR System also may contain information that may relate to terrorist or other criminal activity that is reported voluntarily to FinCEN by any individual or entity through any other means, including through FinCEN's Financial Institutions Hotline. The SAR System also may contain information relating to individuals, entities, and organizations reasonably suspected based on credible evidence of engaging in terrorist or other criminal activities, including information provided to FinCEN from financial institutions regarding such individuals, entities, and organizations.”
“(13) Disclose information to United States intelligence agencies in the conduct of intelligence or counterintelligence activities, including analysis, to protect against international terrorism.”
Bank Secrecy Act Reports System—Treasury/DO.
“Persons identified in reports filed under the Bank Secrecy Act and its implementing regulations (31 CFR part 103) including, but not limited to, reports made on IRS Form 4789 (Currency Transaction Report), IRS Form 8362 (Currency Transaction Report by Casinos), forms filed by casinos located in the State of Nevada in lieu of Form 8362, FinCEN Form 8300 (Report of Cash Payments Over $10,000 Received in a Trade or Business), Customs Form 4790 (Report of International Transportation of Currency or Monetary Instruments), Treasury Form TDF 90-22.1 (Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts), Treasury Form TDF 90-22.53 (Designation of Exempt Person), and Treasury Form TDF 90-22.55 (Registration of Money Services Businesses).”
“Information or reports filed under the Bank Secrecy Act and its implementing regulations (31 CFR Part 103) including, but not limited to, reports made on IRS Form 4789 (Currency Transaction Report), IRS Form 8362 (Currency Transaction Report by Casinos), forms filed by casinos located in the State of Nevada in lieu of Form 8362, FinCEN Form 8300 (Report of Cash Payments Over $10,000 Received in a Trade or Business), Customs Form 4790 (Report of International Transportation of Currency or Monetary Instruments), Treasury Form TDF 90-22.1 (Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts), Treasury Form TDF 90-22.53 (Designation of Exempt Person), and Treasury Form TDF 90-22.55 (Registration of Money Services Businesses).”
“Provide information or records to any appropriate domestic or non-United States governmental agency or self-regulatory organization charged with the responsibility of administering law or investigating or prosecuting violations of law, or charged with the responsibility of enforcing or implementing a statute, rule, regulation, order, or policy, when relevant to the responsibilities of these agencies or organizations;”
b. The word “and” at the end of routine use (7) is removed. The period “.” at the end of routine use (8) is replaced with a semicolon (;), and
“(9) Provide information or records to United States intelligence agencies in the conduct of intelligence or counterintelligence activities, including analysis, to protect against international terrorism.”
Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comment.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507. The Office of Thrift Supervision within the Department of the Treasury will submit the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. Today, OTS is soliciting public comments on the proposal.
Submit written comments on or before July 23, 2002.
Send comments, referring to the collection by title of the proposal or by OMB approval number, to Information Collection Comments, Chief Counsel's Office, Office of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552; send a facsimile transmission to (202) 906-6518; or send an e-mail to
You can request additional information about this proposed information collection from Nadine Washington, Information Systems, Administration & Finance, (202) 906-6706, Office of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552.
OTS may not conduct or sponsor an information collection, and respondents are not required to respond to an information collection, unless the information collection displays a currently valid OMB control number. As part of the approval process, we invite comments on the following information collection.
Comments should address one or more of the following points:
a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of OTS;
b. The accuracy of OTS's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection;
c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
d. Ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use information technology.
We will summarize the comments that we receive and include them in the OTS request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this notice, OTS is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
As required by law, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is hereby giving notice of cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) in certain benefit rates and income limitations. These COLAs affect the pension, parents' dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC), and spina bifida, and birth defects programs. These adjustments are based on the rise in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) during the one-year period ending September 30, 2001. VA is also giving notice of the maximum amount of reimbursement that may be paid for headstones or markers purchased in lieu of Government-furnished headstones or markers in Fiscal Year 2002, which began on October 1, 2001.
These COLAs are effective December 1, 2001. The headstone or marker allowance rate is effective October 1, 2001.
Paul Trowbridge, Consultant, Compensation and Pension Service (212B), Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 273-7218.
Under 38 U.S.C. 2306(d), VA may provide reimbursement for the cost of non-Government headstones or markers at a rate equal to the actual cost or the average actual cost of Government-furnished headstones or markers during the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year in which the non-Government headstone or marker was purchased, whichever is less.
Section 8041 of Pub. L. 101-508 amended 38 U.S.C. 2306(d) to eliminate the payment of the monetary allowance in lieu of VA-provided headstone or
The average actual cost of Government-furnished headstones or markers during any fiscal year is determined by dividing the sum of VA costs during that fiscal year for procurement, transportation, and miscellaneous administration, inspection and support staff by the total number of headstones and markers procured by VA during that fiscal year and rounding to the nearest whole dollar amount.
The average actual cost of Government-furnished headstones or markers for Fiscal Year 2001 under the above computation method was $109. Therefore, effective October 1, 2001, the maximum rate of reimbursement for non-Government headstones or markers purchased during Fiscal Year 2002 is $109.
Under the provisions of 38 U.S.C. 5312 and section 306 of Pub. L. 95-588, VA is required to increase the benefit rates and income limitations in the pension and parents' DIC programs by the same percentage, and effective the same date, as increases in the benefit amounts payable under title II of the Social Security Act. The increased rates and income limitations are also required to be published in the
The Social Security Administration has announced that there will be a 2.6 percent cost-of-living increase in Social Security benefits effective December 1, 2001. However, the actual increase reflected in this document will be slightly greater than 2.6% to compensate for an error in the calculation of the 1999 Consumer Price Index (CPI). The 2.6% COLA effective December 1, 2001, has been recalculated on the basis of a 2.5% (as opposed to 2.4%) December 1, 1999, COLA. This adjustment was mandated by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554) which requires that each Federal agency that administers an applicable Federal benefit program compensate beneficiaries for the shortfall caused by the December 1, 1999 CPI error. Therefore, applying the COLA factors as indicated above and rounding up in accordance with 38 CFR 3.29, the following increased rates and income limitations for the VA pension and parents' DIC programs will be effective December 1, 2001:
DIC shall be paid monthly to parents of a deceased veteran in the following amounts (38 U.S.C. 1315):
The rates in this table are also applicable in the case of one surviving parent who has remarried, computed on the basis of the combined income of the parent and spouse, if this would be a greater benefit than that specified in Table 2 for one parent.
Section 421 of Public Law 104-204 added a new chapter 18 to title 38, United States Code, authorizing VA to provide certain benefits, including a monthly monetary allowance, to children born with
Section 401 of Public Law 106-419 authorizes the payment of monetary benefits to, or on behalf of, children of female Vietnam veterans born with certain birth defects. Rates are subject to adjustment under the provisions of 38 U.S.C. 5312, which provides for the adjustment of certain VA benefit rates whenever there is an increase in benefit amounts payable under title II of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401
The Department of Veterans Affairs gives notice under Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that a meeting of the Scientific Review and Evaluation Board for Health Services Research and Development Service will be held at the Crowne Plaza Hotel, 14th and K Streets, NW., Washington, DC, from June 19 through 21, 2002. The Nursing Research Initiative review will convene on June 19, from 1 p.m. until 5 p.m. The investigator Initiated Research review will convene on June 19, from 7 p.m. until 9 p.m., on June 20, from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m. and on June 21, from 8 a.m. until 4 p.m. The purpose of the meeting is to review research and development applications concerned with the measurement and evaluation of health care services and with testing new methods of health care delivery and management, and nursing research. Applications are reviewed for scientific and technical merit. Recommendations regarding funding are prepared for the Chief Research and Development Officer.
This meeting will be open to the public at the start of the June 19 session for approximately one half-hour to cover administrative matters and to discuss the general status of program. The closed portion of the meeting involves discussion, examination, reference to, and oral review of staff and consultant critiques of research protocols and similar documents. During this portion of the meeting, discussion and recommendations will include qualifications of the personnel conducting the studies (the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy), as well as research information (the premature disclosure of which would be likely to frustrate significantly the implementation of proposed agency action regarding such research projects). As provided by the subsection 10(d) of Public Law 92-463, as amended by Public Law 94-409, closing portions of these meetings is in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(c)(6) and (9)(B).
Those who are planning to attend the open session or wishing further information should contact Dr. Martha Bryan, Assistant Director, Scientific Review (124F), Health Services Research and Development Service, Department of Veterans Affairs, 1400 Eye Street, NW., Suite 780, Washington, DC at (202) 408-3665.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the National Research Advisory Council will meet at the Hyatt Dulles, 2300 Dulles Corner Boulevard, Herndon, VA 20171, on June 20, 2002, from 8:30 a.m. until 4 p.m. The meeting is open to the public. The purpose of the Council is to provide external advice and review for VA's research mission.
The meeting will begin with opening remarks and an overview by the Council Chairman. The Council will receive informational briefings on the VA Health Services Research Program, human subjects protection issues in VA and the peer review process.
Any member of the public wishing to attend the meeting or further information should contact Ms. Karen Scott, Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Research and Development (12C2), 801 I Street, NW., Washington, DC at (202) 565-8381.
By Direction of the Secretary.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that a meeting of the President's Task Force to Improve Health Care Delivery for Our Nation's Veterans is scheduled for Wednesday, June 5, 2002, beginning at 9 a.m. and adjourning at 4 p.m. and Thursday, June 6, 2002, beginning at 8:30 a.m. and adjourning at 11:30 a.m. The June 5 session will be held in the Horizon Ballroom of the Ronald Reagan Building International Trade Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The June 6 session will be held in the First Floor Conference Room of the VFW Memorial Building, 200 Maryland Avenue, NE., Washington, DC. Both sessions are open to the general public.
The purpose of the President's Task Force to Improve Health Care Delivery for Our Nation's Veterans is to:
(a) Identify ways to improve benefits and services for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) beneficiaries and Department of Defense (DoD) military retirees who are also eligible for benefits from VA, through better coordination of the activities of the two departments;
(b) Identify opportunities to remove barriers that impede VA and DoD coordination, including budgeting processes, timely billing, cost accounting, information technology, and reimbursement; and
(c) Identify opportunities through partnership between VA and DoD, to maximize the use of resources and infrastructure, including buildings, information technology and data sharing systems, procurement of supplies, equipment and services.
On the morning of June 5, the Vision Work Group and the Leadership Work Group will brief the Committee. During the afternoon session, the Benefits and Services Work Group, Resources and Budgeting Work Group, and Pharmaceuticals Work Group will brief the Committee. On the morning of June 6, the Acquisition and Procurement
Interested parties can provide written comments to Mr. Dan Amon, Communications Director, President's Task Force to Improve Health Care Delivery for Our Nation's Veterans, 1401 Wilson Boulevard, 4th Floor, Arlington, Virginia 22209.
By Direction of the Secretary.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Structural Safety of Department of Veterans Affairs Facilities will be held on Thursday, June 6, 2002, from 10 a.m. until 5 p.m., and on Friday, June 7, 2002, from 9 a.m. until 12:30 p.m., in Room 460, Export Import Bank, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The meeting is open to the public.
The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on matters of structural safety in the construction and remodeling of VA facilities and to recommend standards for use by VA in the construction and alteration of facilities as prescribed under Section 8105 of Title 38, United States Code.
On June 6, the Committee will review developments in the field of structural design, as they relate to seismic safety of buildings, and fire safety issues. On June 7, the Committee will vote on structural and fire safety issues for inclusion in VA's standards.
Those wishing to attend should contact Kristna K. Banga, Senior Structural Engineer, Facilities Quality Service, Office of Facilities Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, at (202) 565-9370.
By Direction of the Secretary.
Rule document 01-31797 was inadvertently published in the Proposed Rules section in the issue of Thursday, December 27, 2001, appearing on page 66867. It should have appeared in the Rules and Regulations Section.
In proposed rule document 02-12429 beginning on page 35083 in the issue of Friday, May 17, 2002, make the following correction:
On page 35083, in the second column, under the heading
In proposed rule document 02-12022 beginning on page 34865 in the issue of Thursday, May 16, 2002, make the following correction:
On page 34865, first column, fifth line, “not” should read “now”.
In rule document 02-8963 beginning on page 18988 in the issue of Wednesday, April 17, 2002, make the following corrections:
On page 19016, in the “JOINT AND LAST SURVIVOR TABLE”, the table is corrected in part to read as follows.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Final rule.
We are adopting amendments to the rules that govern our Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval (EDGAR) system. These amendments will require foreign private issuers and foreign governments to file electronically through the EDGAR system most of their securities documents, including registration statements under the Securities Act of 1933 and registration statements, reports and other documents under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. By mandating the electronic filing of foreign issuers' securities documents on EDGAR, we hope to realize the same investor benefits and the same efficiencies in information transmission, dissemination, retrieval and analysis achieved since we mandated EDGAR filing for domestic issuers in 1993. We also are adopting rule amendments to clarify when an electronic or paper filer may submit an English summary instead of an English translation of a foreign language document. We are further eliminating the current requirement that any first-time EDGAR filer, domestic or foreign, submit a paper copy of its electronic filing to the Commission. Finally, we are permitting a national securities exchange to file voluntarily on EDGAR a Form 25, which reports the delisting of a class of a company's securities.
Please submit three copies of your comments to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549-0609. You also may submit your comments electronically at the following e-mail address: rule-comments@sec.gov. Your comment letter should refer to File No. S7-18-01; include this file number in the subject line if you use electronic mail. We will make comment letters available for public inspection and copying in our Public Reference Room, 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549. We will post electronically submitted comment letters on our Internet web site (http://www.sec.gov).
Elliot B. Staffin, Special Counsel, Office of International Corporate Finance, Division of Corporation Finance, by telephone at (202) 942-2990, or in writing at U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549.
We are adopting rule amendments that will rescind Rule 601
EDGAR is the electronic data gathering, analysis and retrieval system
When we launched the operational phase of EDGAR in 1993,
We expect EDGAR filing requirements for foreign issuers to result in the following benefits:
• More rapid dissemination of, and easier access to, financial and other material information about foreign issuers than under our current paper filing system, which will facilitate the following of foreign filers' securities by investors, analysts and others while enhancing market exposure for these securities;
• Increased efficiencies in the filing process, which will significantly reduce the filing time required under traditional methods of paper delivery, while offering foreign filers a secure and reliable method of delivery; and
• More efficient storage, retrieval, and analysis of financial and other material information about foreign filers than under the current paper and microfiche regime, which will not only facilitate staff review of a particular foreign issuer's registration statement or report but also enhance the Commission's ability to study and address issues that confront foreign issuers.
In the initial operational phase of EDGAR, with the Internet relatively undeveloped compared to today, electronic filers could only transmit their documents directly to the Commission over long distance telephone lines and not over the Internet.
Since that time, many advances in information and telecommunications technology have occurred that have dramatically increased Internet use by businesses, consumers, investors, and government agencies. These advances have transformed the Internet into one of the principal means for the rapid dissemination and retrieval of information. Because of these advances, most foreign private issuers that are Exchange Act reporting companies already have electronically formatted their financial statements and other material information either for presentation on their web sites or to comply with the requirements of their home country securities commissions.
In addition, today a foreign issuer that seeks to file electronically with the Commission is likely to be able to transmit its electronically formatted documents to us over the Internet through the use of an Internet service provider, thereby saving in long distance telecommunications transmission costs. Moreover, a foreign issuer wanting filing assistance is now more likely to be able to use a local filing agent, thanks to the global expansion of financial printers and consulting firms that are knowledgeable about the Commission's EDGAR requirements.
Furthermore, many foreign filers should today experience reduced EDGAR start-up costs because they have already achieved a level of technological proficiency. These initial costs include the costs associated with hiring an information technology team or training existing employees to be technologically proficient, hiring a filing agent, hiring an Internet service provider, and preparing the documents for electronic formatting. Many foreign companies have already assembled an information technology team to present their financial and business information on their web sites. Many of these employees or agents are likely to be familiar with HTML, which is a dominant language of the Internet. Because EDGAR now accepts documents formatted in a version of HTML as well as in ASCII, this familiarity with HTML should reduce the time it takes for the information technology teams of many foreign issuers to learn the EDGAR system.
Investors have also come to expect electronic access to financial and business information about public companies, regardless of their country of origin, and to financial information about foreign governments.
On September 28, 2001, we proposed rule amendments that would require foreign private issuers
However, a number of commenters also expressed concern about one or more aspects of the proposed amendments. The issues that generated the most discussion were:
• The proposed elimination of the option to provide an English summary or version in lieu of a full English translation of a foreign language document required as an exhibit or other attachment to a filing;
• The requirement that an officer or official of an issuer, whether foreign or domestic, certify in writing that an English translation is a fair and accurate one;
• The proposed mandated EDGAR filing of Form 6-K reports except for Form 6-K reports submitted to furnish a foreign issuer's annual report to security holders;
• The proposed four month transition period; and
• Whether the Commission should expand its EDGAR filing hours beyond the current 8:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. ET period.
Most of the rule amendments are adopted as proposed. For example, most of the same Securities Act and Exchange Act forms that were the subject of mandated EDGAR filing under the proposed rules will be the subject of mandated EDGAR filing under the adopted rules as well. However, we have responded to a number of comments and made significant changes to the proposed requirements.
The adopted amendments will require the electronic filing of:
• Foreign private issuers' Securities Act registration statements and Exchange Act registration statements and reports, including Form 6-K except as discussed below;
• Foreign governments' Securities Act registration statements and Exchange Act registration statements and reports;
• Multijurisdictional Disclosure System (“MJDS”) forms and schedules filed by Canadian issuers;
• Statements of beneficial ownership on Schedules 13D and 13G and tender offer schedules that pertain to the securities of a foreign issuer, whether filed by a foreign or domestic person;
• Form CB, the form used for cross-border rights offers, exchange offers and business combinations that are exempt from the tender offer rules or Securities Act registration, if the filer is an Exchange Act reporting company;
• Most Trust Indenture Act forms.
The adopted amendments will permit either the electronic or paper filing of:
• A Form 6-K report if the sole purpose of the Form 6-K is to submit the foreign private issuer's attached annual report to security holders, or an attached “statutory” report under specified circumstances, as discussed below;
• Form CB if the filer is not an Exchange Act reporting company;
• Reports that specified supranational entities, such as the World Bank, must file with the Commission.
The adopted amendments will also:
• Continue to require documents submitted under Exchange Act Rule 12g3-2(b) to be in paper only; and
• Eliminate the requirement that a domestic or foreign filer must submit a paper copy of its first electronic filing.
We adopted the following principal changes to the proposed rules at the request of commenters:
• We have amended both the electronic and paper filing rules to permit the use of an English summary for specified categories of foreign language documents included in Division of Corporation Finance filings and submissions instead of requiring an English translation for all foreign language documents.
• We have adopted a rule that provides guidance regarding what constitutes an acceptable English summary.
• We have eliminated the proposed written certification requirement regarding the fairness and accuracy of an English translation for both foreign and domestic filers.
• We are permitting the submission of the unabridged foreign language document in paper to accompany an English summary or translation or when permitted by the applicable form;
• We are permitting either the electronic or paper submission of a “statutory” report, as discussed below, or other document by a foreign private issuer under cover of Form 6-K as long as the report or other document is not a press release, is not required to be and has not been distributed to the foreign private issuer's security holders, and, if discussing a material event, including the disclosure of annual audited or interim consolidated financial results, has already been the subject of a Form 6-K submission or other Commission filing on EDGAR.
• We have amended Form 6-K to clarify that a foreign private issuer is not required to submit under cover of Form 6-K an offering circular or prospectus that pertains solely to a foreign offering, even when an English translation or English summary is available, if the issuer has already submitted on EDGAR a Form 6-K, Form 20-F, or other Commission filing that reported material information disclosed in the offering circular or prospectus.
• We are permitting an MJDS filer to include in an electronic filing that is an HTML document both French and English text in an exhibit to or part of a registration statement, annual report, or tender offer schedule if the filer included the French text to comply with the requirements of the Canadian securities administrator or other Canadian authority.
In addition, in response to commenters who urged a transition period longer than the proposed four months, we are providing a transition period of almost six months. The rules will take effect on Monday, November 4, 2002.
We are adopting as proposed the amendments to Regulation S-T that will generally require foreign private issuers and foreign governments to file their Securities Act and Exchange Act documents with us on EDGAR.
• Revise Rule 100(a) by removing the phrase “except for foreign private issuers and foreign governments” to state that Regulation S-T applies to all registrants whose filings are subject to review by the Division of Corporation Finance;
• Eliminate the phrase “foreign private issuers and foreign governments” in Rule 100(c) to clarify that mandated electronic filing applies to any party that files a document jointly with, or as a third party filer with respect to, a registrant that is subject to mandated electronic filing;
• Eliminate as unnecessary Rule 601 in its entirety since the adopted amendments will generally extend electronic filing requirements to foreign private issuers and foreign governments, and since we have programmed the EDGAR system to provide an electronic form type for any foreign form that currently lacks one.
Upon the effectiveness of these amendments, mandated EDGAR filing will apply to a foreign issuer's documents filed or submitted under the Securities Act and Exchange Act unless otherwise provided by Regulation S-T. Moreover, because these amendments will generally subject foreign private issuers and foreign governments to Regulation S-T's electronic filing requirements, both domestic and foreign entities will have to file on EDGAR any joint or third party filing that relates to a foreign issuer.
As proposed, the adopted amendments will require foreign private issuers
Two commenters opposed extending EDGAR filing requirements to Form F-6 registration statements. Both stated that the Form F-6 registration statement contains little issuer information and principally consists of the attached depositary agreement, which tends to be fairly standard from one registration statement to the next. Consequently, according to these commenters, mandated EDGAR filing would increase the preparation costs of depositaries and foreign private issuers while yielding little benefit to investors.
We disagree with this conclusion. While the Form F-6 registration statement may principally consist of the depositary agreement, this document is the governing instrument that sets forth the rights of ADR holders concerning
We are revising the General Instructions to the Securities Act forms and Form 20-F to reference Regulation S-T and provide Commission telephone numbers that a foreign private issuer may call to obtain EDGAR access codes or to obtain assistance with EDGAR technical concerns or EDGAR rules.
The Division of Corporation Finance (“Division”) currently permits first-time foreign registrants, upon request, to submit paper drafts of their initial Securities Act or Exchange Act registration statements for staff review on a non-public basis.
In response to the above comments, the mandated electronic filing rules for foreign issuers will not affect the Division's confidential submission policy. Confidential submissions under the policy must be in paper format. When a foreign issuer later publicly files its registration statement under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, the public filing must be in electronic format. At that time, the Division also will require a foreign issuer to file in electronic format as correspondence all letters in response to staff comments on the draft materials and other related correspondence.
The adopted rule amendments will require the electronic submission of most reports on Form 6-K,
We have amended Form 6-K to permit a foreign issuer to submit a home country report or other document in paper under cover of a Form 6-K as long as the report or other document:
• Is not a press release;
• Is not required to be and has not been distributed to the foreign issuer's security holders; and
• If discussing a material event, including disclosure of annual audited or interim consolidated financial results, has already been the subject of a Form 6-K submission or other Commission filing on EDGAR.
We added this exception in response to comments noting that a foreign issuer must submit a Form 6-K to report material information that the foreign issuer:
• Makes public or is required to make public under the laws of its home country;
• Files or is required to file with its home country stock exchange and which is made public by that exchange; or
• Distributes or is required to distribute to its security holders.
According to these commenters, because of their home country regulations and customs, during any given year, most foreign issuers submit numerous Form 6-K reports, only some of which are the equivalent of the domestic company Form 10-Q reports that disclose interim financial information. Because foreign issuers must submit these home country “statutory” reports and other documents on Form 6-K promptly after they are made public in the home country,
We are also amending Form 6-K to provide a box for each of the permitted paper filing rules that a foreign issuer must check in order to facilitate the processing of the paper Form 6-K. The amended Form 6-K further references the requirements of Regulation S-T and provides telephone numbers that a foreign issuer may call for assistance concerning EDGAR.
The amendments will require foreign governments to file on EDGAR their Securities Act registration statements on Schedule B.
Two commenters opposed extending mandated EDGAR filing to foreign governments primarily on the grounds that, because of language barriers, time zone differences, and cumbersome internal approval procedures, foreign governments face logistical and other difficulties in meeting their disclosure and reporting obligations under the U.S. federal securities laws. One of the commenters also noted that foreign governments have no experience in filing on EDGAR since they have not been able to do so even voluntarily. Accordingly, these two commenters urged the Commission to permit but not require foreign governments to file their securities documents on EDGAR.
After considering these comments, we have determined to adopt mandated EDGAR filing for foreign governments as proposed. We do not believe that the cited difficulties faced by foreign governments are significantly different than those that foreign private issuers may face when preparing their Securities Act and Exchange Act documents for filing with the Commission. Moreover, the same technological advances discussed above should serve to reduce the costs of EDGAR as much for foreign governments as for foreign private issuers. In addition, other accommodations for foreign issuers adopted or discussed in this release should further serve to diminish any difficulties confronted by foreign governments.
We are also adopting, as proposed, a requirement that a foreign government provide the following “electronic filing” information in its Schedule B registration statement:
• The foreign filer must state that the SEC maintains an Internet site that contains reports, statements and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC; and
• The foreign filer must disclose the address for the SEC Internet site at (http://www.sec.gov).
The adopted amendments will apply to MJDS filers as proposed. Under the new rule amendments, Canadian issuers that choose to use the MJDS must file electronically:
• Their Securities Act registration statements on Forms F-7, F-8, F-9, F-10, and F-80;
• Their Exchange Act registration statements and annual reports on Form 40-F; and
• Schedules 13E-4F, 14D-1F and 14D-9F, the tender offer forms under the MJDS.
Adopted as proposed, the amendments will mandate the filing on EDGAR of third party forms, whether filed by a domestic or foreign company, that pertain to a foreign private issuer, since a third party filer will no longer be able to claim an EDGAR exemption based on the underlying EDGAR exemption for foreign private issuers. Thus, domestic or foreign persons will have to file on EDGAR their Schedules 13D or 13G that pertain to the securities of foreign private issuers. Similarly, domestic and foreign bidders will have to file on EDGAR their Schedules TO
Form CB is an exemptive form that both foreign and domestic persons must file when engaging in specified rights offerings, exchange offers or business combinations with respect to a foreign private issuer.
• If the party filing or submitting the Form CB is an Exchange Act reporting company; or
• If the foreign company that is the subject of the Form CB transaction is an Exchange Act reporting company.
Most commenters that addressed this proposal urged that we generally permit rather than require the EDGAR filing of Form CB in order to encourage the use of the Form CB and the consequent participation of U.S. security holders in a cross-border transaction. After considering these comments, we have determined to require EDGAR filing for Form CB only when the party filing or submitting the Form CB is an Exchange Act reporting company. In most instances the party filing or submitting the Form CB will be the issuer, acquiror or bidder in the Form CB transaction. In some instances, however, the subject company of an exchange offer, business combination, or tender offer may elect to file or submit the Form CB in conjunction with or on behalf of the acquiror or bidder. In any of these instances, because the filer will already be familiar with EDGAR filing requirements, mandating the filing or submission of the Form CB on EDGAR should not pose an undue burden.
The amendments, as adopted, will also provide that a party that is not an Exchange Act reporting company may at its option file or submit the Form CB on
We are amending the cover page of Form CB to require a filer to indicate whether it is filing the Form CB in paper as permitted by the newly adopted rule. This will facilitate the proper processing of Form CB.
The amendments also will require that foreign private issuers file electronically, as proposed, two auxiliary forms, Forms F-X and F-N. Form F-X is the form for designating a U.S. agent for service of process that is required for an MJDS filer and specified other foreign filers.
There are two exceptions to the electronic filing requirement adopted for Form F-X. The first pertains to foreign issuers that must file Form F-X because they are Form CB filers. Since the amendments only require the filing or submission of Form CB on EDGAR when the filer is an Exchange Act reporting company, we have adopted the same requirement for the Form F-X that a foreign company must file along with a Form CB.
The second Form F-X exception pertains to the requirement that a Canadian issuer submit a Form F-X when qualifying an offering statement pursuant to the provisions of Regulation A.
As with Form CB, we are amending Form F-X to require the filer to indicate whether it is filing the Form F-X in paper as permitted by the new rule amendments. This will facilitate the proper processing of the Form F-X.
The amendments, adopted as proposed, will require the filing on EDGAR of the following statements and applications regarding trustee eligibility and indenture qualification
• Forms T-1 and T-2
• Form T-3
• Form T-6
We proposed to permit, but not require, the submission on EDGAR of the reports that designated supranational entities are required to file with the Commission. Currently Regulation S-T permits only one of the supranational entities, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (“World Bank”), to file on EDGAR its annual and periodic reports and its reports concerning proposed distributions of its primary obligations.
• The Inter-American Development Bank;
• The Asian Development Bank;
• The African Development Bank;
• The International Finance Corporation;
• The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
As proposed, the adopted amendments will afford to foreign filers the same treatment given to domestic filers regarding exhibits under Rule 102 of Regulation S-T.
We are also adopting the amendment to Regulation S-T Rule 303(b),
The adopted amendments do not alter the provisions governing the availability of hardship exemptions under Regulation S-T, as proposed. A foreign issuer that meets the requirements of Section 201 or 202 of Regulation S-T
As is the case with domestic filers, we expect to grant hardship exemptions for foreign issuers infrequently.
We proposed to continue our current practice of requiring foreign private issuers to submit on paper their applications and supporting documents for the exemption pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 12g3-2(b).
Regulation S-T Rule 306 governs the treatment of foreign language documents for electronic filings. This rule currently prohibits the filing of foreign language documents in electronic format. It also requires the electronic submission of a fair and accurate English translation of any document, required as an exhibit or attachment to a filing, that is in a foreign language.
We received the largest number of comments on this proposed treatment of foreign language documents of all the issues raised by the proposing release. Nineteen commenters generally opposed the elimination of the English summary or version option on the grounds that the costs of translating into English every foreign language document required as an exhibit or attachment to a filing would be excessive and constitute an undue burden on foreign issuers. Several of these commenters also stated that the elimination of the English summary or version option would cause delays in the completion, and preclude the timely filing, of registration statements and reports.
However, many of these commenters also agreed with our position that, as reflected in current Commission practice, some exhibits are too important to be the subject of an English summary or version. Most of these commenters urged us to adopt a rule that would codify this position by specifying those documents that could and could not be the subject of an English summary or version. Several of these commenters also agreed with our examples of exhibit categories that are too important to be the subject of an English summary or version.
After consideration of the above comments, we have determined to adopt a limited English summary option for Division of Corporation Finance filings and submissions that is the same for both electronic and paper filers and provides guidance on which exhibits may be summarized. We are amending Regulation S-T Rule 306(a) to provide that all electronic filings or submissions must be in the English language, except as otherwise provided by this rule.
We also are amending the foreign language rules to provide that a Division of Corporation Finance filer must not summarize the following documents (and their amendments):
• Articles of incorporation, memoranda of association, bylaws, and other comparable documents, whether original or restated;
• Instruments defining the rights of security holders, including indentures qualified or to be qualified under the Trust Indenture Act of 1939;
• Voting agreements, including voting trust agreements;
• Contracts to which directors, officers, promoters, voting trustees or security holders named in a registration statement are parties;
• Contracts upon which a filer's business is substantially dependent;
• Audited annual and interim consolidated financial information; and
• Any document that is or will be the subject of a confidential treatment request under Securities Act Rule 406
This list largely comprises the examples of important foreign language documents mentioned in the proposing release. However, we have added to this list two categories of material contract exhibits: contracts upon which a filer's business is substantially dependent and related party contracts.
We have narrowed the scope of one exhibit category on the “mandatory English translation” list in response to comments. In the proposing release, we included exhibits containing financial statements on this list.
We are further amending the foreign language rules to provide that a Division of Corporation Finance filer may submit an English summary instead of an English translation of a foreign language document as an exhibit or attachment to a filing as long as the foreign language document does not consist of any of the proscribed subject matter enumerated in these rules
• Fairly and accurately summarize the terms of each material provision of the foreign language document; and
• Fairly and accurately describe the terms that have been omitted or abridged.
