Rural Business-Cooperative Service
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Air Force Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Trade Representative, Office of United States
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Office
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Antitrust Division
Justice Programs Office
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Office
Trade Representative, Office of United States
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
Coast Guard
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Maritime Administration
Transportation Security Administration
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Bureau
Customs 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.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD), that is applicable to CFM International CFM56-5 and -5B series turbofan engines. This amendment requires the establishment of an exhaust gas temperature (EGT) baseline and trend monitoring using the System for Analysis of Gas Turbine Engines (SAGE), or equivalent, as an option to EGT harness replacement, and if necessary, replacement of certain EGT harnesses and EGT couplings as soon as a slow and continuous EGT drift downward is noticed after the effective date of this AD. This amendment is prompted by reports of erroneous EGT readings. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent unexpected deterioration of critical rotating engine parts due to higher than desired engine operating EGT's.
Effective February 27, 2003. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of February 27, 2003.
The service information referenced in this AD may be obtained from CFM International, Technical Publications Department, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; telephone (513) 552-2800; fax (513) 552-2816. This information may be examined, by appointment, at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), New England Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW, suite 700, Washington, DC.
James Rosa, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5299; telephone (781) 238-7152; fax (781) 238-7199.
A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that is applicable to CFM International CFM56-5, -5A, and -5B series turbofan engines was published in the
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to the comments received.
Four commenters request that 100 to 250 flight hours be allowed to replace the EGT harness after it has been determined that EGT harness hardware is defective. The commenters state that the NPRM implies that compliance is required immediately because it does not prescribe a set compliance time.
The FAA agrees. Immediate compliance is unnecessary. The FAA has determined that two to three weeks, or 100 flight hours are the maximum reasonable compliance times after it has been determined that the EGT harness components are faulty. The final rule is revised to reflect this change.
One commenter requests a change to the FAA's Determination of an Unsafe Condition and Proposed Actions statement. The commenter requests that “ * * * EGT harnesses manufactured between September 1998 and July 2000 * * *” be replaced with “* * * EGT harnesses manufactured between September 1998 and December 2001 * * *”. The requested change is the result of updated information from the manufacturer.
The FAA agrees. The change includes manufacturing dates for the entire population of parts. However, the FAA's Determination of an Unsafe Condition and Proposed Actions section in the NRPM preamble does not appear in the final rule.
One commenter requests the removal of the -5A model from the AD, the FAA's Determination of an Unsafe Condition and Proposed Actions, and the Compliance section. The -5A model should not be listed as an engine model type certificate configuration.
The FAA agrees. The -5A model is removed from the final rule.
The same commenter requests an increase in replacement time of parts not being trend monitored from 250 hours to 500 hours. The commenter states that this would follow the manufacturer's recommended replacement time and be consistent with current Airbus documentation (A check).
The FAA agrees.The final rule reflects this change.
Four commenters request an increase in the amount of allowable temperature change during trend monitoring from 10°C to 20°C or 30°C. Based on experience reported from several operators who use SAGE trend monitoring, a 10°C shift from baseline may not be enough to detect a fault by EGT readings.
The FAA agrees. The final rule reflects this change.
One commenter requests that the Economic Analysis be changed to more accurately reflect the number of engines affected and associated cost. The commenter states that the NPRM did not accurately account for the number of affected engines per the service bulletins.
The FAA agrees that the service document and NPRM do not agree. The service bulletins did not account for the entire population of suspect parts. However, the spare parts listed in CFM International service bulletins CFM56-5 S/B 77-0020, dated March 4, 2002, and CFM56-5B S/B 77-0008, dated March 4, 2002, are more critical than the remaining population because they will be installed on engines with lower EGT margins. The number of affected engines worldwide remains the same as the NPRM. The number of U.S. operated engines requires a change in the final rule.
Another commenter requests that the economic analysis be changed to reflect work required to determine the serial numbers of the parts. The commenter states that an additional two hours per engine or a total of 520 person-hours of work, will be required for one operator to determine the serial numbers of EGT harnesses and couplings.
The FAA does not agree. Research of logbooks and paperwork are not used to determine the economic analysis figure.
Another commenter requests a change to the economic analysis to reflect an additional 3 person hours for replacement time. The commenter states that it will take more time to accomplish replacment than stated in the NPRM.
The FAA partially agrees. Most of the work could be done during scheduled maintenance (the FAA has attempted to facilitate this in the AD), which would provide an opportunity to remove and replace hardware, when it is already exposed. Some operators indicate that their current system will not allow this advantage consistently; however, per accepted FAA practice, the figure is based on replacement of accessible hardware. No change is required in the final rule.
One commenter states that engines which have accumulated more than 3,000 flight hours since part installation are not defective. The commenter believes that this problem exhibits infant mortality. If false readings are not registered after 3,000 hours, parts are not defective. The commenter asks that the rule be changed accordingly.
The FAA agrees. The final rule reflects this change.
One commenter requests that the AD provide for a two week waiting period after the temperature shift of 20°C in order to confirm that an EGT harness failure is the cause and not some other anomaly.
The FAA partially agrees. Sufficient evidence must be provided to assure that a shift in EGT reading is caused by defective EGT hardware/harnesses, and not some anomaly. However, a 30°C shift will be the criteria, not 10°C or 20°C. This should provide sufficient margin to assure that the reading does not indicate some other cause.
One commenter states that an AD is not needed for this problem. The commenter feels that current industry practice will suffice.
The FAA does not agree. Industry practice is not mandatory; therefore, there is no requirement for all operators to comply.
Two commenters state that the NPRM does not specify any terminating action and request that the FAA specify a terminating action.
The FAA agrees. Terminating action is included in the final rule.
One commenter requests that the manufacturer reidentify reworked harnesses for traceability.
The FAA agrees. The manufacturer has added the letter “W” following the part serial number to reidentify reworked harnesses and couplings. The addition of the letter “W” following the part serial number is addressed in the final rule in (a)(3).
One commenter requests monitoring shifts from the current EGT trend rather than an arbitrary baseline. As engines degrade, there may not be an appreciable change in other parameters but normal (within 10°C) degradation in EGT, forcing unnecessary removal.
The FAA agrees. The final rule reflects this change.
After careful review of the available data, including the comments noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule with the changes described previously. The FAA has determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.
There are approximately 886 CFM International CFM56-5 and -5B series turbofan engines of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 562 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this AD. The FAA also estimates that it would take approximately one work hour per engine to do the actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts would cost approximately $15,645 per engine. Based on these figures, the total cost of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $8,826,210. CFMI has indicated that this figure may be reduced depending upon warranty agreements.
This final rule does not have federalism implications, as defined in Executive Order 13132, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Accordingly, the FAA has not consulted with state authorities prior to publication of this final rule.
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 the 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 final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it 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.
This airworthiness directive (AD) is applicable to CFM International CFM56-5 and -5B series turbofan engines that have an EGT upper harness part number (P/N) CA170-00, with a serial number (SN) of YC021674 or lower, or an EGT lower harness P/N CA171-00, with a SN of YC026641 or lower, or an EGT coupling P/N CA172-02 with a SN of YC166736 or lower. These engines are installed on, but not limited to Airbus Industrie A318, A319, A320 and A321 airplanes.
This AD applies to each engine identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For engines 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 (d) 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 the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.
Compliance with this AD is required as indicated, unless already done.
To prevent unexpected deterioration of critical rotating engine parts due to higher than desired engine operating exhaust gas temperatures (EGT's), do the following:
(a) If you have an EGT upper harness, part number (P/N) CA170-00, with serial number (SN) YC021675 or higher, an EGT lower harness, P/N CA171-00, with SN YC026642 or higher, and an EGT coupling, P/N CA172-02, with S/N YC166737 or higher, no further action is required.
(b) For affected EGT harnesses and EGT couplings, with less than 3,000 engine flight hours since installation, do the following:
(1) Replace affected EGT harnesses and EGT couplings, not being trend monitored, with serviceable parts within 500 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, or,
(2) After the effective date of this AD, review the smooth data EGT trend via the System for Analysis of Gas Turbine Engines (SAGE), or equivalent, since the affected components were first installed on the current engine. This trend monitoring must continue for the affected EGT harnesses and couplings to ensure that the system does not show a minimum of 30°C downward (
(3) If a harness or coupling has a serial number that is followed by the letter “W”, no further action is required.
(c) Any of the following three conditions constitute terminating action for the trend monitoring requirements specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this AD:
(1) Replacing a harness and coupling with a serviceable part, or
(2) Replacing a harness and coupling with a harness and coupling that has a letter “W” following the SN, or
(3) Accumulating 3,000 engine flight hours on a harness and coupling.
(d) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, Engine Certification Office (ECO). Operators must submit their request through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, ECO.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this airworthiness directive, if any, may be obtained from the ECO.
(e) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the aircraft to a location where the requirements of this AD can be done.
(f) The actions must be done in accordance with the following CFM International service bulletins:
(g) This amendment becomes effective on February 27, 2003.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action changes the controlling agency for Restricted Area R-6601, Fort A.P. Hill, VA, from “FAA, Richmond ATCT,” to “FAA, Potomac Approach”; and the controlling agency for Restricted Areas R-6608A, R-6608B, and R-6608C, Quantico, VA, from “FAA, Dulles ATCT,” to “FAA, Potomac Approach.” This change is needed due to the airspace realignments associated with the establishment of the Potomac Consolidated Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) facility. The new Potomac TRACON will assume air traffic control (ATC) responsibility for the airspace encompassing these restricted areas. This is only an administrative change to reflect the name of the proper controlling ATC facility. The change will not affect the current restricted area boundaries, altitudes, time of designation, or the activities conducted within the areas.
0901 UTC, February 20, 2003.
Paul Gallant, Airspace and Rules Division, ATA-400, Office of Air Traffic Airspace Management, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-8783.
The commissioning of the new Potomac TRACON will consolidate several air traffic facilities that currently provide ATC service in the greater Washington, DC, area. This consolidation includes two facilities (
This action amends 14 CFR part 73 by changing the name of the controlling agency for Restricted Area R-6601, Fort A.P. Hill, VA, from “FAA, Richmond ATCT” to “FAA, Potomac Approach.” In addition, this action changes the name of the controlling agency for Restricted Areas R-6608A, R-6608B, and R-6608C, Quantico, VA, from “FAA, Dulles ATCT” to “FAA, Potomac Approach.” These administrative changes will not alter the boundaries, altitudes, time of designation, or activities conducted within the restricted areas; therefore, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.
Section 73.66 of part 73 was republished in FAA Order 7400.8K, dated September 26, 2002.
This regulation is limited to an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (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. It has been determined that this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This action is a minor administrative change to amend the designated controlling agency of existing restricted areas. There are no changes to air traffic procedures or routes as a result of this action. Therefore, this action is not subject to environmental assessments and procedures in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D, “Policies and Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts,” and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
Airspace, Navigation (air).
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action changes the using agency of restricted area 2301E (R-2301E), East Ajo AZ; R-2304, Gila Bend AZ; and R-2305, Gila Bend AZ, from “US Air Force, 58th Fighter Wing, Luke AFB, AZ,” to “U.S.A.F., 56th Fighter Wing, Luke AFB, AZ.” The FAA is taking this action in response to a request from the United States Air Force (USAF) to reflect an administrative change of responsibility for the restricted areas. There are no changes to the boundaries; designated altitudes; time of designation; or activities conducted within the affected restricted areas.
0901 UTC, May 15, 2003.
Ken McElroy, Airspace and Rules Division, ATA-400, Office of Air Traffic Airspace Management, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
This amendment to 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 73 changes the using agency of R-2301E, East Ajo, AZ; R-2304, Gila Bend, AZ; and R-2305, Gila Bend, AZ. On November 8, 2002, the United States Air Force requested that the FAA change the using agency for R-2301E, R-2304, and R-2305, from “US Air Force, 58th Fighter Wing, Luke AFB, AZ,” to “US Air Force, 56th Fighter Wing, Luke AFB, AZ.” This action addresses that request. This is an administrative change and does not affect the boundaries; designated altitudes; or activities conducted within the restricted areas. Therefore, notice and public procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.
Section 73.48 of part 73 of the Federal Aviation Regulations was republished in FAA Order 7400.8K dated September 26, 2002.
The FAA has determined that this action only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (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. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D, Policies and Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Navigation (air).
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
International Trade Commission.
Partial waiver of final rule, notice of public demonstrations, and effective date of handbook.