These conditions are consistent with current staff practice.
Under these amendments, electronic and paper filers must provide either an English translation or English summary, if permitted, of a foreign language document. A filer will no longer be able to provide an English “version” or something that falls short of being a fair and accurate English summary as required by the above rules. Although some commenters requested that we retain the English “version” option, we have decided to eliminate it because of the vagueness of the term “version” and the general lack of utility that has characterized those abbreviated English “versions” of foreign language documents that foreign issuers have occasionally submitted.
Under the proposed amendments, a foreign private issuer would have to provide an English translation of any report or other document that was in a foreign language and required to be submitted under Form 6-K whether in electronic or paper format. Some commenters objected to this proposal because it would eliminate a foreign issuer's ability to submit under Form 6-K:
• An English summary or version of a foreign language press release or communication distributed directly to shareholders; and
• A brief description of any other foreign language report or document, such as a statutory report or an offering circular or prospectus relating solely to an offering outside the United States (a “foreign” offering), if no English language translation, summary or version is available.
Noting that a foreign issuer typically submits several Form 6-Ks annually, these commenters expressed concern that an “English translation only” requirement would cause a foreign issuer to incur excessive translation expenses and delay the filing of a Form 6-K. Accordingly, these commenters requested that we retain the current version of Form 6-K's instructions regarding the treatment of foreign language documents in their entirety.
However, we received other comments that distinguished between types of documents regularly submitted under Form 6-K. For example, one foreign firm stated that, because press releases are typically short and are already made available in English by many foreign private issuers as a matter of course, it would not object to a requirement to provide a full English translation for a press release submitted under Form 6-K. Another commenter noted the important distinction that General Instruction D made between press releases and direct shareholder communications on the one hand, and statutory reports and other “public information” documents on the other, when urging us to require the EDGAR submission of the former but not the latter category of documents.
After considering these comments, we have determined to retain the English summary option for some of the documents submitted under Form 6-K. Therefore, we are amending Form 6-K General Instruction D to provide that a foreign private issuer must submit a full English translation of the following documents under Form 6-K whether submitted electronically or in paper:
• Press releases;
• Communications and other documents distributed directly to security holders for each class of securities for which a reporting obligation under the Exchange Act exists, except for offering circulars and prospectuses that relate entirely to foreign offerings; and
• Documents disclosing annual audited or interim consolidated financial information.
We have included direct shareholder communications in the “English translation only” group of documents because when a foreign company determines to communicate with its shareholders, the communication is presumably of sufficient importance to warrant requiring electronic access to that document. Moreover, like press releases, a foreign private issuer will more likely than not prepare an English translation of direct shareholder communications for its U.S. shareholders as a matter of course.
New Instruction D to Form 6-K further permits an issuer to furnish under cover of a Form 6-K,
A few commenters expressed their concern that, by eliminating the “English summary, version or brief description” option, we would be requiring the full English translation of offering circulars or prospectuses that pertained solely to foreign offerings. In response to these comments, we are further amending Form 6-K General Instruction D to clarify that a foreign private issuer is not required to submit under cover of Form 6-K an offering circular or prospectus that pertains solely to a foreign offering, even when an English translation or English summary is available, if the issuer has already submitted a Form 6-K, Form 20-F or other Commission filing on EDGAR that reported material information disclosed in the offering circular or prospectus. If an issuer has not previously submitted such a filing, the issuer may submit in electronic format under a Form 6-K an English translation or English summary of the portion of the foreign offering circular or prospectus that discloses new material information.
Under the adopted amendments, a foreign private issuer may no longer submit a brief description of a foreign language document under cover of Form 6-K. We have determined to eliminate the “brief description” option for the same reasons that we are eliminating the “English version” option.
We solicited comment on whether we should enable a foreign issuer to submit a paper copy of the unabridged foreign language document under cover of Form SE when electronically filing an English summary of the document. Several commenters supported this option, noting the legal importance of the unabridged foreign language version.
Accordingly, we are amending Regulation S-T Rule 306 to provide that a party may at its option submit a paper copy of the unabridged foreign language document under cover of Form SE when electronically submitting an English summary or English translation of that document.
Regulation S-T Rule 306 currently requires a designated officer of an electronic filer to certify in writing that a filed English translation is a fair and accurate translation of a foreign language document.
Ten commenters opposed this proposal, primarily on the grounds that the written representation requirement is unnecessary because of the signature requirements and liability provisions under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act. We generally agree with these commenters and are eliminating the written representation requirement for both foreign and domestic issuers, whether filing electronically or in paper.
As proposed, newly adopted Regulation S-T Rule 306 will continue to require a foreign government or its political subdivision to file electronically a fair and accurate English translation of its latest annual budget as Exhibit B in Form 18 or Exhibit (c) in Form 18-K, but only if an English translation is available. If an English translation is not available, the adopted amendment will require a foreign government or political subdivision to submit a copy of the foreign language version of its latest annual budget in paper under cover of Form SE,
Some commenters generally expressed their interest in being able to file foreign language documents on EDGAR.
Currently EDGAR official filings can only use foreign language characters that are recognized by HTML version 3.2.
In order to reflect the amended treatment of foreign language documents, we are amending the Securities Act and Exchange Act forms by adding explanatory paragraphs stating that:
• The registration statement or report must be in the English language, as required by the foreign language rules discussed above;
• If the registration statement or report requires the inclusion, as an exhibit or attachment, of a document that is in a foreign language, the issuer must provide instead either an English translation or an English summary of the foreign language document in accordance with the foreign language rules; and
• The issuer may submit a copy of the unabridged foreign language document along with the English translation or English summary as permitted by the foreign language rules.
We are similarly amending the MJDS forms and schedules
Form CB currently permits the submission of English summaries of documents that, under the home jurisdiction requirements, must be made public but need not be disseminated to security holders.
We are amending Form CB to conform it to the adopted rules concerning the treatment of foreign language documents. We are also amending Regulation S-T Rule 311 to provide that a party may submit a copy of an unabridged foreign language document under cover of Form SE if permitted by the applicable form as well as when submitting an English translation or summary.
We proposed that the amendments would become effective for filings or submissions made four months from their date of adoption. Eleven commenters responded that this four month transition period was too short. In response to these comments, we have determined to adopt an effective date of Monday, November 4, 2002. The new rule amendments will apply to any securities documents filed or submitted on or after November 4, 2002. We believe that approximately six months is a more than sufficient period to enable a foreign issuer to prepare itself to use the EDGAR system and electronically format a document for the foreign issuer's first EDGAR submission or hire a filing agent to conduct or assist in the EDGAR submission.
We also proposed to permit registrants that have filed their registration statements in paper before the proposed rules' effective date to continue to file their pre-effective amendments in paper for a limited period of time, for example, one month, following the proposed rules' effective date until their registration statements are effective.
The Commission currently accepts EDGAR filings by direct transmission from 8:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time or Eastern Daylight Saving Time, whichever is in effect, every day except for Saturdays, Sundays and federal holidays.
Although we did not propose to change the Commission's filing hours for electronic filings made by direct transmission, we solicited comment regarding the adequacy of the Commission's EDGAR filing hours.
In consideration of these comments, we are currently assessing the feasibility of extending the EDGAR filing hours for direct transmission filings. While we are aware that many foreign issuers use the assistance of filing agents based in the United States to submit their filings in a timely fashion, we also understand that this option may not be as readily available to other foreign issuers. We hope in the future to address further the issue of extending the EDGAR filing hours as part of our ongoing efforts to improve the EDGAR system.
As part of an ongoing assessment of some technical aspects of the EDGAR rules and the EDGAR system, we have determined to eliminate the requirement that an EDGAR filer must submit a paper copy of its first electronic filing to the Commission.
The amendments contain “collection of information” requirements within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction
As discussed in Part II above, we received several comment letters regarding the proposed amendments. We have revised the amendments in response to these comments. In particular, the adopted amendments permit the submission of an English summary of specified foreign language documents whereas the proposed amendments would have required a full English translation of any foreign language document required to be submitted as an exhibit or attachment to Securities Act and Exchange Act forms.
The titles of the information collections affected by the proposed amendments were the EDGAR Forms ID, ET, SE and TH,
We have based our estimates of the effects that the amendments will have on these information collections primarily on our review of actual filings of these forms, the forms' requirements, and on the most recently completed Paperwork Reduction Act submissions for these forms. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
Form F-1 (OMB Control No. 3235-0258) is used by a foreign private issuer to register its initial public offering or a subsequent offering of securities under the Securities Act. In addition to requiring the disclosure of material information about the registrant, Form F-1 also requires the attachment of numerous exhibits, including copies of the registrant's memoranda of association, articles of incorporation, and material contracts.
Form 20-F (OMB Control No. 3235-0288) is used by a foreign private issuer both to register a class of securities under the Exchange Act as well as to provide its annual report required under the Exchange Act. Like the Form F-1, Form 20-F also requires the filing of numerous exhibits.
Form 6-K (OMB Control No. 3235-0116) is used by a foreign private issuer to report material information that it:
• Makes or is required to make public under the laws of the jurisdiction of its incorporation, domicile or organization (its “home country”);
• Files or is required to file with its home country stock exchange that is made public by that exchange; or
• Distributes or is required to distribute to its security holders.
As a result of the adopted English summary provision described above, the reporting and cost burden estimates for Forms F-1 and 20-F have changed. Accordingly, we have revised the estimated information collection requirements that we initially submitted to the OMB. Regarding Form F-1, we have decreased by 39 hours our estimate of the total annual burden incurred by registrants in the preparation of a Form F-1 to 65,880 hours (from the previously estimated 65,919 hours). We also have decreased by $3435 the total annual costs attributed to the preparation of a Form F-1 by outside firms to $34,567,031 (from the previously estimated $34,570,466).
We have derived these estimates from the following revised assumptions. First, we have decreased by two our estimate of the number of registrants (five from the previously estimated seven) that will incur additional burden hours and costs for services pertaining to translating into English either all or some of a foreign language document for submission as either an English translation or English summary exhibit instead of an English “version” or “brief description.” Second, we have decreased by 12 our estimate of the number of additional burden hours (36 hours from the previously estimated 48 hours) that each of the five registrants will incur when preparing English translations or English summaries in accordance with the adopted amendments (for a total of 180 additional burden hours instead of the 336 hours previously estimated). We continue to expect that registrants will incur 25% of these additional burden hours (45 hours instead of the previously estimated 84 hours). Third, we have decreased by 5 the number of additional pages per filing (13 pages compared to the previously estimated 18 pages) that each registrant must translate at a cost of $75 per page. We continue to expect that outside firms will account for 75% of the translation costs resulting in $3656 of costs attributable to outside firms (rather than the previously estimated $7,091).
Regarding Form 20-F, we have decreased by 174 hours the total annual burden incurred by foreign private issuers in the preparation of a Form 20-F to 501,763 hours (from the previously estimated 501,937 hours). We further have decreased by $16,341 the total annual costs attributed to the preparation of the Form 20-F by outside firms to $263,194,113 (from the previously estimated $263,210,454).
We have derived these estimates from the following revised assumptions. First, while our estimate of the number (58) of foreign private issuers affected by the amendments remains the same, we have decreased by 12 our estimate of the number of additional burden hours (36 hours from the previously estimated 48 hours) that each of the affected issuers will incur when preparing English translations or English summaries in accordance with the adopted amendments (for a total of 2088 additional burden hours instead of the 2784 hours previously estimated). We continue to expect that foreign private issuers will incur 25% of these additional burden hours (522 hours instead of the previously estimated 696 hours). Second, we have decreased by five the number of additional pages per filing (13 pages compared to the previously estimated 18 pages) that each issuer must translate at a cost of $75 per
Regarding Form 6-K, we estimate that the amendments will cause an increase of 2477 burden hours resulting in a total of 25,477 hours (from the previous 23,000 hours). We further estimate that the adopted amendments will cause foreign private issuers to incur an aggregate increase of $165,150 in translation costs when preparing an English translation or summary exhibit for a Form 6-K, resulting in total costs of $12,240,150 (compared to the previous $12,075,000).
We have based our Form 6-K estimates on the following assumptions. First, we have increased the number of Form 6-K responses by 3161 to 14,661 (from the previous 11,500).
We are soliciting comment on the expected Paperwork Reduction Act effects of the adopted amendments. In particular, we solicit comment on the accuracy of our additional burden hour and cost estimates expected to result from the adopted amendments. We further request comment on whether the expected effects of the amendments discussed in this section are necessary for the proper performance of the Commission's functions, including whether the additional information garnered will have practical utility. In addition, we solicit comment on whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected. We further solicit comment on whether there are ways to minimize the burden of information collection on those foreign filers who will file the above forms, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Finally, we solicit comment on whether the amendments will have any effects on any other collection of information not previously identified in this section.
If you would like to submit comments on the collection of information requirements and expected effects, please direct them to the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, D.C. 20503. You should also send a copy of the comments to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549-0609, with reference to File No. S7-18-01. Requests for materials submitted to OMB by the Commission with regard to these collections of information should be in writing, refer to File No. S7-18-01, and be submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission, Records Management, Office of Filings and Information Services, 450 Fifth Street NW, Washington, DC 20549. OMB must make a decision concerning the affected collections of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this release. Consequently, in order to ensure that your comments achieve their fullest effect, you should submit comments to OMB within 30 days of this release's publication.
In the Proposing Release, we stated our expectation that the proposal would achieve the same benefits for investors, foreign issuers and others realized when we adopted the mandated EDGAR filing system for domestic filers in 1993. We further noted that we excluded foreign filers from mandated EDGAR filing in 1993 because we believed that they would incur higher costs from the implementation of EDGAR than those faced by domestic filers. As we explained, since then significant technological advances have occurred that, together with the recent modernization of EDGAR, should reduce EDGAR costs for foreign filers. Because of these developments, we believe that it is now appropriate to include foreign filers in our mandated EDGAR system.
We solicited comment on the expected benefits and costs and on any others that could result from adoption of EDGAR filing requirements for foreign issuers. We also requested data to quantify the costs and value of the benefits identified.
Most of the commenters expressed concern about specific aspects of the proposed amendments because of their expected costs that, according to these commenters, would pose an undue burden on foreign issuers.
• The proposed elimination of the “English summary or version” option that would require both an electronic and paper filer to provide a full English translation of a foreign language document required as an exhibit or other attachment to a filing or submission; and
• The proposed mandated EDGAR submission of all Form 6-K reports other than the Form 6-K submitted to deposit a foreign private issuer's attached annual report to security holders.
Only three of these commenters provided data to quantify the costs identified.
In response to these comments, we have reconsidered and revised the aspects of our rule proposal that have generated the most concern. In particular, we have:
• Amended both the electronic and paper filing rules to permit the use of an English summary for some foreign language documents instead of requiring an English translation for all foreign language documents;
• Eliminated the written certification requirement regarding the fairness and accuracy of an English translation for both domestic and foreign filers;
• Amended the electronic filing rules to permit either the electronic or paper submission of a foreign issuer's “statutory” report under Form 6-K in specified circumstances;
• Amended Form 6-K to permit the submission of an English summary of a statutory report or other foreign language document in specified circumstances in addition to those specified in the electronic and paper filing rules;
• Amended Form 6-K to clarify that a foreign private issuer is not required to submit under cover of Form 6-K an offering circular or prospectus that pertains solely to a foreign offering, even when an English translation or English summary is available, if the issuer has already submitted a Form 6-K that reported material information disclosed in the offering circular or prospectus.
Several commenters also expressed concern regarding our proposed mandated EDGAR filing of Form CB when either the filer or the subject company of the Form CB transaction is an Exchange Act reporting company. These commenters noted that, because this proposal would require the EDGAR submission of a Form CB by a foreign filer that was not an Exchange Act reporting company if the subject company was an Exchange Act reporting company, it would discourage the use of the Form CB. Because we found merit in these comments, we have revised our rule amendment to require the electronic filing of a Form CB only when the filer is an Exchange Act reporting company, regardless of the reporting status of the subject company.
The above revisions address most of the cost concerns expressed by the commenters. Consequently, while some foreign issuers will incur costs as a result of the adopted amendments, these costs will be less than those that would have resulted under the rule proposal. We further expect that the benefits of the adopted amendments will justify the resulting costs.
We expect that the adopted amendments will benefit investors, financial analysts and others by increasing the efficiency of retrieving and disseminating information about foreign issuers that file registration statements, periodic reports and other documents with the Commission, to the extent that these documents are not currently available through EDGAR.
Foreign issuers should further benefit from the increased efficiencies in the filing process resulting from the adopted amendments. By electronically transmitting their securities documents directly to the Commission, foreign issuers will avoid the uncertainties and delays that can occur with the manual delivery of paper filings. Foreign issuers also will benefit from no longer having to submit multiple copies of paper documents to the Commission. Foreign issuers will further benefit from the Commission's longer filing hours for the direct electronic transmission of documents, which will enable foreign issuers to file their securities documents directly via EDGAR until 10 p.m. Eastern Standard Time or Eastern Daylight Saving Time, whichever is in effect.
Both foreign issuers and investors should benefit from increased efficiencies in the Commission's storage, retrieval, and analysis of foreign issuer filings, which are expected to result from the adopted amendments. Because the Commission's staff will be able to retrieve and analyze information about foreign filers more readily than under our current paper system, mandated electronic filing for foreign issuers should facilitate both the staff's review of a particular foreign issuer's registration statement or report and its study of issues affecting most foreign filers. For example, the adopted amendments should enable Commission staff to access quickly a foreign registrant's Exchange Act reports that have been incorporated by reference into a Securities Act registration statement that is the subject of review. Because Commission staff must review these incorporated reports when conducting a full review of the Securities Act document, electronic access to all relevant reports should facilitate the timely completion of the review process for a foreign registrant.
The adopted amendments will also enable Commission staff to access rapidly registration statements, reports and related correspondence pertaining to other foreign issuers that are in the same geographic region or industry group as a foreign registrant. This electronic access should foster the development of consistent comments on issues that are common to foreign
Investors and members of the financial community will also benefit from the adopted amendments' requirement that foreign issuers provide full English translations of specified documents because of their importance in understanding the business and financial condition of, and corporate governance matters pertaining to, an issuer. Investors and others will also benefit from the adopted amendments' requirement that a foreign issuer disclose under cover of a Form 6-K new material information mentioned also in a statutory report, foreign offering circular, or other foreign language document before it may submit an English summary of the statutory report or offering circular. This requirement will serve to ensure the prompt dissemination of all material information about a foreign issuer in U.S. capital markets.
We are aware that many foreign issuers already post their financial statements in electronic format on their web sites. Nevertheless, we believe that mandated EDGAR filing for foreign issuers is beneficial to investors for the following reasons.
• Mandated EDGAR filing for foreign issuers will result in the Commission's creation of a central electronic repository for foreign filings that is free to anyone that has access to a computer linked to the Internet.
• Some foreign issuers have only posted on their web sites financial statements that meet their home country requirements and not the Commission's requirements.
• Many foreign issuers have electronically formatted their financial statements only in PDF for viewing on their web sites. PDF's search capabilities are not as extensive as those provided by the version of HTML that EDGAR filers may use to format electronically their documents.
We expect that the adopted amendments will result in some costs to foreign issuers. However, for the following reasons, we also expect that only a minority of foreign issuers will bear the full range of costs resulting from adoption of the amendments.
The expected costs consist of both initial and ongoing costs. Initial costs are those associated with the purchase of compatible computer equipment and software, including EDGAR software if obtained from a third-party vendor and not from the Commission's web site.
Ongoing costs are those associated with the electronic formatting and transmission of subsequent EDGAR filings, including amendments to a foreign issuer's initial EDGAR filing. An issuer may also incur future costs resulting from the training or hiring of employees regarding updated EDGAR filing requirements.
The magnitude of these costs for a foreign issuer will depend on its level of technological proficiency and its previous familiarity with EDGAR filing requirements.
For example, of the 1,310 foreign private issuers that were Exchange Act reporting companies as of December 31, 2000,
A much larger segment of Exchange Act reporting foreign private issuers already currently electronically format their financial statements in some fashion for public use. Of the total number of Exchange Act reporting companies as of December 31, 2000, 1,066 (approximately 81%) had electronically formatted their financial statements and other material information either for posting on their web site or to meet the requirements of their sovereign securities commission.
These foreign issuers have already incurred initial costs associated with the preparation of disclosure materials in an electronic format. They have already trained their employees or hired an in-house information technology team or a third party agent, such as an Internet services company or financial printer, to format electronically their financial statements and other documents of interest to investors. After obtaining the EDGAR software,
Currently EDGAR only accepts documents formatted in HTML 3.2 or in ASCII. Many Exchange Act reporting foreign issuers have formatted their financial statements only in PDF for presentation on their web sites or for submission to foreign securities commissions.
However, other reporting foreign issuers have presented their financial statements in some version of HTML on their web sites. These foreign issuers have already trained employees or an agent familiar with formatting in HTML. This previous familiarity with HTML should help to reduce the initial EDGAR costs for these reporting foreign private issuers.
Moreover, since HTML is a dominant language used to present information on Internet web sites, reporting foreign issuers that have formatted their financial statements thus far only in PDF may already have trained employees or an agent familiar with formatting in HTML. If so, these foreign issuers should also face reduced initial and ongoing EDGAR costs.
During the calendar year ended December 31, 2000, 232 (approximately 18%) of reporting foreign private issuers voluntarily chose to file their annual reports, registration statements and other securities documents on EDGAR. This segment of voluntary EDGAR filers increased to 269 (approximately 20%) during the calendar year ended December 31, 2001.
For the minority of foreign issuers that have not yet electronically presented their financial statements for public use,
Today there also are numerous financial printers and other information technology specialists that are capable of electronic document processing, including for the EDGAR system, and available on an international basis.
The adopted amendments require that both electronic and paper filers obtain full English translations for specified foreign language documents while permitting the submission of English summaries for other documents. We do not expect these provisions to increase materially the costs of document preparation and filing for foreign issuers and other affected persons, since the adopted amendments largely codify existing Commission practice regarding the treatment of foreign language documents. Moreover, in response to commenters' concerns, we have adopted amendments that permit the submission of an English summary instead of a full English translation of a statutory report or other foreign language document in specified circumstances. We also have adopted amendments that permit the filing of a statutory report in paper and eliminate the need to submit a foreign offering circular in specified circumstances. These amendments should prevent the incurrence of excessive costs that many commenters feared would result from the proposed requirement to provide a full English translation of all foreign language documents.
Nevertheless, some foreign issuers may incur costs from our requirement to provide an English translation instead of an English summary of some of the specified documents. Some foreign issuers may also incur costs from our elimination of the option to file a “version” or “brief description” of a foreign language document instead of an English summary or translation for both electronic and paper filings.
The amendments will cause some domestic persons to file on EDGAR their Schedule TOs, Form CBs and Schedule 13D/Gs in connection with tender offers, exchange offers and other transactions involving the securities of foreign private issuers. However, we expect the number of affected domestic persons to be small. During calendar years 2000 and 2001, out of a total number of 245 and 599 Schedule TOs filed, respectively, with the Commission, only 11 (approximately 4%) and 15 (approximately 2.5%) were filed in paper. Of these 11 and 15 paper Schedule TOs filed, respectively, in 2000 and 2001, none and only three (approximately 0.5% out of the total filed) were filed by domestic entities.
Similarly, for calendar years 2000 and 2001, out of a total of 13,282 and 12,439 Schedule 13Ds and 13Gs filed, only 279 (approximately 2%) and 284 (approximately 2%) were filed in paper. Of these Schedule 13D/G paper filings, only 7 (approximately .1% of the total
Furthermore, during calendar years 2000 and 2001, of the 95 and 32 Form CBs filed with the Commission, 32 (approximately 34%) and 13 (approximately 41%) were filed by Exchange Act reporting companies. Only four (4%) and five (16%) out of the total number of Form CBs filed, respectively, in calendar years 2000 and 2001 were filed by domestic Exchange Act reporting companies.
Some domestic persons may incur costs resulting from the electronic formatting of their securities documents as a result of the amendments. Since domestic persons are already subject to mandated EDGAR filing, they already have trained employees or agents capable of readily electronically formatting their Form TOs, Form CBs or Schedule 13D/Gs for the EDGAR system. This previous familiarity with EDGAR should reduce the costs incurred by these domestic persons as a result of the adopted amendments.
Based on the foregoing, and as further explained below, we expect that the amendments will result in total costs for foreign issuers of between $8,037,005 to $23,070,333. We have derived this range of costs based on the following assumptions and estimates.
First, we expect that the amendments will affect 81% of foreign private issuers filing Exchange Act reports because these foreign private issuers have not already voluntarily filed their reports on EDGAR. Conversely, for the 19% of reporting foreign private issuers that already are EDGAR filers, the amendments should result in no additional costs.
Second, we expect that all of the 81% of affected reporting foreign private issuers will incur costs associated with the electronic formatting and electronic transmission of their Exchange Act reports. We also expect that many of these foreign private issuers will also incur similar costs regarding the electronic formatting and filing of their Securities Act documents.
Third, we expect that, for 62% of reporting foreign private issuers (or 77% of those affected), the amendments will result primarily in electronic formatting and filing costs. This segment already has achieved technical proficiency based on their past experience electronically formatting their financial and other documents for presentation on their web sites or to meet the requirements of their sovereign securities commissions.
Fourth, for the remaining 19% of reporting foreign private issuers (or 23% of those affected) that have little to no computer, Internet or related technical experience, if they choose to outsource to a financial printer or other filing agent all of the work associated with producing an EDGAR compatible document, we do not expect any significant costs to result other than the electronic formatting and filing costs.
Fifth, we expect that all of the foreign governments that have Exchange Act reporting obligations will incur electronic formatting and filing costs.
Sixth, we expect the cost of electronic formatting for all of the affected foreign issuers to be $15 a page regardless of the particular filing. We also expect a filing agent to charge an electronic filing fee of $150 per filing.
Seventh, we expect that the elimination of the “English version and brief description” option and adoption of a limited English summary option will result in additional costs to between 2-5% of foreign private issuers when filing their Form 20-Fs, Form 6-Ks, and Form F-1s, depending on the particular form.
Based on these assumptions, we expect the amendments to result in the following costs for the following forms:
We also expect the elimination of the “English version or brief description” option and the adoption of a limited English summary option to result in the following additional translation costs for a small percentage of foreign private issuers when filing their Form 20Fs, Form 6Ks, and Form F-1s:
Based on the foregoing, we expect the amendments to result in approximately $8,037,005 of costs for most reporting foreign issuers.
However, many of these foreign private issuers may decide to perform some or all of the work required for preparing a document for EDGAR formatting and filing. These filers may also eventually choose to perform some of the tasks related to document printing and distribution. If so, they may incur significant additional charges associated with purchasing or upgrading computer hardware and software, subscribing to an Internet service provider, and hiring at least one technically proficient employee to assist in word processing, Internet, and EDGAR preparation tasks, as follows:
We do not expect each of the 244 affected foreign private issuers to incur all of the above additional costs. It is likely that many filers will choose to hire outside firms to handle some or most of the EDGAR preparation, formatting, transmission, and related tasks. Therefore, we expect the total costs of the amendments to be within the range of $8,037,005
Section 23(a)(2) of the Exchange Act requires the Commission, when adopting rules under the Exchange Act, to consider the anti-competitive effects of any rules it adopts. Furthermore, Section 2(b) of the Securities Act and Section 3(f) of the Exchange Act require the Commission, when engaging in rulemaking that requires it to consider or determine whether an action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, to consider whether the action will promote efficiency, competition and capital formation.
In the Proposing Release, we considered the amendments in light of the standards set forth in the above statutory sections. We solicited comment on whether, if adopted, the proposed amendments would result in any anti-competitive effects or promote efficiency, competition and capital formation. We further encouraged commenters to provide empirical data or other facts to support their views on any anti-competitive effects or any burdens on efficiency, competition or capital formation that might result from adoption of the proposed amendments.
While several commenters stated that various aspects of the proposed amendments would result in excessive costs and impose undue burdens on foreign issuers, only one commenter specifically addressed whether the proposed rules would cause anti-competitive effects in the U.S. economy and its capital markets. According to this commenter, the proposed elimination of the English summary option and the proposed mandated EDGAR filing of most Form 6-K reports would result in additional costs for foreign issuers. Given the increased
In response to this concern and others raised by commenters, we have revised the proposed rules to permit the use of an English summary for specified foreign language documents and the paper submission of a statutory report under cover of a Form 6-K in specified circumstances. Because of these changes, among others, the adopted amendments should not result in excessive costs or undue burdens on foreign issuers or cause them to avoid U.S. capital markets.
The adopted amendments will enable investors and other interested parties to have the same access to financial and other material information about foreign issuers that have registered securities with the Commission as they currently enjoy with domestic reporting companies. By facilitating the more efficient transmission, retrieval, analysis and dissemination of information contained in foreign issuers' and related third party securities filings with the Commission, the adopted amendments will enhance an investor's ability to make an informed investment decision about a foreign issuer's securities. They also should increase the market access of a reporting foreign issuer's securities in the United States.
In addition, the adopted amendments will subject foreign issuers to the same or substantially similar electronic filing costs shouldered by domestic issuers, thereby placing foreign issuers on a more equal footing, and encouraging competition with domestic issuers. We recognize that the adopted amendments may disparately impact some foreign issuers depending on their level of technological proficiency.
Under Section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
We are adopting Securities Act Rule 493b and the amendments to Securities Act Rule 403, the rescission of Regulation S-T Rule 601, the amendments to Regulation S-T Rules 100, 101, 303, 306 and 311, the amendments to Exchange Act Rule 12b-12, and the amendments to the Securities Act and Exchange Act forms, under the authority in Sections 6, 7, 10 and 19(a) of the Securities Act,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
15 U.S.C. 77b, 77c, 77d, 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77r, 77s, 77sss, 77z-3, 78c, 78d, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o, 78t, 78w, 78
(c)(1) All Securities Act filings and submissions must be in the English language, except as otherwise provided by this section. If a registration statement or other filing requires the inclusion of a document that is in a foreign language, the filer must submit instead a fair and accurate English translation of the entire foreign language document, except as provided by paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
(2) If a registration statement or other filing or submission subject to review by the Division of Corporation Finance requires the inclusion of a foreign language document as an exhibit or attachment, the filer must submit a fair and accurate English translation of the foreign language document if consisting of any of the following, or an amendment of any of the following:
(i) Articles of incorporation, memoranda of association, bylaws, and other comparable documents, whether original or restated;
(ii) Instruments defining the rights of security holders, including indentures qualified or to be qualified under the Trust Indenture Act of 1939;
(iii) Voting agreements, including voting trust agreements;
(iv) Contracts to which directors, officers, promoters, voting trustees or security holders named in a registration statement are parties;
(v) Contracts upon which a filer's business is substantially dependent;
(vi) Audited annual and interim consolidated financial information; and
(vii) Any document that is or will be the subject of a confidential treatment request under § 230.406 or § 240.24b-2 of this chapter.
(3)(i) A filer may submit an English summary instead of an English translation of a foreign language document as an exhibit or attachment to a filing subject to review by the Division of Corporation Finance as long as:
(A) The foreign language document does not consist of any of the subject matter enumerated in paragraph (c)(2) of this section; or
(B) The applicable form permits the use of an English summary.
(ii) Any English summary submitted under paragraph (c)(3) of this section must:
(A) Fairly and accurately summarize the terms of each material provision of the foreign language document; and
(B) Fairly and accurately describe the terms that have been omitted or abridged.
(4) When submitting an English summary or English translation of a foreign language document under this section, a filer must identify the submission as either an English summary or English translation. A filer may submit a copy of the unabridged foreign language document when including an English summary or English translation of a foreign language document in a filing. A filer must provide a copy of any foreign language document upon the request of Commission staff.
(5) A Canadian issuer may file an exhibit or other part of a registration statement on Form F-7, F-8, F-9, F-10, or F-80 (§§ 239.37, 239.38, 239.39, 239.40, or 239.41 of this chapter), that contains text in both French and English if the issuer included the French text to comply with the requirements of the Canadian securities administrator or other Canadian authority and, for an electronic filing, if the filing is an HTML document, as defined in Regulation S-T Rule 11(§ 232.11).
(a) The copy of the opinion or opinions of counsel required by paragraph (14) of Schedule B shall be filed either as a part of the registration statement as originally filed, or as an amendment to the registration statement.
(b) A foreign government or political subdivision of a foreign government must file a registration statement submitted under Schedule B of the Act on the Commission's Electronic Data Gathering and Retrieval System (EDGAR) unless it has obtained a hardship exemption under § 232.201 or § 232.202 of this chapter (Regulation S-T).
(c) A foreign government or political subdivision must disclose in its Schedule B registration statement:
(1) That the Commission maintains an Internet site that contains reports and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the Commission; and
(2) The address for the Commission Internet site (http://www.sec.gov). A foreign government or political subdivision filing on EDGAR is further encouraged to give its Internet address, if available.
15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77s(a), 77sss(a), 78c(b), 78
(a) Registrants whose filings are subject to review by the Division of Corporation Finance;
(c) Any party (including natural persons) that files a document jointly with, or as a third party filer with respect to, a registrant that is subject to mandated electronic filing requirements.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) * * *
Notes to Paragraph (a)(1)(iii).
* * *
Foreign private issuers must file or submit their Form 6-K reports (§ 249.306 of this chapter) in electronic format, except as otherwise permitted by paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(7) of this section.
(vi) Form CB (§§ 239.800 and 249.480 of this chapter) filed or submitted under § 230.801 or 230.802 of this chapter or § 240.13e-4(h)(8), 240.14d-1(c), or 240.14e-2(d) of this chapter if the party filing or submitting the Form CB is subject to the reporting requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
(vii) Form F-X (§ 239.42 of this chapter) except as otherwise provided by § 232.101(b)(9); and
(viii) Form F-N (§ 239.43 of this chapter) filed by foreign banks and insurance companies and certain of their holding companies and finance subsidiaries under § 230.489 of this chapter.
(b) * * *
(1) Annual reports to security holders furnished for the information of the Commission under § 240.14a-3(c) of this chapter or § 240.14c-3(b) of this chapter, under the requirements of Form 10-K or Form 10-KSB (§§ 249.310 or 249.310b of this chapter) filed by registrants under Exchange Act Section 15(d) (15 U.S.C. 78o(d)), or by foreign private issuers filed on Form 6-K (§ 249.306 of this chapter) under § 240.13a-16 of this chapter or § 240.15d-16 of this chapter;
(6) Periodic reports and reports with respect to distributions of primary obligations filed by:
(i) The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development under Section 15(a) of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act (22 U.S.C. 286k-1(a)) and Part 285 of this chapter;
(ii) The Inter-American Development Bank under Section 11(a) of the Inter-American Development Bank Act (22 U.S.C. 283h(a)) and Part 286 of this chapter;
(iii) The Asian Development Bank under Section 11(a) of the Asian Development Bank Act (22 U.S.C. 285h(a)) and Part 287 of this chapter;
(iv) The African Development Bank under Section 9(a) of the African Development Bank Act (22 U.S.C. 290i-9(a)) and Part 288 of this chapter;
(v) The International Finance Corporation under Section 13(a) of the International Finance Corporation Act (22 U.S.C. 282k(a)) and Part 289 of this chapter; and
(vi) The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development under Section 9(a) of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development Act (22 U.S.C. 290
(7) A report or other document submitted by a foreign private issuer under cover of Form 6-K (§ 249.306 of this chapter) that the issuer must furnish and make public under the laws of the jurisdiction in which the issuer is incorporated, domiciled or legally organized (the foreign private issuer's “home country”), or under the rules of the home country exchange on which the issuer's securities are traded, as long
(8) Form CB (§§ 239.800 and 249.480 of this chapter) if the party filing or submitting the Form CB is not subject to the reporting requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
(9) Form F-X (§ 239.42 of this chapter) if:
(i) The party filing or submitting a Form CB (§§ 239.800 and 249.480 of this chapter) is not subject to the reporting requirements of Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78m or 15 U.S.C. 78o(d)); or
(ii) Filed by a Canadian issuer when qualifying an offering statement pursuant to the provisions of Regulation A (§§ 230.251-230.263 of this chapter); and
(10) Form 25 (§ 249.25 of this chapter).
(c)(9) Exchange Act filings submitted to the Division of Market Regulation, except for Form 25 (§ 249.25 of this chapter).
(a) * * *
(b) If a filer incorporates by reference into an electronic filing any portion of an annual or quarterly report to security holders, it must also file the portion of the annual or quarterly report to security holders in electronic format as an exhibit to the filing, as required by Regulation S-K Item 601(b)(13) (§ 229.601(b)(13) of this chapter) and Regulation S-B Item 601(b)(13) (§ 228.601(b)(13) of this chapter). If a foreign private issuer incorporates by reference into an electronic filing any portion of an annual or other report to security holders, or of a Form 6-K report (§ 249.306 of this chapter) filed or submitted in paper, it also must file the incorporated portion in electronic format as an exhibit to the filing. The requirements of this paragraph do not apply to incorporation by reference by an investment company from an annual or quarterly report to security holders.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(a) All electronic filings and submissions must be in the English language, except as otherwise provided by paragraph (d) of this section. If a filing or submission requires the inclusion of a document that is in a foreign language, a party must submit instead a fair and accurate English translation of the foreign language document in accordance with § 230.403(c) or § 240.12b-12(d) of this chapter, except as otherwise provided by paragraph (c) of this section. Alternatively, if the foreign language document is an exhibit or attachment to a filing or submission subject to review by the Division of Corporation Finance, a party may provide a fair and accurate English summary of the foreign language document if permitted by § 230.403(c)(3) or § 240.12b-12(d)(3) of this chapter.
(b) When including an English summary or English translation of a foreign language document in an electronic filing or submission, a party may also submit a copy of the unabridged foreign language document in paper under cover of Form SE (§§ 239.64, 249.444, 259.603, 269.8, and 274.403 of this chapter) in accordance with § 232.311 of this chapter. A filer must provide a copy of any foreign language document upon the request of Commission staff.
(c) A foreign government or its political subdivision must electronically file a fair and accurate English translation, if available, of its latest annual budget as presented to its legislative body, as Exhibit B to Form 18 (§ 249.218 of this chapter) or Exhibit (c) to Form 18-K (§ 249.318 of this chapter). If no English translation is available, a foreign government or political subdivision must submit a copy of the foreign language version of its latest annual budget in paper under cover of Form SE (§§ 239.64, 249.444, 259.603, 269.8, and 274.403 of this chapter).
(d) A Canadian issuer may file an HTML document, as defined in § 232.11 of this chapter, that contains text in both French and English if the issuer included the French text to comply with the requirements of the Canadian securities administrator or other Canadian authority, and the French text is in an exhibit to or part of:
(1) A registration statement on Form F-7, F-8, F-9, F-10, or F-80 (§§ 239.37, 239.38, 239.39, 239.40, and 239.41 of this chapter);
(2) A registration statement or annual report on Form 40-F (§ 249.240f of this chapter); or
(3) A Schedule 13E-4F (§ 240.13e-102 of this chapter), Schedule 14D-1F (§ 240.14d-102), or Schedule 14D-9F (§ 240.14d-103).
(f) A party may submit a copy of an unabridged foreign language document in paper under cover of Form SE if the electronic filing or submission includes an English summary or English translation of the foreign language document in accordance with § 232.306(b) or if permitted by the applicable form.
(g) A foreign government or political subdivision that is not filing in electronic format an English translation of its latest annual budget submitted as Exhibit B to Form 18 (§ 249.218 of this chapter) or Exhibit (c) to Form 18-K (§ 249.318 of this chapter) must file a copy of the foreign language version of its latest annual budget in paper under cover of Form SE in accordance with § 232.306(c) of this chapter.
15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77s, 77z-2, 77sss, 78c, 78
C. A registrant must file the Form F-1 registration statement in electronic format via the Commission's Electronic Data Gathering and Retrieval System (EDGAR) in accordance with the EDGAR rules set forth in Regulation S-T (17 CFR Part 232), except that a registrant that has obtained a hardship exception under Regulation S-T Rule 201 or 202 (17 CFR 232.201 or 232.202) may file the registration statement in paper. For assistance with technical questions about EDGAR or to request an access code, call the EDGAR Filer Support Office at (202) 942-8900. For assistance with questions about the EDGAR rules, call the Office of EDGAR and Information Analysis at (202) 942-2940.
D. The Form F-1 registration statement must be in the English language, as required by Regulation S-T Rule 306 (17 CFR 232.306) for electronic filings and Securities Act Rule 403(c) (17 CFR 230.403(c)), generally. If the registration statement requires the inclusion, as an exhibit or attachment, of a document that is in a foreign language, the registrant must provide instead either an English translation or an English summary of the foreign language document in accordance with Securities Act Rule 403(c) (17 CFR 230.403(c)) for both electronic and paper filings. The registrant may submit a copy of the unabridged foreign language document along with the English translation or English summary as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 306(b) (17 CFR 232.306(b)) for electronic filings or by Securities Act Rule 403(c)(4) (17 CFR 230.403(c)(4)) for paper filings.
C. A registrant must file the Form F-2 registration statement in electronic format via the Commission's Electronic Data Gathering and Retrieval System (EDGAR) in accordance with the EDGAR rules set forth in Regulation S-T (17 CFR Part 232), except that a registrant that has obtained a hardship exception under Regulation S-T Rule 201 or 202 (17 CFR 232.201 or 232.202) may file the registration statement in paper. For assistance with technical questions about EDGAR or to request an access code, call the EDGAR Filer Support Office at (202) 942-8900. For assistance with questions about the EDGAR rules, call the Office of EDGAR and Information Analysis at (202) 942-2940.
D. The Form F-2 registration statement must be in the English language, as required by Regulation S-T Rule 306 (17 CFR 232.306) for electronic filings and Securities Act Rule 403(c) (17 CFR 230.403(c)), generally. If the registration statement requires the inclusion, as an exhibit or attachment, of a document that is in a foreign language, the registrant must provide instead either an English translation or an English summary of the foreign language document in accordance with Securities Act Rule 403(c) (17 CFR 230.403(c)) for both electronic and paper filings. The registrant may submit a copy of the unabridged foreign language document along with the English translation or English summary as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 306(b) (17 CFR 232.306(b)) for electronic filings or by Securities Act Rule 403(c)(4) (17 CFR 230.403(c)(4)) for paper filings.
D. A registrant must file the Form F-3 registration statement in electronic format via the Commission's Electronic Data Gathering and Retrieval System (EDGAR) in accordance with the EDGAR rules set forth in Regulation S-T (17 CFR Part 232), except that a registrant that has obtained a hardship exception under Regulation S-T Rule 201 or 202 (17 CFR 232.201 or 232.202) may file the registration statement in paper. For assistance with technical questions about EDGAR or to request an access code, call the EDGAR Filer Support Office at (202) 942-8900. For assistance with questions about the EDGAR rules, call the Office of EDGAR and Information Analysis at (202) 942-2940.
E. The Form F-3 registration statement must be in the English language, as required by Regulation S-T Rule 306 (17 CFR 232.306) for electronic filings and Securities Act Rule 403(c) (17 CFR 230.403(c)), generally. If the registration statement requires the inclusion, as an exhibit or attachment, of a document that is in a foreign language, the registrant must provide instead either an English translation or an English summary of the foreign language document in accordance with Securities Act Rule 403(c) (17 CFR 230.403(c)) for both electronic and paper filings. The registrant may submit a copy of the unabridged foreign language document along with the English translation or English summary as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 306(b) (17 CFR 232.306(b)) for electronic filings or by Securities Act Rule 403(c)(4) (17 CFR 230.403(c)(4)) for paper filings.
4. A registrant must file the Form F-4 registration statement in electronic format via the Commission's Electronic Data Gathering and Retrieval System (EDGAR) in accordance with the EDGAR rules set forth in Regulation S-T (17 CFR Part 232), except that a registrant that has obtained a hardship exception under Regulation S-T Rule 201 or 202 (17 CFR 232.201 or 232.202) may file the registration statement in paper. For assistance with technical questions about EDGAR or to request an access code, call the EDGAR Filer Support Office at (202) 942-8900. For assistance with questions about the EDGAR rules, call the Office of EDGAR and Information Analysis at (202) 942-2940.
5. The Form F-4 registration statement must be in the English language, as required by Regulation S-T Rule 306 (17 CFR 232.306) for electronic filings and Securities Act Rule 403(c) (17 CFR 230.403(c)), generally. If the registration statement requires the inclusion, as an exhibit or attachment, of a document that is in a foreign language, the registrant must provide instead either an English
C. You must file the Form F-6 registration statement in electronic format via the Commission's Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval (EDGAR) system in accordance with the EDGAR rules set forth in Regulation S-T (17 CFR Part 232). For assistance with technical questions about EDGAR or to request an access code, call the EDGAR Filer Support Office at (202) 942-8900. For assistance with the EDGAR rules, call the Office of EDGAR and Information Analysis at (202) 942-2940.
If filing the registration statement in paper under a hardship exemption in Rule 201 or 202 of Regulation S-T (17 CFR 232.201 or 232.202), or as otherwise permitted, you must file the number of copies of the registration statement and of each amendment required by Securities Act Rules 402 and 472 (17 CFR 230.402 and 230.472), except that you need only file three additional copies instead of the ten referred to in Rule 402(b) (17 CFR 230.402(b)). You may also file only three additional copies instead of the eight referred to in Securities Act Rule 472(a) (17 CFR 230.472(a)).
C. A registrant must file the registration statement in electronic format via the Commission's Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval (EDGAR) system in accordance with the EDGAR rules set forth in Regulation S-T (17 CFR Part 232). For assistance with technical questions about EDGAR or to request an access code, call the EDGAR Filer Support Office at (202) 942-8900. For assistance with the EDGAR rules, call the Office of EDGAR and Information Analysis at (202) 942-2940.
If filing the registration statement in paper under a hardship exemption in Rule 201 or 202 of Regulation S-T (17 CFR 232.201 or 232.202), or as otherwise permitted, a registrant must file with the Commission at its principal office five copies of the complete registration statement and any amendments, including exhibits and all other documents filed as a part of the registration statement or amendment. The registrant must bind, staple or otherwise compile each copy in one or more parts without stiff covers. The registrant must further bind the registration statement or amendment on the side or stitching margin in a manner that leaves the reading matter legible. The registrant must provide three additional copies of the registration statement or amendment without exhibits to the Commission.
E. An electronic filer must provide the signatures required for the registration statement or amendment in accordance with Regulation S-T Rule 302 (17 CFR 232.302). A registrant filing in paper must have at least one copy of the registration statement or amendment signed in accordance with Securities Act Rule 402(e) (17 CFR 230.402(e)) by the persons whose signatures are required for this registration statement. A registrant must also conform the unsigned copies.
G. A registrant must file the registration statement or amendment in electronic format in the English language in accordance with Regulation S-T Rule 306 (17 CFR 232.306). A registrant may file part of the prospectus or exhibit or other attachment to the registration statement or amendment in both French and English if it included the French text to comply with the requirements of the Canadian securities administrator or other Canadian authority and, for an electronic filing, if the filing is an HTML document, as defined in Regulation S-T Rule 11 (17 CFR 232.11). For both an electronic filing and a paper filing, a registrant may provide an English translation or English summary of a foreign language document as an exhibit or other attachment to the registration statement or amendment as permitted by the rules of the applicable Canadian securities administrator.
H. For a paper filing, one signed origin al of the registration statement or amendment must be numbered sequentially (in addition to any internal numbering that otherwise may be present) by handwritten, typed, printed or other legible form of notation from the first page through the last page of the registration statement or amendment, including any exhibits or attachments. A paper filer must disclose the total number of pages on the first page of the sequentially numbered registration statement or amendment.
C. A registrant must file the registration statement in electronic format via the Commission's Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval (EDGAR) system in accordance with the EDGAR rules set forth in Regulation S-T (17 CFR Part 232). For assistance with technical questions about EDGAR or to request an access code, call the EDGAR Filer Support Office at (202) 942-8900. For assistance with the EDGAR rules, call the Office of EDGAR and Information Analysis at (202) 942-2940.
If filing the registration statement in paper under a hardship exemption in Rule 201 or 202 of Regulation S-T (17 CFR 232.201 or 232.202), or as otherwise permitted, a registrant must file with the Commission at its principal office five copies of the complete registration statement and any amendments, including exhibits and all other documents filed as a part of the registration statement or amendment. The registrant must bind, staple or otherwise compile each copy in one or more parts without stiff covers. The registrant must further bind the registration statement or amendment on the side or stitching margin in a manner that leaves the reading matter legible. The registrant must provide three additional copies of the
E. An electronic filer must provide the signatures required for the registration statement or amendment in accordance with Regulation S-T Rule 302 (17 CFR 232.302). A registrant filing in paper must have at least one copy of the registration statement or amendment signed in accordance with Securities Act Rule 402(e) (17 CFR 230.402(e)) by the persons whose signatures are required for this registration statement. A registrant must also conform the unsigned copies.
I. A registrant must file the registration statement or amendment in electronic format in the English language in accordance with Regulation S-T Rule 306 (17 CFR 232.306). A registrant may file part of the prospectus or exhibit or other attachment to the registration statement or amendment in both French and English if it included the French text to comply with the requirements of the Canadian securities administrator or other Canadian authority and, for an electronic filing, if the filing is an HTML document, as defined in Regulation S-T Rule 11 (17 CFR 232.11). For both an electronic filing and a paper filing, a registrant may provide an English translation or English summary of a foreign language document as an exhibit or other attachment to the registration statement or amendment as permitted by the rules of the applicable Canadian securities administrator.
J. A paper filer must number sequentially one signed original of the registration statement or amendment (in addition to any internal numbering that otherwise may be present) by handwritten, typed, printed or other legible form of notation from the first page through the last page of the registration statement or amendment, including any exhibits or attachments. A paper filer must disclose the total number of pages on the first page of the sequentially numbered registration statement or amendment.
D. A registrant must file the registration statement in electronic format via the Commission's Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval (EDGAR) system in accordance with the EDGAR rules set forth in Regulation S-T (17 CFR Part 232). For assistance with technical questions about EDGAR or to request an access code, call the EDGAR Filer Support Office at (202) 942-8900. For assistance with the EDGAR rules, call the Office of EDGAR and Information Analysis at (202) 942-2940.
If filing the registration statement in paper under a hardship exemption in Rule 201 or 202 of Regulation S-T (17 CFR 232.201 or 232.202), or as otherwise permitted, a registrant must file with the Commission at its principal office five copies of the complete registration statement and any amendments, including exhibits and all other documents filed as a part of the registration statement or amendment. The registrant must bind, staple or otherwise compile each copy in one or more parts without stiff covers. The registrant must further bind the registration statement or amendment on the side or stitching margin in a manner that leaves the reading matter legible. The registrant must provide three additional copies of the registration statement or amendment without exhibits to the Commission.
F. An electronic filer must provide the signatures required for the registration statement or amendment in accordance with Regulation S-T Rule 302 (17 CFR 232.302). A registrant filing in paper must have at least one copy of the registration statement or amendment signed in accordance with Securities Act Rule 402(e) (17 CFR 230.402(e)) by the persons whose signatures are required for this registration statement. A registrant must also conform the unsigned copies.
I. A registrant must file the registration statement or amendment in electronic format in the English language in accordance with Regulation S-T Rule 306 (17 CFR 232.306). A registrant may file part of the prospectus or exhibit or other attachment to the registration statement or amendment in both French and English if it included the French text to comply with the requirements of the Canadian securities administrator or other Canadian authority and, for an electronic filing, if the filing is an HTML document, as defined in Regulation S-T Rule 11 (17 CFR 232.11). For both an electronic filing and a paper filing, a registrant may provide an English translation or English summary of a foreign language document as an exhibit or other attachment to the registration statement or amendment as permitted by the rules of the applicable Canadian securities administrator.
J. A paper filer must number sequentially one signed original of the registration statement or amendment (in addition to any internal numbering that otherwise may be present) by handwritten, typed, printed or other legible form of notation from the first page through the last page of the registration statement or amendment, including any exhibits or attachments. A paper filer must disclose the total number of pages on the first page of the sequentially numbered registration statement or amendment.
D. A registrant must file the registration statement in electronic format via the Commission's Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval (EDGAR) system in accordance with the EDGAR rules set forth in Regulation S-T (17 CFR Part 232). For assistance with technical questions about EDGAR or to request an access code, call the EDGAR Filer Support Office at (202) 942-8900. For assistance with the EDGAR rules, call the Office of EDGAR and Information Analysis at (202) 942-2940.
If filing the registration statement in paper under a hardship exemption in Rule 201 or 202 of Regulation S-T (17 CFR 232.201 or 232.202), or as otherwise permitted, a registrant must file with the Commission at its principal office five copies of the complete registration statement and any amendments, including exhibits and all other documents filed as a part of the registration statement or amendment. The registrant must bind, staple or otherwise compile each copy in one or more parts without stiff covers. The registrant must further bind the registration statement or amendment on the side or stitching margin in a manner that leaves the reading matter legible. The registrant must provide three additional copies of the registration statement or amendment without exhibits to the Commission.
F. An electronic filer must provide the signatures required for the registration statement or amendment in accordance with Regulation S-T Rule 302 (17 CFR 232.302). A registrant filing in paper must have at least one copy of the registration statement or amendment signed in accordance with Securities Act Rule 402(e) (17 CFR 230.402(e)) by the persons whose signatures are required for this registration statement. A registrant must also conform the unsigned copies.
J. A registrant must file the registration statement or amendment in electronic format
K. A paper filer must number sequentially one signed original of the registration statement or amendment (in addition to any internal numbering that otherwise may be present) by handwritten, typed, printed or other legible form of notation from the first page through the last page of the registration statement or amendment, including any exhibits or attachments. A paper filer must disclose the total number of pages on the first page of the sequentially numbered registration statement or amendment.
C. A registrant must file the registration statement in electronic format via the Commission's Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval (EDGAR) system in accordance with the EDGAR rules set forth in Regulation S-T (17 CFR Part 232). For assistance with technical questions about EDGAR or to request an access code, call the EDGAR Filer Support Office at (202) 942-8900. For assistance with the EDGAR rules, call the Office of EDGAR and Information Analysis at (202) 942-2940.
If filing the registration statement in paper under a hardship exemption in Rule 201 or 202 of Regulation S-T (17 CFR 232.201 or 232.202), or as otherwise permitted, a registrant must file with the Commission at its principal office five copies of the complete registration statement and any amendments, including exhibits and all other documents filed as a part of the registration statement or amendment. The registrant must bind, staple or otherwise compile each copy in one or more parts without stiff covers. The registrant must further bind the registration statement or amendment on the side or stitching margin in a manner that leaves the reading matter legible. The registrant must provide three additional copies of the registration statement or amendment without exhibits to the Commission.
E. An electronic filer must provide the signatures required for the registration statement or amendment in accordance with Regulation S-T Rule 302 (17 CFR 232.302). A registrant filing in paper must have at least one copy of the registration statement or amendment signed in accordance with Securities Act Rule 402(e) (17 CFR 230.402(e)) by the persons whose signatures are required for this registration statement. A registrant must also conform the unsigned copies.
I. A registrant must file the registration statement or amendment in electronic format in the English language in accordance with Regulation S-T Rule 306 (17 CFR 232.306). A registrant may file part of the prospectus or exhibit or other attachment to the registration statement or amendment in both French and English if it included the French text to comply with the requirements of the Canadian securities administrator or other Canadian authority and, for an electronic filing, if the filing is an HTML document, as defined in Regulation S-T Rule 11 (17 CFR 232.11). For both an electronic filing and a paper filing, a registrant may provide an English translation or English summary of a foreign language document as an exhibit or other attachment to the registration statement or amendment as permitted by the rules of the applicable Canadian securities administrator.
J. A paper filer must number sequentially one signed original of the registration statement or amendment (in addition to any internal numbering that otherwise may be present) by handwritten, typed, printed or other legible form of notation from the first page through the last page of the registration statement or amendment, including any exhibits or attachments. A paper filer must disclose the total number of pages on the first page of the sequentially numbered registration statement or amendment.
15 U.S.C. 77c, 77d, 77g, 77j, 77s, 77z-2, 77z-3, 77eee, 77ggg, 77nnn, 77sss, 77ttt, 78c, 78d, 78e, 78f, 78g, 78i, 78j, 78j-1, 78k, 78k-
(d)(1) All Exchange Act filings and submissions must be in the English language, except as otherwise provided by this section. If a filing or submission requires the inclusion of a document that is in a foreign language, a party must submit instead a fair and accurate English translation of the entire foreign language document, except as provided by paragraph (d)(3) of this section.
(2) If a filing or submission subject to review by the Division of Corporation Finance requires the inclusion of a foreign language document as an exhibit or attachment, a party must submit a fair and accurate English translation of the foreign language document if consisting of any of the following, or an amendment of any of the following:
(i) Articles of incorporation, memoranda of association, bylaws, and other comparable documents, whether original or restated;
(ii) Instruments defining the rights of security holders, including indentures qualified or to be qualified under the Trust Indenture Act of 1939;
(iii) Voting agreements, including voting trust agreements;
(iv) Contracts to which directors, officers, promoters, voting trustees or security holders named in a registration statement, report or other document are parties;
(v) Contracts upon which a filer's business is substantially dependent;
(vi) Audited annual and interim consolidated financial information; and
(vii) Any document that is or will be the subject of a confidential treatment request under § 240.24b-2 or § 230.406 of this chapter.
(3)(i) A party may submit an English summary instead of an English translation of a foreign language document as an exhibit or attachment to a filing or submission subject to review by the Division of Corporation Finance, as long as:
(A) The foreign language document does not consist of any of the subject matter enumerated in paragraph (d)(2) of this section; or
(B) The applicable form permits the use of an English summary.
(ii) Any English summary submitted under paragraph (d)(3) of this section must:
(A) Fairly and accurately summarize the terms of each material provision of the foreign language document; and
(B) Fairly and accurately describe the terms that have been omitted or abridged.
(4) When submitting an English summary or English translation of a foreign language document under this section, a party must identify the submission as either an English summary or English translation. A party may submit a copy of the unabridged foreign language document when including an English summary or English translation of a foreign language document in a filing or submission. A party must provide a copy of any foreign language document upon the request of Commission staff.
(5) A foreign government or its political subdivision must provide a fair and accurate English translation of its latest annual budget submitted as Exhibit B to Form 18 (§ 249.218 of this chapter) or Exhibit (c) to Form 18-K (§ 249.318 of this chapter) only if one is available. If no English translation is available, a filer must provide a copy of the foreign language version of its latest annual budget as an exhibit.
(6) A Canadian issuer may file an exhibit, attachment or other part of a Form 40-F registration statement or annual report (§ 249.240f of this chapter), Schedule 13E-4F (§ 240.13e-102), Schedule 14D-1F (§ 240.14d-102), or Schedule 14D-9F (§ 240.14d-103), that contains text in both French and English if the issuer included the French text to comply with the requirements of the Canadian securities administrator or other Canadian authority and, for an electronic filing, if the filing is an HTML document, as defined in Regulation S-T Rule 11 (17 CFR 232.11).
A.(1) The issuer must file this Schedule and any amendment to the Schedule (see Part I, Item 1.(b)), including all exhibits and other documents filed as part of the Schedule or amendment, in electronic format via the Commission's Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval (EDGAR) system in accordance with the EDGAR rules set forth in Regulation S-T (17 CFR Part 232). For assistance with technical questions about EDGAR or to request an access code, call the EDGAR Filer Support Office at (202) 942-8900. For assistance with the EDGAR rules, call the Office of EDGAR and Information Analysis at (202) 942-2940.
(2) If filing the Schedule in paper under a hardship exemption in 17 CFR 232.201 or 232.202 of Regulation S-T, or as otherwise permitted, the issuer must file with the Commission at its principal office five copies of the complete Schedule and any amendment, including exhibits and all other documents filed as a part of the Schedule or amendment. The issuer must bind, staple or otherwise compile each copy in one or more parts without stiff covers. The issuer must further bind the Schedule or amendment on the side or stitching margin in a manner that leaves the reading matter legible. The issuer must provide three additional copies of the Schedule or amendment without exhibits to the Commission.
B. An electronic filer must provide the signatures required for the Schedule or amendment in accordance with 17 CFR 232.302 of Regulation S-T. An issuer filing in paper must have the original and at least one copy of the Schedule and any amendment signed in accordance with Exchange Act Rule 12b-11(d) (17 CFR 12b-11(d)) by the persons whose signatures are required for this Schedule or amendment. The issuer must also conform the unsigned copies.
E. The issuer must file the Schedule or amendment in electronic format in the English language in accordance with 17 CFR 232.306 of Regulation S-T. The issuer may file part of the Schedule or amendment, or exhibit or other attachment to the Schedule or amendment, in both French and English if the issuer included the French text to comply with the requirements of the Canadian securities administrator or other Canadian authority and, for an electronic filing, if the filing is an HTML document, as defined in 17 CFR 232.11 of Regulation S-T. For both an electronic filing and a paper filing, the issuer may provide an English translation or English summary of a foreign language document as an exhibit or other attachment to the Schedule or amendment as permitted by the rules of the applicable Canadian securities administrator.
F. A paper filer must number sequentially the signed original of the Schedule or amendment (in addition to any internal numbering that otherwise may be present) by handwritten, typed, printed or other legible form of notation from the first page through the last page of the Schedule or amendment, including any exhibits or attachments. A paper filer must disclose the total number of pages on the first page of the sequentially numbered Schedule or amendment.
A.(1) The bidder must file this Schedule and any amendment to the Schedule (see Part I, Item 1.(b)), including all exhibits and other documents filed as part of the Schedule or amendment, in electronic format via the Commission's Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval (EDGAR) system in accordance with the EDGAR rules set forth in Regulation S-T (17 CFR Part 232). For assistance with technical questions about EDGAR or to request an access code, call the EDGAR Filer Support Office at (202) 942-8900. For assistance with the EDGAR rules, call the Office of EDGAR and Information Analysis at (202) 942-2940.
(2) If filing the Schedule in paper under a hardship exemption in 17 CFR 232.201 or 232.202 of Regulation S-T, or as otherwise permitted, the bidder must file with the Commission at its principal office five copies of the complete Schedule and any amendment, including exhibits and all other documents filed as a part of the Schedule or amendment. The bidder must bind, staple or otherwise compile each copy in one or more parts without stiff covers. The bidder must further bind the Schedule or amendment on the side or stitching margin in a manner that leaves the reading matter legible. The bidder must provide three additional copies of the Schedule or amendment without exhibits to the Commission.
B. An electronic filer must provide the signatures required for the Schedule or amendment in accordance with 17 CFR 232.302 of Regulation S-T. A bidder filing in paper must have the original and at least one copy of the Schedule and any amendment signed in accordance with Exchange Act Rule 12b-11(d) (17 CFR 12b-11(d)) by the persons whose signatures are required for this Schedule or amendment. The bidder must also conform the unsigned copies.
E. The bidder must file the Schedule or amendment in electronic format in the English language in accordance with 17 CFR 232.306 of Regulation S-T. The bidder may file part of the Schedule or amendment, or exhibit or other attachment to the Schedule or amendment, in both French and English if the bidder included the French text to comply with the requirements of the Canadian securities administrator or other Canadian authority and, for an electronic filing, if the filing is an HTML document, as defined in 17 CFR 232.11 of Regulation S-T. For both an electronic filing and a paper filing, the bidder may provide an English translation or English summary of a foreign language document as an exhibit or other attachment to the Schedule or amendment as permitted by the rules of the applicable Canadian securities administrator.