The United States International Trade Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that its Electronic Document Information System (EDIS-II) will be available for electronic filing, and other uses such as search and retrieval on January 23, 2003. The effective date of the Handbook on Electronic Filing Procedures (Handbook), published in the notices section at 67 FR 68168, Nov. 8, 2002, is January 23, 2003. To assist party representatives in learning how to use EDIS-II, the Commission will hold two public demonstrations of the system on January 30, 2003. The first session will be at 10 a.m, and the second session will be at 2 p.m. In addition, the Commission has determined to waive the requirement in the Commission's rules of practice and procedure (rules) that paper filers must complete and print out an on-line cover sheet for submission with their filings. Instead, paper filers have the option of completing and submitting a paper copy of the cover sheet to the Secretary with their filings.
The Handbook and the waiver of a requirement in 19 CFR 201.8(g) are effective January 23, 2003.
The public demonstrations will be held on January 30, 2003, at 10 a.m. and 2 p.m.
The public demonstration will be held in the Main Hearing Room (Room 101) at the Commission, located at 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Irene H. Chen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, United States International Trade Commission, telephone 202-205-3112. Hearing-impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal at 202-205-1810.
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its website (
On November 8, 2002, the Commission published a notice of final rulemaking (NOFR), 67 FR 68036, Nov. 8, 2002, and a notice regarding the Handbook on Electronic Filing Procedures (Handbook notice). 67 FR 68168, Nov. 8, 2002. In its NOFR, the Commission amended section 201.8 of the rules to allow persons the option of electronic filing and to require filers to complete an on-line cover sheet at
The Commission has determined that the effective date of the Handbook is January 23, 2003, which is the date that EDIS-II will be available for electronic filing of documents. As appropriate, the Secretary will periodically revise the Handbook. Users should consult the Commission's EDIS-II website for the latest version of the Handbook.
The Commission also has determined to waive the requirement in § 201.8(g) of the rules that an on-line cover sheet at the EDIS-II website must be completed and printed out by paper filers for submission with their paper filings. Instead, paper filers have the option of (i) completing the on-line cover sheet at the EDIS-II website and printing out the cover sheet to be submitted with the filing; (ii) printing out the cover sheet at the EDIS website and completing the cover sheet by hand before submitting the cover sheet with the filing to the Secretary; or (iii) obtaining a paper copy of the cover sheet from the Office of the Secretary and completing the cover sheet by hand to be submitted with the paper filing. The Commission, however, strongly encourages paper filers to complete and print out the on-line cover sheet at the EDIS-II website for submission to the Secretary with their paper filings.
By Order of the Commission.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT
Final rule.
The FHWA, after consultation with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), amends the planning regulation regarding the development of statewide plans and programs. Specifically, this action amends the planning regulation as it relates to consultation with non-metropolitan local officials. This action implements the provisions of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) regarding the consultation with non-metropolitan local officials in the statewide and metropolitan planning processes.
February 24, 2003.
For the FHWA: Ms. Jill Hochman, Office of Interstate and Border Planning (HEPI), (202) 366-0233, or Mr. Reid Alsop, Office of the Chief Counsel (HCC-30), (202) 366-1371. For the FTA: Mr. Paul Verchinski, Statewide Planning Division (TPL-11), (202) 366-1626, or Mr. Scott Biehl, Office of the Chief Counsel (TCC-30), (202) 366-0952. Both agencies are located at 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours for the FHWA are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., and for the FTA are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Internet users can access all comments received by the U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, by using the universal resource locator (URL):
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded using a computer, modem and suitable communications software from the Government Printing Office's Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512-1661. Internet users may also reach the Office of the Federal Register's home page at:
Section 1025 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), Public Law 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, (December 18, 1991), amended title 23, United States Code (U.S.C.), section 135 and established a requirement for Statewide Transportation Planning and stated, “The transportation needs of non-metropolitan areas should be considered through a process that includes consultation with local elected officials with jurisdiction over transportation.” Section 1204 of the TEA-21, Public Law 105-178, 112 Stat. 107 (June 9, 1998), further amended 23 U.S.C. 135, while preserving the statewide planning requirement for a continuing, comprehensive and cooperative planning process. The TEA-21 required States to consult with non-metropolitan local officials in transportation planning and programming. This consultation with non-metropolitan local officials in transportation planning and programming is the specific subject of this final rule.
The FHWA and the FTA published a joint notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on May 25, 2000 (65 FR 33922), that proposed revisions to the existing planning regulations issued on October 28, 1993, at 58 FR 58040. The May 2000 Planning NPRM included provisions regarding consultation with non-metropolitan local officials, and proposed that States establish and document a process for consultation with defined non-metropolitan local officials. The NPRM also proposed to require that this process be established jointly with non-metropolitan local officials. Comments were solicited until August 23, 2000 (later extended to September 23, 2000, by a July 7, 2000,
On June 19, 2002 the FHWA published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) (67 FR 41648), which proposed another option on non-metropolitan local official consultation in addition to that proposed in the NPRM. Generally the SNPRM proposed to allow greater flexibility for States to determine who local officials are and how to consult with them, by not proposing a definition of “non-metropolitan local official,” and not proposing to require that the process for consultation be cooperatively developed. Comments were solicited until August 19, 2002 (later extended to September 19, 2002, by an August 15, 2002, Federal Register notice at 67 FR 53326).
On September 20, 2002, the FHWA and the FTA withdrew the May 2000 NPRM at 67 FR 59219. However, this withdrawal did not impact the NPRM and SNPRM proposals for non-metropolitan local official consultation.
During the comment period on the NPRM (May 25, 2000, through September 23, 2000), the FTA and the FHWA held seven public meetings to present information on the May 2000 Planning NPRM. A summary of questions raised at the meetings and the general responses of the FHWA and the FTA presenters is included in the docket. The FHWA and the FTA also prepared a summary of all written comments, by section, which is included in the docket. During the NPRM comment period, the Senate Environment and Public Works and House Transportation and Infrastructure Committees held hearings (September
The House report that accompanied the U.S. DOT Appropriations Act for fiscal year (FY) 2002, and the conference report for the Department of Defense FY 2002 Appropriations Act, which contained several transportation issues, directed the U.S. DOT to promulgate a final rule, no later than February 1, 2002, to ensure transportation officials from rural areas are consulted in long range transportation planning and programming.
We have carefully reviewed all comments received to the docket. We received 172 documents to the docket on the SNPRM, representing 155 discrete comments. They were from: local governments, Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO), Councils of Governments (COG) and regional governments, State DOTs, associations representing these organizations, tribal governments, and private citizens. They generally expressed diverse views consistent with those expressed in the docket to the May 2000 NPRM.
The makeup of commenters is in the chart below, followed by a general discussion of their comments:
Local governments, MPOs, COGs, regional governments and the associations representing these organizations generally expressed preference for the consultation option proposed by the May 2000 NPRM. Fifty-two of these comments from local governments, MPOs, COGs and regional governments requested that a definition of non-metropolitan officials be included in the final rule. Thirty expressed the need to include a requirement for an established consultation process. Twenty-eight suggested that there be a requirement in the final rule that the consultation process be developed jointly between States and local officials and that there be accountability in the consultation process. Forty-nine suggested that the FHWA and the FTA have the ability to consider local official participation when certifying the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
State DOTs generally supported the regulatory language proposed in the June 2002 SNPRM, which proposed to allow State flexibility to determine who local officials are and how to consult with them. State DOTs, however, did express concern with some provisions in the SNPRM. Sixteen focused on the definition of “consultation,” with 14 suggestions for clarification and modification. Fifteen comments were on the statewide transportation planning process with a range of suggestions, from retaining the current language to modifying the language to limit consultation to transportation related activities. Sixteen expressed concern about the use of the term “effective” in the public involvement provisions. Thirteen expressed concerns about the phase-in period.
We also received comments from five tribal governments. Commenters expressed concern that the language did not go far enough in addressing tribal participation in the statewide transportation process, and suggested that each State must be compelled to develop a consultation process with tribal governments. The primary focus of this action is on consultation between State DOTs and non-metropolitan local elected officials. Therefore, specific provisions in existing regulatory language related to tribal governments are not being changed by this action, except for the change in the definition of consultation (discussed in the section-by-section analysis below).
Towards the end of the comment period, the National Association of Counties (NACO) representing local governments, the National Association of Development Organizations (NADO) representing local officials, and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) representing the State DOTs, jointly developed proposed regulatory language and submitted it to the docket. This language addresses many, if not most, of the comments received. The FHWA and the FTA reviewed the suggested language and find that it has merit because it comes from the organizations whose members are most impacted by the final rule. Therefore, we relied heavily on their suggested language to formulate this final rule.
The FHWA and the FTA carefully analyzed all the comments to the docket for both the May 2000 NPRM and the June 2002 SNPRM in formulating this final rule. We believe this rule strikes a balance among the various interests. This section-by-section analysis only addresses those sections of 23 CFR 450 that affect consultation with non-metropolitan local officials (§§ 450.104, 450.206, 450.212, 450.214, 450.216 and 450.224).
The June 2002 SNPRM proposed a new definition of “consultation” in response to comments received to the docket that the definition proposed in the May 2000 NPRM was too formalized and burdensome.
Fifty-one discrete comments were received on the definition of “consultation” proposed in the June 2002 SNPRM. Seventeen of those comments came from State DOTs. Three supported the proposed definition.
Twelve States commented on the language “keeps that party informed.” Five States were concerned that “keeps that party informed” meant individual updates to each party consulted with and requested clarification. Six States suggested modifying the language to “and informs that party about action(s) taken.” The Pennsylvania DOT suggested revising the language to “and periodically informs that party about action(s) taken” to allow for greater State flexibility in meeting the requirement of the definition.
Thirty local governments, associations representing them, and advocacy groups expressed concern that a reference to an “established” consultation process was not included in the proposed definition of “consultation” in the SNPRM.
Caltrans, the California DOT, also commented on the lack of a reference to an “established” process in the definition. Caltrans pointed out that a reference to an “established” process is contained elsewhere in the SNPRM, and suggested that this inconsistency be clarified.
One private citizen supported the definition as proposed in the SNPRM.
The NACO-NADO-AASHTO proposed regulatory language included a reference to an “established” consultation process. It also modified language regarding keeping parties informed. In the NACO-NADO-AASHTO proposed definition, “Consultation means that one party confers with another identified party in accordance with an established process
Based on the comments received, the final rule uses the definition in the NACO-NADO-AASHTO proposed regulatory language. This definition is consistent with statutory language, resolves inconsistencies, includes a reference to an established consultation process, and focuses on keeping other parties informed.
In the June 2002 SNPRM, we proposed adding the definition of “non-metropolitan area.” The proposed definition recognized that there are a variety of local officials who serve non-metropolitan areas. This definition specified the geographic area served by non-metropolitan officials to distinguish them from local officials in metropolitan planning areas who are involved through the MPO.
We received six comments on this proposed definition in the June 2002 SNPRM. All supported the definition. The definition proposed in the SNPRM is retained in the final rule.
In the May 2000 Planning NPRM we proposed adding the definition of a “non-metropolitan local official.” This definition was not included in the June 2002 SNPRM.
Over 50 commenters requested that the FHWA and the FTA include a definition for this term in the final rule. Specifically, 23 local governments, 16 regional planning organizations, 9 associations, and 3 private citizens expressed concern that the definition for this term had been removed from the SNRPM. They commented that by allowing the States sole discretion to determine which non-metropolitan local officials to consult with, many rural officials will be excluded. They also commented that this did not fulfill the Congressional intent of “enhanced consultation between States and local officials.”
The NACO-NADO-AASHTO proposed regulatory language included a proposed definition for “non-metropolitan local official” as “elected and appointed officials of general purpose local government in non-metropolitan areas with jurisdiction/responsibility for transportation as defined in the documented consultation process in Part 450, Section 212.”
After considering the comments received, the FHWA and the FTA have included a definition of “non-metropolitan local official” in the final rule that is based on the NACO-NADO-AASHTO proposed regulatory language. The definition provides a clear statement that non-metropolitan local officials are “elected and appointed officials of general purpose local government in non-metropolitan areas with jurisdiction/responsibility for transportation.”
Section 1204 of the TEA-21 clearly emphasizes the importance of recognizing non-metropolitan transportation issues and consulting with non-metropolitan local officials. In the June 2002 SNPRM, the FHWA and the FTA proposed revising § 450.206(b) and adding a new § 450.206(c) to clarify that effective consideration of non-metropolitan transportation issues and concerns and involvement of non-metropolitan local officials can be enhanced by coordinating statewide transportation planning with related planning in non-metropolitan areas.