F. A paper filer must number sequentially the signed original of the Schedule or amendment (in addition to any internal
A.(1) The subject issuer must file this Schedule and any amendment to the Schedule (see Part I, Item 1.(b)), including all exhibits and other documents filed as part of the Schedule or amendment, in electronic format via the Commission's Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval (EDGAR) system in accordance with the EDGAR rules set forth in Regulation S-T (17 CFR Part 232). For assistance with technical questions about EDGAR or to request an access code, call the EDGAR Filer Support Office at (202) 942-8900. For assistance with the EDGAR rules, call the Office of EDGAR and Information Analysis at (202) 942-2940.
(2) If filing the Schedule in paper under a hardship exemption in 17 CFR 232.201 or 232.202 of Regulation S-T, or as otherwise permitted, the subject issuer must file with the Commission at its principal office five copies of the complete Schedule and any amendment, including exhibits and all other documents filed as a part of the Schedule or amendment. The subject issuer must bind, staple or otherwise compile each copy in one or more parts without stiff covers. The subject issuer must further bind the Schedule or amendment on the side or stitching margin in a manner that leaves the reading matter legible. The subject issuer must provide three additional copies of the Schedule or amendment without exhibits to the Commission.
B. An electronic filer must provide the signatures required for the Schedule or amendment in accordance with 17 CFR 232.302 of Regulation S-T. A subject issuer filing in paper must have the original and at least one copy of the Schedule and any amendment signed in accordance with Exchange Act Rule 12b-11(d) (17 CFR 12b-11(d)) by the persons whose signatures are required for this Schedule or amendment. The subject issuer must also conform the unsigned copies.
C. The subject issuer must file the Schedule or amendment in electronic format in the English language in accordance with 17 CFR 232.306 of Regulation S-T. The subject issuer may file part of the Schedule or amendment, or exhibit or other attachment to the Schedule or amendment, in both French and English if the bidder included the French text to comply with the requirements of the Canadian securities administrator or other Canadian authority and, for an electronic filing, if the filing is an HTML document, as defined in 17 CFR 232.11 of Regulation S-T. For both an electronic filing and a paper filing, the subject issuer may provide an English translation or English summary of a foreign language document as an exhibit or other attachment to the Schedule or amendment as permitted by the rules of the applicable Canadian securities administrator.
D. A paper filer must number sequentially the signed original of the Schedule or amendment (in addition to any internal numbering that otherwise may be present) by handwritten, typed, printed or other legible form of notation from the first page through the last page of the Schedule or amendment, including any exhibits or attachments. A paper filer must disclose the total number of pages on the first page of the sequentially numbered Schedule or amendment.
15 U.S.C. 78a,
(a) You must file the Form 20-F registration statement or annual report in electronic format via our Electronic Data Gathering and Retrieval System (EDGAR) in accordance with the EDGAR rules set forth in Regulation S-T (17 CFR Part 232). The Form 20-F registration statement or annual report must be in the English language as required by Regulation S-T Rule 306 (17 CFR 232.306). You must provide the signatures required for the Form 20-F registration statement or annual report in accordance with Regulation S-T Rule 302 (17 CFR 232.302). If you have technical questions about EDGAR or want to request an access code, call the EDGAR Filer Support Office at (202) 942-8900. If you have questions about the EDGAR rules, call the Office of EDGAR and Information Analysis at (202) 942-2940.
(b) If you are filing the Form 20-F registration statement or annual report in paper under a hardship exemption in Rule 201 or 202 of Regulation S-T (17 CFR 232.201 or 232.202), or as otherwise permitted, you must file with the Commission (i) three complete copies of the registration statement or report, including financial statements, exhibits and all other papers and documents filed as part of the registration statement or report, and (ii) five additional copies of the registration statement or report, which need not contain exhibits. Whether filing electronically or in paper, you must also file at least one complete copy of the registration statement or report, including financial statements, exhibits and all other papers and documents filed as part of the registration statement or report, with each exchange on which any class of securities is or will be registered. When submitting the Form 20-F in paper, you must sign at least one complete copy of the registration statement or report filed with the Commission and one copy filed with each exchange in accordance with Exchange Act Rule 12b-11(d) (17 CFR 12b-11(d)). You must conform the unsigned copies when submitting the Form 20-F registration statement or report in paper. When submitting the Form 20-F in electronic format to the Commission, you may submit a paper copy containing typed signatures to each United States stock exchange in accordance with Regulation S-T Rule 302(c) (17 CFR 302(c)). See also Exchange Act Rule 12b-12(d) and Form 20-F's Instructions as to Exhibits for requirements concerning use of the English language and treatment of foreign language documents.
(c) When registration statements and reports are permitted to be filed in paper, they are filed with the Commission by sending or delivering them to our File Desk between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Washington, DC time. The File Desk is closed on weekends and federal holidays. If you file a paper registration statement or report by mail or by any means other than hand delivery, the address is U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Attention: File Desk, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549. We consider documents to be filed on the date our File Desk receives them.
File the exhibits listed below as part of an Exchange Act registration statement or report. Exchange Act Rule 12b-32 explains the circumstances in which you may incorporate exhibits by reference. Exchange Act Rule 24b-2 explains the procedure to be followed in requesting confidential treatment of information required to be filed.
Previously filed exhibits may be incorporated by reference. If any previously filed exhibits have been amended or modified, file copies of the amendment or modification or copies of the entire exhibit as amended or modified.
If the Form 20-F registration statement or annual report requires the inclusion, as an exhibit or attachment, of a document that is in a foreign language, you must provide instead either an English translation or an English summary of the foreign language document in accordance with Exchange Act Rule 12b-12(d) (17 CFR 240.12b-12(d)) for both electronic and paper filings. You may submit a copy of the unabridged foreign language document along with the English translation or summary as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 306(b) (17 CFR 232.306(b)) for electronic filings or by Exchange Act Rule 12b-12(d)(4) (17 CFR 240.12b-12(d)(4)) for paper filings.
Include an exhibit index in each registration statement or report you file, immediately preceding the exhibits you are filing. The exhibit index must list each exhibit according to the number assigned to it below. If an exhibit is incorporated by reference, note that fact in the exhibit index. For paper filings, the pages of the manually signed original registration statement should be numbered in sequence, and the exhibit index should give the page number in the sequential numbering system where each exhibit can be found.
(4) A filer must file the Form 40-F registration statement or annual report in electronic format in the English language in accordance with Regulation S-T Rule 306 (17 CFR 232.306). A filer may file part of an exhibit or other attachment to the Form 40-F registration statement or annual report in both French and English if it included the French text to comply with the requirements of the Canadian securities administrator or other Canadian authority and, for an electronic filing, if the filing is an HTML document, as defined in Regulation S-T Rule 11 (17 CFR 232.11). For both an electronic filing and a paper filing, a filer may provide an English translation or English summary of a foreign language document as an exhibit or other attachment to the registration statement or amendment as permitted by the rules of the applicable Canadian securities administrator.
(7) A filer must file the Form 40-F registration statement or annual report in electronic format via the Commission's Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval (EDGAR) system in accordance with the EDGAR rules set forth in Regulation S-T (17 CFR Part 232). For assistance with technical questions about EDGAR or to request an access code, call the EDGAR Filer Support Office at (202) 942-8900. For assistance with the EDGAR rules, call the Office of EDGAR and Information Analysis at (202) 942-2940.
If filing the Form 40-F registration statement or annual report in paper under a hardship exemption in Rule 201 or 202 of Regulation S-T (17 CFR 232.201 or 232.202), or as otherwise permitted, a filer must file with the Commission at its principal office five copies of the complete registration statement or annual report, including exhibits and all other documents filed as a part of the registration statement or annual report. The filer must bind, staple or otherwise compile each copy in one or more parts without stiff covers. The filer must further bind the registration statement or annual report on the side or stitching margin in a manner that leaves the reading matter legible. The filer must provide three additional copies of the registration statement or annual report without exhibits to the Commission.
(8) An electronic filer must provide the signatures required for the Form 40-F registration statement or annual report in accordance with Regulation S-T Rule 302 (17 CFR 232.302). A paper filer must have at least one copy of the Form 40-F registration statement or annual report signed by an officer authorized to sign the registration statement or annual report. A paper filer must also conform the unsigned copies.
Please place an X in the box(es) to designate the appropriate rule provision(s) relied upon to file this Form:
Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(8) only permits the filing or submission of a Form CB in paper by a party that is not subject to the reporting requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act.
A. (1) If the party filing or submitting the Form CB has reporting obligations under Exchange Act Section 13 or 15(d), Regulation S-T Rule 101(a)(1)(vi) (17 CFR 232.101(a)(1)(vi)) requires the submission of the Form CB in electronic format via the Commission's Electronic Data Gathering and Retrieval System (EDGAR) in accordance with the EDGAR rules set forth in Regulation S-T (17 CFR Part 232). For assistance with technical questions about EDGAR or to request an access code, call the EDGAR Filer Support Office at (202) 942-8900. For assistance with the EDGAR rules, call the Office of EDGAR and Information Analysis at (202) 942-2940.
(2) If the party filing or submitting the Form CB is not an Exchange Act reporting company, Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(8) (17 CFR 232.101(b)(8)) permits the submission of the Form CB either via EDGAR or in paper. When filing or submitting the Form CB in electronic format, either voluntarily or as a mandated EDGAR filer, a party must also file or submit on EDGAR all home jurisdiction documents required by Parts I and II of this Form, except as provided by the Note following paragraph (2) of Part II.
(3) A party may also file a Form CB in paper under a hardship exemption provided by Regulation S-T Rule 201 or 202 (17 CFR 232.201 or 232.202). When submitting a Form CB in paper under a hardship exemption, a party must provide the legend required by Regulation S-T Rule 201(a)(2) or 202(c) (17 CFR 232.201(a)(2) or 232.202(c)) on the cover page of the Form CB.
(4) If filing the Form CB in paper in accordance with Rule 101(b)(8) or a hardship exemption, you must furnish five copies of this Form and any amendment to the Form (see Part I, Item 1.(b)), including all exhibits and any other paper or document furnished as part of the Form, to the Commission at its principal office. You must bind, staple or otherwise compile each copy in one or more parts without stiff covers. You must make the binding on the side or stitching margin in a manner that leaves the reading matter legible.
B. When submitting the Form CB in electronic format, the persons specified in Part IV must provide signatures in accordance with Regulation S-T Rule 302 (17 CFR 232.302). When submitting the Form CB in paper, the persons specified in Part IV
D. If filing in paper, in addition to any internal numbering you may include, sequentially number the signed original of the Form and any amendments by handwritten, typed, printed or other legible form of notation from the first page of the document through the last page of the document and any exhibits or attachments. Further, you must set forth the total number of pages contained in a numbered original on the first page of the document.
(1) Furnish to the Commission either an English translation or English summary of any reports or information that, in accordance with the requirements of the home jurisdiction, must be made publicly available in connection with the transaction but need not be disseminated to security holders. Any English summary submitted must meet the requirements of Regulation S-T Rule 306(a) (17 CFR 232.306(a)) if submitted electronically or of Securities Act Rule 403(c)(3) (17 CFR 230.403(c)(3)) or Exchange Act Rule 12b-12(d)(3) (17 CFR 240.12b-12(d)(3)) if submitted in paper.
(2) Furnish copies of any documents incorporated by reference into the home jurisdiction document(s).
In accordance with Regulation S-T Rule 311(f) (17 CFR 232.311(f)), a party may submit a paper copy under cover of Form SE (17 CFR 239.64, 249.444, 259.603, 269.8, and 274.403) of an unabridged foreign language document when submitting an English summary in electronic format under paragraph (1) of this Part or when furnishing a foreign language document that has been incorporated by reference under paragraph (2) of this Part.
(3) If any of the persons specified in Part IV has signed the Form CB under a power of attorney, a party submitting the Form CB in electronic format must include a copy of the power of attorney signed in accordance with Regulation S-T Rule 302 (17 CFR 232.302). A party submitting the Form CB in paper must also include a copy of the signed power of attorney.
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports under cover of Form 20-F or Form 40-F:
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1): __
Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1) only permits the submission in paper of a Form 6-K if submitted solely to provide an attached annual report to security holders.
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7): __
Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7) only permits the submission in paper of a Form 6-K if submitted to furnish a report or other document that the registrant foreign private issuer must furnish and make public under the laws of the jurisdiction in which the registrant is incorporated, domiciled or legally organized (the registrant's “home country”), or under the rules of the home country exchange on which the registrant's securities are traded, as long as the report or other document is not a press release, is not required to be and has not been distributed to the registrant's security holders, and, if discussing a material event, has already been the subject of a Form 6-K submission or other Commission filing on EDGAR.
Indicate by check mark whether by furnishing the information contained in this Form, the registrant is also thereby furnishing the information to the Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Yes __ No __
If “Yes” is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the registrant in connection with Rule 12g3-2(b): 82-__
C. Preparation and Filing of Report. (1) The Form 6-K report shall consist of a cover page, the report or document furnished by the issuer, and a signature page. An issuer must submit the Form 6-K report in electronic format via the Commission's Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval (EDGAR) system in accordance with the EDGAR rules set forth in Regulation S-T (17 CFR Part 232) except as discussed below. An issuer submitting the Form 6-K in electronic format must provide the signatures required for the Form 6-K report in accordance with Regulation S-T Rule 302 (17 CFR 232.302). For assistance with technical questions about EDGAR or to request an access code, call the EDGAR Filer Support Office at (202) 942-8900. For assistance with the EDGAR rules, call the Office of EDGAR and Information Analysis at (202) 942-2940.
(2) An issuer may submit a Form 6-K in paper under:
• Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1) (17 CFR 232.101(b)(1)) if the sole purpose of the Form 6-K is to furnish an annual report to security holders;
• Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7) to provide a report or other document that the issuer must furnish and make public under the laws of the jurisdiction in which it is incorporated, domiciled or legally organized (the issuer's “home country”), or under the rules of the home country exchange on which the issuer's securities are traded, as long as the report or other document is not a press release, is not required to be and has not been distributed to the issuer's security holders, and, if discussing a material event, including the disclosure of annual audited or interim consolidated financial results, has already been the subject of a Form 6-K submission or other Commission filing on EDGAR; or
• A hardship exemption provided by Regulation S-T Rule 201 or 202 (17 CFR 232.201 or 232.202).
An issuer that is or will be incorporating by reference all or part of an annual or other report to security holders, or of any part of a paper Form 6-K, into an electronic filing must file the incorporated portion in electronic format as an exhibit to the filing in accordance with Regulation S-T Rule 303(b) (17 CFR 232.303(b)).
(3) When submitting a Form 6-K in paper under one of the above rules, an issuer must check the appropriate box on the cover page of the Form 6-K. When submitting a Form 6-K in paper under a hardship exemption, an issuer must provide the legend required by Regulation S-T Rule 201(a)(2) or 202(c) (17 CFR 232.201(a)(2) or 232.202(c)) on the cover page of the Form 6-K.
(4) An issuer furnishing the Form 6-K in paper under one of the above rules, or as otherwise permitted by the Commission, must deposit with the Commission eight complete copies of the Form 6-K report. An issuer must also file at least one complete copy of the Form 6-K with each United States stock exchange on which any security of the issuer is listed and registered under Section 12(b) of the Exchange Act. The issuer must have signed at least one of the paper copies deposited with the Commission and one filed with each United States stock exchange in accordance with Exchange Act Rule 12b-11(d) (17 CFR 240.12b-11(d)) when submitting the Form 6-K in paper to the Commission. An issuer submitting the Form 6-K in paper must also conform the unsigned copies. When submitting the Form 6-K in electronic format to the Commission, an issuer may submit a paper copy containing
D. Treatment of Foreign Language Documents. (1) An issuer must submit the Form 6-K report in electronic format in the English language in accordance with Regulation S-T Rule 306 (17 CFR 232.306) and Exchange Act Rule 12b-12(d) (17 CFR 240.12b-12(d)), as referenced in Regulation S-T Rule 306(a) (17 CFR 232.306(a)), except as otherwise provided by this Form. An issuer submitting the Form 6-K in paper must meet the requirements of Exchange Act Rule 12b-12(d) (17 CFR 240.12b-12(d)). In accordance with, or in addition to, the list of documents specified in Exchange Act Rule 12b-12(d)(2) (17 CFR 240.12b-12(d)(2)), an issuer must provide a full English translation of the following documents furnished under cover of Form 6-K whether submitted electronically or in paper:
• Press releases;
• Communications and other documents distributed directly to security holders for each class of securities to which a reporting obligation under Exchange Act Section 13(a) or 15(d) pertains, except for offering circulars and prospectuses that relate entirely to securities offerings outside the United States (“foreign offerings”); and
• Documents disclosing annual audited or interim consolidated financial information.
(2) In addition to the documents specified in Exchange Act Rule 12b-12(d)(3) (17 CFR 240.12b-12(d)(3)), an issuer may furnish under cover of Form 6-K, whether submitted electronically or in paper, an English summary instead of a full English translation of a report required to be furnished and made public under the laws of the issuer's home country or the rules of the issuer's home country stock exchange, as long as it is not a press release and is not required to be and has not been distributed to the issuer's security holders. Such a document may include a report disclosing unconsolidated financial information about a parent company.
(3) An issuer is not required to submit under cover of Form 6-K an offering circular or prospectus that pertains solely to a foreign offering, even when an English translation or English summary is available, if the issuer has already submitted a Form 6-K or filed a Form 20-F or other Commission filing on EDGAR that reported material information disclosed in the offering circular or prospectus. If an issuer has not previously disclosed this material information to the Commission, it may submit in electronic format under cover of Form 6-K an English translation or English summary of the portion of the foreign offering circular or prospectus that discusses the new material information.
(4) Any submitted English summary must meet the requirements of Exchange Act Rule 12b-12(d)(3)(ii) (17 CFR 240.12b-12(d)(3)(ii)). An issuer may submit the unabridged foreign language report or other document along with the English summary or English translation as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 306(b) (17 CFR 232.306(b)) for electronic filings and Exchange Act Rule 12b-12(d)(4) (17 CFR 240.12b-12(d)(4)) for paper filings.
15 U.S.C. 77ddd(c), 77eee, 77ggg, 77hhh, 77iii, 77jjj, 77sss, 78
B. (1) This is [check one]:
(2) Check the following box if you are filing the Form F-X in paper in accordance with Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(9) ☐.
Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(9) only permits the filing of the Form F-X in paper:
(a) If the party filing or submitting the Form CB is not subject to the reporting requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; or
(b) If filed by a Canadian issuer when qualifying an offering statement pursuant to the provisions of Regulation A (230.251—230.263 of this chapter).
(3) A filer may also file the Form F-X in paper under a hardship exemption provided by Regulation S-T Rule 201 or 202 (17 CFR 232.201 or 232.202). When submitting the Form F-X in paper under a hardship exemption, a filer must provide the legend required by Regulation S-T Rule 201(a)(2) or 202(c) (17 CFR 232.201(a)(2) or 232.202(c)) on the cover page of the Form F-X.
By the Commission.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Proposed rule.
The Securities and Exchange Commission is proposing rule and form amendments under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Company Act of 1940 to provide registered investment companies and business development companies with the ability to disclose more timely information in advertisements and to reinforce the antifraud protections that apply to investment company advertisements. The proposed amendments would implement a provision of the National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996 by permitting the use of a prospectus under section 10(b) of the Securities Act with respect to securities issued by an investment company that includes information the substance of which is not included in the investment company's statutory prospectus. The proposed amendments also would require enhanced disclosure in investment company advertisements and are designed to encourage advertisements that convey balanced information to prospective investors, particularly with respect to past performance.
Comments must be received on or before July 31, 2002.
Comments should be submitted in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 5th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Comments also may be submitted electronically at the following E-mail address:
Christopher P. Kaiser, Attorney, David S. Schwartz, Attorney, or Paul G. Cellupica, Assistant Director, at (202) 942-0721, Office of Disclosure Regulation, Division of Investment Management, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 5th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0506.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is proposing for comment amendments to rule 134 [17 CFR 230.134], rule 156 [17 CFR 230.156], and rule 482 [17 CFR 230.482] under the Securities Act of 1933 [15 U.S.C. 77a
Like most issuers of securities, when an investment company (“fund”) offers its shares to the public, its promotional efforts become subject to the advertising restrictions of the Securities Act. Congress imposed these restrictions so that investors would base their investment decisions on the full disclosures contained in the “statutory prospectus,” which Congress intended to be the primary selling document.
A unit investment trust (“UIT”) is “an investment company which (A) is organized under a trust indenture, contract of custodianship or agency, or similar instrument, (B) does not have a board of directors, and (C) issues only redeemable securities, each of which represents an undivided interest in a unit of specified securities; but does not include a voting trust.” Section 4(2) of the Investment Company Act [15 U.S.C. 80a-4(2)]. UITs typically have active secondary markets in which the trusts' sponsors are continuously purchasing and selling the trusts' units.
A face-amount certificate is a security that obligates the issuer to pay a stated (or determinable) amount on a fixed (or determinable) date or series of dates more than twenty-four months after the date of issuance. Section 2(a)(15) of the Investment Company Act [15 U.S.C. 80a-2(a)(15)]. A face-amount certificate company is an investment company that engages or proposes to engage in the business of issuing certain face-amount certificates. Section 4(1) of the Investment Company Act [15 U.S.C. 80a-4(1)].
In recognition of these problems, the Commission has adopted special advertising rules for investment companies. The most important of these is rule 482 under the Securities Act, which permits investment companies to advertise investment performance data, as well as other information.
At the same time, we are proposing amendments to the fund advertising rules that are intended to reinforce antifraud protections and encourage the provision of information to investors that is more balanced and informative, particularly in the area of investment performance. Many funds experienced extraordinary performance during 1999 and 2000, particularly funds investing in technology and Internet stocks.
The Commission has undertaken a series of initiatives to address trends in the area of performance advertising. We have engaged in education efforts to caution investors against the dangers of chasing fund performance and focusing only on short-term asset growth.
Section 5 of the Securities Act contains prohibitions regarding the dissemination of written selling material to investors during the offering period. Section 5(b)(1) makes it unlawful to use interstate commerce to transmit any prospectus relating to a security with respect to which a registration statement has been filed unless the prospectus meets the requirements of section 10 of the Securities Act.
There is a limited exception to the general requirement that written and radio or television offers after the filing of a registration statement must be in the form of a section 10 prospectus. So-called “supplemental sales literature” may be used after the effective date of a registration statement if accompanied or preceded by the statutory prospectus.
The advertising restrictions of the Securities Act cause special problems for many investment companies. Unlike typical corporate issuers that generally offer their shares only periodically, mutual funds typically offer and sell their shares continuously to provide an ongoing flow of capital into their portfolios and to enable them to meet redemption requests from outgoing shareholders. Unit investment trusts (“UITs”) typically have active secondary markets in which the trusts' sponsors are continuously purchasing and selling the trusts' units. For mutual funds and UITs, the advertising restrictions apply continuously because the offering process, in effect, is continuous. In recognition of this issue, the Commission has adopted special advertising rules for investment companies.
The Commission adopted rule 482 under the authority of section 10(b) of the Securities Act, which permits the Commission to adopt rules that provide for a prospectus that “omits in part” or “summarizes” information contained in the statutory prospectus.
Because a rule 482 advertisement is a prospectus under section 10(b) of the Securities Act, a rule 482 advertisement is subject to section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, which imposes liability for materially false or misleading statements in a prospectus or oral communication, subject to a reasonable care defense.
Members of the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”) also must comply with rule 2210 of the NASD Conduct Rules when sponsoring fund advertisements. Rule 2210 provides NASD members with general standards outlining what may constitute misleading fund advertising and specific standards reflecting requirements for advertising communications. Rules 2210(d)(1) and (2) of the NASD Conduct Rules.
In contrast to rule 482, rule 134 is a content-based rule that specifies certain categories of information that a fund may advertise. The Commission adopted rule 134 under the authority of section 2(a)(10)(b) of the Securities Act.
Because the Commission adopted rule 134 under section 2(a)(10)(b) of the Securities Act, rule 134 advertisements are not considered prospectuses. As a result, rule 134 advertisements do not create liability under section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, which by its terms applies only to prospectuses and oral communications.
Rule 34b-1 under the Investment Company Act applies to supplemental sales literature,
Rule 156 under the Securities Act provides guidance on the types of information that could be misleading in fund sales literature.
Although there are many factors other than performance that an investor should consider in deciding whether to invest in a particular fund, many investors consider performance to be one of the most significant factors when selecting or evaluating mutual funds.
• Advertising performance without providing adequate disclosure of unusual circumstances that have contributed to performance;
• Advertising performance without providing adequate disclosure of the performance period, that more current performance information is available, or that more current performance may be lower than advertised performance; and
• Advertising performance based on selective dates or time periods in order to showcase fund performance as of those specific dates or time periods without providing disclosure that would permit an investor to evaluate the significance of the performance.
Mutual fund performance advertisements may be materially misleading when they fail to adequately disclose that unusual circumstances contributed to the fund's advertised performance. In each of two enforcement actions, an investment adviser had marketed a relatively small fund's unusually high return without disclosing that a significant percentage of the fund's return was attributable to its investments in securities issued in initial public offerings.
To address these concerns, some mutual fund advertisements supplement their presentations of performance information with narrative disclosure that is designed to inform investors that the funds' performance was achieved through the use of particular investment strategies under specified circumstances that are not likely to recur. For example, one fund advertisement disclosed that a significant portion of the fund's advertised performance was attributable to the allocation of initial public offering securities to the fund but indicated that such allocation would not likely continue in the future.
Rule 482 requires all performance data contained in any mutual fund advertisement to be as of the most recent practicable date, provided that any advertisement containing total return quotations is considered to have complied with this requirement if the total return quotations are current to the most recent calendar quarter ended prior to submission of the advertisement for publication.
We questioned this practice in an enforcement action where we found that the failure to disclose the large impact of initial public offerings on a fund's performance during the fund's first fiscal year made the fund's performance advertisements materially false and misleading.
To address this concern, some mutual fund advertisements supplement their presentations of performance information with narrative disclosure that is designed to inform investors that the advertised performance is not the fund's current performance. Some advertisements disclose that, due to market volatility or other factors, the fund's performance changes over time or that the fund's current performance may be lower than the advertised performance. Other advertisements direct investors to other sources where they may find more up-to-date performance information, such as the fund's toll-free telephone number or website or the mutual fund section of the newspaper in which the advertisements appear. In addition, some advertisements include performance information that is more current than the information required by rule 482.
A mutual fund advertisement may be materially misleading when it showcases a fund's performance for a certain time period without providing sufficient information to permit an investor to evaluate the significance of the performance data. Rule 482, by its terms, permits a mutual fund to advertise its performance for any period so long as it is accompanied by performance for 1-, 5-, and 10-year periods (or, if shorter, for the life of the fund) current to the most recent quarter.
We are proposing to amend rule 482 to permit rule 482 advertisements to include information that is not included in the statutory prospectus, in accordance with NSMIA. In light of the proposed amendments to rule 482, we are also proposing to rescind the provisions in rule 134 that apply to funds. At the same time, however, and in light of our concerns about fund advertising practices, we believe that it is appropriate to reinforce the antifraud protections in the fund advertising rules. Our proposals would require enhanced disclosure of information in fund advertisements and are designed to encourage advertisements that convey balanced information to prospective investors.
In 1992, the Division of Investment Management recommended to the Commission that the Securities Act be amended to permit investment companies to advertise a wide range of information in the form of an “advertising prospectus,” including information that is not included in the statutory prospectus required by section 10(a).
Today we are proposing to implement this provision of NSMIA by amending rule 482 to remove the requirement that a rule 482 advertisement contain only information the “substance of which” is included in the statutory prospectus.
Elimination of the “substance of which” requirement from rule 482 should not diminish investor protection. The “substance of which” requirement is a technical requirement that does not, in itself, prevent misleading statements because it does not require an advertisement to use the same words as the statutory prospectus or prohibit the use of advertising techniques that are not included in the statutory prospectus.
We are using our exemptive authority under the Securities Act to eliminate the “substance of which” requirement from rule 482 for the securities of business development companies (“BDCs”) as well as registered investment companies.
• Are the proposed amendments to rule 482 to eliminate the “substance of which” requirement the appropriate means for implementing the authority provided to the Commission in NSMIA?
• Are other restrictions or conditions necessary in rule 482 for the protection of investors in the absence of the “substance of which” requirement?
• What concerns should be addressed by any such restrictions or conditions?
• Should the “substance of which” requirement be eliminated for BDCs?
With the proposed elimination of the “substance of which” requirement, we believe that funds will no longer need to rely on rule 134.
• Should funds be excluded from relying on rule 134?
• If funds should continue to be permitted to rely on rule 134, how, if at all, should rule 134 be amended?
• In the alternative, should only certain types of funds (
The Commission proposes to amend the fund advertising rules in order to reemphasize that fund advertisements are subject to the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. We understand that questions have been raised regarding whether compliance with the terms of rule 482 satisfies all of the obligations of a fund with respect to its advertisements.
To emphasize this principle, we propose adding a note to proposed paragraph (a) of rule 482 that would state that an advertisement that complies with rule 482 does not relieve the fund, underwriter, or dealer of the obligation to ensure that the advertisement is not false or misleading. We also propose adding a similar note to the introductory paragraph of rule 34b-1 under the Investment Company Act with respect to supplemental sales literature. We are proposing to add the note to rule 34b-1 to make clear that, as with rule 482, compliance with the rule does not relieve the fund, or its underwriter or dealer, from the obligation to ensure that an advertisement is not false or misleading, whether due to an affirmative misstatement or omission. These proposed notes also would cross-reference rule 156 under the Securities Act, which provides guidance about the factors to be weighed in determining whether statements, representations, illustrations, and descriptions contained in fund advertisements and sales literature are misleading.
In addition, we are proposing to amend rule 156 to provide further guidance regarding the factors to be weighed in considering whether a statement involving a material fact in investment company sales materials is or might be misleading. As discussed above, we are concerned that the advertisement of past performance without an adequate explanation of other facts may create unrealistic investor expectations or even mislead potential investors. For that reason, we are modifying the language of rule 156 to state more explicitly that portrayals of past income, gain, or growth of assets may be misleading where the portrayals omit explanations, qualifications, limitations, or other statements necessary or appropriate to make these portrayals of past performance not misleading.
• Are there additional amendments to rule 482, rule 34b-1, and rule 156 that would help to emphasize the obligations under the antifraud provisions of funds and their underwriters and dealers?
We are also proposing additional amendments to rule 482 that would require enhanced disclosure of certain information designed to encourage advertisements that convey balanced information to prospective investors. Our proposed amendments would require that funds that advertise performance information make available to investors total returns that are current to the most recent month-end. They also would require that fund advertisements include improved narrative information and present explanatory information more prominently.
As discussed above, Rule 482 requires all performance data contained in any mutual fund advertisement to be as of the most recent practicable date, provided that any advertisement containing total return quotations is considered to have complied with the requirement if the total return quotations are current to the most recent calendar quarter ended prior to submission of the advertisement for publication.
In order to address this concern, we are proposing to add a second condition for a fund advertisement to be considered to have complied with the requirement of rule 482 that performance be as of the most recent practicable date. Specifically, total return quotations current to the most recent month-end, and available to investors within three calendar days of the most recent month-end, must be provided at a toll-free (or collect) telephone number.
This proposal would ensure that investors who are provided advertisements touting a fund's performance will have ready access to performance that is current to the most recent month-end and will not be forced to rely on performance data that may be more than three months old at the time of use by the investor. Outdated fund performance that is relied on by an investor when, for example, the markets have generally entered a period of lower performance, may cause the investor to have an overly optimistic view of the fund's ability to outperform the markets. We believe that today's proposal will help to address this problem by making more recent performance data available to investors in any fund that advertises its performance.
We note that the proposed amendments would require the availability of month-end performance information even if the advertisement itself included performance current as of the most recent month-end at the time of submission for publication. The availability of month-end information would be useful to investors in these circumstances if, for example, the advertisement continued to be used subsequent to the end of the following month, or if the investor referred to the advertisement at a later date.
Finally, we note that the availability of month-end information by telephone does not alter the application of the antifraud provisions to an advertisement. The month-end information obtained through a telephone call would not be considered part of the advertisement itself.
We considered amending the requirements of rule 482 to provide that an advertisement would be considered to have complied with the “most recent practicable date” requirement if the total return quotations are current to the most recent calendar month ended prior to submission of the advertisement for publication. This approach would have the advantage of providing more current performance information to investors in advertisements rather than placing the burden on investors to seek out this information through a telephone call. We were not, however, persuaded that the benefits to investors from this approach would outweigh the costs it would impose.
First, a month-end standard for rule 482 performance data could result in an increase in the number of instances in which performance information for different periods appeared concurrently as a result of different lead times for different publications. One advantage of the quarter-end approach is that it tends to result in the publication of comparable numbers by different funds. Second, requiring all funds to publish data as of the most recent month-end in all cases, without regard to the materiality of this information, would perhaps accord very recent performance greater status than it deserves and could contribute to investors' tendency to focus excessively on short-term performance.
A month-end standard would also impose costs on funds and, indirectly, on investors. While a month-end standard might be fairly simple to comply with for advertisements in some publications (
We also considered whether to provide funds greater flexibility in determining the medium through which to make month-end numbers available, so that a fund could, for example, meet this obligation through website access. We concluded that, at this time, requiring telephone availability would ensure the most widespread access to this information by all investors. While the percentage of households with Internet access has increased considerably in recent years, it remains
We also note that nothing in rule 482 or our proposed amendments would preclude a fund from using (and disclosing in a rule 482 advertisement) other methods for providing updated performance information, such as broker-dealers, investment advisers, and other financial intermediaries. We would encourage funds to use any means to make this information more accessible. Our proposals reflect our view, however, that updated performance information should be available from the fund itself through a telephone call to an identified number and that other forms of distribution of this updated information should supplement availability from the fund itself.
• Is our proposed requirement appropriate, or should we, instead, require funds to provide more current performance information in all advertisements? If so, how current should the information be,
• Should we require funds to provide more current performance information in certain types of publications,
• If we require funds to provide more current performance information through a toll-free telephone number or other means, is month-end data current enough or should this information be updated more frequently than monthly (
• Should we require month-end performance data to be available at a toll-free (or collect) telephone number where the advertisement itself includes performance data current to the most recent month ended prior to submission of the advertisement for publication?
• Should we require that updated performance information available through a telephone number be current as of the most recent practicable date (rather than specifying a particular date, such as month-end), and, if so, should we provide guidance regarding what would satisfy that requirement (
• Is three calendar days an appropriate period of time after each month-end in which to require funds to make available month-end performance information on a telephone line? If not, should funds be allowed more or less time, and, if so, how much time is needed,
• Is telephone access to updated performance information the best alternative, or is another alternative, such as website access, better?
• Should funds have flexibility to choose the medium for communicating updated performance information?
• What would be the cost of requiring access to month-end performance information by toll-free telephone number for funds that do not currently provide this access?
• A number of daily newspapers of national circulation, such as
As discussed above, there have been increasing concerns, arising from the period of extraordinary market performance in 1999 and 2000, that some funds, when advertising their performance, may resort to techniques that create unrealistic investor expectations or may mislead potential investors. As a result, we are proposing changes to the narrative disclosure that is required to accompany performance advertisements in order to help investors understand the limitations of past performance data and enhance the ability of investors to obtain updated performance information. At present, rule 482 requires advertisements to disclose (i) a source from which an investor may obtain a prospectus containing more complete information about the fund; (ii) that the performance data quoted represents past performance; and (iii) in the case of a non-money market fund, that the investment return and principal value of an investment will fluctuate so that an investor's shares, when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost.
These statements should help investors to understand the limitations of past performance presentations, namely, that they represent historical information that may not repeat in the future and may even be somewhat outdated at the time an investor is reviewing them. In addition, provision of a toll-free (or collect) telephone number and, if the fund has month-end performance information available on its Web site, the Web site where an investor may obtain performance data current to the most recent month-end will provide investors ready access to a fund's more current performance.
We are also proposing an amendment to rule 482 that would direct prospective investors' attention to a fund's charges and expenses. The proposed amendment would require a fund to note in its rule 482 advertisements that information about charges and expenses is contained in the statutory prospectus.
Mutual fund fees and expenses are extremely important to shareholders. The United States General Accounting Office (“GAO”), in a recent report to Congress on mutual fund fees, stressed the importance of heightening “investors” awareness and understanding of the fees they pay.”
• Will the proposed disclosure about charges and expenses be helpful to investors?
• Is there other disclosure with respect to charges and expenses that should be required in fund advertisements? Are there fund features, in addition to charges and expenses, that a rule 482 advertisement should highlight?
We are also proposing that funds present certain information in their rule 482 advertisements more prominently. Funds often present required disclosure in small print and relegate it to a footnote at the bottom of a print advertisement or the end of a television advertisement.
The proposed amendments would require print advertisements to present required narrative disclosures in a size type at least as large as and of a style different from, but at least as prominent as, that used in the major portion of the advertisement.
In addition to complying with the presentation requirements of proposed paragraph (b)(5) of rule 482, electronic versions of print rule 482 advertisements would also continue to be subject to the legibility requirements of rule 420(b). [17 CFR 230.420(b)].
In addition, we are proposing that the narrative disclosures that specifically relate to fund performance be presented in close proximity to the performance data in both print and radio and television advertisements.
• Are the proposed presentation requirements appropriate to encourage important explanatory information to be given sufficient prominence?
• Are there alternative methods for encouraging important explanatory information to be given sufficient prominence in a rule 482 advertisement?
• Which required disclosures should be covered by any such presentation requirements?
• Should we require a font size larger than the 8-point type required under rule 420 for these required disclosures?
• Are the proposed presentation requirements feasible for radio and television advertisements, given the inherent time limitations associated with the use of these media?
• Are there specific presentation requirements that should apply to the use of electronic media?
• Are there any other requirements that should apply to fund performance advertisements in order to help ensure that performance is presented in a manner that is accurate, balanced, and not misleading?
We also propose to reorganize rule 482 to make it easier to use. To do this, we have added headings to the rule and have simplified certain provisions, without changing their content, to make the rule easier to understand. In addition, we have reordered provisions within the rule and grouped the provisions by topic.
• Would these proposed changes make the rule more comprehensible?
• Are there other changes that would be helpful?
• Would these amendments inadvertently change the meaning of any provisions within the rule?
We also propose to amend Item 21 of Form N-1A, Item 25 of Form N-3, and Item 21 of Form N-4, and to delete Item 4(c) of Form N-3, Item 4(b) of Form N-4, and Item 25 of Form N-6 to reflect the proposed removal of the “substance of which” requirement in rule 482.
We also note that we are proposing to delete requirements in Forms N-1A, N-3, and N-4 that specifically require disclosure of the method of calculating performance, and the length of and the last day of the base period used in calculating a performance quotation, and requirements in Form N-1A that require disclosure of the income tax rate used in a performance calculation.
• If we eliminate the “substance of which” requirement from rule 482, are there other reasons why a fund should continue to be required to include information about its methods of calculating performance in its prospectus or SAI?
• For example, should a fund be required to include in the SAI a description of the methods by which
If we adopt the proposed amendments, we intend that the amendment eliminating the “substance of which” requirement from rule 482 will take effect immediately upon the effective date of the amendments. We also expect to require fund advertisements used 90 days or more after the effective date of the amendments to comply with the amendments. The Commission requests comment on these proposed dates. Is 90 days an appropriate transition period for compliance, or should this be shorter or longer? Should we base compliance on the date an advertisement is used, or should we require compliance based on the date an advertisement is submitted for publication, or should we adopt some other alternative?
The amendments we propose today would enhance the basic framework for fund performance advertising that we have had in place for many years. Since 1988, we have required mutual funds that advertise performance to include standardized performance numbers in their advertisements.
Investors today face a daunting task when they attempt to sort through the wealth of available mutual fund options to choose an appropriate investment. In making those choices, investors frequently rely on investment performance.
The Commission is undertaking an effort to modernize our rules and forms in many areas. In light of this effort, we are searching for ways to provide more meaningful and useful information to investors about mutual funds.
• Are there alternatives to the framework of regulation for investment company advertising that is presently in place that would more effectively protect investors?
• Has the role of advertisements changed over the past several years? Has the role of advertisements changed when compared to the role of the statutory prospectus? If so, how? Should we revise our approach to the regulation of fund advertisements in light of those changes?
• For example, would it be better simply to require that mutual fund advertisements adhere to general standards that would result in providing information that would assist the average investor without prescribing any regulation of the contents of advertisements, including standards for performance advertising?
• To what extent should standards for fund advertising be established by the Commission, and to what extent should they be established by other organizations,
• Is the standardization of performance data necessary or helpful to enable investors to compare different funds or prevent fraudulent performance claims? Does the advertisement of standardized performance data obscure important factors, such as costs and risk, that vary from fund to fund and are important to an investment decision?
• Does the standardization of performance advertising encourage too much reliance on performance? Should our rules be designed to produce more qualitative information in advertisements? If so, how?
• Currently, our rules include standardized performance calculations for investment companies, but not for investment advisers. Does this difference make sense and, if not, what changes should we make?
• Should fund advertisements be required to include information about a variety of factors that are important in making an investment decision? If so, should the Commission prescribe the factors that should be covered (
• Is it helpful or necessary to prescribe the manner in which information should be presented in advertisements,
• Should radio and television fund advertisements, or other forms of advertisement where the investor may not refer back to the advertisement, be regulated differently than print advertisements?
• What are the costs for funds, and indirectly for investors, as well as other parties, associated with various alternative means of regulating fund advertising?
• What liability standards should apply to fund advertisements?
The Commission requests comment on the amendments proposed in this release, suggestions for additional provisions or changes to existing rules or forms, and comments on other matters that might have an effect on the proposals contained in this release.
We also wish to solicit comment on a provision of rule 482 relating to variable insurance contracts. Rule 482 generally prohibits a rule 482 advertisement from containing or being accompanied by an application to purchase fund shares.
Rule 482 contains an exception from the prohibition against applications for unit investment trusts that offer variable annuity or variable life insurance contracts.
In recent years, members of the variable insurance industry have requested that the Commission staff clarify the scope of the variable insurance exception from the application prohibition of rule 482. By its terms, the exception permits a contract application to accompany a rule 482 advertisement for the underlying funds only when the rule 482 advertisement is a part of the contract prospectus itself. Members of the industry have argued that it should be permissible for a contract prospectus and application to be accompanied by other rule 482 advertisements for the underlying funds that are not a part of the prospectus itself.
Advocates of this position argue that rule 482 permits either of the following: (i) Delivery of a rule 482 advertisement for an underlying fund (without an application); and (ii) delivery of a contract prospectus with an application. They therefore argue that, under rule 482, delivery of a rule 482 advertisement for an underlying fund (without an application) could be either preceded or followed by delivery of a contract prospectus with an application. As a result, they conclude that it should be permissible for a contract prospectus and application to be accompanied by other rule 482 advertisements for the underlying funds because whether the delivery of the additional rule 482 advertisements is made together with the contract material or separately from it is a question of form, rather than substance.
We believe that it would be useful to clarify the ambiguities in the scope of the insurance exception from the application prohibition of rule 482, so that issuers of variable insurance products may operate with greater certainty. Therefore, we request comment on this issue.
• Should rule 482 advertisements for the underlying funds that are not contained in the contract prospectus itself be permitted to be delivered simultaneously with the contract prospectus and accompanying purchase application?
• Should we amend rule 482 to explicitly permit this practice, or should we amend rule 482 to explicitly prohibit this practice?
• Particularly in light of the fact that we are proposing to remove the “substance of which” requirement from rule 482, are there relevant differences between permitting a contract prospectus that is filed with the Commission and subject to strict liability under Section 11 of the Securities Act to be accompanied by an application and permitting additional rule 482 advertisements for the underlying funds that are not subject to Section 11 liability to be accompanied by an application?
• Variable insurance products are one among many channels through which mutual funds are distributed. How would explicitly broadening, or confining, the scope of the insurance exception from the application prohibition affect other sectors of the fund industry that are not permitted to include fund applications with rule 482 advertisements? What would the competitive effects be within the variable insurance industry and as between the variable insurance industry and other sectors of the fund industry?
• Should the Commission reconsider the insurance exception for competitive or other reasons? Is the insurance exception consistent with investor protection, given the limited amount of information about the underlying funds that is typically contained in the contract prospectus? We note, for example, that the fee table of recently adopted Form N-6 for variable life insurance policies requires disclosure of the range of expenses of all underlying funds offered through a policy rather than the expenses of each fund and that the Commission has proposed conforming amendments to the fee table of Form N-4 for variable annuities.
The Commission is sensitive to the costs and benefits associated with its rules. The Commission requests comment and empirical data regarding the costs and benefits of the proposed amendments to the advertising rules.
The Commission is proposing rule amendments under the Securities Act and the Investment Company Act. To provide funds with the ability to disclose more timely information in advertisements, the proposed amendments would remove the “substance of which” requirement contained in rule 482 under the Securities Act, and would rescind the provisions in rule 134 under the Securities Act that apply to funds. In addition, the proposed amendments would reinforce the antifraud protections in the fund advertising rules, and would require enhanced disclosure of certain information in fund advertisements designed to encourage advertisements that convey balanced information to prospective investors. Finally, the proposed amendments would make certain organizational changes to rule 482 and
Like most issuers of securities, when an investment company (“fund”) offers its shares to the public, its promotional efforts become subject to the advertising restrictions of the Securities Act. Congress imposed these restrictions so that investors would base their investment decisions on the full disclosures contained in the “statutory prospectus,” which Congress intended to be the primary selling document.
The Commission adopted rule 482 under the authority of section 10(b) of the Securities Act, which permits the Commission to adopt rules that provide for a prospectus that omits “in part” or “summarizes” information in the statutory prospectus.
In contrast to rule 482, rule 134 is a content-based rule that specifies certain categories of information that a fund may advertise. Originally, rule 134 communications, known as “tombstone advertisements,” were intended merely to announce the existence of a public offering and serve as a simple means for soliciting inquiries for the statutory prospectus.
Based on the Commission staff's discussions with certain fund complexes and its experience with the various types of investment companies registered with the Commission, we estimate that the current annual hour burden associated with rule 482 and rule 134 is approximately 40.275 hours per investment company.
In addition, Rule 156 under the Securities Act [17 CFR 230.156] is an interpretive regulation giving guidance as to whether sales literature is materially misleading. There is no cost associated directly with this rule.
The proposed amendments would modify rule 482 of the Securities Act and related rules and forms, to provide more timely, informative, and balanced information in fund advertising for the benefit of investors. The amendments would also simplify and clarify the advertising rules, thus reducing regulatory compliance costs, and these cost savings may be passed on to investors.
Currently, the regulations concerning advertising include significant disclosure requirements. The proposed amendments would enhance the disclosure provided to investors in fund advertising in several respects:
•
•
•
•
•
The benefits of these enhanced disclosure requirements to investors may be limited by the extent to which funds currently provide this disclosure voluntarily. Staff discussions with members of the fund industry indicate that most investment companies already comply with many of the requirements of the proposed amendments, by, for example, calculating performance data on at least a monthly basis, inserting warnings in advertisements that past performance is no guarantee of future performance, and operating websites and telephone call banks.
Nevertheless, the enhanced disclosure requirements would provide two benefits to investors. To the extent investment decisions are made based on advertising, the improved disclosure would result in investors making better informed investment decisions, and therefore in a more efficient distribution of assets by investors among different funds. The transparency resulting from the enhanced disclosure in fund advertising may, in turn, also contribute to increased competition among funds and result in a more efficient allocation of resources among competing investment products. Although it is not possible to quantify the beneficial effects of more efficient allocation of investors' assets and increased competition, they may be significant, given the size of the mutual fund industry.
The proposed amendments would add clarifying language to rule 482 and rule 156 under the Securities Act and rule 34b-1 under the Investment Company Act to reemphasize the separate applicability of the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. In addition, the proposed amendments would reorganize and modify rule 482 to make it easier for funds to apply, by adding headings, reordering provisions, and clarifying certain language.
The proposed amendments to rule 482 may aid funds and others in understanding and complying with the advertising rules, making it easier and cheaper for funds to advertise. This may, in turn, contribute to an increased flow of useful investment information to investors, which may lead to better-informed investment decisions and amplify the previously discussed benefits of efficient asset allocation.
To simplify the current structure of fund advertising rules and to provide funds the ability to disclose more timely information in advertisements, the proposed amendments would also remove the “substance of which” limitation contained in rule 482, allowing funds to include in their 482 advertisements material that is not included in the statutory prospectus. These amendments would render the current distinction between rule 482 and rule 134 advertisements unnecessary. As such, the proposed amendments would also rescind the provisions of rule 134 that apply to funds.
The elimination of the “substance of which” requirement would enable funds to avoid the need to include or update advertising related information in their prospectus or SAI, both in the initial registration statements and in post-effective amendments, before issuing an advertisement to the public. This would reduce filing costs for funds, including both internal costs and external costs such as outside legal fees.
Finally, the proposed rescission of the rule 134 provisions that apply to funds would consolidate the regulation of most fund advertising in one rule as rule 482, as amended, would then cover advertisements now covered by rule 134. This simplification would contribute to the benefits of easier and cheaper advertising as discussed in section IV.B.2 (“Simplification and Clarification of Advertising Rules”) above, principally by removing the unnecessary restrictions on the content of the advertisements and the unnecessary distinction with regard to their legal classification. The transfer of fund advertising regulation from rule 134 to rule 482 may also enhance investor protection by subjecting all fund advertisements to potential civil liability under section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act.
The Commission estimates that, on an annual basis, these benefits will save funds approximately 1.96 burden hours, or $80.33, per investment company in internal costs but only negligible amounts in external costs. We estimate that 5587 investment companies will be affected by the proposed amendments, and, thus, the Commission estimates that the annual internal burden associated with rule 482, for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, will decrease by approximately 10,950 (1.96 hours per investment company × 5,587 investment companies) burden hours.
The Commission estimates that the costs of the proposed amendments, in the aggregate, would be minimal and limited in duration. The Commission estimates that funds would incur one-time costs in modifying their current rule 482 advertising to meet the new disclosure and presentation requirements, although many funds already provide the disclosure that would be required and make available more current performance information voluntarily. For example, funds may have to modify their layouts and typesetting in order to convert existing advertisements to meet the requirements of the rule, or alternatively, replace existing advertisements more quickly than they otherwise would. However, the proposed amendments would allow a 90-day transition period, enabling funds to come into compliance with the new requirements in their next generation of quarterly advertisements with smaller conversion or replacement costs.
In addition, the requirement for funds to provide access to performance figures that are current as of the last month end may also impose costs, some of which would be ongoing, both to generate such figures on a monthly basis and to provide the information by a toll-free telephone number. This could include costs for computer time, accounting personnel, information technology staff, and additional computer and telephone equipment. However, many, if not most, funds already provide this or more current performance information through these means and, therefore, the marginal cost for most funds for making updated performance information available is expected to be negligible.
The elimination of the “substance of which” requirement and the rescission of rule 134 as applicable to funds may require some funds to incur costs to convert many of their tombstone advertisements to rule 482 advertisements. These costs, however, should be minimal and non-recurring, since the rule 482 requirements would permit advertisements that are not significantly different from those currently permitted under current rule 134.
The Commission estimates the one-time switchover costs for each investment company attributable to the proposed amendments would be approximately 2.18 hours, or $89.35 (2.18 hours × $40.986 wage rate), in internal costs, and $2,417 in external costs.
The Commission expects that the proposed advertising rule amendments will encourage more informed and efficient investing, while easing the regulatory burden on fund advertising, and that these likely benefits would justify the associated costs. To assist in the evaluation of the costs and benefits that may result from the proposed amendments, the Commission requests that commenters provide views and data relating to any anticipated costs and benefits associated with these proposals.
Section 2(c) of the Investment Company Act, section 2(b) of the Securities Act, and Section 3(f) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) require the Commission, when engaging in rulemaking that requires it to consider or determine whether an action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, to consider, in addition to the protection of investors, whether the action will promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation.
The proposed amendments seek to improve fund advertising by enhancing disclosure requirements and by simplifying and clarifying the rules, including elimination of the “substance of which” requirement. These changes may improve efficiency. The rule simplifications may lower the regulatory burden on funds engaged in advertising, freeing resources for more productive uses. For example, funds would no longer have to update their prospectuses or SAIs in order to change the types of performance information in
We request comment on whether the proposed amendments, if adopted, would promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation. Commenters are requested to provide empirical data and other factual support for their views if possible.
Certain provisions of the proposed amendments contain “collection of information” requirements within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 [44 U.S.C. 3501,
Form N-1A (OMB Control No. 3235-0307), Form N-2 (OMB Control No. 3235-0026), Form N-3 (OMB Control No. 3235-0316), Form N-4 (OMB Control No. 3235-0318), and Form N-6 (OMB Control No. 3235-0503) were adopted pursuant to section 5 of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. 77e] and section 8(a) of the Investment Company Act [15 U.S.C. 80a-8(a)]. Rule 482 of Regulation C was adopted pursuant to section 10(b) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. 77j(b)]. Rule 34b-1 (OMB Control No. 3235-0346) was adopted pursuant to section 34(b) of the Investment Company Act [15 U.S.C. 80a-33(b)].
The proposed amendments would modify rule 482 of the Securities Act and related rules and forms, to provide more timely, understandable, and balanced information in fund advertising for the benefit of investors, while simplifying and clarifying the advertising rules for the benefit of funds.
The analysis in this PRA summary is divided in two sections. Section VI.B. (“The Registration Forms Burden”) discusses the current PRA burden attributable to the fund advertising rules, which is presently allocated to the collections of information for the various registration forms, and the transfer of this burden to a new collection of information category for rule 482. Section VI.C. (“Change in Burden Attributable to Proposed Amendments”) discusses the net change in burden hours attributable to the proposed amendments for both the new collection of information for rule 482 and the existing collection of information for rule 34b-1.
Presently, the PRA burdens imposed by rule 482 are accounted for under the various registration forms used by
The purpose of Form N-1A is to meet the registration and disclosure requirements of the Securities Act and the Investment Company Act and to enable funds to provide investors with information necessary to evaluate an investment in the fund. The respondents to this information collection are open-end funds registering with the Commission. Compliance with the disclosure requirements on Form N-1A is mandatory. Responses to the disclosure requirements are not confidential.
The current hour burden for preparing an initial Form N-1A filing is 824 burden hours per portfolio, and the Commission attributes 23 of these burden hours per portfolio to compliance with rule 482, reducing the remaining burden hours per portfolio to 801.
Except for the transfer of PRA burden from the Form N-1A to the new collection of information for rule 482, the Commission estimates no effect on the remaining PRA burden for Form N-1A from the proposed amendments. The change in PRA burden resulting from the purposed amendments is accounted for under the new rule 482 collection of information.
The purpose of Form N-2 is to meet the registration and disclose requirements of the Securities Act and the Investment Company Act and to enable funds to provide investors with information necessary to evaluate an investment in the fund. The respondents to this information collection are closed-end funds registering with the Commission. Compliance with the disclosure requirements of Form N-2 is mandatory. Responses to the disclosure requirements are not confidential.
The current hour burden for preparing an initial registration statement on Form N-2 is 542.4 burden hours per filing, and the current hour burden for preparing a post-effective amendment on Form N-2 is 107.4 hours per filing. The Commission attributes 5.7 of these burden hours per filing to compliance with rule 482, reducing the burden hours per filing to 536.7 and 101.7, respectively. The Commission currently estimates that, on an annual basis, 140 respondents file an initial registration statement on Form N-2 and 38 file post-effective amendments on Form N-2. Thus, the burden hours attributable to rule 482 to be transferred from N-2 to the new rule 482 collection of information equal 1,014 ((5.7 hours × 140 filings) + (5.7 hours × 38 filings)). After shifting the rule 482 burden hours to a new collection of information, the total burden hours that remain allocated to Form N-2 for all purposes unassociated with rule 482 would be 79,003 ((536.7 hours × 140 filings) + (101.7 hours × 38 filings)).
Except for the transfer of PRA burden from Form N-2 to the new collection of information for rule 482, the Commission estimates no effect on the remaining Form N-2 PRA burden from the proposed amendments. The change in PRA burden resulting from the proposed amendments is accounted for under the new rule 482 collection of information.
The purpose of Form N-3 is to meet the registration and disclosure requirements of the Securities Act and the Investment Company Act and to enable funds to provide investors with information necessary to evaluate an investment in the fund. The respondents to this information collection are separate accounts, organized as management investment companies and offering variable annuities, registering with the Commission. Compliance with the disclosure requirements of Form N-3 is mandatory. Responses to the disclosure requirements are not confidential.
The current annual hour burden for preparing an initial registration statement on Form N-3 is 910.5 hours per portfolio, and the Commission attributes 3.3 of these burden hours per portfolio to compliance with rule 482, reducing the remaining burden hours per portfolio to 907.2.
Except for the transfer of PRA burden from Form N-3 to the new collection of
The purpose of Form N-4 is to meet the registration and disclosure requirements of the Securities Act and the Investment Company Act and to enable separate accounts issuing variable annuity contracts to provide investors with information necessary to evaluate an investment in a contract. The respondents to this information collection are separate accounts, organized as unit investment trusts and offering variable annuities, registering with the Commission. Compliance with the disclosure requirements of Form N-4 is mandatory. Responses to the disclosure requirements are not confidential.
The current hour burden for preparing an initial Form N-4 filing is 298 burden hours per filing, and the Commission attributes 24.8 of these burden hours per filing to rule 482, reducing the remaining burden hours per filing to 273.2.
Except for the transfer of PRA burden from Form N-4 to the new collection of information for rule 482, the Commission estimates no effect on the remaining PRA burden for Form N-4 resulting from the proposed amendments. The change in PRA burden resulting from the proposed amendments is accounted for under the new rule 482 PRA collection of information.
The purpose of Form N-6 is to meet the registration and disclosure requirements of the Securities Act and the Investment Company Act and to enable separate accounts issuing variable life insurance policies to provide investors with information necessary to evaluate an investment in a policy. The respondents to this information collection are separate accounts, organized as unit investment trusts and offering variable life insurance policies, registering with the Commission. Compliance with the disclosure requirements of Form N-6 is mandatory. Responses to the disclosure requirements are not confidential.
The current hour burden for preparing an initial registration statement on Form N-6 is 800 burden hours per filing and the hour burden for a post-effective amendment on Form N-6 is 100 hours per post-effective amendment filed as an annual update, and 10 hours per post-effective amendment filed for other purposes. The Commission attributes 35 of these burden hours per filing to compliance with rule 482 for both initial registration statements and post-effective amendments that are annual updates.
Except for the transfer of PRA burden from Form N-6 to the new collection of information for rule 482, the Commission estimates no effect on the remaining PRA burden for Form N-6 resulting from the proposed amendments. The change in PRA burden resulting from the proposed amendments is accounted for under the new rule 482 PRA collection of information.
The information required by the proposed amendments to the advertising rules is primarily for the use and benefit of investors. The Commission is concerned that investors receive information in advertisements that is accurate, balanced, timely, not misleading, and otherwise appropriate and helpful in making investment decisions. The additional information that would be required to be disclosed to investors pursuant to the collection of information provisions of the rules affected by the proposed amendments, would address these concerns regarding investor protection.
Rule 34b-1, including the proposed amendments, contains collection of information requirements. The rule applies to supplemental sales literature,
We estimate that approximately 37,000 responses are filed annually pursuant to rule 34b-1, and the burden per response is 2.9 hours. The proposed amendments would change rule 34b-1 only to add language to clarify the Commission's present interpretation of its rules, namely, that compliance with rule 34b-1 does not relieve the fund, underwriter, or dealer of the obligation to ensure that sales literature is not false or misleading. This added language merely confirms the present state of the law and imposes no additional burden hours.
Rule 482, including the proposed amendments, contains collection of information requirements in that it permits a fund to advertise information subject to certain disclosure requirements. Compliance with rule 482 is mandatory for every fund that issues rule 482 advertisements. Responses to the disclosure requirements will not be kept confidential.
The Commission estimates that 41,484 responses are filed annually by 5,587 funds pursuant to rule 482. The burden associated with rule 482 is presently included in the collections of information for the investment company registration statement forms, but the Commission is transferring this PRA burden to a new rule 482 collection of information, with an annual burden of 225,015 hours. The proposed amendments to rule 482 would affect this total. The Commission estimates an increase of 4,060 annual burden hours, or 0.727 hours per fund, would be required to comply with the proposed amendments to rule 482, as a result of one-time switchover costs amortized over a three-year period. The Commission also estimates a decrease of 10,950 annual burden hours, or 1.96 hours per fund, resulting from the proposed amendments due to the simplification and clarification of rule 482, including the removal of the “substance of which” requirement.
We request your comments on the accuracy of our estimates. Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B), the Commission solicits comments to: (i) 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; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of burden of the proposed collections of information; (iii) determine whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) evaluate whether there are ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Persons submitting comments on the collection of information requirements should direct the comments to the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Room 3208, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, and should send a copy to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 5th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549-0609, with reference to File No. S7-17-02. Request for materials submitted to OMB by the Commission with regard to this collection of information should be in writing, refer to File No. S7-17-02, and be submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549, Attention: Records Management, Office of Filings and Information Services. OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this release. Consequently, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days after publication of this Release.
This Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“Analysis”) has been prepared in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603, and relates to the Commission's proposed rule and form amendments under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Company Act of 1940 to provide investment companies with the ability to disclose more timely information in advertisements and to reinforce the antifraud protections that apply to investment company advertisements. The proposed amendments would implement a provision of NSMIA by eliminating the requirement in rule 482 under the Securities Act that investment company advertisements contain only information the “substance of which” is included in the statutory prospectus. The proposed amendments also would require enhanced disclosure in investment company advertisements and are designed to encourage advertisements that convey balanced information to prospective investors, particularly with respect to past performance. In light of the proposed amendments to rule 482, the Commission is also proposing to rescind the provisions in rule 134 under the Securities Act that apply to investment companies.
The Commission has proposed the amendments to the advertising regulations described above to achieve two separate objectives. First, the Commission intends to simplify and clarify the rules governing fund advertising. Specifically, the proposed amendments would remove the “substance of which” requirement of rule 482 and rescind the provisions of rule 134 that apply to investment companies, following Congress' directive in NSMIA to adopt rules or regulations allowing funds the use of a section 10(b) prospectus that may include information the substance of which is not included in the statutory prospectus.
Second, the Commission intends to enhance the disclosure required in rule 482 advertising. Specifically, we propose to require advertisements to (i) highlight the availability of certain additional information, such as charge and expense information and updated monthly performance figures; (ii) provide an amended warning legend; and (iii) present certain required disclosure with equal prominence as the major portion of the advertisement. We are proposing these amendments because of our concern about fund performance advertising that could create unrealistic investor expectations or mislead potential investors. The enhanced disclosure requirements are intended to encourage advertisements that are clear, easy to use, and balanced, and to make investors aware of important and timely information necessary to make informed investment decisions.
We are proposing amendments to rule 134 pursuant to authority set forth in sections 2(a)(10) and 19(a) of the Securities Act. We are proposing amendments to rule 156 pursuant to authority set forth in section 19(a) of the
For purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, an investment company is a small entity if it, together with other investment companies in the same group of related investment companies, has net assets of $50 million or less as of the end of its most recent fiscal year.
The Commission estimates, based on the staff's discussions with members of the fund industry, that approximately two-thirds of small entity funds do not advertise and, thus, do not incur any burdens or costs associated with rule 482. For small entity funds that do advertise, the Commission estimates an internal hour burden of approximately 80 hours per small entity fund. This represents approximately 6,000 (80 hours × 75 small entities) hours, or $246,915 (6,000 hours × $40.986 wage rate) in internal costs, for all small entities. The Commission estimates that the external cost burden associated with rule 482 for small entities, as with other funds, is negligible. To the extent small entities currently advertise, the burden and costs may affect them to a greater extent because small entities are unable to take advantage of economies of scale available to larger fund complexes.