There were 19 comments on this provision. Four regional planning organizations supported the regulatory language proposed in the June 2002 SNPRM. Nine State DOTs suggested amending “planning activities” in § 450.206(b) to “transportation-related planning activities” because they believed that without this change, State DOTs would be required to consult on non-transportation planning activities.
This section is specific to the statewide transportation planning process, and it is self-evident that the “planning activities” referred to in this section are related to transportation. Therefore, the FHWA and the FTA are not modifying it to specify transportation-related planning activities.
Three States also suggested modifying the language such that states “consider” planning outside of the metropolitan areas to be clear that coordination with non-metropolitan local officials is not required, as it is with metropolitan local officials. These commenters stated that a coordination requirement for non-metropolitan areas would exceed statutory authority, which only requires a “consultation” relationship.
The NACO-NADO-AASHTO proposed regulatory language would require States to “consider coordination with planning activities being carried out outside of the metropolitan areas.”
The FHWA and the FTA agree with comments that the requirements for metropolitan areas and non-metropolitan areas are distinctly delineated in the statute. We have taken the NACO-NADO-AASHTO proposed regulatory language and modified it to require States to “consider coordination with planning activities in non-metropolitan areas.” The final rule includes a definition for the term “non-metropolitan area.” The final rule also simplifies the suggested NACO-NADO-AASHTO proposed regulatory language.
The June 2002 SNPRM proposed a new subpart 450.206(c) that says that States shall “consider, with respect to non-metropolitan areas, the concerns of local elected officials representing units of general purpose local government.” Three State DOTs requested editorial clarification on this proposed provision. The FHWA and the FTA believe that the provision is clear and have adopted as final the regulatory language proposed in the June 2002 SNPRM.
In developing the June 2002 SNPRM, the FHWA and the FTA considered comments received to the docket on this provision in the May 2000 NPRM. In addition, the FHWA and the FTA used information from other sources, including the FHWA-FTA study on participation of non-metropolitan local officials required by the TEA-21 and ten rural listening sessions held throughout the country.
Thirteen states commented that the language “effective participation” in § 450.212(h) of the June 2002 SNPRM is a subjective term that exceeds statutory language in TEA-21. Section 1204 of TEA-21 states that USDOT will not “review or approve” a State's consultation process.
The Pennsylvania DOT suggested that the regulatory language state: “that provides an opportunity for their participation” rather than “that provides for their effective participation.”
The NADO-NACO-AASHTO proposed regulatory language included language identical to that proposed by Pennsylvania DOT. It also included a
The FHWA and the FTA agree that the use of the term “effective” is subjective. We included the language suggested by Pennsylvania to be more consistent with the statutory provisions in TEA-21 in this final rule. We also included language requiring that the State's process for consulting with non-metropolitan officials be separate and discrete because TEA-21 makes a clear distinction between the metropolitan and non-metropolitan officials. The new requirement is included in the final rule as subpart 450.212 (h).
We received 28 comments recommending that the State and local officials jointly develop the consultation process. Most of these comments were from local governments, regional planning organizations, associations representing them, and interest groups.
The NACO-NADO-AASHTO proposed regulatory language suggested a new subpart 450.212(i). This new subpart requires that “The State shall review and solicit comments from non-metropolitan local officials and other interested parties for a period of not less than 60 days regarding the effectiveness of the consultation process and proposed modification within 2 years of process implementation, and thereafter at least once every 5 years. A specific request for comments shall be directed to the State association of counties, State municipal league, regional planning agencies, or directly to non-metropolitan local officials.”
In addition, 49 commenters indicated that there should be accountability in the consultation process. Most of these comments came from local governments, regional planning organizations, associations representing them, and interest groups. One measure of accountability suggested by these commenters was that the FHWA and the FTA use their authority to consider local official participation when certifying the STIP.
The NACO-NADO-AASHTO proposed regulatory language includes a requirement regarding accountability. The suggestion is that “The State, in its discretion, shall be responsible for determining whether to adopt proposed modifications. If a proposed modification is not adopted, the State shall make publicly available its reasons for not accepting the proposed modifications, including notification to non-metropolitan local officials of their associations.”
The FHWA and the FTA agree that the NACO-NADO-AASHTO proposed regulatory language reflects the concept of effective participation as well as accountability. The TEA-21 and the June 2002 SNPRM both focused on this type of result. Therefore, the agencies include the suggestion of the NACO-NADO-AASHTO proposed regulatory language in the final rule as a new subpart 450.212(i).
Section 1204 of the TEA-21 specifically states “with respect to each non-metropolitan area, the long-range transportation plan shall be developed in consultation with affected local officials with responsibility for transportation.” This language is now codified at 23 U.S.C. 135(e)(2)(B). Therefore, in the June 2002 SNPRM, the FHWA and the FTA proposed adding § 450.214(f). This was intended to reflect the intent of the statute by proposing language that required affected local officials with responsibility for transportation to be involved on a consultation basis in developing the statewide transportation plan as it relates to the non-metropolitan areas of the State.
Ten States commented on this proposal. The majority of the States supported the provision as written. Some States requested clarification that affected local officials are to be consulted only on portions of the plan that affect their areas.
The FHWA and FTA believe that it is evident that local officials are to be consulted only on those portions of the plan that affect their areas. We adopted as final the language proposed in the June 2002 SNPRM that requires the involvement of local officials with responsibility for transportation to be involved in the development of the statewide transportation plan in non-metropolitan areas of the State.
Section 1204 of the TEA-21 specifically states “with respect to each non-metropolitan area in the State, the program shall be developed in consultation with affected local officials with responsibility for transportation.” This language is now codified at 23 U.S.C. 135(f)(1)(B)(ii)(I). Therefore, in the June 2002 SNPRM, the FHWA and the FTA proposed adding § 450.216(e) to reflect the intent of the statute by proposing language that requires affected local officials with responsibility for transportation to be involved on a consultation basis in developing the STIP as it relates to the non-metropolitan areas of the State.
Eleven States commented on this provision in the SNPRM. The majority of the States supported the provision as written. Some States requested clarification that affected local officials are to be consulted only on portions of the program plan that affect their areas.
The FHWA and FTA believe that it is evident that local officials are to be consulted only on those portions of the program that affect their areas. We adopted as final the language proposed in the June 2002 SNPRM that requires the involvement of local officials with responsibility for transportation to be involved in the development of the statewide transportation improvement program in non-metropolitan areas of the State.
The June 2002 SNPRM proposed a six-month phase-in period. We received 13 comments from State DOTs and 2 comments from regional planning organizations regarding this provision.
Four State DOTs and 2 regional planning organizations supported the phase-in provision as proposed in the June 2002 SNPRM. The other commenters supported a phase-in requirement but with different time frames. Three States commented that six months would not be adequate and four States commented that the phase-in requirement should accommodate the planning cycles of various States.
The NACO-NADO-AASHTO proposed regulatory language recommended a one-year phase-in period.
The FHWA and the FTA recognize the differences among the planning cycles of the States. In the final rule we have extended the phase-in period to one year (to end one year after the effective date of this rule), which will allow States additional time to implement the consultation requirements, and also accommodates the differences in the planning cycles of various States. After this period, the consultation aspects of the statewide transportation planning process will be emphasized as we assess the planning process and make the Federal planning finding required in 23 CFR 450.220(b) and 23 U.S.C. 135(f)(4).
The FHWA and the FTA have determined that this action is a
This final rule will not adversely affect, in a material way, any sector of the economy. In addition, these changes will not interfere with any action taken or planned by another agency and will not materially alter the budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs.
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the FHWA and the FTA have evaluated the effects of this final rule on small entities and has determined it will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The modifications in this final rule are substantially dictated by the statutory provisions of the TEA-21 and the agencies believe that the flexibility available to the States in those provisions has been maintained. For these reasons, the FHWA and the FTA certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule does not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub L. 104-4, March 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 48). This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million in any one year.
The requirements of 23 U.S.C. 135 are supported by Federal funds administered by the FHWA and the FTA. There is a legislatively established local matching requirement for these funds of up to twenty percent of the total cost. The FHWA and the FTA believe that the cost of complying with these requirements is predominately covered by the funds they administer. The costs of compliance with the requirements of the planning program as a whole are eligible for funding; therefore, this action will not create an unfunded mandate.
Additionally, the definition of “Federal mandate” in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act excludes financial assistance of the type in which State, local, or tribal governments have authority to adjust their participation in the program in accordance with changes made in the program by the Federal government. The Federal-aid highway program and the Transit program permit this type of flexibility to the States.
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, and the agencies have determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism assessment. The FHWA and the FTA have also determined that this action does not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions.
Throughout the course of this rulemaking, several States raised concern about burdens imposed by the requirement to consult with non-metropolitan local officials. The ISTEA and the TEA-21 require such consultation. In this final rule the FHWA and the FTA expect that existing consultation procedures often may be used to comply with these requirements.
The agencies further note that the transportation planning activities required by the planning regulations, as amended by this final rule, are conditions for the receipt of Federal transportation financial assistance and are reimbursable expenses. Under the provisions of title 23 and title 49, chapter 53, U.S.C., the Federal government reimburses at least 80 percent of the costs to complete required transportation plans and transportation improvement programs.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction; 20.500 Federal Transit Capital Improvement Grants; 20.505, Federal Transit Metropolitan Planning Grants; 20.507, Federal Transit Formula Grants; 20515, State Planning and Research. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program.
This action does not contain a collection of information requirement under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
The FHWA and the FTA have analyzed this action for the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) and have determined that this action will not have any effect on the quality of environment.
The FHWA and the FTA have analyzed this action under Executive Order 13175, dated November 6, 2000. This action will not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments; and will not preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is not required.
We have analyzed this action under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. Although this proposal is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, we have determined that it is not a significant energy action under that order, because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211 is not required.
This action 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 action under Executive Order 13045, protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This action is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This action will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive
A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda.
Grant programs—transportation, Highways and roads, Mass transportation, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
23 U.S.C. 134, 135, and 315; and 49 U.S.C. 5303-5306, 5323(l).
(b) The statewide transportation planning process shall be carried out in coordination with the metropolitan planning process required by subpart C of this part and shall consider coordination with planning activities in non-metropolitan areas.
(c) In carrying out statewide transportation planning, the State shall consider, with respect to non-metropolitan areas, the concerns of local elected officials representing units of general purpose local government.
(h) The State shall provide for non-metropolitan local official participation. The State shall have a documented process(es) that is separate and discrete from the public involvement process for consulting with non-metropolitan local officials representing units of general purpose local government and/or local officials with responsibility for transportation that provides an opportunity for their participation in the statewide transportation planning process and development of the statewide transportation improvement program.
(i)The State shall review and solicit comments from non-metropolitan local officials and other interested parties for a period of not less than 60 days regarding the effectiveness of the consultation process and proposed modifications within 2 years of process implementation, and thereafter at least once every 5 years. A specific request for comments shall be directed to the State association of counties, State municipal league, regional planning agencies, or directly to non-metropolitan local officials. The State, at its discretion, shall be responsible for determining whether to adopt any proposed modifications. If a proposed modification is not adopted, the State shall make publicly available its reasons for not accepting the proposed modification, including notification to non-metropolitan local officials or their associations.
(f) In developing the statewide transportation plan, affected local officials with responsibility for transportation shall be involved on a consultation basis for the portions of the plan in non-metropolitan areas of the State.
(e) In developing the statewide transportation improvement program, affected local officials with responsibility for transportation shall be involved on a consultation basis for the portions of the program in non-metropolitan areas of the State.
(b) The State has a period of one year after February 24, 2003 to document and implement the consultation process discussed in § 450.212(h).
Coast Guard, DOT.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is changing the existing drawbridge operation regulation for the draw of the Bayou Dularge bridge across the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, mile 59.9 at Houma, Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana. The rule allows for the morning closure period to be increased by 15 minutes to facilitate the movement of high volumes of vehicular traffic across the bridge during peak traffic hours.
This rule is effective February 24, 2003.
Comments and materials received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket CGD8-02-022 and are available
Mr. David Frank, Bridge Administration Branch, at (504) 589-2965.
On October 21, 2002, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulation, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, LA in the
Presently, the draw of the Bayou Dularge bridge, mile 59.9, at Houma shall open on signal; except that, the draw need not be open for the passage of vessels Monday through Friday except holidays from 6:45 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and from 4:30 p.m. to 6 p.m.
The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development has requested a modification to the morning bridge operation schedule to allow the bridge to remain closed to navigation from 6:30 a.m. until 8:30 a.m. vice 6:45 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. The bridge serves as an important link between the largest residential neighborhoods in Terrebonne Parish and the Central Business District. Approximately 21,000 vehicles cross the bridge daily, 10% of which cross the bridge during the requested closure times. The adjustment to the morning closure times reflects a change to align the closure period with the times of the heaviest commuter traffic. The amount of commuter traffic continues to increase. The bridge averages 325 openings a month. The requested 15-minute closure increase will delay approximately 7 additional tows a month. The average length of a bridge opening is less than five minutes, delaying an average of 90 vehicles per opening.
The Coast Guard received two letters in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. One letter was from a state senator representing the Terrebonne Parish area who strongly supported the proposed change. The second letter was received from the National Marine Fisheries Service stating that the drawbridge was not in their area of responsibility and declined comment. Only one minor administrative change was made to the final rule. The word “Federal” was added to the phrase “except holidays” to clarify when the rule will be in effect. No other changes to the final rule were made based upon the comments received.
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 rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10(e) of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary.
This rule allows vessels ample opportunity to transit the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway with proper notification before and after the peak vehicular traffic periods. Commercial towboat operators can avoid being impacted by simply arriving 15 minutes earlier at the bridge.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have 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. Small entities, including towboat operators and their waterway user groups, were given an opportunity to comment regarding the effects of this proposed rule. We received no letters of objection to the proposed modification.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can 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 do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in the preamble.
This rule would not affect 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
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 32(e), of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. This final rule only involves the operation of an existing drawbridge and will not have any impact on the environment. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket where indicated under
Bridges.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard is amending Part 117 of Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
33 U.S.C. 499; 49 CFR 1.46; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); section 117.255 also issued under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039.
(c) The draw of the Bayou Dularge bridge, mile 59.9, at Houma, shall open on signal; except that, the draw need not open for the passage of vessels Monday through Friday except Federal holidays from 6:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and from 4:30 p.m. to 6 p.m.
Coast Guard, DOT.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is changing the existing drawbridge operation regulation for the draw of the SR661 bridge across the Houma Navigation Canal, mile 36.0, at Houma, Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana. The modification will allow for the morning closure period to be increased by 30 minutes to facilitate the movement of high volumes of vehicular traffic across the bridge during peak traffic hours.
This rule is effective February 24, 2003.
Comments and materials received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket CGD8-02-0023 and are available for inspection or copying at the office of the Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge Administration Branch, 501 Magazine Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 70130-3396, between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is (504) 589-2965. Commander, Eighth District (obc), maintains the public docket for this rulemaking.
Mr. David Frank, Bridge Administration Branch, at (504) 589-2965.
On October 21, 2002, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulation, Houma Navigation Canal, LA in the
Presently, the draw of the SR 661 bridge, mile 36.0, at Houma shall open on signal, except that the draw need not be opened for the passage of vessels Monday through Friday except holidays from 7 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. to 6 p.m.
The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development has requested a modification to the morning bridge operation schedule to allow the bridge to remain closed to navigation from 6:30 a.m. until 8:30 a.m. vice 7 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. The bridge serves as an important link between the largest residential neighborhoods in Terrebonne Parish and the Central Business District. Approximately 13,000 vehicles cross the bridge daily, 10% of which cross the bridge during the requested closure times. The adjustment to the morning closure time reflects a change to expand the closure period to align with the heaviest commuter traffic. The amount of commuter traffic continues to increase. The bridge averages 953 openings a month. It is estimated that 3 tows a month will be delayed by the additional 30-minute morning closure request. In a 17-day review period in July 2002, two tows requiring bridge openings were delayed during the requested additional time period. The average length of the bridge opening is less than ten minutes, delaying an average of 60 vehicles for each opening.
The Coast Guard received two letters in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. One letter was from a state senator representing the Terrebonne Parish area who strongly supported the proposed change. The second letter was received from the National Marine Fisheries Service stating that the drawbridge was not in their area of responsibility and declined comment. Only one minor administrative change was made to the final rule. The word “Federal” was added to the phrase “except holidays” to clarify when the rule will be in effect. No other changes
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 rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10(e) of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary.
This rule allows vessels ample opportunity to transit the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway with proper notification before and after the peak vehicular traffic periods. Commercial towboat operators can avoid being impacted by simply arriving 30 minutes earlier at the bridge.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have 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.
Small entities, including towboat operators and their waterway user groups, were given an opportunity to comment regarding the effects of this proposed rule. We received no letters of objection to the proposed modification.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can 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 do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in the preamble.
This rule would not affect 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 cause 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 32(e), of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. This final rule only involves the operation of an existing drawbridge and will not have any impact on the environment. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket where indicated under
Bridges.
33 U.S.C. 499; 49 CFR 1.46; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); section 117.255 also issued under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039.
The draw of the SR661 bridge across the Houma Navigation Canal, mile 36.0, at Houma, shall open on signal; except
Coast Guard, DOT.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing permanent security zones around certain vessels within the ports of Jacksonville, Fernandina, and Canaveral. The security zones will prohibit entry into or movement within 100 yards of all tank vessels, cruise ships, and military pre-positioned ships when these vessels enter, depart or moor within the ports of Jacksonville and Canaveral. These security zones are needed to ensure public safety and prevent sabotage or terrorist acts against vessels in the COTP Jacksonville area of responsibility. Entry into these zones is prohibited, unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Jacksonville, Florida or his designated representative.
This rule is effective February 24, 2003.
Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of [COTP Jacksonville 02-066] and are available for inspection or copying at Marine Safety Office Jacksonville, 7820 Arlington Expressway, Suite 400, Jacksonville, FL 32211, between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
LTJG Drew Casey, Coast Guard Marine Safety Office Jacksonville, at (904) 232-3610.
On September 12, 2001, one day after the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Coast Guard Captain of the Port in Jacksonville established a temporary rule establishing security zones around tank vessels, passenger vessels, and military pre-positioned ships until October 3, 2001 (published on September 26, 2001, 66 FR 49104). Following these attacks by well-trained and clandestine terrorists, national security and intelligence officials have warned that future terrorists attacks are likely. As a result, on October 17, 2001, the Coast Guard published a second temporary rule in the
On August 28, 2002 we published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
This rule creates 100-yard security zones around all tank vessels, cruise ships, and military pre-positioned ships when these vessels enter, depart or moor within the Ports of Jacksonville, Fernandina, and Canaveral. No person or vessel may enter these zones without the permission of the Captain of the Port of Jacksonville. These moving security zones are activated when the subject vessels pass the St. Johns River Sea Buoy, at approximate position 30 deg. 23″ 35′ N, 81 deg. 19′ 08″ W, when entering the Port of Jacksonville, or pass Port Canaveral Channel Entrance Buoys # 3 or # 4, at respective approximate positions 28 deg. 22.7′ N, 80 deg. 31.8′, and 28 deg. 23.7′ N, 80 deg. 29.2′ W, when entering Port Canaveral or passes St. Mary's River Sea Buoy, at approximate position 30 deg. 40.8″ N, 81 deg 11.8″ W, when entering the Port of Fernandina. Fixed security zones are established 100 yards around all tank vessels, cruise ships, and military pre-positioned ships docked in the Ports of Jacksonville, Fernandina, and Canaveral, Florida.
We received one comment on the proposed rule from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), Seaport Office. FDOT expressed concern that the regulation, if implemented, would not provide security for sensitive land-based resources, such as waterfront storage tanks and petroleum facilities. FDOT's concern for shore-based resources is shared by the Coast Guard and is being addressed at the national level through separate security measures. See
A second concern from FDOT was that the NPRM did not prove that such a zone would prevent sabotage or terrorist acts. The Coast Guard has concluded that this rule is a necessary measure to protect certain high-risk vessels on the navigable waterways of the United States. The 100-yard security zones, although not guaranteed to eliminate all risk of sabotage or terrorist acts, will significantly reduce vulnerability and provide an enforcement mechanism if a violation occurs.
The third and final concern expressed by FDOT was that this rule would cause disruption to the movement of people and goods. First, this rule has been in place since September 2001 in the Jacksonville area and has not caused any noticeable disruption to maritime trade and transportation. Secondly, the Captain of the Port has discretion to allow a vessel to transit a security zone, if deemed necessary, to promote safe and efficient marine transportation. The environment in which the maritime industry operates has dramatically changed since September 2001. The Coast Guard believes these types of security zones, which only extend 100 yards around certain vessels, create the appropriate balance between efficient maritime transportation and necessary security in our new environment.
No changes were made to the proposed rule as a result of the comment received.
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) because the impact of this rule on commercial and recreational vessel navigation is minimal because most vessels will be able to transit around these zone and the Captain of the Port
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Coast Guard considered whether this rule would have a significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small entities. “Small entities” include 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 because small entities may be allowed to enter on a case-by-case basis with the authorization of the Captain of the Port.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. If the rule will affect your small business, organization, or government jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed under
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 requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implication 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. Although this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do 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.
The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded under Figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g) of Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation.
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 concern 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 relationships 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 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.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reports 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, and 160.5; 49 CFR 1.46.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Coast Guard, DOT.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing permanent security zones throughout the Captain of the Port of Miami's area of responsibility. The security zones are needed for national security reasons to protect the public and ports from potential subversive acts. Entry into these zones is prohibited, unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Miami, Florida, or his designated representative.
This rule is effective February 16, 2003.
Comments and materials received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of [COTP Miami 02-115] and are available for inspection or copying at Marine Safety Office Miami, 100 MacArthur Causeway, Miami Beach, FL 33139 between 7:30 a.m. and 3 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
LTJG Jennifer Sadowski, Waterways Management Division Officer, Coast Guard Marine Safety Office Miami, at (305) 535-8750.
On November 5, 2002, we published a notice of proposed rule making (NPRM) entitled “Security Zones; Port of Palm Beach, Palm Beach FL; Port Everglades, Fort Lauderdale, FL; Port of Miami, Miami, FL; and Port of Key West, Key West, FL” in the
The terrorist attacks of September 2001 killed thousands of people and heightened the need for development of various security measures throughout the seaports of the United States, particularly around those vessels and facilities which are frequented by foreign nationals and maintain an interest to national security. The President has continued the national emergencies he declared following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks (67 FR 58317 (Sep. 13, 2002) (continuing national emergency with respect to terrorist attacks), 67 FR 59447 (Sep. 20, 2002) (continuing national emergency with respect to persons who commit, threaten to commit or support terrorism)). The President also has found pursuant to law, including the Act of June 15, 1917, as amended by the Magnuson Act of August 9, 1950 (50 U.S.C. 191
The Coast Guard Captain of the Port of Miami established temporary security zones in these areas following the September 11, 2001 attacks. Those temporary rules are as follows:
On September 11, 2001, the COTP issued a temporary final rule (TFR) (67 FR 9194, 9195, February 28, 2002, Docket # COTP Miami 01-093) establishing 100-yard security zones around certain vessels in the Port of Palm Beach, Miami, Port Everglades, and Key West, FL, that expired September 25, 2001. On September 25, 2001, the COTP issued another TFR (67 FR 1101, January 9, 2002, COTP Miami 01-115) that maintained these 100-yard security zones around certain vessels in the Ports of Palm Beach, Miami, Port Everglades, and Key West, FL, and added a reference to specific points (buoys) where moving zones were activated and deactivated. This second TFR expired on June 15, 2002.
On October 7, 2001, the COTP issued a TFR (67 FR 6652, February 13, 2002, COTP Miami 01-116) establishing fixed security zones in Port Everglades and Miami, FL, that expired June 15, 2002.
On October 11, 2001, the COTP issued a TFR (67 FR 4177, January 29, 2002, COTP Miami 01-122) establishing a fixed-security zone for Port Everglades, FL, that expired June 15, 2002.