The proposed amendments would modify the disclosure requirements applicable to rule 482 advertisements. Advertisements would have to contain an amended warning legend, an explanation about where charges and expense information could be found, and, if performance figures are used, information about where updated performance information could be found. In addition, the required disclosure would have to be given as much prominence in the advertisement as the major portion of the advertisement. The proposed amendments would also rescind the disclosure requirements of rule 134 as they apply to funds, but we expect that this would not result in any appreciable change in the disclosure that funds make in their advertisements because present rule 134 advertisements would become rule 482 advertisements.
After assessing the proposed amendments in light of the current reporting requirements and consulting with representatives in the industry, the Commission has considered the potential effect that the proposed amendments would have on the preparation of advertisements. Without regard to the size of the entity, we estimate that the proposed amendments would result in a net decrease of 1.23 hours, or $50.41 (1.23 hours × $40.986 wage rate), per investment company per year in internal costs and a net increase of $805.67 per investment company per year in external costs.
The net annual hour savings would be 6,890 hours (4,060 amortized increase—10,950 annual decrease) or 1.23 hours per investment company (6,890 hours/5,587 investment companies). The annual external costs would be $805.67 per investment company ($4,501,259.67/5,587 investment companies).
The Commission estimates some one-time switchover costs and burdens that would be imposed on all funds, but which may have a relatively greater impact on smaller firms. These costs include the costs of altering existing advertisements, including those now covered by rule 134, to comply with the new provisions of rule 482; generating performance figures on a monthly basis; and making available the updated monthly performance data by a toll-free telephone number. The costs of making updated performance data available could include expenses for computer time, legal and accounting fees, information technology staff, and additional computer and telephone equipment. However, we believe, based on consultation with a number of fund complexes, that many investment companies that presently advertise already provide performance information on a basis at least as current as monthly through these means and, therefore, that the marginal cost increases for most funds are expected to be minimal.
The Commission anticipates that the proposed amendments would also provide ongoing reductions in the compliance burden for all funds by clarifying the language of rule 482, eliminating the “substance of which” requirement, and consolidating fund advertising into one rule. These changes would effect savings primarily by reducing the time and money funds now spend on legal review and amending their SAIs to comply with the “substance of which” requirement in current rule 482.
The Commission solicits comment on the effect the proposed amendments would have on small entities.
There are no rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed amendments.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act directs us to consider significant alternatives that would accomplish our stated objective, while minimizing any significant adverse impact on small issuers. In connection with the proposed amendments, the Commission considered the following alternatives: (i) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (ii) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the proposed amendments for small entities; (iii) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (iv) an exemption from coverage of the proposed amendments, or any part thereof, for small entities.
The Commission believes at the present time that special compliance or reporting requirements for small
The Commission also notes that current advertising requirements, and its disclosure rules in general, do not distinguish between small entities and other funds. In addition, we believe that it would be inappropriate to impose a different timetable on small entities for complying with the requirements.
The proposed amendments would also reduce the internal regulatory burden on all funds, including small entities, by eliminating the “substance of which” requirement from rule 482 and rescinding rule 134 provisions that apply to funds, thereby consolidating and simplifying the advertising rules. Small entities should benefit from these amendments to the same degree as other investment companies. Further clarification, consolidation, or simplification of the proposals for funds that are small entities may be inconsistent with investor protection. Finally, we do not consider using performance rather than design standards to be consistent with our statutory mandate of investor protection in the present context.
The Commission encourages the submission of written comments with respect to any aspect of this Analysis. Comment is specifically requested on the number of small entities that would be affected by the proposed amendments and the likely impact of the proposals on small entities. Commenters are asked to describe the nature of any impact and provide empirical data supporting the extent of the impact. These comments will be considered in the preparation of the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis if the proposed amendments are adopted, and will be placed in the same public file as comments on the proposed amendments themselves. Comments should be submitted in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549-0609. Comments also may be submitted electronically at the following E-mail address:
For purposes of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (“SBREFA”),
• An annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more;
• Aa major increase in costs or prices for consumers or individual industries; or
• Significant adverse effects on competition, investment, or innovation.
The Commission is proposing amendments to rule 134 pursuant to authority set forth in sections 2(a)(10) and 19(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. 77b(a)(10) and 77s(a)]. The Commission is proposing amendments to rule 156 pursuant to authority set forth in section 19(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. 77s(a)] and sections 10(b) and 23(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. 78j(b) and 78w(a)]. The Commission is proposing amendments to rule 482 pursuant to authority set forth in sections 5, 10(b), 19(a), and 28 of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. 77e, 77j(b), 77s(a), and 77z-3] and sections 24(g) and 38(a) of the Investment Company Act [15 U.S.C. 80a-24(g) and 80a-37(a)]. The Commission is proposing amendments to rule 34b-1 pursuant to authority set forth in sections 34(b) and 38(a) of the Investment Company Act [15 U.S.C. 80a-33(b) and 80a-37(a)]. The Commission is proposing amendments to Form N-1A, Form N-3, Form N-4, and Form N-6 pursuant to authority set forth in sections 5, 6, 7, 10, and 19(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. 77e, 77f, 77g, 77j, and 77s(a)] and sections 8, 24(a), 30, and 38 of the Investment Company Act [15 U.S.C. 80a-8, 80a-24(a), 80a-29, and 80a-37].
Advertising, Investment companies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
Investment companies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Commission proposes to amend Title 17, Chapter II, of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows.
1. The general authority citation for Part 230 is revised to read as follows:
15 U.S.C. 77b, 77c, 77d, 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77r, 77s, 77z-3, 77sss, 78c, 78d, 78j, 78
2. Section 230.134 is amended by:
a. Removing the authority citation following § 230.134;
b. Revising the introductory text of § 230.134;
c. Removing paragraphs (a)(3)(iii), (a)(13), and (e);
d. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(3)(iv) and (a)(14) as paragraphs (a)(3)(iii) and (a)(13), respectively; and
e. In newly redesignated paragraph (a)(13)(ii), revising the reference “(a)(14)(i)” to read “(a)(13)(i)”.
The revision reads as follows:
The term
3. Section 230.156 is amended by:
a. Removing the authority citation following § 230.156; and
b. Revising paragraph (b)(2)(i) to read as follows:
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Portrayals of past income, gain, or growth of assets convey an impression of the net investment results achieved by an actual or hypothetical investment which would not be justified under the circumstances, including portrayals that omit explanations, qualifications, limitations, or other statements necessary or appropriate to make the portrayals not misleading; and
4. Section 230.482 is revised to read as follows:
(a)
The fact that an advertisement complies with this section does not relieve the investment company, underwriter, or dealer of the obligation to ensure that the advertisement is not false or misleading. For guidance about factors to be weighed in determining whether statements, representations, illustrations, and descriptions contained in investment company advertisements are misleading,
(b)
(1)
(i) Identifies a source from which an investor may obtain a prospectus; explains that the prospectus contains more complete information about the investment company, including charges and expenses; and states that the prospectus should be read carefully before investing; or
(ii) If used with a Profile, explains that the accompanying Profile contains information about the investment company, including charges and expenses; describes the procedures for investing in the investment company; and indicates the availability of the investment company's prospectus.
(2)
(3)
(i) A legend disclosing that the performance data quoted represents past performance; that past performance does not guarantee future results; that the investment return and principal value of an investment will fluctuate so that an investor's shares, when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost; and that current performance may be lower or higher than the performance data quoted. The legend should also identify a toll-free (or collect) telephone number and, if available, a website where an investor may obtain performance data current to the most recent month-end. An advertisement for a money market fund may omit the disclosure about principal value fluctuation; and
(ii) If a sales load or any other nonrecurring fee is charged, the maximum amount of the load or fee, and if the sales load or fee is not reflected, a statement that the performance data does not reflect the deduction of the sales load or fee, and that, if reflected, the load or fee would reduce the performance quoted.
(4)
An investment in the Fund is not insured or guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or any other government agency. Although the Fund seeks to preserve the value of your investment at $1.00 per share, it is possible to lose money by investing in the Fund.
A money market fund that does not hold itself out as maintaining a stable net asset value may omit the second sentence of this statement.
(5)
(6)
(c)
(1)
(2)
(d)
(1)
(i) Is based on the methods of computation prescribed in Form N-1A (§§ 239.15A and 274.11A of this chapter), N-3 (§§ 239.17a and 274.11b of this chapter), or N-4 (§§ 239.17b and 274.11c of this chapter);
(ii) Is accompanied by quotations of total return as provided for in paragraph (d)(3) of this section;
(iii) Is set out in no greater prominence than the required quotations of total return; and
(iv) Adjacent to the quotation and with no less prominence than the quotation, identifies the length of and the date of the last day in the base period used in computing the quotation.
(2)
(i) Is based on the methods of computation prescribed in Form N-1A (§§ 239.15A and 274.11A of this chapter), N-3 (§§ 239.17a and 274.11b of this chapter), or N-4 (§§ 239.17b and 274.11c of this chapter);
(ii) Is accompanied by quotations of yield as provided for in paragraph (d)(1) of this section and total return as provided for in paragraph (d)(3) of this section;
(iii) Is set out in no greater prominence than the required quotations of yield and total return;
(iv) Relates to the same base period as the required quotation of yield; and
(v) Adjacent to the quotation and with no less prominence than the quotation, identifies the length of and the date of the last day in the base period used in computing the quotation.
(3)
(i) Be based on the methods of computation prescribed in Form N-1A (§§ 239.15A and 274.11A of this chapter), N-3 (§§ 239.17a and 274.11b of this chapter), or N-4 (§§ 239.17b and 274.11c of this chapter);
(ii) Be current to the most recent calendar quarter ended prior to the submission of the advertisement for publication;
(iii) Be set out with equal prominence; and
(iv) Adjacent to the quotation and with no less prominence than the quotation, identify the length of and the last day of the one, five, and ten year periods.
(4)
(i) Be based on the methods of computation prescribed in Form N-1A (§§ 239.15A and 274.11A of this chapter);
(ii) Be current to the most recent calendar quarter ended prior to the submission of the advertisement for publication;
(iii) Be accompanied by quotations of total return as provided for in paragraph (d)(3) of this section;
(iv) Include both average annual total return (after taxes on distributions) and average annual total return (after taxes on distributions and redemption);
(v) Be set out with equal prominence and be set out in no greater prominence than the required quotations of total return; and
(vi) Adjacent to the quotations and with no less prominence than the quotations, identify the length of and the last day of the one, five, and ten year periods.
(5)
(i) Reflects all elements of return;
(ii) Is accompanied by quotations of total return as provided for in paragraph (d)(3) of this section;
(iii) In the case of any measure of performance adjusted to reflect the effect of taxes, is accompanied by quotations of total return as provided for in paragraph (d)(4) of this section;
(iv) Is set out in no greater prominence than the required quotations of total return; and
(v) Adjacent to the measurement and with no less prominence than the measurement, identifies the length of and the last day of the period for which performance is measured.
(e)
(1)
(i) A quotation of current yield that, adjacent to the quotation and with no less prominence than the quotation, identifies the length of and the date of the last day in the base period used in computing that quotation;
(ii) A quotation of effective yield if it appears in the same advertisement as a quotation of current yield and each quotation relates to an identical base period and is presented with equal prominence; or
(iii) A quotation or quotations of tax-equivalent yield or tax-equivalent effective yield if it appears in the same advertisement as a quotation of current yield and each quotation relates to the same base period as the quotation of current yield, is presented with equal prominence, and states the income tax rate used in the calculation.
(2)
(f)
(g)
(1) The total return quotations are current to the most recent calendar quarter ended prior to the submission of the advertisement for publication; and
(2) Total return quotations current to the most recent month ended three calendar days prior to the date of use are provided at the toll-free (or collect) telephone number identified pursuant to paragraph (b)(3)(i).
(h)
These advertisements, unless filed with NASD Regulation, Inc., are required to be filed in accordance with the requirements of § 230.497.
5. The authority citation for part 239 continues to read in part as follows:
15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77s, 77z-2, 77sss, 78c, 78
6. The authority citation for part 270 continues to read in part as follows:
15 U.S.C. 80a-1,
7. Section 270.34b-1 is amended by:
a. Revising the reference “(a)(7) of § 230.482” in paragraph (a) to read “(b)(4) of § 230.482”;
b. Revising the reference “(a)(6) of § 230.482” in paragraph (b)(1)(i) to read “(b)(3) of § 230.482”;
c. Revising the reference “(d)(1)(i) of § 230.482” in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) to read “(e)(1)(i) of § 230.482”;
d. Revising the reference “§ 230.482(d)(1)(iii)” in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(B) to read “§ 230.482(e)(1)(iii)';
e. Revising the reference “(d)(1)(i) of § 230.482” in the first sentence of paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(C) to read “(e)(1)(i) of § 230.482”;
f. Revising the reference “(e)(3) of § 230.482” in paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(A) to read “(d)(3) of § 230.482”;
g. Revising the reference “(e)(4) of § 230.482” in paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B) to read “(d)(4) of § 230.482”;
h. Revising the reference “(e)(4) of § 230.482” in paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(C) to read “(d)(4) of § 230.482”;
i. Revising the reference “(e)(1) of § 230.482” in paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(D) to read “(d)(1) of § 230.482”;
j. Revising the references “(e)(2)” and “(e)(1) of § 230.482” in paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(E) to read “(d)(2)” and “(d)(1) of § 230.482”, respectively;
k. Revising the reference “(e)(3)(ii), (e)(4)(ii)” in paragraph (b)(3) to read “(d)(3)(ii), (d)(4)(ii)”; and
l. Adding a note following the introductory text of § 270.34b-1 to read as follows:
The fact that the sales literature includes the information specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section does not relieve the investment company, underwriter, or dealer of the obligation to ensure that the sales literature is not false or misleading. For guidance about factors to be weighed in determining whether statements, representations, illustrations, and descriptions contained in investment company sales literature are misleading,
8. The authority citation for Part 274 continues to read as follows:
15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77s, 78c(b), 78
The text of Forms N-1A, N-3, N-4, and N-6 does not, and these amendments will not, appear in the
9. Item 21 of Form N-1A (referenced in §§ 239.15A and 274.11A) is amended by:
a. Revising the introductory text of paragraphs (a) and (b); and
b. Removing paragraphs (a)(5) and (b)(7), to read as follows:
(a)
(b)
10. Item 4 of Form N-3 (referenced in §§ 239.17a and 274.11b) is amended by:
a. Removing Item 4(c); and
b. Redesignating Item 4(d) as Item 4(c).
11. Item 25 of Form N-3 (referenced in §§ 239.17a and 274.11b) is amended by:
a. Removing Instruction 5 to paragraph (a); and
b. Revising paragraphs (a) and (b), and Instruction 6 to paragraph (b)(i), to read as follows:
(a)
(i)
(ii)
(b)
(i)
6. Total return information in the prospectus need only be current to the end of the Registrant's most recent fiscal year.
(ii)
(iii)
12. Item 4 of Form N-4 (referenced in §§ 239.17b and 274.11c) is amended by:
a. Removing Item 4(b); and
b. Redesignating Item 4(c) as Item 4(b).
13. Item 21 of Form N-4 (referenced in §§ 239.17b and 274.11c) is amended by:
a. Removing Instruction 5 to paragraph (a); and
b. Revising paragraphs (a) and (b), and Instruction 6 to paragraph (b)(i), to read as follows:
(a)
(i)
(ii)
(b)
(i)
6. Total return information in the prospectus need only be current to the end of the Registrant's most recent fiscal year.
(ii)
(iii)
14. General Instruction B.2.(b) of Form N-6 (referenced in §§ 239.17c and 274.11d) is amended by revising the reference “Items 27 (c), (k), (l), (n), and (o)” to read “Items 26 (c), (k), (l), (n), and (o)”.
15. Item 25 of Form N-6 (referenced in §§ 239.17c and 274.11d) is removed.
16. Form N-6 (referenced in §§ 239.17c and 274.11d) is further amended by:
a. Redesignating Items 26 through 34 as Items 25 though 33;
b. Revising the reference “Item 26” in paragraph (j) of newly redesignated Item 25 to read “Item 25” and
c. Revising the reference “Item 26” in paragraphs (l) and (m) of newly redesignated Item 26 to read “Item 25”.
By the Commission.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission and Securities and Exchange Commission.
Joint final rule.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) (collectively “Commissions”) are adopting a new rule generally to require that the final settlement price for each cash-settled security futures product fairly reflect the opening price of the underlying security or securities, and that trading in any security futures product halt when a regulatory halt is instituted with respect to a security or securities underlying the security futures product by the national securities exchange or national securities association listing the security. The rule adopted today would set forth more specifically how the exchange's or association's rules can satisfy provisions added to the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) by the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (“CFMA”). The Commissions are also issuing an interpretation of the statutory requirement under the CEA and the Exchange Act that procedures be put in place for coordinated surveillance among the markets trading security futures products and any market trading any security underlying the security futures products or any related security.
The rules are effective June 24, 2002.
Richard A. Shilts, Acting Director, Division of Economic Analysis, at (202) 418-5275; Thomas M. Leahy, Jr., Financial Instruments Unit Chief, Division of Economic Analysis, at (202) 418-5278; or Gabrielle A. Sudik, Attorney, Office of General Counsel, at (202) 418-5120, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW, Washington, DC 20581. E-mail: (
Jerry Carpenter, Assistant Director, at (202) 942-4187; Terri Evans, Assistant Director, at (202) 942-4162; Alton Harvey, Office Head, at (202) 942-4167; Michael Gaw, Special Counsel, at (202) 942-0158; Cyndi Nguyen, Attorney, at (202) 942-4163; and Michael Rae, Attorney, at (202) 942-0785, Division of Market Regulation, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549-1001.
The CFTC is adopting Rule 41.1(j) through (l), 41.25(a)(2), 41.25(b), and 41.25(d) under the CEA.
The CFMA
Under the Exchange Act, it is unlawful for any person to effect transactions in security futures products that are not listed on a national securities exchange
In particular, the CEA and the Exchange Act stipulate that the listing standards of an exchange or association trading security futures products shall, among other things, require that trading in the security futures product not be readily susceptible to manipulation of the price of such security futures products, nor to causing or being used in the manipulation of the price of any underlying security or option thereon.
Accordingly, the Commissions proposed amendments to Rule 41.1 and Rule 41.25 under the CEA, and new Rule 6h-1 under the Exchange Act to generally provide that (i) the final settlement price for each cash-settled security futures product fairly reflect the opening price of the underlying security or securities, and (ii) the listing standards of national securities exchanges and national securities associations trading security futures products establish a halt in trading in any security futures product when the national securities exchange or national securities association listing the security institutes a regulatory halt with respect to a security or securities underlying the security futures product.
All currently traded index futures and options are cash-settled. When stock index futures and options began trading in the mid-1980s, virtually all of these products used closing-price settlement procedures. Closing-price settlement procedures in index futures and options generally base the index settlement price on the execution prices from the last regular session trades in the underlying securities. The cash settlement provisions of stock index futures and options contracts facilitated the growth of sizeable index arbitrage activities by firms and professional traders and made it relatively easy for arbitrageurs to buy or sell the underlying stocks at or near the market close on expiration Fridays
Regulators and self-regulators were concerned that the liquidity constraints faced by the securities markets to accommodate expiration-related buy or sell programs at the market close on expiration Fridays could exacerbate ongoing market swings during an expiration and could provide opportunities for entities to anticipate these pressures and enter orders as part of manipulative or abusive trading practices designed to artificially drive up or down share prices. To reduce such expiration-related strains on market liquidity, markets trading the most actively-traded futures contracts and many stock index option contracts moved to opening-price settlement procedures. As discussed in the Proposing Release, opening-price settlement procedures offered several features that enabled the securities
In view of the experience gained with settlements in cash-settled stock index futures and options in the 1980s and in light of the potential for manipulation of the underlying securities markets, the Commissions proposed that security futures products that specify cash settlement in lieu of physical delivery use a final settlement price that fairly reflected the opening price of the underlying security or securities as the basis for cash settling positions at contract expiration.
The Commissions' proposal also required that, if an opening price for an underlying security or securities was not readily available, the final settlement price of the overlying cash-settled security futures product had to fairly reflect the price of the underlying security or securities during its most recent regular trading session. The Commissions' proposal provided exchanges and associations with some discretion to implement this general rule. Finally, the proposal explicitly permitted the Commissions to grant a national securities exchange or national securities association an exemption from the above requirements.
The Commissions are adopting the requirement as proposed that the final settlement price of a cash-settled security futures product fairly reflect the opening price of the underlying security or securities, if the opening price is readily available.
Several commenters generally supported this aspect of the proposal.
A third commenter noted that the migration in 1987 from closing price to opening price settlement on its S&P 500 and other futures contracts “was largely in response to the fact that Friday afternoon settlements—which corresponded to existing practices for listed options expirations—exposed NYSE specialists to large information-less market-on-close orders without an adequate mechanism to cope.”
The same commenter also stated that the Commissions' proposal could create a discrepancy between security futures products based on narrow-based security indexes and other derivative products based on the same indexes: while the former would be required to settle using opening prices, the latter are subject to no such requirement.
The Commissions do not believe it is necessary or appropriate at this time to mandate opening settlement procedures for all options and futures. As the Commissions noted in the Proposing Release, CBOE believed that the closing price settlement procedures were appropriate for OEX because these options were used primarily by retail investors and were not actively used in the types of index arbitrage unwinding programs that had strained the liquidity of the securities markets at the close on expiration.
One commenter also did not believe that the decision to employ opening-rather than closing-price procedures should be based on a perceived threat of increased manipulative activity, arguing that improvements in audit trails, record-keeping practices, and inter-exchange cooperation have greatly increased the ability to detect and punish manipulative activity.
The CFTC notes one technical change to the text of CFTC Rule 41.25(b). In an earlier rulemaking, the CFTC adopted an introductory paragraph that required that the cash settlement price of security futures products must be “reliable and acceptable, be reflective of prices in the underlying securities market and be not readily susceptible to manipulation.”
The requirements that the cash settlement price must be reliable, acceptable and reflect the prices in the underlying securities markets are embodied in CFTC Rules 41.25(b)(1) and (2). These rules require that cash settlement prices be based on the opening price of a security futures product's underlying security or securities, or, if the opening price for one or more securities is not readily available, the final settlement price of the security futures products must fairly reflect the price of the underlying security or securities during the most recent regular trading session for such securities or the next available opening price. Based on prior analyses and for reasons discussed in the proposing release, the CFTC previously has determined that opening prices represent reliable indicators of the values of securities and thus are acceptable for hedging of securities' positions. In addition, opening prices are established under procedures designed to ensure that the prices are reflective of prices in the underlying securities market. Finally, the requirement that the cash settlement price not be readily susceptible to manipulation is embodied in CFTC Rule 41.22(f), which states, “Trading in the security futures products is not readily susceptible to manipulation of the price of such security futures product, nor to causing or being used in the manipulation of the price of any underlying security, option on such security, or option on a group or index including such securities, consistent with the conditions for trading of § 41.25[.]”
The Commissions are adopting the definition of “regular trading session” as proposed.
The Commissions proposed to define “opening price” as “the price at which a security opened for trading, or a price that fairly reflects the price at which a security opened for trading, during the regular trading session of the national securities exchange or national securities association that lists the security.”
The Commissions acknowledge that the proposed definition of “opening price” failed to contemplate that the market trading a security that underlies a security futures product could be a market other than a national securities exchange or national securities association, such as a foreign stock exchange. Therefore, the Commissions have revised the definition to provide that, if the underlying security is not listed on a national securities exchange or a national securities association, the opening price is the price at which the security opened for trading, or a price that fairly reflects the price at which a security opened for trading, on the primary market for the security. To the extent that the underlying security is listed on a national securities exchange or national securities association, however, as explained further below, the Commissions continue to believe that it is appropriate to use the opening price from the listing market.
One commenter stated that it may soon become the case that the listing market is not the primary trading venue for a security and, thus, not the most liquid market.
The Commissions proposed that, if the opening price of an underlying security were not readily available, the final settlement price of a cash-settled security futures product overlying that security must reflect a price of the underlying security taken from its most recent regular trading session. The proposed rule provided, however, that national securities exchanges and national securities associations could request exemptions from the Commissions on a case-by-case basis.
Although one commenter supported this aspect of the proposal,
In addition, several commenters contended that under the Commissions' proposed rule hedges could be significantly disrupted.
In response to the comment letters, the final rule adopted by the Commissions allows for either look-back or next opening prices to be used as alternate final settlement prices when an opening price is not readily available.
The Commissions will not, however, prohibit a national securities exchange or national securities association from employing look-back pricing if it believed that such course were appropriate. One commenter stated that situations may arise in which a very small percentage of the securities of an index fail to trade on an expiration Friday.
The rule adopted by the Commissions today allows a national securities exchange or national securities association to choose between look-back and next opening pricing procedures for security futures products; however, it also provides the registered clearing agency or derivatives clearing organization that is used to clear such products with the authority to determine the final settlement prices in certain circumstances.
Under proposed CFTC Rule 41.25 and SEC Rule 6h-1, a clearing agency or derivatives clearing organization would not have been entitled to determine a final settlement price. One clearing agency commenter pointed out that its rules relating to security futures products specifically provide that, in the case of a conflict between OCC's rules and the rules of a national securities exchange or national securities association, OCC rules control.
The Commissions disagree with the view that markets trading security futures products should not address settlement procedures. To the extent that a clearing agency or derivatives clearing organization does not have rules in place to address all situations for determining the settlement price of a cash-settled security futures product, the national securities exchange or national securities association that trades such product should have rules in place. However, the Commissions believe that it is appropriate to expressly provide that, in the event of a conflict between the rules of a registered clearing agency or derivatives clearing organization and a market that trades a security futures product, the clearing agency or derivatives clearing organization may establish a new final settlement price for a security futures product if it determines, pursuant to its rules, that the final settlement price determined by the exchange or association is not consistent with the protection of investors or customers, as applicable, and the public interest, taking into account such factors as fairness to buyers and sellers of the affected security futures product, the maintenance of a fair and orderly market in such security futures product, and consistency of interpretation and practice. In the absence of such a provision, confusion could arise if securities underlying a security futures product failed to trade on an expiration Friday and the market trading the security futures product and its clearing agency or derivatives clearing organization had different rules for determining a final settlement price. Moreover, this provision will make security futures products that trade on different markets more fungible, because a single clearing agency or derivatives clearing organization will be able in certain circumstances to harmonize procedures across different markets for determining alternate settlement prices.
In the final rule adopted by the Commissions, the Commissions' ability to grant exemptions to the rule's requirements has been expanded slightly from that proposed. The proposal explicitly provided that any national securities exchange or national securities association may receive an exemption from the requirements that final settlement prices of security futures products reflect the opening prices of the underlying securities or, if opening prices are not available, look-back pricing procedures. The final rule explicitly provides that the CFTC may grant an exemption with respect to any provision of paragraphs (a)(2) and (b) of CFTC Rule 41.25, provided that the CFTC finds that the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of customers.
Generally, there are two types of regulatory halts used in the equity and options markets: News pending halts and circuit breaker halts. News pending halts are designed to protect the interests of current and potential shareholders by facilitating the orderly dissemination of potentially market moving information and the discovery of fair and reasonable prices for securities based on new information.
Circuit breakers are brief, coordinated cross-market trading halts used by the stock, options, and index futures markets to mitigate systemic stress when a severe one-day market drop of historic proportions prevents the financial markets from operating in an orderly manner.
As discussed above, Section 2(a)(1)(D)(i)(X) of the CEA
The Commissions are adopting, as proposed, a requirement that the rules of a national securities exchange or national securities association that lists or trades security futures products provide that trading of a future on a single security be halted at all times that a regulatory halt has been instituted for the underlying security.
Two commenters agreed that trading in a future on a single security should be halted when trading in the underlying security is subject to a regulatory halt.
In addition, one commenter believed that the requirement to halt trading in single-stock futures when trading in the underlying security is halted was overly broad to satisfy the requirement that procedures be put in place to coordinate trading halts.
The Commissions understand the concern raised by one commenter regarding continued trading of a security futures product when the underlying security has halted trading if the listing market is not the primary market. However, the Commissions believe that designating the listing market as the venue for the purpose of applying the rule provides for ease of use and application, because it does not require national securities exchanges or national securities associations to determine the primary market for each underlying security. Further, due to the contractual relationship between the issuer and the listing market, the listing market has a direct and ongoing relationship with the issuer. The Commissions believe, therefore, that the listing market is in the best position to be informed promptly by the issuer that pending news would require the imposition of a trading halt. Finally, the Commissions believe that the listing market represents sufficient liquidity that imposing a trading halt on a security futures product when the listing market for the underlying security imposes a trading halt furthers the purposes of Section 2(a)(1)(D)(i)(X) of the CEA
With respect to the commenter's concern regarding the potential impact of such a rule on retail investors, the Commissions note that one of the purposes of trading halts is to provide for an adequate opportunity for information about a security to be disseminated to the public. The Commissions do not believe that it would be consistent with the protection of investors to permit investors, including retail investors, to trade a surrogate for a security—
Finally, with respect to news pending halts, two commenters questioned the absolute requirement that trading in a security futures product must be halted during a news pending halt in the underlying security.
Given the rarity of an occurrence when a national securities exchange or national securities association would feel compelled to continue trading a security futures product while the trading of underlying stock is halted, the Commissions do not agree that there ought to be discretion in imposing regulatory halts for security futures products. The Commissions note that the underpinning for imposing news pending regulatory halts is promoting investor protection and fair and orderly markets. To the extent that there is pending news that could impact an investor's decision and to the extent that single-stock futures are surrogates for the underlying security, the Commissions continue to believe in the need for a provision requiring that trading in a security futures product be halted at all times that a regulatory halt has been instituted for the underlying security or securities, with certain limits for narrow-based security index futures. Furthermore, in the event that discretion is needed, the Commissions note that the exemptive authority in CFTC Rule 41.25(d) and SEC Rule 6h-1(d) allows the Commissions to exempt national securities exchanges or national securities associations from the regulatory halt provisions if the CFTC determines that such an exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of customers and the SEC determines that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors.
By adopting this rule, the Commissions aim to maintain and preserve the integrity of this mechanism so that the trading of security futures products will not be used as a tool to circumvent the institution of regulatory halts. Moreover, the Commissions believe that the purpose of halting trading in the underlying security would be frustrated if market participants could circumvent this halt by trading during the halt in the related security futures product.
The Commissions proposed that national securities exchanges and national securities associations halt trading in a future on a narrow-based security index when component securities representing 30 percent or more of the market capitalization of such index are subject to a regulatory halt. In response to comments, the final rules modify the proposal by increasing to 50 percent the market capitalization represented by the component security or securities in a narrow-based security index that must be halted before a national securities exchange or national securities association must halt trading in a future on such index.
In addition to the comments supporting the Commissions' proposed trading halt rule,
Another commenter recommended providing exchanges with greater discretion to decide whether to impose or maintain a trading halt.
The Commissions do not believe that trading in a narrow-based security index future should necessarily be halted because a trading halt has been instituted for only one or several low-weighted component securities. An inappropriately low threshold could lead to needless and potentially disruptive trading halts in the narrow-based index future. However, as noted in the Proposing Release, regulatory halts of narrow-based-index component securities could affect a sufficiently large portion of the index to make continued trading of a security futures product based on that index a means of improperly circumventing regulatory halts in the underlying component securities. Under these circumstances, trading halt procedures would not be coordinated, as required by Section 2(a)(1)(D)(i)(X) of the CEA
However, in response to the commenter's statement that the 30 percent market capitalization test was too low, and therefore, potentially too disruptive to the market, and after consideration of the potential effects of the proposed 30 percent trading halt threshold, the Commissions are requiring that trading be halted in a narrow-based security index futures product when component securities representing 50 percent or more of the market capitalization of that narrow-based security index are subject to a regulatory halt. The Commissions believe that one of the major economic benefits that market participants derive from the trading of futures on narrow-based security indexes is the ability to hedge positions containing the securities underlying the indexes, thereby reducing the risk of holding positions in those securities. For traders using a narrow-based security index future to hedge a position containing the component index securities, trading halts in certain of those component securities necessarily will introduce basis risk because the one-to-one relationship between the cash portfolio of securities and the narrow-based index future is disrupted.