All of the above security zones were extended by a TFR issued on June 13, 2002 (67 FR 46389, COTP Miami-02-054) until December 15, 2002. That temporary final rule requested comments. As of December 12, 2002, the Coast Guard has not received any comments on that TFR.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
The Coast Guard received one comment on the proposed rule consisting of two points. The comment stated that the security zone will bankrupt his business as a mobile vendor on the Mallory Docks in Key West and the security zone interferes with his ability to recreationally dive in the harbor. Landside restricted areas are established by local police as opposed to the United States Coast Guard and therefore, this security zone does not affect any land based mobile vendor businesses. The security zones around
This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 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 rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary because we anticipate these security zones may only impact vessel traffic for short periods of times. Alternate vessel traffic routes have also been accounted for to assist in minimizing delays. Also, the Captain of the Port of Miami may allow persons or vessels to enter a security zone on a case-by-case basis.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we considered whether this rule would have a significant economic effect upon 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 would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because we anticipate these security zones may only impact vessel traffic for short periods of times. Alternate vessel traffic routes have also been identified to assist in minimizing delays. Also, the Captain of the Port of Miami may allow persons or vessels to enter a security zone on a case-by case basis. 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 (
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. 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 LTJG Jennifer Sadowski at (305) 535-8750.
This 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 implication 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. Although this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not affect 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.
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 because no environmental changes will be affected with the security zone implementation. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket where indicated under
This 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 invite your comments on how this rule might impact tribal governments, even if that impact may not constitute a “tribal implication” under the Order.
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.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reports 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, and 160.5; 49 CFR 1.46.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(i) Vessels may be allowed to transit the Main Channel when only one passenger vessel or vessel carrying cargoes of particular hazard are berthed, by staying on the north side of the law enforcement boats and cruise ship tenders which will mark a transit lane in channel.
(ii) When passenger vessels are not berthed on the Main Channel, navigation will be unrestricted. Law enforcement vessels can be contacted on VHF Marine Band Radio, Channel 16 (156.8 MHz).
(3)
(i) Vessels may be allowed to transit the Intracoastal Waterway when passenger vessels or vessels carrying cargoes of particular hazard are berthed, by staying east of the law enforcement vessels and cruise ship tenders, which will mark a transit lane in the Intracoastal Waterway.
(ii) Periodically, vessels may be required to temporarily hold their positions while large commercial traffic operates in this area. Vessels in this security zone must follow the orders of the COTP or his designated representative, who may be embarked in law enforcement or other vessels on scene. When passenger vessels are not berthed on the Intracoastal Waterway, navigation will be unrestricted. Law enforcement vessels can be contacted on VHF Marine Band Radio, Channel 16 (156.8 MHz).
(b)
(2) In accordance with the general regulations § 165.33 of this part, entry into these zones is prohibited except as authorized by the Captain of the Port Miami or his designated representative. Other vessels such as pilot boats, cruise ship tenders, tug boats and contracted security vessels may assist the Coast Guard Captain of the Port under the direction of his designated representative by monitoring these zones strictly to advise mariners of the restrictions. The Captain of the Port will notify the public via Marine Safety Radio Broadcast on VHF Marine Band Radio, Channel 16 (156.8 MHz) when the security zones are being enforced.
(3) Persons desiring to enter or transit the area of the security zone may contact the Captain of the Port at (305) 535-8701 or on VHF Marine Band Radio, Channel 16 (156.8 MHz) to seek permission to transit the area. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port or his or her designated representative.
(4) The Captain of the Port Miami may waive any of the requirements of this subpart for any vessel upon finding that the vessel or class of vessel, operational conditions, or other circumstances are such that application of this subpart is unnecessary or impractical for the purpose of port security, safety or environmental safety.
(c)
(d)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD) and the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SBCAPCD revision concerns the emission of particulate matter (PM-10) from open fires and prescribed burning. The YSAQMD revision concerns the emission of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from the transfer of gasoline at dispensing facilities. We are approving the local rules that regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).
This rule is effective on March 24, 2003 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by February 24, 2003. If we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Mail comments to Andy Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
You can inspect a copy of the submitted rules and EPA's technical support documents (TSDs) at our Region IX office during normal business hours. You may also see a copy of the submitted rules and TSDs at the following locations:
A copy of a rule may also be available via the Internet at
Al Petersen, Rulemaking Office (AIR-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX; (415) 947-4118.
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.
Table 1 lists the rules we are approving with the date that they were revised by the local air agencies and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
On August 30, 2002, this submittal was found to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.
We approved a version of SBCAPCD Rule 401 on May 18, 1981 (46 FR 27116). We approved a version of YSAQMD Rule 2.22 on February 28, 1984 (49 FR 7231).
The purposes of the submitted SBCAPCD Rule 401 revisions are as follows:
• To implement the revised California Smoke Management Guidelines.
• To minimize smoke impacts.
• To establish a collaborative relationship between the SBCAPCD and burners.
• To provide reduced fuel loads with prescribed burning and remove crop waste without smoke impacts.
The purpose of the submitted rule revisions to YSAQMD Rule 2.22 are as follows:
• To improve compliance of Phase II vapor systems at gasoline dispensing facilities with more strict maintenance and inspection programs.
• To add new test procedures and perform more frequent reverification of performance tests of vapor recovery equipment.
• To increase the efficiency of vapor recovery equipment.
Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the CAA) and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). SIP rules must require BACM/BACT or RACM/RACT for major sources in PM-10 nonattainment areas (see sections 189(a) and 189(b)). SIP rules must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for major sources in ozone nonattainment areas (see section 182(a)(2)(A)) and must fulfill the special requirements for gasoline vapor recovery in ozone nonattainment areas (see section 182(b)(3)(A)).
The SBCAPCD regulates a PM-10 attainment area (see 40 CFR 81.305), so the rule need not require BACM/BACT or RACM/RACT.
The YSAQMD regulates serious ozone nonattainment areas in all of Yolo County and part of Solano County (see 40 CFR 81.305), so the rule must fulfill RACT requirements and fulfill the special requirements for gasoline vapor recovery.
The following guidance documents were used for reference:
•
•
•
•
•
•
• Draft
•
We believe the rules are consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, SIP relaxations, RACT requirements, and the special requirements for gasoline vapor recovery. The TSDs have more information on our evaluation.
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, EPA is fully approving the submitted rules because we believe they fulfill all relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this, so we are finalizing the approval without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this
Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this direct final rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
PM-10 harms human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control PM-10 emissions. Table 2 lists some of the national milestones leading to the submittal of local agency PM-10 rules.
VOCs help produce ground-level ozone, smog, and particulate matter which harm human health and the environment. EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations in order to achieve and maintain the NAAQS. Table 3 lists some of the national milestones leading to the submittal of these local agency VOC rules.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does 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 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 24, 2003. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(303) New and amended regulations for the following APCDs were submitted on August 6, 2002, by the Governor's designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District.
(
(B) Yolo Solano Air Quality Management District.
(
Transportation Security Administration, DOT.
Partial waiver of independent audit requirement of final rule.
Under specified conditions and until further notice, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will not enforce certain independent audit requirements related to the September 11th Security Fee collected by direct air carriers and foreign air carriers. This partial waiver is because the audit may not be necessary and may be overly burdensome.
Effective January 23, 2003.
For guidance on technical matters contact Randall Fiertz, Acting Director of Revenue, (202) 385-1209. For guidance on legal or other matters contact Steven Cohen, Office of Chief Counsel, (202) 493-1216.
In order to offset the costs of providing certain civil aviation security services, TSA imposed a uniform security service fee, the September 11th Security Fee (fee), on passenger enplanements for certain flights originating at airports in the United States. The interim final rule for the fee was published in the
Since issuing the interim final rule, TSA has reviewed several comments in the public docket, Docket No. TSA-2001-11120, concerning the relative burdens and benefits of independent audits for this fee. In light of the high cost of independent audits; the economic condition of the aviation industry; the fact that TSA, in conjunction with other Federal agencies, is initiating its own reviews of fee payments by selected carriers; and TSA's confidence that the aviation industry has demonstrated a high level of compliance with 49 CFR part 1510 thus far, TSA has determined that it may not be necessary for the carriers to expend the resources necessary to provide for independent audits regarding the fee.
By this document, TSA waives enforcement of the requirement in 49 CFR 1510.15(b) that carriers provide for annual independent audits of their September 11th Security Fees. Notwithstanding this suspension of the audit requirement, carriers must still comply with the record keeping requirements of § 1510.15(a) and fully cooperate with Federal oversight efforts conducted pursuant to § 1510.19, which authorizes representatives of the Secretary of Transportation, the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security, the Inspector General of the Department of Transportation, or the Comptroller General of the United States to audit or review the carriers' books or records. TSA is not waiving or deferring enforcement of any other requirement set forth in 49 U.S.C. 44940, 49 CFR part 1510, or the audit requirement pertaining to the Aviation Security Infrastructure Fee imposed on carriers in 49 CFR part 1511.
Upon conducting its own reviews of fee payments by carriers (including those conducted by or jointly with other Federal agencies), TSA will determine whether to eliminate the independent audit requirement or to rescind this waiver and reinstate the independent audit requirement. If TSA decides to eliminate the requirement, an amendment to 49 CFR part 1510 will be published in the
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, HUD.
Proposed regulation.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight is proposing a regulation to set forth public disclosure requirements with respect to financial and other information by the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation.
Written comments on the proposed regulation must be received by March 24, 2003.
Send written comments concerning the proposed regulation to Alfred M. Pollard, General Counsel, Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, Fourth Floor, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552. Written comments may also be sent to Mr. Pollard by electronic mail at
David W. Roderer, Deputy General Counsel, or Tina Dion, Associate General Counsel, telephone (202) 414-6924 (not a toll-free number); Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, Fourth Floor, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552. The telephone number for the Telecommunications Device for the Deaf is (800) 877-8339.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) invites comments on all aspects of the proposed regulation, including legal and policy considerations, and will take all comments into consideration before issuing the final regulation. Copies of all comments received will be available for examination by the public at the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, Fourth Floor, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552, or on the OFHEO Web site at
Title XIII of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, Pubic Law 102-550, entitled the “Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992” (Act) (12 U.S.C. 4501
The relationship of the government-sponsored enterprises to financial markets is critical to their viability. To accomplish their missions, the Enterprises must have access to capital markets. In supporting the primary mortgage markets, secondary market players, including the Enterprises, access domestic and global financing sources and offer a variety of issuances demanded by these markets. The Enterprises are significant as participants in mortgage-backed securities and agency debt markets, and in related hedging activities, and as issuers and guarantors of securities.
As users of and participants in the financial markets, the success of the Enterprises in meeting their public policy missions and in maintaining their safe and sound operations is inextricably tied to full and robust disclosure.
Full and adequate disclosure of information by the Enterprises regarding their financial conditions and risks is an important part of OFHEO's supervisory program. Full disclosure enhances market discipline.
While the offer and sale of their securities are exempt from the registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1933
OFHEO has a broad statutory mandate to adopt regulations, rules, and guidances deemed to be appropriate to assuring the safety and soundness of the Enterprises including appropriate disclosures that aid in promoting market discipline. OFHEO is empowered fully to mandate financial and securities disclosure and to take related actions to implement such regulatory requirements through filings and submissions, examination and oversight of disclosures. OFHEO anticipates no duplication of regulation as it administers its broad safety and soundness obligations.
This part would require the Enterprises to prepare and submit financial and other disclosures as specified by OFHEO. The required disclosures are intended to complement the supervisory efforts of OFHEO to ensure the capital strength of the Enterprises and to promote safe and sound operations within each Enterprise and the mortgage-finance system.
This section also would note that this regulation does not limit or restrict the authority of OFHEO to act under its safety and soundness mandate to regulate the Enterprises, including conducting examinations, requiring reports and disclosures, and enforcing compliance with applicable laws, rules and regulations.
This section would set forth definitions relevant to the proposed regulation.
This section would require each Enterprise to prepare disclosures relating to its financial condition, results of operation, business developments and management expectations that include supporting financial information and certification thereof.
An Enterprise would satisfy the proposed requirement for periodic disclosures required in the section if:
1. In the case of an Enterprise having a class of securities registered pursuant to section 12 of the Exchange Act, the Enterprise prepares an annual report, quarterly report, and current reports, and such other materials that may be required under the rules and regulations of the Commission, including interpretations by the Commission and its staff and rules governing audited financial statements;
2. The Enterprise files with the Commission all reports, statements and forms required pursuant to section 14(a) and (c) of the Exchange Act and by rules and regulations adopted by the Commission under that section; and
3. The officers and members of the board of directors of the Enterprise file with the Commission all reports and forms relating to the common stock of the Enterprises required pursuant to section 16 of the Exchange Act and by rules and regulations adopted by the Commission under that section.
This section would require that, unless otherwise directed by OFHEO, the Enterprises must provide to OFHEO on a concurrent basis copies of all disclosures filed with the SEC under § 1730.3.
The proposed regulation would not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic or foreign markets. Accordingly, no regulatory impact assessment is required. The proposed regulation, however, has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under other provisions of Executive Order 12866 as a significant regulatory action.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Executive Order 13132 requires that Executive departments and agencies identify regulatory actions that have significant federalism implications. A regulation has federalism implications if it has substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship or distribution of power between the Federal government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of government. The Enterprises are federally chartered corporations supervised by OFHEO. The proposed regulation sets forth minimum disclosure standards with which the Enterprises must comply for Federal supervisory purposes and address the safety and soundness authorities of the agency. The proposed regulation does not affect in any manner the powers and authorities of any State with respect to the Enterprises or alter the distribution of power and responsibilities between State and Federal levels of government. Therefore, OFHEO has determined that the proposed regulation has no federalism implications that warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment in accordance with Executive Order 13132.
Government-sponsored enterprises, Financial disclosure, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Records.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, OFHEO proposes to add part 1730 to subchapter C of 12 CFR chapter XVII to read as follows:
12 U.S.C. 4513; 12 U.S.C. 4514; 12 U.S.C. 4631; and, 12 U.S.C. 4632.
(a) The purpose of this part is to require the Enterprises to prepare and submit financial and other disclosures as specified by OFHEO.
(b) This part does not limit or restrict the authority of OFHEO to act under its safety and soundness mandate to regulate the Enterprises, including conducting examinations, requiring reports and disclosures, and enforcing compliance with applicable laws, rules and regulations.
For purposes of this part, the term:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(a) Each Enterprise shall prepare disclosures relating to its financial condition, results of operation, business developments, and management's expectations that include supporting financial information and certifications.
(b) The requirement of paragraph (a) for disclosures will be satisfied if:
(1) In the case of an Enterprise having a class of securities registered pursuant to section 12 of the Exchange Act, the Enterprise prepares and makes public an annual report, quarterly report and current reports and such other materials that may be required under the rules and regulations of the Commission, including interpretations of the Commission and its staff and rules governing audited financial statements;
(2) The Enterprise files with the Commission all reports, statements, and forms required pursuant to sections 14(a) and (c) of the Exchange Act and by rules and regulations adopted by the Commission under those sections that would be required to be filed by the Enterprises if the Enterprises has a class of equity securities registered under section 12(g) of the Exchange Act that were not exempted securities under the Exchange Act; and
(3) The officers and directors of the Enterprise file with the Commission all reports and forms relating to the common stock of the Enterprise that would be required to be filed by the officers and directors pursuant to section 16 of the Exchange Act and by rules and regulations adopted by the Commission under that section if the Enterprises had a class of equity securities registered under section 12(g) of the Exchange Act that were not exempted securities under the Exchange Act.
Unless otherwise required by OFHEO, the Enterprises shall provide to OFHEO on a concurrent basis copies of all disclosures filed with the SEC pursuant to § 1730.3.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to revise four jet routes and seven Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal airways in the vicinity of Savannah, GA, due to the relocation of the Savannah Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) facility. The Savannah VORTAC is being relocated at the Savannah International Airport as a result of environmental restrictions at the present VORTAC site. The relocation of the VORTAC requires that segments of the affected jet routes and VOR Federal airways be redescribed.
Comments must be received on or before March 10, 2003.
Send comments on this proposal to the Docket Management System, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify both docket numbers, FAA-2002-13362/Airspace Docket No. 02-ASO-7, at the beginning of your comments.
You may also submit comments through the Internet at
An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Regional Air Traffic Division, ASO-500, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337.
Paul Gallant, Airspace and Rules Division, ATA-400, Office of Air Traffic Airspace Management, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following
All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the Rules Docket both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
Additionally, any person may obtain a copy of this notice by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Air Traffic Airspace Management, ATA-400, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-8783. Communications must identify both docket numbers for this notice. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to revise the descriptions of four jet routes and seven VOR Federal airways in the vicinity of Savannah, GA. Specifically, this notice is proposing to revise jet routes J-51, J-55, J-79, and J-103; and VOR Federal Airways V-3, V-37, V-154, V-185, V-437, V-441, and V-578. The proposed action would make minor amendments in the legal descriptions to align affected jet route and VOR Federal airway segments with the new VORTAC site.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (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. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Jet routes and Domestic VOR Federal airways are published in paragraphs 2004 and 6010(a), respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9K, dated August 30, 2002, and effective September 16, 2002, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The jet routes and VOR Federal airways listed in this document would be published subsequently in the order.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9K, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 30, 2002, and effective September 16, 2002, is amended as follows:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
This action proposes to amend the designated time of use for restricted area R-2303A (R-2303A) and R-2303B, Fort Huachuca, AZ. Specifically, this action proposes to change the designated time of use for R-2303 A and B from “Monday-Friday 0700-1600 local time,” to “Monday-Friday 0700 to 1700 local time.” Increased training requirements at Fort Huachuca have resulted in a regular need for restricted airspace usage up to 1700 hours Monday through Friday. This proposed modification would not change the current boundaries or activities conducted in R-2303 A and B.
Comments must be received on or before March 10, 2003.
Send comments on this proposal to the Docket Management System, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify the docket numbers FAA-2002-14184/Airspace Docket No. 02-AWP-12 at the beginning of your comments.
You may also submit comments through the Internet to
Ken McElroy, Airspace and Rules Division, ATA-400, Office of Air Traffic Airspace Management, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2002-14184/Airspace Docket No. 02-AWP-12.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the Rules Docket both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
Additionally, any person may obtain a copy of this notice by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation
Restricted airspace at Fort Huachuca, AZ, dates back to the 1960's. The current designated time of use for the restricted area was based on past use. The U.S. Army requested this change since increased training requirements have resulted in a regular need for restricted airspace usage up to 1700 hours Monday through Friday. The restricted areas hours of use during the past several years has been routinely extended from 1600 hours to 1700 hours by the issuance of a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM).
The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 73 to amend the designated time of use for R-2303A and R-2303B Fort Huachuca, AZ. Specifically, this action proposes to change the designated time of use for R-2303 A and B from “Monday-Friday 0700-1600 local time,” to “Monday-Friday 0700-to 1700 local time.” The U.S. Army has proposed this modification to better accommodate increased training requirements at Fort Huachuca. This action would not change the current boundaries or activities conducted within R-2303A and B.
Section 73.48 of part 73 of the Federal Aviation Regulations was republished in FAA Order 7400.8K dated September 26, 2002.
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. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subjected to the appropriate environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D, Policies and Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts, prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 73 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
2. § 73.23 is amended as follows:
By removing “Time of designation. Monday-Friday, 0700-1600 local time; other times by NOTAM at least 24 hours in advance,” and substituting “Time of designation. Monday-Friday, 0700-1700 local time; other times by NOTAM at least 24 hours in advance,” in its place.
By removing “Time of designation. Monday-Friday, 0700-1600 local time; other times by NOTAM at least 24 hours in advance,” and substituting “Time of designation. Monday-Friday, 0700-1700 local time; other times by NOTAM at least 24 hours in advance,” in its place.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), Department of the Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
ATF has received a petition to establish a viticultural area in Douglas County, Minnesota, to be named “Alexandria Lakes.” We invite comments on this petition.
We must receive written comments by March 24, 2003.
You may send comments to any of the following addresses—
• Chief, Regulations Division, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, P.O. Box 50221, Washington, DC 20091-0221 (Attn: Notice No. 967);
• 202-927-8525 (facsimile);
•
•
See the Public Participation section of this notice for specific requirements.
Lisa M. Gesser, Regulations Division, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 650 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20226 (202-927-9347).
The Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act) at 27 U.S.C. 205(e) requires that alcohol beverage labels provide the consumer with adequate information regarding a product's identity, while prohibiting the use of deceptive information on such labels. The FAA Act also authorizes ATF to issue regulations to carry out the Act's provisions.
Regulations in 27 CFR Part 4, Labeling and Advertising of Wine, allow the establishment of definitive viticultural areas and the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Title 27 CFR Part 9, American Viticultural
Title 27 CFR 4.25a(e)(1) defines an American viticultural area as a delimited grape-growing region distinguishable by geographic features whose boundaries have been delineated in subpart C of part 9.
Section 4.25a(e)(2) outlines the procedure for proposing an American viticultural area. Anyone interested may petition ATF to establish a grape-growing region as a viticultural area. The petition must include—
• Evidence of local and/or national name recognition of the proposed viticultural area as the area specified in the petition;
• Historical or current evidence that the boundaries of the proposed viticultural area are as specified in the petition;
• Evidence of geographical characteristics, such as climate, soils, elevation, physical features, etc., that distinguish the proposed area from surrounding areas;
• A description of the specific boundaries of the proposed viticultural area, based on features reflected on maps that are approved by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and of the largest applicable scale; and
• A copy or copies of the appropriate USGS-approved map(s) with the boundaries prominently marked.
If this NPRM is approved, bottlers who use brand names like the name of the viticultural area may be affected. Such bottlers must ensure that their existing products are eligible to use the name of the viticultural area as an appellation of origin. For a wine to be eligible, 85 percent of the grapes in the wine must have been grown within the viticultural area(s). See 27 CFR 4.25a(e)(3).
If the wine is ineligible, the bottler must change the brand name of that wine and obtain approval of the new label. Different rules apply if a permittee labels a wine in this category with a label approved as of July 7, 1986. See 27 CFR 4.39(i).
ATF has received a petition from Robert G. Johnson on behalf of Carlos Creek Winery, proposing to establish “Alexandria Lakes” as an American viticultural area. The proposed American viticultural area is located in Douglas County, Minnesota and encompasses approximately 17 square miles. Six fresh water lakes surround the area.
The petitioner submitted the following as evidence that the area is locally and nationally known as Alexandria Lakes:
• The
• Several brochures that refer to the proposed area as the “Alexandria Lakes Area.”
• A letter from the Alexandria Lake Area Sanitary District referring to the proposed area as the “Alexandria Lake Area.”
The petitioner has submitted the following as boundary evidence:
• U.S.G.S. Map (Alexandria West, Minn. 1966 (revised 1994));
• U.S.G.S. Map (Alexandria East, Minn. 1966 (revised 1994));
• U.S.G.S. Map (Lake Miltona West, Minn. 1969); and
• U.S.G.S. Map (Lake Miltona East, Minn. 1969).
The proposed Alexandria Lakes viticultural area is located in Douglas County, Minnesota. The proposed boundaries do not encompass the entire land mass known by that name. According to the petitioner, current viticulture and a unique microclimate limit the boundaries to those proposed. He also indicates that the area's geographic features help define the proposed viticultural area's borders. We will discuss these features further below.
The petitioner states that glacial activity formed the proposed area at the end of the last ice age, 10,000 years ago. The soil is unique because the glacial activity gouged it from the surrounding areas. The steep glacial erosion produced a geographically isolated area that the region's deepest glacial lakes surround. These lakes are not only the deepest, but by volume, they are largest in the region.
The petitioner states that the most abundant soil found in the petitioned area is of the Nebish-Beltrami association. This association is very unique in that it makes up only 5% of the county. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (USDASCS) defines this soil as deep, well and moderately well drained. The petitioner states that vegetation in the proposed area must survive on poorer soils and must have broader root systems than vegetation grown in the surrounding regions. According to the petitioner, the higher concentration of hardwood trees in the proposed area evidence this.
By contrast, the USDASCS defines the opposing lakeshores' soil, just west and north of the proposed area, as belonging to the Waukon-Flom association, which they describe as poorly drained. The petitioner indicates that these are alluvial wash plains containing heavy lomis soils and low wetlands.
The USDASCS defines the soil associations on the opposing shores just south and east of the proposed areas as belonging to the Arvilla-Sverdrup association. These soils formed in sand or sand and gravel outwash material and are described as excessively drained.
According to the petitioner, the proposed area's geographic features further distinguish it from surrounding regions. Six fresh-water lakes almost completely surround the proposed area. To the north lies Lake Miltona, which is the largest lake in Douglas County. To the east is Lake Carlos, which is, according to the Alexandria Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce, the largest lake in the Alexandria Lakes chain. South of the border are two small lakes, Lake Louise and Lake Alvin, and a medium size lake, Lake Darling. West lies Lake Ida, which is one of the largest lakes in the area.