The Commissions believe that the proposed 30 percent threshold is too low because it could unnecessarily disrupt hedge positions involving futures on narrow-based security indexes that may still be substantially performing their intended risk-shifting function when trading is halted in a limited number of the index's component securities. The Commissions believe that a 50 percent threshold would better serve the requirement's intended purpose. In adopting a 50 percent threshold, the Commissions sought to balance the utility of maintaining effective hedge positions with concerns about circumventing the coordination requirement by allowing trading in narrow-based index futures to continue when trading in a limited number of the underlying securities is halted.
The Commissions believe that while it is not possible to eliminate completely the risk involved in hedging securities with a future on a narrow-based security index when trading halts are instituted for certain of those underlying securities, the 50 percent threshold reduces such risk. Therefore, the Commissions are adopting a 50 percent threshold because it appears to appropriately balance the goals of hedging utility with the prevention of improper circumvention of regulatory halts in the underlying securities. The Commissions also note that the 50 percent threshold is consistent with existing thresholds for re-opening trading in broad-based security index futures following a market-wide trading halt in the trading of the underlying securities.
The Commissions reiterate, however, that their rule is not designed to preclude a market trading futures on narrow-based security indexes from halting trading when securities representing less than 50 percent of the market capitalization of the index are halted or for other appropriate reasons, such as operational difficulties being experienced by the market or its automated systems or concerns over clearance and settlement operations. The Commissions also note that the threshold at 50 percent provides further discretion to national securities exchanges and national securities associations to establish their thresholds at lower levels, or to change the thresholds as market conditions or experience warrant. This provides flexibility to the markets to modify trading halt thresholds, which would not be possible if the Commissions set the threshold at a lower level.
With respect to the commenters' concern regarding the potential difficulty in calculating the market capitalization of an index, especially for price-weighted or equal dollar weighted indexes, for purposes of instituting the regulatory halt, the Commissions note that selecting market capitalization as the method for calculating the weight of the index is similar to an existing standard used to calculate trigger points for circuit breaker operations.
The Commissions are adopting the definition of regulatory halt as proposed.
Although generally supporting the requirement to halt trading in single-stock futures when trading in the underlying security has been halted due to a corporate news event, one commenter stated that the definition of regulatory halt could be refined to address situations not contemplated by the CFMA, such as where the listing market is not the primary trading venue for the underlying security or where the listing market is in a foreign country.
In response to this comment, the Commissions note that the rule being adopted today does not preclude national securities exchanges and national securities associations trading security futures products from halting trading if they believe it is necessary to the orderly operation of the market. The rules of a national securities exchange or national securities association may permit it to halt trading in situations not covered by the rule being adopted today.
With respect to the Commissions' proposal to include within the definition of “regulatory halt” trading halts due to circuit breaker procedures, three commenters generally supported the extension of market-wide circuit breaker procedures to security futures products in order to ensure coordinated and consistent circuit breaker procedures across equity products.
The Commissions note that the coordinated cross-market trading halts provided by circuit breaker procedures are designed to operate only during significant market declines and to substitute orderly, pre-planned halts for the
For these reasons, the Commissions believe that it is important to include within the definition of regulatory halt cross-market circuit breakers and, therefore, to require the application of cross-market circuit breaker regulatory halt procedures to security futures products. Moreover, the Commissions believe that such requirement is necessary to satisfy the requirements of Section 2(a)(1)(D)(i)(X) of the CEA
As discussed previously,
In amending the CEA and Exchange Act to permit the trading of futures on single stocks and narrow-based security indexes, Congress specifically required that exchanges and associations trading these new products have procedures in place for coordinated surveillance with other markets on which security futures products trade, any market on which any security underlying the security futures product is traded, and other markets on which any related security trades.
For an exchange or association to satisfy the statutory requirement that “procedures be in place for coordinated surveillance,” the Commissions stated in the Proposing Release that they believed it was “essential that all such exchanges and associations be Full Members of the ISG.”
The CFTC in a separate proposing release also proposed, in part, to require boards of trade trading security futures products to be Full Members of ISG.
As noted in the Proposing Release, ISG was created under the auspices of the SEC as a forum to ensure that national securities exchanges and national securities associations adequately share surveillance information and coordinate inquiries and investigations designed to address potential intermarket manipulations and trading abuses. Full Members routinely share a great deal of surveillance and investigatory information, and the SEC continues to believe that this framework has proven to be an effective mechanism to ensure that there is adequate information sharing and investigatory coordination for potential intermarket manipulations and trading abuses.
The Commissions continue to believe that any national securities exchange—including an exchange registered under Section 6(g) of the Exchange Act—that satisfies the requirements to be a Full Member of ISG should be admitted as a Full Member of ISG. Nevertheless, in light of comment letters received on the CFTC Proposal, we do not believe that an exchange trading security futures products
In particular, the Commissions believe that exchanges and associations trading security futures products may also satisfy the CEA's and Exchange Act's coordinated surveillance requirement through Affiliate Membership in ISG, if the Affiliate Members trading security futures products also enter into supplemental
For example, ISG provides to Full Members market surveillance reports. It is unclear whether Full Members have access to market surveillance reports of Affiliate Members or whether Affiliate Members have access to such information from each other. The Commissions understand that this information is, as a practical matter, made available to all ISG members upon request, but believe that the obligation to provide such information upon request should be explicit. In addition, Full Members are required to share information and documents, upon request, about current and former members.
Moreover, the agreement among Full Members allows Full Members to request information and documents from each other relating to ongoing investigations.
Finally, once information is requested, Affiliate Members are generally only required to use “best efforts” in accordance with their rules to obtain the information.
As discussed above, the Commissions believe that the limitations on an Affiliate Member's obligations to share information could be easily addressed through means other than becoming Full Members of ISG. For example, Affiliate Members trading security futures products and Full Members could enter into a supplementary agreement to share the information described above among each other despite the limitations in the current agreements.
The Commissions also believe that exchanges trading security futures products could satisfy the requirement to coordinate surveillance by entering into bilateral surveillance agreements with each exchange, association, or market on which any security underlying the security futures product or related security is traded to detect manipulation and insider trading. The Commissions, however, believe that such bilateral agreements would have to contain essentially the same information sharing obligations that Full Members of ISG currently have with respect to each other.
Accordingly, if a market trading security futures products becomes a Full Member of the ISG, becomes an Affiliate Member of the ISG and enters into a supplemental agreement to share the additional information described above with Full Members and other Affiliate Members trading security futures products, or enters into appropriate bilateral surveillance agreements to detect manipulation and insider trading with each exchange, association or market on which security futures products trade, and any market on which any security underlying the security futures product or related security is traded, the Commissions believe that the market would satisfy the requirements of Section 2(a)(1)(D)(i)(VIII) of the CEA and Section 6(h)(3)(I) of the Exchange Act.
Sections 6(b)(1) and 15A(b)(2) of the Exchange Act require all national securities exchanges and national securities associations to enforce compliance by their members and persons associated with their members, with the provisions of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder.
The SEC believes that exchanges and associations could address these limitations on the obligations of Affiliate Members to share information by, for example, entering into a supplementary agreement to share such information among Full and Affiliate Members despite the limitations in the current agreements. Alternatively, the SEC believes that exchanges or associations trading securities that are related to security futures traded by an exchange or association that is not a Full Member of ISG could satisfy the requirement to coordinate surveillance by entering into bilateral surveillance agreements with such exchange or association that is adequate to detect manipulation and insider trading. The Commissions, however, believe that such bilateral agreements would have to contain essentially the same information sharing obligations that Full Members of ISG currently have with respect to each other.
No comments were received in response to the CFTC's invitation in the proposed rules to comment on any paperwork burden associated with these regulations.
In the Proposing Release, the Commissions solicited comments on these collection of information requirements. The Commissions received no comments that specifically addressed the PRA portion of the Proposing Release. Because the new rule is substantially similar to the proposed rule, the SEC continues to believe that the estimates published in the Proposing Release regarding the proposed collection of information burdens associated with the new rule are appropriate.
As discussed above, the Exchange Act, as amended by the CFMA, provides that a national securities exchange or national securities association may trade security futures products only if the listing standards for such products conform with the requirements set forth in Section 6(h)(3) of the Exchange Act.
The SEC will review these proposed rule changes in the manner prescribed by Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act. In addition, the SEC will publish these proposed rule changes to afford the public an opportunity to comment on the listing standards adopted by national securities exchanges and national securities associations with respect to security futures products.
The SEC estimates that there will be 17 respondents to the proposed rule: 9 currently registered national securities exchanges, 1 national securities association (the NASD) that operates a securities market (Nasdaq), and an estimated 7 futures markets that are expected to register as Security Futures Product Exchanges.
The SEC received no comments on its proposed estimates and has not revised them. The SEC estimates the paperwork burden for each respondent to comply with proposed SEC Rule 6h-1 will be 10 hours of legal work at $128/hour,
As set forth in SEC Rule 17a-1,
This collection of information is mandatory for any national securities exchange or national securities association that elects to list and trade security futures products.
Any information filed with the Commission will be made publicly available. Information in the files of national securities exchanges or national securities associations that elect to list and trade security futures products will be subject to Commission enforcement inquiries or investigations and trading reconstructions, as well as for inspections and examinations.
Section 15 further specifies that costs and benefits shall be evaluated in light of five broad areas of market and public concern: protection of market participants and the public; efficiency, competitiveness, and financial integrity of futures markets; price discovery; sound risk management practices; and other public interest considerations. Accordingly, the CFTC could in its discretion give greater weight to any one of the five enumerated areas of concern and could in its discretion determine that, notwithstanding its costs, a particular rule was necessary or appropriate to protect the public interest or to effectuate any of the provisions or to accomplish any of the purposes of the Act.
The CFTC considered the costs and benefits of these rules in light of the specific areas of concern identified in Section 15,
The CFTC invited public comment on the costs and benefits of the proposed rules.
Accordingly, the SEC is adopting new SEC Rule 6h-1 under the Exchange Act generally to require that the final settlement price for each cash-settled security futures product fairly reflect the opening price of the underlying security or securities, and that trading in any security futures product halt when a regulatory halt is instituted with respect to a security or securities underlying the security futures product by the national securities exchange or national securities association listing the security.
Specifically, SEC Rule 6h-1(a) defines the terms “opening price,” “regular trading session,” and “regulatory halt” generally as proposed.
Also like the proposed rule, adopted SEC Rule 6h-1(b)(1) requires that the final settlement price of a cash-settled security futures product must fairly reflect the opening price of the
With respect to regulatory halts for security futures products, the SEC is generally adopting the provision as proposed requiring that trading of a security futures product based on a single security be halted at all times that a regulatory halt has been instituted for the underlying security.
Finally, the SEC has expanded the exemption in SEC Rule 6h-1(d) to permit the SEC to grant a national securities exchange or national securities association an exemption from any provision of SEC Rule 6h-1 if the SEC determines that such an exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors. The SEC has expanded the scope of the exemption to make it more consistent with its exemptive authority under Section 36 of the Exchange Act, which allows the SEC, by rule, regulation, or order to conditionally or unconditionally exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any classes thereof, from any rule or regulation under the Exchange Act, to the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, and is consistent with the protection of investors.
In the Proposing Release,
Although no comments specifically addressed the Costs and Benefits analysis in the Proposing Release,
Adopted SEC Rule 6h-1(a) defines the terms “opening price,” “regular trading session,” and “regulatory halt.” As a definitional provision, subparagraph (a) imposes no costs on the respondents. However, by defining the terms, the SEC believes that adopted SEC Rule 6h-1(a) should benefit respondents by providing legal certainty to respondents when complying with the rule.
One commenter stated that the definition of “opening price” failed to anticipate instances where the market trading a security underlying a security futures product may be a market other than a national securities exchange or national securities association, such as a foreign stock exchange.
Further, this commenter stated that the proposed definition of the term “regulatory halt,” which is being
Adopted SEC Rule 6h-1(b)(1) requires that the final settlement price of a cash-settled security futures product must fairly reflect the opening price of the underlying security or securities. Several commenters generally supported this aspect of the proposal.
The SEC believes that SEC Rule 6h-1(b)(1) should facilitate the ability of the securities markets to handle expiration-related unwinding programs and mitigate the liquidity strains that had previously been experienced in the securities markets on expirations for stock index futures and options. The SEC further believes that the liquidity constraints associated with expiration-related buy or sell programs at the close on expiration Fridays aggravated ongoing market swings during an expiration and provided opportunities for entities to anticipate these pressures and enter orders as part of manipulative or abusive trading practices designed to artificially drive up or down share prices.
The SEC notes that the rule adopted today provides national securities exchanges and national securities associations with flexibility to implement the requirements of the Exchange Act. The SEC notes that the rule adopted today does not mandate that a particular methodology be used to derive an opening price. A national securities exchange or national securities association would retain the flexibility to establish the procedures to determine the opening price, which will be used to determine the settlement price of security futures products. The SEC believes that this flexibility should provide respondents with the ability to meet the needs of the market place, while satisfying their obligations under the Exchange Act.
In those instances where the opening price was not readily available, the SEC proposed that the final settlement price of a cash-settled security futures product overlying that security must reflect a price of the underlying security taken from its most recent regular trading session. The proposed rule also provided that national securities exchanges and national securities associations could request exemptions from the settlement price provisions from the SEC on a case-by-case basis.
Although one commenter supported this aspect of the proposal,
In response to the commenters, the final rule adopted by the SEC allows either look-back or look forward opening prices to be used as alternate final settlement prices when an opening price is not readily available. Specifically, adopted SEC Rule 6h-1(b)(2) requires that, if an opening price for one or more securities underlying a security futures product is not readily available, the final settlement price of the security futures product shall fairly reflect (i) the price of the underlying security or securities during the most recent regular trading session for such security or securities, or (ii) the next available opening price of the underlying security or securities.
As discussed earlier, the SEC agrees with the commenters' view that the proposed rule could have resulted in an unwanted and unwarranted de-linking of hedging positions if it mandated look-back pricing procedures for security futures products. The SEC believes that the adopted rule will provide national securities exchanges and national securities associations with some discretion to implement this general rule without dictating how the settlement price is derived for a security futures product. The SEC further notes that the final rule adopted today is consistent with OCC rules that allow for look-back pricing in certain circumstances.
In addition, one commenter indicated that problems could arise if an exchange or association that trades a security futures product and the registered clearing agency through which it clears such product had different rules for the determination of an alternate settlement price.
The SEC believes that in the absence of such a provision, confusion could arise if securities underlying a security futures product failed to trade on an expiration Friday and the market trading the security futures product and its clearing agency had different rules determining a final settlement price. Moreover, this provision should make security futures products that trade on different markets more fungible, because a single clearing agency will be able to harmonize procedures across different markets for determining alternate settlement prices.
In addition, adopted SEC Rule 6h-1(c)(1) and (c)(2) requires the trading on security futures products based on a single security to be halted at all times that a regulatory halt has been instituted for the underlying security or, if based on a narrow-based security index, to be halted at all times that a regulatory halt has been instituted for one or more underlying securities that constitute 50 percent or more of the market capitalization of the narrow-based security index. The SEC believes that the adopted rule should help preserve the investor protection and market integrity goals of regulatory halt procedures in the securities markets. The SEC believes that the close relationship between the underlying security or securities and the pricing of the overlying security futures product generally justifies a regulatory halt of the security futures product at all times that a regulatory halt has been instituted for the underlying security or securities.
With respect to regulatory halts due to pending news, the SEC does not agree with two commenters who questioned the absolute requirement that trading in a security futures product must be halted during a news pending halt in the underlying security.
In addition, the SEC believes that regulatory halts in the trading of security futures products due to the operation of circuit breakers should further protect investors and the markets by mitigating potential systemic stress during a historic market decline and allow for the reestablishment of an equilibrium between buying and selling interests in an orderly fashion. The SEC generally believes that pre-determined, coordinated, cross-market operations of circuit breakers would effectively address market declines that threaten to result in
The SEC does not agree with one commenter's recommendation that the SEC should provide exchanges with latitude in implementing coordinated circuit breaker procedures and flexibility in imposing this requirement on security futures products where the
In addition, to be effective, circuit breakers have to be coordinated across stock, stock index futures, and options markets in order to prevent intermarket problems of the kind experienced in October 1987.
Although the SEC understands the concern raised by one commenter regarding continued trading of a security futures product when the underlying security has halted trading if the listing market is not the primary market,
With respect to narrow-based security indexes, the SEC believes that trading should be halted when a trading halt has been instituted for a sufficiently large portion of an index in order to prevent continued trading of the security futures product from becoming a means to improperly circumvent regulatory trading halts in the underlying securities. If trading in only one component security is halted, continued trading in a security future based on an index in which such a security represents a substantial portion of the index value could also undermine the trading halt in the underlying security. The SEC believes that trading halt procedures also would not be coordinated, as contemplated by Section 6(h)(3)(K) of the Exchange Act,
Accordingly, the SEC believes that a general practice whereby trading is halted for the security futures product when investors lack access to current pricing information in the primary market for the underlying security should contribute to the maintenance of fair and orderly markets. Moreover, the SEC believes that this coordination of trading halts by SEC Rule 6h-1(c)(1) and (2) would generally benefit investors and the market by providing fewer opportunities for abuse and manipulation. SEC Rule 6h-1(c)(1) and (2) also would further increase investor confidence in the stability of the markets by assuring investors and the public that the national securities exchanges and national securities associations trading security futures product are reasonably equipped to handle market demand and pending material news.
Furthermore, in the final rule adopted by the SEC, the rule permits the SEC to grant an exemption with respect to any provision of SEC Rule 6h-1 based on its existing exemptive authority pursuant to Section 36 of the Exchange Act. Any exemption would require a finding that the action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors. The SEC believes that the exemption provided for in SEC Rule 6h-1(d)
The SEC estimates that there would be 17 respondents to the rule: 9 currently registered national securities exchanges, 1 national securities association (the NASD) that operates a securities market (Nasdaq), and an estimated 7 futures markets that are expected to register as Security Futures Product Exchanges.
National securities exchanges and national securities associations may file proposed rule changes pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act
Further, under Rule 17a-1 of the Exchange Act,
As mentioned earlier, adopted SEC Rule 6h-1(a) defines the terms “opening price,” “regular trading session,” and “regulatory halt.” The definitions of the relevant terms impose no costs on the respondents.
SEC Rule 6h-1 also requires respondents that choose to trade security futures products to develop a system for determining the settlement price of a cash-settled security futures product to fairly reflect the opening price of the underlying security. However, because respondents to the adopted rule currently have systems in place to determine opening prices, the SEC believes that respondents complying with the settlement provisions of SEC Rule 6h-1 would only incur minimal operational or maintenance costs to reconfigure their current settlement procedures to fairly reflect the opening price of the underlying security.
In addition, in order to comply with SEC Rule 6h-1(c)(1) and (2), the SEC believes that national securities exchanges and national securities associations may incur costs in developing or adapting existing systems to monitor when listing markets have instituted a regulatory halt for an underlying security of the security futures product. Similarly, costs may be incurred for system changes needed to calculate the market capitalization of an underlying narrow-based security index and when one or more of the underlying securities that constitute 50 percent or more of the market capitalization of a narrow-based security index are subject to a regulatory halt. The commenters did not provide the SEC with actual estimates of the costs they would incur to institute such a system. To the extent that systems need to be developed to determine the market capitalization of narrow-based security indexes to trigger a regulatory trading halt, the SEC does not believe that the additional costs that may be incurred will be substantial. Similarly, with respect to the costs in developing or adapting existing systems to monitor when listing markets institute regulatory halts for the security or securities, as applicable, underlying the security futures product, the SEC believes that these costs should not be substantial in light of the fact that the majority of affected markets already have systems in place to monitor regulatory halts. For instance, the SEC notes that 9 of the estimated 17 respondents are already required to provide notification of regulatory halts since they are participants of the Consolidated Tape Association Plan (“CTA Plan”)
One commenter believed that the requirement to halt trading in single-stock futures when trading in the underlying security is halted was overly broad to satisfy the requirement that procedures be put in place to coordinate trading halts.
In response, the SEC notes that the purpose of trading halts is to ensure that there is an adequate opportunity for information about a security to be disseminated to the public. The SEC does not believe that it would be consistent with the protection of investors to permit investors, including retail investors, to trade a surrogate for a security when trading is halted in that security. By adopting this rule, the SEC seeks to maintain and preserve the integrity of this mechanism so that the trading of security futures products will not be used as a tool to circumvent the institution of regulatory halts. Moreover, the SEC believes that the purpose of halting trading in the underlying security would be frustrated if market participants could circumvent this halt by trading during the halt in the related security futures product.
Another commenter believed that the SEC's proposal to require a trading halt in a narrow-based security index future when a security or securities that constitute 30 percent or more of the market capitalization of the index are subject to a trading halt was too low a threshold to justify the disruption that it would inflict upon the futures market.
In response to the commenter's statement that the 30 percent market capitalization test was too low and after consideration of the potential effects of the proposed 30 percent trading halt threshold, the adopted rule requires trading to be halted in a narrow-based security index futures product when component securities representing 50 percent or more of the market capitalization of that narrow-based
The SEC believes that the proposed 30 percent threshold is too low because it could unnecessarily disrupt hedge positions involving futures on narrow-based security indexes that may still be substantially performing their intended risk-shifting function when trading is halted in a limited number of the index's component securities. The SEC believes that a 50 percent threshold would better serve the requirement's intended purpose. In adopting a 50 percent threshold, the SEC sought to balance the utility of maintaining effective hedge positions with concerns about circumventing the coordination requirement by allowing trading in narrow-based index futures to continue when trading in a limited number of the underlying securities is halted. The SEC believes that while it is not possible to eliminate completely the risk involved in hedging securities with a future on a narrow-based security index when trading halts are instituted for certain of those underlying securities, the 50 percent threshold reduces such risk. Therefore, the SEC is adopting a 50 percent threshold because it appears to appropriately balance the goals of hedging utility with prevention of improperly circumventing regulatory halts in the underlying securities. With respect to the commenters' concern regarding the potential difficulty in calculating the market capitalization of an index, especially for price-weighted or equal dollar weighted indexes, for purposes of instituting the regulatory halt, the SEC notes that selecting market capitalization as the method for calculating the weight of the index is similar to an existing standard used to calculate trigger points for circuit breaker operations.
SEC Rule 6h-1 provides that the final settlement price for each cash-settled security futures product fairly reflect the opening price of the underlying security or securities. In the event that the opening price of an underlying security is not readily available, SEC Rule 6h-1 permits a national securities exchange or national securities association that lists and trades an overlying cash-settled security futures product to use look-back or next opening pricing procedures to derive a final settlement price for the security futures product. However, if a clearing agency determines, pursuant to its rules, that such final settlement price is not consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, taking into account such factors as fairness to buyers and sellers of the affected security futures product, the maintenance of a fair and orderly market in such security futures product, and consistency of interpretation and practice, the clearing agency has the authority to determine, under its rules, a final settlement price for such security futures product.
The SEC does not believe that these provisions will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. The rule adopted today codifies what is general industry practice for other cash-settled derivative products. Thus, even in the absence of the rule, it is likely that the markets would have opted for opening-price rather than closing-price procedures for security futures products. In addition, under the final rule, the market listing the security futures product may use look-back or next opening prices in instances where the opening price of an underlying security is not readily available. The SEC believes that this flexibility will assist national securities exchanges and national securities associations in responding to market conditions when creating security futures products. Finally, the provision that allows a clearing agency to determine a final settlement price in certain instances will remove an obstacle to the fungibility of security futures products, which may in time lead to the same security futures product being multiply traded on more than one national securities exchange or national securities association. The SEC believes that the trading of security futures products on multiple markets promote competition.
The Commissions received one comment on the proposed settlement procedures that briefly addressed competitive issues. This commenter stated that exchange-listed security futures products “will be subject to intense competition” and urged the Commissions to avoid rulemaking that would lead to the sub-optimal design of security futures products and thereby “unfairly tilt the competitive landscape.”
The Commissions received two comments that address the competitive aspects of the trading halt provisions of the proposed rule. One commenter stated that security futures product “lookalikes” can trade in the unregulated upstairs market and in foreign jurisdictions; to the extent that these other trading venues do not coordinate their trading halts, “there is a potential competitive issue.”
The SEC does not believe that the trading halt provisions will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. These provisions do restrict competition, in the sense that they restrict the freedom and ability to trade a security futures product whenever trading is halted in the underlying security or securities. The SEC believes, however, that such a requirement is necessary and appropriate to further the purposes of the Exchange Act, which require that listing standards for security futures products must include procedures to coordinate trading halts between the market that trades the security futures product, any market that trades any underlying security, and other markets on which any related security is traded. Specifically, in the absence of these mandatory halts for the security futures product, the purpose of declaring the halt in the underlying security or securities would be frustrated, because the market for the overlying security futures product could serve as a proxy for the underlying market.
Further, the SEC believes that trading halts promote fair competition by providing an adequate opportunity for information about a security to be disseminated to the public. The SEC does not believe that it would be consistent with the protection of investors, particularly retail investors, to permit trading in a surrogate for a security when trading is halted in that security. Thus, the SEC believes it is essential, to ensure fair and orderly markets, to prevent a national securities exchange or national securities association from becoming a proxy market by trading an overlying security futures product when trading is halted in an underlying security. Furthermore, any potential restraint on competition caused by the rule's trading halt provisions must be weighed against the requirement that listing standards, pursuant to Section 6(h)(3)(K) of the Exchange Act,
The SEC finds that SEC Rule 6h-1 will promote competition and will not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act.
The SEC believes that the settlement provisions of SEC Rule 6h-1 will improve efficiency and capital formation. Although no commenters addressed the efficiency and capital formation aspects of the proposed rule directly, some of the commenters
The Commissions received no comments directly addressing efficiency and capital formation aspects of the trading halt provisions of SEC Rule 6h-1.
Regulatory trading halts provide an opportunity for investors to learn of, and react to, material information to make informed investment judgments. In addition, they mitigate potential systematic stress during severe market declines and allow for the reestablishment of an equilibrium between buying and selling interests in an orderly fashion. Accordingly, the SEC believes that the trading halt provisions of SEC Rule 6h-1, by requiring national securities exchanges and national securities associations to halt trading in security futures products when trading is halted in the underlying security or securities, will ultimately improve efficiency and capital formation by creating a more fair and orderly marketplace.
Security futures products, Trading halts and Settlement provisions.
Securities.
The CFTC has the authority to adopt these rules pursuant to sections 2(a)(1)(D)(i)(VII), 2(a)(1)(D)(i)(X), and 8a(5) of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. 2(a)(1)(D)(i)(VII), 2(a)(1)(D)(i)(X), and 12(a)(5).
Sections 206, 251 and 252, Pub. L. 106-554, 114 Stat. 2763; 7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 6f, 6j, 7a-2, 12a; 15 U.S.C. 78(g)(2).
For purposes of this part:
(j)
(k)
(l)
(1) A determination that there are matters relating to the security or issuer that have not been adequately disclosed to the public, or that there are regulatory problems relating to the security which should be clarified before trading is permitted to continue; or
(2) The operation of circuit breaker procedures to halt or suspend trading in all equity securities trading on that national securities exchange or national securities association.
(a)
(2)
(i) Trading of a security futures product based on a single security shall be halted at all times that a regulatory halt has been instituted for the underlying security; and
(ii) Trading of a security futures product based on a narrow-based security index shall be halted at all times that a regulatory halt has been instituted for one or more underlying securities that constitute 50 percent or more of the market capitalization of the narrow-based security index.
(b)
(1) The final settlement price of a cash-settled security futures product must fairly reflect the opening price of the underlying security or securities;
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(1) of this section, if an opening price for one or more securities underlying a security futures product is not readily available, the final settlement price of the security futures product shall fairly reflect:
(i) The price of the underlying security or securities during the most recent regular trading session for such security or securities; or
(ii) The next available opening price of the underlying security or securities.
(3) Notwithstanding paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section, if a derivatives clearing organization registered under Section 5b of the Act or a clearing agency exempt from registration pursuant to Section 5b(a)(2) of the Act, to which the final settlement price of a security futures product is or would be reported determines, pursuant to its rules, that such final settlement price is not consistent with the protection of customers and the public interest, taking into account such factors as fairness to buyers and sellers of the affected security futures product, the maintenance of a fair and orderly market in such security futures product, and consistency of interpretation and practice, the clearing organization shall have the authority to determine, under its rules, a final settlement price for such security futures product.
(d) The Commission may exempt from the provisions of paragraphs (a)(2) and (b) of this section, either unconditionally or on specified terms and conditions, any designated contract market or registered derivatives transaction execution facility, if the Commission determines that such exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of customers. An exemption granted pursuant to this paragraph shall not operate as an exemption from any Securities and Exchange Commission rules. Any exemption that may be required from such rules must be obtained separately from the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The SEC is adopting the rules pursuant to its authority under Exchange Act Sections 6, 9, 15A, 19, 23(a), and 36, 15 U.S.C. 78f, 78i, 78
1. The authority citation for part 240 continues to read, in part, as follows:
15 U.S.C. 77c, 77d, 77g, 77j, 77s, 77z-2, 77z-3, 77eee, 77ggg, 77nnn, 77sss, 77ttt, 78c, 78d, 78e, 78f, 78g, 78i, 78j, 78j-1, 78k, 78k-1, 78
2. Section 240.6h-1 is added to read as follows:
(a) For the purposes of this section:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(i) A determination that there are matters relating to the security or issuer that have not been adequately disclosed to the public, or that there are regulatory problems relating to the security which should be clarified before trading is permitted to continue; or
(ii) The operation of circuit breaker procedures to halt or suspend trading in all equity securities trading on that national securities exchange or national securities association.
(b)
(1) The final settlement price of a cash-settled security futures product must fairly reflect the opening price of the underlying security or securities.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(1) of this section, if an opening price for one or more securities underlying a security futures product is not readily available, the final settlement price of the security futures product shall fairly reflect:
(i) The price of the underlying security or securities during the most recent regular trading session for such security or securities; or
(ii) The next available opening price of the underlying security or securities.
(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section, if a clearing agency registered under Section 17A of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78q-1), or exempt from registration pursuant to Section 17A(b)(7) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(7)), to which the final settlement price of a security futures product is or would be reported determines, pursuant to its rules, that such final settlement price is not consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, taking into account such factors as fairness to buyers and sellers of the affected security futures product, the maintenance of a fair and orderly market in such security futures product, and consistency of interpretation and practice, the clearing agency shall have the authority to determine, under its rules, a final settlement price for such security futures product.
(c)
(1) Trading of a security futures product based on a single security shall be halted at all times that a regulatory halt has been instituted for the underlying security; and
(2) Trading of a security futures product based on a narrow-based security index shall be halted at all times that a regulatory halt has been instituted for one or more underlying securities that constitute 50 percent or more of the market capitalization of the narrow-based security index.
(d) The Commission may exempt from the requirements of this section, either unconditionally or on specified terms and conditions, any national securities exchange or national securities association, if the Commission determines that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors. An exemption granted pursuant to this paragraph shall not operate as an exemption from any Commodity Futures Trading Commission rules. Any exemption that may be required from such rules must be obtained separately from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
By the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Appendix A to the preamble will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
American Stock Exchange LLC, Boston Stock Exchange, Incorporated, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated, Chicago Stock Exchange, Incorporated, Cincinnati Stock Exchange, Incorporated, International Securities Exchange LLC, National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., New York Stock Exchange, Inc., Pacific Exchange, Inc., Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (collectively, “ISG/SROs”) as of [the date of Release].