The petitioner provided climate data for the years 1992 through 2001 from the University of Minnesota Meteorological Department's Web site. The data indicates that the proposed area receives on average more precipitation than the surrounding regions. The petitioned area's average precipitation is approximately 23.65 inches per year. By contrast, Osakis, Wadena, and Ashby Counties, which are located east, north, and west, respectively, of the petitioned area, all received between 1 to 3 more inches of precipitation per year. The petitioner states the difference is due to the seasonal southern winds that blow through the petitioned area producing moisture updrafts that result in rain clouds generally north and east of the area.
The petitioner states that the proposed area receives less annual snowfall than the surrounding regions. The petitioned area's average snowfall is approximately 47.67 inches per year. By
According to the petitioner, “the drier climate and lighter snow cover makes for lowered water tables, but watershed flowing from areas to the north and east replenish the water and maintain constant lake water levels.” In addition, the petitioner states that the petitioned area has temperature averages that are generally warmer in the winter and cooler in the summer than those of adjacent areas.
We request comments from anyone interested. Please support your comments with specific information. Examples include name evidence and data about growing conditions or area boundaries.
Although we do not acknowledge receipt, we will consider your comments if we receive them on or before the closing date. We will consider comments received after the closing date if time permits. We regard all comments as originals.
You may submit comments in any of four ways.
•
•
(1) Be legible;
(2) Reference this Notice number;
(3) Be on 8
(4) Contain a legible, written signature; and
(5) Be five or less pages long. This limitation assures electronic access to our equipment. We will not accept faxed comments that exceed five pages.
•
(1) Contain your name, mailing address, and e-mail address;
(2) Reference this Notice number on the subject line; and
(3) Be legible when printed on 8
•
You may also write to the Director to ask for a public hearing. The Director reserves the right to determine, in light of all circumstances, whether a public hearing will be held.
You may inspect copies of the petition, the proposed regulations, the appropriate maps, and any written comments by appointment. The ATF Reading Room, Public and Governmental Affairs, is located in room 6480 at 650 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20226. You may also obtain copies at 20 cents per page. If you want to view or request copies of comments, call the ATF librarian at telephone number 202-927-7890.
For your convenience, we will post comments received in response to this Notice on the ATF Web site. All comments posted on our Web site will show the names of commenters but not street addresses, telephone numbers, or e-mail addresses. We may also omit voluminous attachments or material that we consider unsuitable for posting. In all cases, the full comment will be available in the ATF Reading Room. To access online copies of the comments on this rulemaking, visit
We do not recognize any submitted material as confidential. We will disclose all information that relates to the comments, including the identity of the commenters. Do not enclose in your comments any material you consider confidential or inappropriate for disclosure.
We propose no requirement to collect information. Therefore, the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, do not apply.
We certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, including small businesses. The establishment of viticultural areas represents neither ATF endorsement nor approval of the quality of wine produced in the areas. Rather, it allows identification of areas distinct from one another where a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of the wine produced in the area is essentially attributable to its geographical origin. We believe that the establishment of viticultural areas allows wineries to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers identify the wines they purchase. Thus, any benefit derived from the use of a viticultural area name is the result of the proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area.
This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined by Executive Order 12866. Therefore, no regulatory assessment is required.
The principal author of this document is Lisa M. Gesser, Regulations Division, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
Administrative practices and procedures, Consumer protection, Viticultural areas, and Wine.
ATF proposes to amend 27 CFR part 9 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:
27 U.S.C. 205.
2. Amend subpart C by adding § 9.177 to read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(1) “Alexandria West, Minn.,” 1966, revised 1994.
(2) “Alexandria East, Minn.,” 1966, revised 1994.
(3) “Lake Miltona East, Minn.,” 1969.
(4) “Lake Miltona West, Minn.,” 1969.
(c)
(1) The beginning point is located on Alexandria West, Minn. map between
(2) The boundary continues along the Carlos-Darling bridge and then northeasterly along the western shore of Lake Carlos on to the Alexandria East, Minn. map.
(3) The boundary continues along the shoreline until the point where the Lake Carlos shoreline parallels an unlabeled road known as County Road 38.
(4) The boundary continues north along County Road 38 until it intersects with an unlabeled road known as County Road 62.
(5) The boundary continues north along County Road 62 on to the Lake Miltona, East, Minn. map and then on to an unlabeled road known as Buckskin Road.
(6) The boundary continues north on Buckskin Road to the point at BM 1411.
(7) From BM 1411, the boundary continues north in a straight line to the south shoreline of Lake Miltona.
(8) The boundary continues generally west along the south shoreline of Lake Miltona on to the Lake Miltona West, Minn. map until the southern shoreline parallels an unlabeled road known as Krohnfeldt Drive.
(9) The boundary continues south and then west along Krohnfeldt Drive until it intersects with an unlabeled road known as County Road 34.
(10) The boundary continues south along County Road 34 until the point where County Road 34 runs parallel to Lake Ida's eastern shoreline.
(11) The boundary continues south along Lake Ida's eastern shoreline then on to the Alexandria West, Minn. map to the point where two unlabeled roads known as Burkey's Lane and Sunset Strip Road intersect.
(12) The boundary continues south along Sunset Strip Road to the point where it intersects with an unlabled road known as County Road 104.
(13) The boundary continues generally east along County Road 104 until it intersects with an unlabeled road known as County Road 34.
(14) The boundary continues east along County Road 34 until it intersects with an unlabeled road known as County Road 11.
(15) The boundary continues east along County Road 11 to the beginning point for the area at BM 1366, known as the Carlos-Darling Bridge.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD) and the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern the emission of particulate matter (PM-10) from open fires and prescribed burning and the emission of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from the transfer of gasoline at dispensing facilities. We are proposing to approve local rules that regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).
Any comments on this proposal must arrive by February 24, 2003.
Mail comments to Andy Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
You can inspect a copy of the submitted rule revisions and EPA's technical support documents (TSDs) at our Region IX office during normal business hours. You may also see a copy of the submitted rule revisions and TSDs at the following locations:
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (Mail Code 6102T), Room B-102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule Evaluation Section, 1001 “I” Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District, 26 Castilian Drive, Suite B-23, Goleta, CA 93117.
Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District, 1947 Galileo Court, Suite 103, Davis, CA 95616.
A copy of a rule may also be available via the Internet at
Al Petersen, Rulemaking Office (AIR-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX; (415) 947-4118.
This proposal addresses the approval of local SBCAPCD Rule 401 and YSAQMD Rule 2.22. In the Rules section of this
Coast Guard, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking and public meeting.
The Coast Guard proposes to update the rates for pilotage on the Great Lakes. We must by law review these rates annually, and we have reviewed them. We propose to change the pilotage rates for the shipping season of 2003 on the Great Lakes, both to generate sufficient funds for allowable expenses and to ensure that the pilots receive target compensation.
Comments and related material must reach the Docket Management Facility on or before March 10, 2003. A public meeting will be held January 31, 2003.
To make sure your comments and related material are not entered more than once in the docket,
(1) By mail to the Docket Management Facility (USCG-2002-11288), 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
The Docket Management Facility maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, 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 Internet at
For questions on this proposed rule, call Tom Lawler, Chief Economist, Office of Great Lakes Pilotage, Commandant (G-MW-1), U.S. Coast Guard, at 202-267-1241, by fax 202-267-4700, or by email at
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 (USCG-2002-11288), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason 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
A public meeting will be held from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. on January 31, 2003, in Room B-1, Anthony J. Celebrezze Federal Building, 1240 East Ninth Street, Cleveland, OH 44199-2060. This meeting may close early if all business is finished.
Written material and requests to make oral presentations can be sent to: Margie Hegy, Commandant (G-MW), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001.
Persons who are unable to attend the public meeting are encouraged to send written comments to the Docket Management Facility as directed under
On May 9, 1996, the Department of Transportation published a final rule in the
On February 10, 1997, the Coast Guard published a final rule in the
On December 14, 1998, the Coast Guard published a notice of findings on annual review in the
On July 12, 2001, the Coast Guard published a final rule in the
On July 19, 2002, as the result of a lawsuit filed by District Two, the Coast Guard published a temporary final rule in the
On August 26, 2002, the Coast Guard published a notice of meetings in the
The Coast Guard must, under 46 CFR 404.1(b), conduct an annual review of the rates for pilotage on the Great Lakes using the procedures found at Appendix C to 46 CFR part 404. In addition, every five years the Coast Guard must perform a review using the methodology contained in 46 CFR part 404, Appendix A. At Step 2.A of Appendix A, we explain the target pilot compensation for pilots providing service on designated waters of the Great Lakes is approximately the average annual compensation for masters on U.S. Great Lakes vessels. The target pilot compensation for pilots providing service on undesignated waters of the Great Lakes is approximately the average annual compensation for first mates of such vessels. We have reviewed the current pilotage rates and determined that they should be adjusted to meet target pilot compensation and allowable expenses. Therefore, in accordance with 46 U.S.C. 9303(f), and on the basis of the rate review for 2002, we propose to amend the rates for pilotage on the Great Lakes to meet these needs. We would like your comments on the updated rates.
On July 1, 2002, the Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety, Security and Environmental Protection, commissioned a study to review the methodology for developing bridge hour standards for Great Lakes pilotage (67 FR 54836 (August 26, 2002)). This Bridge Hour Study is scheduled to be completed by January 31, 2003. The Study will explore the historical development of the bridge hour standard currently used in the ratemaking methodology for U.S. Great Lakes pilots. The goal of this study is to determine what the appropriate bridge
The findings of the Bridge Hour Study could cause the Coast Guard to modify the current bridge hour standard. Any significant modification in the bridge hour standard would, in turn, have a significant effect on the rate for 2003 under the existing methodology. The Coast Guard considered holding up the ratemaking process until the results of the Bridge Hour Study were available and the Coast Guard made any subsequent modifications to the bridge hour standard. Militating against this approach however, were the results of the Coast Guard's annual and five-year audits, that indicated that the 2003 season would see a substantial adjustment in the rates. Ultimately, the Coast Guard concluded that because it projected a substantial rate adjustment for 2003, it should not delay the process, but should have the new rate published before the beginning of the new season. Accordingly, the Coast Guard intends to issue an interim rule on or before February 14, 2003, to be effective March 15, 2003, in time for the new season.
Once it completes its evaluation of the Bridge Hour Study, the Coast Guard intends to issue a final rule that incorporates any appropriate modifications to the bridge hour standard along with any corresponding modification in pilotage rates. The Coast Guard will provide notice of any proposed changes and solicit and consider public comments, as well as input from the Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory Committee, before issuing its final rule.
We propose to change the pilotage rates for waters treated in 46 CFR 401.405, 401.407, and 401.410 as follows:
We also propose to increase the pilotage rates for the “Cancellation, delay or interruption in rendering services” and “Basic rates and charges for carrying a U.S. pilot beyond normal change point or for boarding at other than the normal boarding point” in 46 CFR 401.420 and 401.428, respectively, by 25 percent—the average rate change for all districts.
This proposed rulemaking follows the methodology detailed in 46 CFR part 404, Appendix A, including the step-by-step five-year ratemaking calculations contained in Appendix A. We summarize these calculations in the following tables (and explain them in more detail afterwards):
Here is a detailed explanation of our step-by-step calculations:
The first step is gathering financial data from each of the three Great Lakes pilots' districts. Each district must obtain an audit by an independent Certified Public Accountant (CPA) and submit it to the Acting Director (the Director) of Great Lakes Pilotage, in accordance with 46 CFR 403.300.
The Director determines which association expenses will be recognized for ratemaking purposes each year. The Director hires an independent CPA to review the expenses reported by the associations using the guidelines contained in 46 CFR 404.05. To determine which expenses were reasonable and necessary to include in our 2002 rate review, we used the Director's independent audit of the associations for 2001. In the following paragraphs, we discuss some of the audit's details. We have also provided a table containing the expenses recognized and approved by the Director.
We calculate target pilot compensation for both designated and undesignated waters each year based on the current union contract for first mates on U.S. Great Lakes vessels. We add that amount to the total expenses to determine the revenue needed for ratemaking purposes.