(a)(i) The Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”) shall have as its purposes: (a) the coordination and development of programs and procedures designed to assist in identifying possible fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices across markets, particularly, between markets which trade the same or related securities and between markets which trade equity securities and options on an index in which such securities are included, (b) the routine exchange of Market Surveillance Reports, as that term is defined in Section 2(e), among ISG/SROs which is appropriate to the performance of adequate market surveillance, and (c) the exchange of information, upon request, among ISG/SROs which is appropriate to the requesting ISG/SRO in the discharge of its regulatory responsibilities under the Act to enforce compliance by its members and persons associated with its members with its rules. Each of the nine ISG/SROs will appoint form time to time one of its executive officers responsible for market surveillance to serve as its Principal Representative on the ISG. Each Principal Representative at any time appointed by an ISG/SRO shall serve as a member of ISG until such appointing ISG/SRO shall appoint a successor, such successor appointment to be evidenced by a written notice delivered by the appointing ISG/SRO to each of the other ISG/SROs.
(a)(ii) An “ISG affiliate” is a contract market or foreign self-regulatory organization which shall have such privileges and obligations as are set forth herein. A contract market or foreign self-regulatory organization shall become an ISG Affiliate if: (a) it is so approved by the unanimous vote of all ISG/SROs in attendance at a meeting of the ISG, and (b) the principal executive officer of the contract market or foreign self-regulatory organization so approved agrees in writing in a form approved by the ISG/SROs that the organization accepts the privileges and obligations of an ISG Affiliate. (Such a
An ISG Affiliate shall appoint an Affiliate Representative to the ISG who shall be one of the executive officers of the ISG Affiliate responsible for market surveillance. The Affiliate Representative shall select one member form the ISG Affiliate staff to serve as an alternate for, and under the direction of, the Affiliate Representative. The alternate shall be generally familiar with market surveillance techniques and procedures.
(a) Attached hereto as Exhibit A is an executed copy of the Agreement between SIAC (“Information Processor”) and the ISG Participants, including the Letter Agreement amending the Agreement (the “Service Agreement”), providing for the development and operation of a Central Collection and Reporting System. As provided in the Service Agreement, each of the ISG/SROs will routinely receive Market Surveillance Reports relating to securities (as that term is defined in Section 3(a)(10) of the Act):
(i) Which are traded on such receiving ISG/SRO, and
(ii) That are derived from (e.g., options) or underlie (e.g., stocks) securities which are traded on such receiving ISG/SRO.
(b) From time to time, an ISG/SRO (“requesting SRO”) may ask another ISG/SRO (“requested SRO”) to provide it with information or documents: (i) relating to a security traded through the facilities of either ISG/SRO or (ii) relating to a member or a former member of either ISG/SRO (including, but not limited to information or documents concerning the identity, trading activity and positions of the requested ISG/SRO's members, former members or customers of the requested ISG/SRO's members or former members) for the purpose of enforcing compliance with the provisions of the Act, or for other regulatory purposes. Upon receipt of such a request, the requested ISG/SRO shall obtain such information from its own records or from its members and former members, and shall provide any information or documents so gathered to the requesting ISG/SRO. In addition, an ISG/SRO may ask another ISG/SRO to provide it with information or documents relating to an investigation or a disciplinary action by the requested ISG/SRO against any of its members, member organizations or persons associated with its members or member organizations. Upon receipt of such a request, the requested ISG/SRO shall obtain such information or documents concerning disciplinary actions from its own records and shall provide such information or documents to the requesting ISG/SRO.
(c) From time to time, an ISG/SRO may ask an ISG Affiliate to provide it with information or documents: (1) Relating to a security, an option on a security, a currency option, a futures contract, an option on a futures contract or any other derivative or underlying instrument traded through the facilities of the ISG Affiliate, or (2) relating to a member of an ISG/SRO or the ISG Affiliate (including, but not limited to, information or documents concerning the identity, trading activity and positions of the ISG Affiliate's members or customers of the ISG Affiliate's members). An ISG Affiliate shall agree in an Affiliate Agreement that, upon receipt of such a request, it shall use its best efforts in accordance with its rules to obtain such information from its own records or from its members, and, to the extent not inconsistent with its rules or with applicable law, provide any information or documents so gathered to the requesting ISG/SRO. In addition, an ISG/SRO may ask an ISG Affiliate to provide it with information or documents relating to the disposition of a disciplinary action taken by the ISG Affiliate against any of its members, member organizations or persons associated with its members or member organizations. An ISG Affiliate shall agree in an Affiliate Agreement that, upon receipt of such a request, it shall obtain such information or documents concerning disciplinary actions from its own records and, to the extend not inconsistent with its rules or with applicable law, provide such information or documents to the requesting ISG/SRO.
(d) From time to time, an ISG Affiliate may ask an ISG/SRO to provide it with information or documents: (1) Relating to a security, an option on a security, a currency option or any other derivative or underlying instrument traded through the facilities of the ISG/SRO, or (2) relating to a member of an ISG Affiliate or the ISG/SRO (including, but not limited to, information or documents concerning the identity, trading activity and positions of the ISG/SRO's members or customers of the ISG/SRO's members). Upon receipt of such a request, the ISG/SRO shall use its best efforts in accordance with its rules to obtain such information from its own records or from its members, and, to the extent not inconsistent with its rules or with applicable law, provide any information or documents so gathered to the requesting ISG Affiliate. In addition, an ISG Affiliate may ask ISG/SRO to provide it with information or documents relating to the disposition of a disciplinary action taken by the ISG/SRO against any of its members, member organizations or persons associated with its members or member organizations. Upon receipt of such a request, the ISG/SRO shall obtain such information or documents concerning disciplinary actions from its own records and, to the extent not inconsistent with its rules or with applicable law, provide such information or documents to the requesting ISG Affiliate.
(e) Market Surveillance Reports as used in this Agreement shall include:
(i) with respect to securities subject to last sale reporting pursuant to CTA, CQ, OPRA or NASDAQ Plans: quotations, last sale, clearing and other trading information available pursuant to, or collected under, such Plans; and post trade information generated pursuant to the ITS Plan.
(ii) reports routinely collected by an ISG/SRO relating to program trading, i.e., the purchase or sale of stocks that are part of a coordinated trading strategy, or relating to trades by its members and member organizations which are not reported to the Consolidated Tape.
(iii) reports relating to positions or exercises of securities.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
Today's rule exempts motorcycles with emission control devices that could be affected by the use of leaded gasoline from having to be equipped with gasoline tank filler inlet restrictors. As before, motorcycles and other motor vehicles without such emission control devices are not required to be equipped with gasoline tank filler inlet restrictors.
The Clean Air Act and corresponding EPA regulations prohibit gasoline containing lead or lead additives (leaded gasoline) as a motor vehicle fuel after December 31, 1995. As a deterrent to misfueling prior to that date, the EPA regulations required filler inlet restrictors on motor vehicles equipped with an emission control device that could be affected by the use of leaded gasoline, such as a catalytic converter. EPA retained that provision after 1995 because the filler inlet restrictor, besides being a deterrent to misfueling, has also been incorporated into the design of some vapor recovery gasoline nozzle spouts. Gasoline tank filler inlet restrictors do not work well with most motorcycle fuel tanks, especially the saddle type of tank, because of their shallow depth. A gasoline tank filler inlet restrictor may cause gasoline spitback or spillage when a motorcycle is refueled, which increases evaporative emissions. Today there is relatively little risk of misfueling a motorcycle. Also, it is unlikely that a gasoline tank filler inlet restrictor on a motorcycle helps to control gasoline vapors when the motorcycle is refueled.
This action will be effective June 24, 2002.
Richard Babst at (202) 564-9473, facsimile: (202) 565-2085, e-mail address:
Entities potentially affected by this rule are manufacturers of motorcycles. Regulated categories include:
To determine whether you are affected by this rule, you should carefully examine the requirements in § 80.24(b) of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”). If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding
Prior to 1996, 40 CFR 80.24(b) contained size specifications for the gasoline tank filler inlet of motor vehicles equipped with an emission control device that would be significantly impaired by the use of leaded gasoline. The purpose of the tank filler inlet restriction was to allow the insertion of an unleaded gasoline pump nozzle, but not a leaded gasoline pump nozzle. Specifically, § 80.24(b) required that a manufacturer of motor vehicles “equipped with an emission control device which the Administrator has determined will be significantly impaired by the use of leaded gasoline” shall “[m]anufacture such vehicle with each gasoline tank filler inlet having a restriction which prevents the insertion of a nozzle with a spout as described in § 80.22(f)(1) and allows the insertion of a nozzle with a spout as described in § 80.22(f)(2).” Section 80.22(f)(1) specified that “[e]ach pump from which leaded gasoline is introduced into motor vehicles shall be equipped with a nozzle spout having a terminal end with an outside diameter of not less than 0.930 inch (2.363 centimeters).” Section 80.22(f)(2) specified that “[e]ach pump from which unleaded gasoline is introduced into motor vehicles shall be equipped with a nozzle spout which meets the following specifications: (i) The outside diameter of the terminal end shall not be greater than 0.840 inch (2.134 centimeters); (ii) * * *”
Section 80.24(b) contained additional specifications to prevent misfueling of motor vehicles with leaded gasoline. Section 80.24(b)(1) required that the filler inlet restrictor “pool” gasoline at the restrictor's opening, if fueling is attempted when the spout of a pump nozzle is not inserted into the restrictor opening. Historically, this had been accomplished by a spring-loaded door on the inside of the restrictor opening, which would be pushed open by inserting the spout of an unleaded gasoline nozzle. Since leaded gasoline nozzle spouts were larger than the inlet restrictor opening, they did not fit into the restrictor opening or push open the spring loaded door. Fueling with leaded gasoline would require the nozzle spout to be positioned in front of the restrictor opening and spring-loaded door. If fueling were attempted in this manner, the gasoline would pool at the restrictor opening and cause the nozzle's automatic shut-off device to activate. The related § 80.24(b)(2) exempted motorcycle manufacturers from meeting the “pooling” requirements of § 80.24(b)(1).
Section 211(n) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7545(n), prohibits the introduction of gasoline containing lead or lead additives into commerce for use as a motor vehicle fuel after December 31, 1995. For consistency with this Clean Air Act prohibition, we published in the
In the February 2, 1996 direct final rule and associated notice of proposed rulemaking, we removed various portions of § 80.24, including the introductory text, and modified § 80.24(b) to make the size requirements of the tank filler inlet applicable to all new motor vehicles, and not just to those equipped with an emission control device that would be significantly impaired by the use of leaded gasoline. We reasoned that retaining the requirement for the tank filler inlet restrictor would conform with the statutory ban prohibiting the use of gasoline containing lead or lead
In the February 2, 1996 direct final rule and associated notice of proposed rulemaking, we also removed §§ 80.24(b)(1) and 80.24(b)(2). We believed misfueling would be unlikely, making the § 80.24(b)(1) “pooling” safeguard against misfueling unnecessary. Once we removed § 80.24(b)(1), it was appropriate for us to remove § 80.24(b)(2) as well, since § 80.24(b)(2) exempted motorcycle manufacturers from the requirements of 80.24(b)(1).
We received an adverse comment from Harley Davidson, Inc. (Harley) on the revised language of 40 CFR 80.24(b) in the February 2, 1996 direct final rule and proposed rule.
On October 31, 2001, we published a Direct Final Rule (66 FR 54955) and concurrent Notice of Proposed Rule (66 FR 54965) to 40 CFR 80.24(b) to exempt motorcycles equipped with an emission control device that will be affected by the use of leaded gasoline, such as a catalytic converter, from having to be equipped with a fuel tank inlet restrictor. We received an adverse comment, and on December 27, 2001 withdrew the Direct Final Rule (66 FR 66867) in order to address the comment in today's action based on the concurrent Notice of Proposed Rule. The December 27, 2001 withdrawal of the direct final rule was inadvertently published in the Proposed Rule section of the
There are few, if any, offsetting environmental benefits to support the continued use of gasoline tank filler inlet restrictors in motorcycles equipped with emission control devices that would be significantly impaired by the use of leaded gasoline. Today there is relatively little risk of misfueling a motorcycle. Gasoline tank filler inlet restrictors were originally required to prevent motor vehicles with an emission control device, such as a catalytic converter, from using leaded gasoline. Leaded gasoline can damage catalytic converters and certain other emission control devices. Significantly, leaded gasoline has now been banned from use in all motor vehicles for over six years and is generally no longer available for sale at gasoline filling stations. Also, it is unlikely that a gasoline tank filler inlet restrictor on a motorcycle helps to control gasoline vapors when the motorcycle is refueled. Although a vapor recovery gasoline nozzle, in conjunction with the gasoline tank filler inlet restrictor, helps to control gasoline vapors and emissions when used to refuel most motor vehicles, they are relatively ineffective when used to refuel motorcycles.
During refueling of a car or truck, the fuel nozzle spout is inserted into the fill tube and through the filler neck restrictor plate. The fuel nozzle automatically stops the flow of gasoline when it senses a sufficiently high level of gasoline vapors below the restrictor plate, which indicates the fuel tank is full. We understand that, beginning with the introduction of Stage I vapor recovery fueling systems in the early 1990s and continuing with current Stage II vapor recovery systems, the fuel tank inlet restrictor of a car or truck has been used as a guide, a seat and a pressure contact point for some vapor recovery gasoline nozzle spouts.
For some vapor recovery fueling systems, the restrictor plate lines up the nozzle and helps concentrate the fugitive emissions for collection. Without the restrictor plate, more fugitive emissions would be released. The “balance” type of vapor recovery system uses a boot to seal around the outside of the tank filler inlet tube. While this system does not require the restrictor plate to help capture fugitive emissions, it requires the restrictor plate to push against in order to activate an interlock. An “emission” or “efficiency” control vapor recovery device does not need the restrictor plate to control fugitive emissions. This device consists of a cup, which has an outside diameter the same as the inside diameter of the fill hole, that is clipped to the spout. A similar type of vapor recovery system, the Marconi system, does not need the restrictor plate or the plastic cup.
Most on-board vapor recovery systems, which are required for light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks but not for motorcycles, are also designed around the restrictor plate. A seal is needed between the pump nozzle and the tank filler inlet tube to prevent fugitive emissions from escaping. This seal is normally located below the restrictor plate, and uses the restrictor plate to line-up the nozzle with the seal. Fugitive emissions below the seal are then diverted to a canister in the vehicle.
We understand that gasoline tank filler inlet restrictors do not work well with most motorcycle fuel tanks, especially the saddle type of tank, because of their shallow depth. The use of gasoline tank inlet restrictors in motorcycles may in fact contribute to unnecessary releases of gasoline vapors and emissions. Unlike a car or truck, motorcycles are typically fueled while the operator observes the tank fuel level, similar to filling a small gasoline container typically used to refuel lawnmowers and other small gasoline powered equipment. However, the restrictor plate obstructs the view of the fuel level, and could contribute to inadvertent fuel overfill and spillage. If fueling with the “balance” type of vapor recovery nozzle, motorcycle operators generally pull back and hold the rubber boot to activate the interlock and allow
These problems were not much of an issue in the 1995 and earlier time frame, because only relatively few motorcycles were equipped with catalytic converters, and thus, only relatively few required tank inlet restrictors. However, a significant number of 2001 model year motorcycles have been equipped with catalytic converters.
An adverse comment was submitted jointly from representatives of the multifamily rental industry: National Apartment Association, National Leased Housing Association, and National Multi Housing Council (herein referred to collectively as “NAA”). NAA expressed concern about environmental exposure to lead caused by potential increased usage of leaded gasoline, and raised four issues, which we will address separately.
Fuel inlet restrictors together with pooling specifications were required to prevent damage to emission control devices, such as catalytic converters, installed on many motor vehicles to reduce smog. Today's action does not allow a motorcycle to use leaded gasoline, nor does it make it more likely that a motorcycle will misfuel with leaded gasoline. The fact that there is no suggestion or evidence that the large number of motorcycles in the U.S. not equipped with a fuel inlet restrictor are being misfueled supports this conclusion.
Fuel inlet restrictors have never prevented the use of leaded gasoline in motorcycles. Fuel inlet restrictors with size and “pooling” specifications were required from the mid-1970s until 1996 for motor vehicles with emission control devices, such a catalytic converters, that could be damaged by the use of leaded gasoline. At that time, both leaded and unleaded gasoline were generally available at gasoline filling stations.
The size specification prevented leaded gasoline nozzles, which had a larger diameter than unleaded gasoline nozzles, from being inserted into the fuel inlet restrictor opening. The “pooling” specification was typically met by a spring loaded door covering the fuel inlet opening, which could be pushed open with an unleaded gasoline nozzle for normal fueling. But, if fueling were attempted with a leaded gasoline nozzle, the spring loaded door would remain closed and gasoline would pool in the filler tube above the restrictor. The pooled gasoline would activate the gas pump's automatic cut-off device or overflow onto the vehicle and ground. Not only were motorcycles exempt from the “pooling” specification, but also very few motorcycles were required to be equipped with the filler neck restrictor because most did not have catalytic converters.
The specifications of the fuel inlet restrictor were changed in 1996 because leaded gasoline was no longer permitted as a fuel for any motor vehicle and we no longer considered fueling with leaded gasoline to be a significant possibility.
Even if a motorcycle owner wanted to use leaded fuel, it is relatively hard to find today. It is no longer generally available at retail gasoline stations because the use of leaded fuel is banned in motor vehicles. We estimate that only 0.3 percent of the gasoline used in the United States today is leaded gasoline.
One reason why the non-highway market (other than certain aviation and racing engines) has switched to unleaded gasoline and, thereby, made leaded gas harder to find is the cost of maintaining separate fuel distribution systems for highway and non-highway applications. Maintaining an additional tank and fuel pump for a small volume of leaded gasoline at a retail gasoline station is generally not cost effective. This is particularly true if the local non-highway consumer market can use unleaded highway gasoline instead. Also leaded gasoline must be segregated in dedicated storage and shipping tanks and must use dedicated transfer lines to prevent lead contamination of the unleaded highway gasoline supply.
Another reason why the non-highway market (other than certain aviation and racing engines) has switched to unleaded gasoline is that leaded gasoline causes corrosive lead compound deposits in the engines and lubricating oil. Consequently, using leaded gasoline requires more frequent oil changes and reduces engine and exhaust system life. Even those engines designed to run on leaded gasoline can use unleaded highway gasoline and reap the benefits of unleaded gasoline if it is mixed with a commercially available lead substitute additive. Thus all non-road engines (except for certain racing and aircraft engines) can use unleaded highway gasoline, although some may need to also use a lead substitute additive.
A motorcycle owner, therefore, that wanted to use leaded gasoline would either have to go to an airport, a race track or a racing supply center. Even if such an owner obtained leaded gasoline at one of these locations, the fuel would be specially formulated as aviation gasoline or racing gasoline that may not be suitable for use in a highway motorcycle.
Finally, even if a motorcycle owner could find a leaded gasoline, it is unlikely that he or she would want to pay more for leaded gasoline than for cheaper unleaded gasoline that is conveniently available at retail gasoline stations. In January 2002, for example, the price of aviation fuel at an airport in the Washington D.C. area was $2.65 per gallon.
Eliminating the fuel inlet requirement for motorcycles equipped with catalytic converters is not inconsistent with longstanding efforts to reduce lead in the environment. As discussed above, fuel inlet restrictors together with pooling specifications were required to prevent damage to emission control devices, such as catalytic converters, installed on many motor vehicles to reduce smog. Today's action does not allow a motorcycle to use leaded gasoline, nor does it make it more likely that a motorcycle will misfuel with leaded gasoline.
EPA does not believe that today's action will result in an increased risk of greater lead emissions into the environment. EPA, therefore, did not conduct a risk assessment or a cost benefit-analysis for today's rule. Based on the facts discussed above and in the direct final rule, EPA has concluded that fuel inlet restrictors are not needed in motorcycles with emission control devices and that the absence of a fuel inlet restrictor does not make it more likely that a motorcycle will be misfueled with leaded gasoline. The fact that there is no suggestion or evidence that the large number of motorcycles in the U.S. not equipped with a fuel inlet restrictor are being misfueled supports this conclusion.
Today's action is an “informal” or notice-and-comment rulemaking. We published a notice of proposed rulemaking on October 31, 2001 soliciting public comment on the proposed rule. We also published a companion direct final rule which would have gone into effect on December 31, 2001 had we not received any adverse comment on the proposed rule. Upon receiving adverse comment to the proposed rule we withdrew the direct final rule. Today's action responds the adverse comment and promulgates the Agency's final rule.
Formal rulemaking under sections 556 and 557 of the Administrative Procedure Act is a trial-type procedure before an agency that is used very infrequently. The Clean Air Act does not require formal or “on-the-record” rulemaking for today's action.
Today's final rule revises 40 CFR 80.24(b) to exempt motorcycles equipped with an emission control device that will be affected by the use of leaded gasoline, such as a catalytic converter, from having to be equipped with a fuel tank inlet restrictor.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
It has been determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB review.
This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. Today's rule exempts motorcycles from a current provision that requires them, under certain circumstances, to be equipped with fuel inlet restrictors, and thus avoids the costs imposed by the existing Federal regulations. Today's rule, therefore, is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. As discussed above, the rule is a deregulatory action and affects only motorcycle manufacturers.
Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, Apr. 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
This rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. EPA reduced the content of lead in leaded gasoline, because EPA found that lead particle emissions from motor vehicles presented a significant risk of harm to the health of urban populations, especially children (38 FR 33734, Dec. 6, 1973). Congress ultimately banned the use of leaded gasoline in motor vehicles after 1995. 42 U.S.C. 7545(n). Gasoline tank filler inlet restrictors were related to the phase-out of leaded gasoline to prevent a motor vehicle with an emission control device, such as a catalytic converter, from using leaded gasoline. Leaded gasoline can damage such emission control devices. Today there is relatively little risk of misfueling a motorcycle with an emission control device that could be damaged by the use of leaded gasoline, because leaded gasoline has now been banned from use in all motor vehicles for over five years and is generally no longer available for sale at gasoline filling stations.
Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999), requires EPA 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” is 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.”
This rule does not have federalism implications. It will not 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 as specified in Executive Order 13132. Today's rule eliminates the existing requirement that manufacturers of motorcycles must equip certain motorcycles with fuel tank filler inlet restrictors. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on small entities, EPA has concluded that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify and address regulatory alternatives “which minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.” 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. Thus, an agency may conclude that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule. We have therefore concluded that today's final rule will relieve regulatory burden for all small entities affected by this rule.
Today's rule is a deregulatory action and affects all motorcycle manufacturers. It eliminates the existing requirement that manufacturers of motorcycles must equip certain motorcycles with fuel tank filler inlet restrictors. We have therefore concluded that today's rule will relieve regulatory burden for any small entity.
Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.”
This final rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. The rule affects the applicability of the fuel tank filler inlet restrictor to motorcycles. It therefore affects only manufacturers of motorcycles Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
A copy of this action is available on the Internet at
Authority for this action is in sections 211, and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7545, 7601(a).
Environmental protection, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7414, 7545 and 7601(a).
(c) A motorcycle, as defined at 40 CFR 86.402 for the applicable model year, is exempt from the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section.
Department of Education.
Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2002.
This notice provides closing dates and other information regarding the transmittal of applications for FY 2002 competitions under one program authorized by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), as amended: Special Education—Training and Information for Parents of Children with Disabilities (one priority).
It is generally our practice to offer interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities. However, section 661(e)(2) of IDEA makes the rulemaking procedures in the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) inapplicable to the priority in this notice.
(a) The projects funded under this notice must make positive efforts to employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with disabilities in project activities (see section 606 of IDEA).
(b) Applicants and grant recipients funded under this notice must involve individuals with disabilities or parents of individuals with disabilities in planning, implementing, and evaluating the projects (see section 661(f)(1)(A) of IDEA).
(c) The projects funded under these priorities must budget for a two-day Project Directors' meeting in Washington, DC during each year of the project.
(d) Part III of each application submitted under this notice, the application narrative, is where an applicant addresses the selection criteria that are used by reviewers in evaluating the application. You must limit Part III to the equivalent of no more than the number of pages listed in the table at the end of this notice, using the following standards:
• A “page” is 8.5” × 11” (on one side only) with one-inch margins (top, bottom, and sides).
• Double-space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.
• Use a font that is either 12-point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
The page limit does not apply to Part I—the cover sheet; Part II—the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography or references, or the letters of support. However, you must include all of the application narrative in Part III.
We will reject without consideration or evaluation any application if—
• You apply these standards and exceed the page limit; or
• You apply other standards and exceed the equivalent of the page limit.
Some of the procedures in these instructions for transmitting applications differ from those in the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) (34 CFR 75.102). Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed regulations. However, these amendments make procedural changes only and do not establish new substantive policy. Therefore, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), the Secretary has determined that proposed rulemaking is not required.
In FY 2002, the U.S. Department of Education is continuing to expand its pilot project of electronic submission of applications to include additional formula grant programs and additional discretionary grant competitions. The Special Education—Training and Information for Parents of Children with Disabilities program—CFDA 84.328M is one of the programs included in the pilot project. If you are an applicant under the Special Education—Training and Information for Parents of Children with Disabilities program, you may submit your application to us in either electronic or paper format.
The pilot project involves the use of the Electronic Grant Application System (e-APPLICATION, formerly e-GAPS) portion of the Grant Administration and Payment System (GAPS). We request your participation in this pilot project. We shall continue to evaluate its success and solicit suggestions for improvement.
If you participate in this e-APPLICATION pilot, please note the following:
• Your participation is voluntary.
• You will not receive any additional point value or penalty because you submit a grant application in electronic or paper format.
• You can submit all documents electronically, including the Application for Federal Assistance (ED 424), Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• Within three working days of submitting your electronic application, fax a signed copy of the Application for Federal Assistance (ED 424) to the Application Control Center after following these steps:
1. Print ED 424 from the e-APPLICATION system.
2. Make sure that the institution's Authorizing Representative signs this form.
3. Before faxing this form, submit your electronic application via the e-APPLICATION system. You will receive an automatic acknowledgement, which will include a PR/Award number (an identifying number unique to your application).
4. Place the PR/Award number in the upper right hand corner of ED 424.
5. Fax ED 424 to the Application Control Center at (202) 260-1349.
• We may request that you give us original signatures on all other forms at a later date.
You may access the electronic grant application for the Special Education—Training and Information for Parents of Children with Disabilities program at:
Under section 682(e) of IDEA, the Assistant Secretary is required to: (a) Make at least one award to a parent organization in each State, unless the Assistant Secretary does not receive an application from such an organization in each State of sufficient quality to warrant approval; and (b) select among applications submitted by parent organizations in a State in a manner that ensures the most effective assistance to
(a) Has a board of directors, the parent and professional members of which are broadly representative of the population to be served and the majority of whom are parents of children with disabilities, that includes individuals with disabilities and individuals working in the fields of special education, related services, and early intervention; or
(b) Has a membership that represents the interests of individuals with disabilities and has established a special governing board meeting the requirements for a board of directors in paragraph (a) under
In addition, to demonstrate eligibility to receive a grant, an applicant must describe how its board or special governing committee meets the criteria for a parent organization in section 682(g) of IDEA. Any parent organization that establishes a special governing committee under section 682(g)(2) of IDEA must demonstrate that the bylaws of its organization allow the governing committee to be responsible for operating the project (consistent with existing fiscal policies of its organization).
Under sections 661(e) and 682 of IDEA and 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we give an absolute preference to applications that meet the following priority. We will fund under this competition only those applications that meet this priority:
The IDEA Amendments of 1997 strengthen the role of parents and increase their involvement in decisions about their children's education. In order to allocate resources more equitably, create a unified system of service delivery, and provide the broadest coverage for the parents and families in every State, the Assistant Secretary is making awards in five-year cycles for each State. In FY 2002, applications for 5-year awards will be accepted for Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah. Exceptions to the 5-year awards will be in the States of Nebraska and New York where applications will be accepted for 4-year awards. Awards may also be made to authorized entities in Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Freely Associated States.
A Parent Training and Information Center must—
(a) Provide training and information that meets the training and information needs of parents of children with disabilities in the area served by the Center, particularly underserved parents and parents of children who may be inappropriately identified, including those who are not identified at all;
(b) Assist parents to understand the availability of, and how to effectively use, procedural safeguards under IDEA, including encouraging the use, and explaining the benefits, of alternative methods of dispute resolution, such as the mediation process described in IDEA;
(c) Serve the parents of infants, toddlers, and children with the full range of disabilities;
(d) Assist parents to—
(1) Better understand the nature of their children's disabilities and their educational and developmental needs;
(2) Communicate effectively with personnel responsible for providing special education, early intervention, and related services;
(3) Participate in decisionmaking processes and the development of individualized education programs and individualized family service plans;
(4) Obtain appropriate information about the range of options, programs, services, and resources available to assist children with disabilities and their families;
(5) Understand the provisions of IDEA for the education of, and the provision of early intervention services to, children with disabilities; and
(6) Participate in school reform activities;
(e) Contract with the State educational agency, if the State elects to contract with the Parent Training and Information Center, for the purpose of meeting with parents who choose not to use the mediation process to encourage the use, and explain the benefits, of mediation consistent with section 615(e)(2)(B) and (D) of IDEA;
(f) Establish cooperative relations with the Community Parent Resource Center or Centers in their State in accordance with section 683(b)(3) of IDEA;
(g) Network with appropriate clearinghouses, including organizations conducting national dissemination activities under section 685(d) of IDEA, and with other national, State, and local organizations and agencies, such as protection and advocacy agencies, that serve parents and families of children with the full range of disabilities;
(h) Annually report to the Assistant Secretary on—
(1) The number of parents to whom the Parent Training and Information Center provided information and training in the most recently concluded fiscal year, and
(2) The effectiveness of strategies used to reach and serve parents, including underserved parents of children with disabilities; and
(i) If there is more than one parent center in a particular State, coordinate its activities with the other center or centers to ensure the most effective assistance to parents in that State.
An applicant must identify the strategies it will undertake—
(a) To ensure that the needs for training and information for underserved parents of children with disabilities in the areas to be served are effectively met, particularly in underserved areas of the State; and
(b) To work with the community-based organizations, particularly in the underserved areas of the State.
A Parent Training and Information Center that receives assistance under this absolute priority may also conduct the following activities—
(a) Provide information to teachers and other professionals who provide special education and related services to children with disabilities;
(b) Assist students with disabilities to understand their rights and responsibilities on reaching the age of majority, as stated in section 615(m) of IDEA; and
(c) Assist parents of children with disabilities to be informed participants
In addition to the annual Project Directors' meeting included in the “General Requirements” section of this notice, a project's budget must include funds to attend a regional Project Directors' meeting to be held each year of the project.
Current funding levels and population of school age children were factors in determining the funding levels for these grants. Regions were identified in California, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, and Texas by using the educational services breakdowns operational within each State.
In the following States, one award may be made in the following amounts to a qualified applicant for a parent center to serve the
In the following States with the exception of Illinois, one award will be made in the following amounts to a qualified applicant for a parent center to serve each identified Region. In Illinois Region 1, the Assistant Secretary will make up to two awards. The total of these two awards will not exceed the maximum amount listed in the chart below. A list of the counties that are included in each Region also follows.
Consistent with EDGAR 34 CFR 75.104(b), we will reject any application that proposes a project funding level for any year that exceeds the stated maximum award amount for that year.
Applications must meet the required page limit standards that are described in the “General Requirements” section of this notice.
You may also contact Ed Pubs at its Web site:
Or you may contact Ed Pubs at its e-mail address:
If you request an application from Ed Pubs, be sure to identify this competition as follows: CFDA No. 84.328M.
Grants and Contracts Services Team, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3317, Switzer Building, Washington, DC 20202-2550. Telephone: (202) 205-8207.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the Grants and Contracts Services Team under
Individuals with disabilities may also obtain a copy of the application package in an alternative format by contacting the Grants and Contracts Services Team under
This program is subject to the requirements of Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive Order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance. This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.
You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.
The official version of this document is the document published in the
20 U.S.C. 1482.