In 2001, to support safety and ongoing professional development, each association was asked to develop a continuing education program for registered pilots and to submit to the Director a proposed annual budget. The purpose of the program is to keep registered pilots aware of safety issues and to refresh their skills. The Director approved each district's program together with their estimate of yearly costs (District One, $30,000; District Two, $40,000; and District Three, $50,000) and included these amounts in their respective expense bases in the final rule published on July 12, 2001, in the
Accordingly, the Director has added the following amounts to each district's expense base to support this program on a yearly basis:
Additionally, effective August 1, 2002, the current union contract for first mates on the Great Lakes stipulates: “that employers will make matching contributions for each participating 401(k) plan employee in an amount equal to 50 percent of the employee's contribution, to a maximum of 5 percent of a participating employee's compensation.” District Two has a pension plan, while District Three has a 401(k) plan. District One does not provide either a 401(k) or pension plan for its members. Therefore, to conform to the current union contract for first mates in accounting for an employer's contribution of 50 percent, expense bases of Districts Two and Three are increased by $41,817 and $66,159 based on their total employee 401(k)/pension contributions in 2001 of $83,634 and $132,318, respectively.
The following table displays audit results, along with the CPA's and Director's adjustments:
The following is a summary of the independent CPA's major findings and proposed adjustments, along with the Director's corresponding adjustments:
We divided the adjustments we made to the reported expenses into five categories: (1) equalization among districts, (2) reimbursed expenses, (3) expenses not reasonable or necessary for pilotage services (46 CFR 404.5(a)), (4) misclassified expenses, and (5) undocumented expenses.
The Coast Guard must ensure that each association's expenses are analyzed fairly and consistently with the other associations because of how they are organized. The associations of Districts One and Three are organized as partnerships, while the association of District Two is organized as a corporation. Because of this difference, the District Two association pays the employer's share of Social Security and Medicare taxes, insurance, and travel expenses out of corporate funds. In the associations of Districts One and Two, the individual pilots pay these expenses because each pilot is self-employed. Because these taxes, insurance, and travel expenses are legitimate business expenses that should be recognized for ratemaking purposes, funds for these expenses have been added to District One and Three's expense bases on the independent CPA's recommendation. In District One, $62,096 in Social Security and Medicare taxes, and $10,120 in travel expenses have been added to the expense base. In District Three, $143,035 in Social Security and Medicare taxes, along with $152,535 in travel expenses have been added to the expense base.
The independent CPA found that a number of expenses are reimbursed to the pilots' associations and recommended that these expenses should not be included in each district's expense base. Examples are reimbursement from one pilots' association to another for shared pilot boats and dispatch, reimbursement for dividends received on Workmen's Compensation premiums, and reimbursement from Canadian pilots for shared administrative expenses, dispatch, and pilot boat services.
The Director agrees with the independent CPA's recommendation to deduct these reimbursed expenses from the expense bases of the districts. Although these are legitimate business expenses, they are paid for by other districts or parties, not by the associations claiming them, and, as such, should not be included in the expense base of the district being reimbursed. In District Two, we deducted $174,414 and $83,376 in reimbursed expenses for pilotage and dispatch services and for the refund of Workmen's Compensation premiums of $211,849, from the expense base. Likewise, in District Three, we deducted $163,207 in reimbursed expenses for pilotage and in dispatch services from the expense base.
Settlement of a lawsuit in 2002 reimbursed the District One Pilots' Association $13,000 in legal fees. Accordingly, we have deducted this reimbursed amount from the expense base.
Excessive capital lease costs associated with the rental of two pilot boats, lobbying expenses, and certain miscellaneous expenses (advertising, business promotion, and donations) were identified as unnecessary for the provision of pilotage services.
During 2001, District Two paid Erie Leasing $62,950 in lease cost for the rental of two pilot boats. The Director considers this cost unreasonable. In 46 CFR 404.5(a)(3), it states:
Lease costs for both operating and capital leases are recognized for ratemaking purposes to the extent that they conform to market rates. In the absence of a comparable market, lease costs are recognized for ratemaking purposes to the extent that they conform to depreciation plus an allowance for return on investment (computed as if the asset had been purchased with equity capital). The portion of lease costs that exceed these standards is not recognized for ratemaking purposes.
Using this methodology, with the cost of the pilot boats being $315,000, a market return of 7.04 percent, and a depreciation amount of $9,450, the
The Director, in consultation with the District One Pilots' Association, identified $43,100 in lobbying expenses and has deducted this amount from its expense base because they are not recognized for ratemaking purposes.
In addition, the independent CPA has recommended a deduction from District One's expenses of $782 for advertising, two deductions from District Two's expenses in amounts of $74 for business promotion and $720 for donations, and $995 from District Three's expense base for donations. None of these expenses is necessary for the provision of pilotage services. The independent CPA further recommended a deduction of $19,780 from District Three's expenses for an uncollectable account or bad debt. While this treatment of bad debt is an acceptable practice for financial reporting, it is unnecessary for ratemaking in that it is a one-time, non-recurring expense. The Director agrees with the independent CPA and has deducted all these expenses from the expense bases.
The independent CPA recommended deductions of $4,500, $11,740, and $120,377 from District One, $8,600 and $20,470 from District Two, and $4,050 and $23,100 from District Three because these payments were made directly to pilots as compensation. District One paid $4,500 to registered pilots to train temporarily registered pilots on Lake Ontario and $120,377 to an independent registered pilot for the provision of pilotage services. District Two made payments to pilots in the amount of $8,600 to attend yearly meetings. This was paid in addition to payments to pilots for travel and
A detailed inspection of District Two's expense accounts and annual audited financial statements disclosed payments of $38 daily per diem to each pilot based on days available. These payments in November 2001 and late December 2001 totaled $125,559 and were not documented. The Internal Revenue Service procedures (Rev. Proc. 2001-47) require substantiation as to time, place, and purpose of expenses paid. These payments were in addition to properly documented travel and per diem payments made throughout the year. The total combined per diem (food and incidental) expense claimed actually exceeded the maximum amount possible if every pilot would have been on travel for every day during the season. The travel regulations do not contemplate a payment based on “days available” for travel. The independent CPA recommended that $125,559 be deducted from District Two's expense base. The Director agrees and has deducted the amount from the expense base and treated it as pilot compensation in accordance with 46 CFR 404.5(a)(6). Properly substantiated and documented travel and per diem costs incurred while a pilot is engaged in legitimate travel in connection with the provision of pilotage service will be recognized for ratemaking purposes.
To adjust expenses for inflation (there being no deflation, yet), we increased the total recognized expenses for each association by two percent. This figure is based on the approximate average change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) from July 2001 to November 2002.
Once all adjustments are made to the recognized operating expenses, the Director projects these expenses for each pilotage area. The Director considers foreseeable circumstances that could affect the accuracy of the expenses as projected and, as well as possible, determines the “projection of operating expenses.”
District-wide general and administrative expenses are apportioned to each area according to the number of pilots in that area. Expenses that are attributable to a pilotage area are applied directly to it. For instance, in District One, approximately $31,000 in taxi expense is directly attributable to Area 1; but the remaining general and administrative expense in District One is then apportioned according to the number of pilots assigned to Areas 1 and 2. The results of Step 1.D for each district are displayed as follows:
For pilots providing service in undesignated waters, the target rate of compensation is approximately the average yearly compensation earned by first mates on U.S. Great Lakes vessels. Effective August 1, 2002, according to the American Maritime Officers Union (AMOU), the average yearly compensation is $122,427. This rate covers wages and benefits, which comprises work days, vacation pay, weekend pay, holiday pay, bonuses, clerical pay, medical and pension benefits.
For pilots providing services in designated waters, the target rate of compensation is calculated as 1.5 times the yearly salary of a first mate plus benefits, (1.5 × 100,944 = $151,416 (Yearly Salary) + $22,041 (Benefits) = $173,457 (Pilot Target Compensation effective August 1, 2002).
The Coast Guard adopted this method of calculating the rate because it most accurately achieves the stated goal of approximating the salary of a Great Lakes Master. This method is the same method we used in the final rule establishing rates in 1997 (62 FR 5917 (February 10, 1997)) and again in 2001 (66 FR 36484 (July 12, 2001)).
Effective August 1, 2002, the daily contractual rate of wages for first mates is $207.70. We multiply the daily rate by 54 days (30.5 work days, 15 vacation days, 4 weekend days, 1.5 holidays, and 3 bonus days) to determine the monthly rate for undesignated waters. This monthly rate is then multiplied by 1.5 to determine the monthly rate for designated waters (monthly rate for undesignated waters × 1.5 = monthly rate for designated waters). Only then is the cost of benefits (pensions, health care, and clerical support) added to the monthly rates for both undesignated and designated waters. These figures are then multiplied by 9 to yield total yearly target pilot compensation. The calculation goes as follows: the daily rate of wages specified in the first mates' union contract, effective August 1, 2002, is $207.70. The daily rate is then multiplied by 54 to determine the monthly rate, $11,216. Added to this figure are the monthly costs of first mates' clerical support, $126; health benefits, $1,748; and their pension, $513. The monthly total of wages and benefits comes to $13,603. This figure is then multiplied by 9 to yield a total target pilot compensation for undesignated waters of $122,427.
For designated waters, the monthly rate of wages, calculated above, is multiplied by 1.5, totaling $16,824. To this figure, we add the monthly cost of a masters' clerical support, $188; the monthly health benefits, $1,748; and the monthly cost of their pension benefits, $513. The monthly total of wages and benefits now comes to $19,273. This figure is then multiplied by 9, to yield a total target pilot compensation for designated waters of $173,457.
The table below summarizes how the total target pilot compensation is determined for undesignated and designated waters:
The number of pilots needed in each area is determined by dividing the projected bridge hours, excluding delay and detention hours for each area, by the targets for each area
Dividing the projected annual number of bridge hours per area by the target number of bridge hours per pilot determines the number of pilots required in each area to service vessel traffic.
The following bullets list the number of pilots, by area, the Director has authorized for the 2003 navigation season:
In authorizing the number of pilots for each pilotage area, the Director has rounded up the number of pilots required in Areas 1, 2, 4, and 5, from the above table, for Districts One and Two to insure adequate pilot availability. Furthermore, the Director has approved two additional pilots for Area 2 for a total of six pilots to equal the number of Canadian pilots assigned to Lake Ontario. This is necessary to ensure pilotage assignments are divided equally between the United States and Canada, as specified in the Memorandum of Arrangements between the Secretary of Transportation of the United States and the Minister of Transport of Canada.
In District Three, however, the Director has rounded down the number of pilots in Area 7 (designated waters) to four and rounded down the total number of pilots required in the undesignated waters of Areas 6 and 8 (10.5 + 6.9 = 17.4) to 17 because District Three employs additional contract pilots to cover surges in vessel traffic during the navigational season.
Target pilot compensation for each pilotage area is determined by multiplying the target compensation for each area by the number of pilots in each area (
The economic slowdown that began in 1999 has steadily precipitated a significant decline in Seaway traffic during the 2001 navigation season. The most notable sign was a downturn in consumer demand for durable goods, which caused a reduction in the flow of imported steel. This combined with a poor grain harvest in the Midwest and Canada resulted in the lowest cargo volumes on the Great Lakes since 1993. Short-term prospects for trade are not very encouraging considering the imposition of steel tariffs of up to 30 percent in March of this year, and preliminary shipping data for the 2002 navigation season already suggests that traffic could decline further. Therefore, for the purposes of this NPRM, the Director is projecting that pilotage revenue and bridge hours for the 2003 navigation season will be comparable to those of 2001. This is being done with the understanding that this projection will be adjusted as necessary in a final rule to account for 2002 data (revenue and bridge hour study) when they become available in late January 2003.
The Coast Guard published a final rule on July 12, 2001, that amended rates for pilotage services on the Great Lakes. That rule increased the rate in District One, Area 1 by 4 percent; increased the rate in Area 2 by 17 percent; increased the rate in District
As a result of a lawsuit filed by District Two, the Coast Guard published a temporary final rule on July 19, 2002. The rule returned the rate in District Two, Area 5, to the one that was in place prior to August 13, 2001. The result of this rule was a rate increase of 5 percent, which became effective August 20, 2002.
To accurately project 2003 revenues, we must adjust or “align” 2001 revenues to reflect the changes in the rates referenced above. Accordingly, the aforementioned percentage changes in pilotage rates for each pilotage area were applied (multiplied by a factor to reflect an increase or decrease) to the total pilotage revenues in each area, collected prior to August 13, 2001 (the effective date of the rate adjustment), except for District Two, Area 5. The adjusted revenues for each area were then added to the revenues collected after August 13, 2001, in each area to obtain total adjusted revenue for each area. To account for the initial rate decrease and subsequent increase in District Two, Area 5, pilotage revenues collected after August 19, 2001, were adjusted to reflect the 5 percent increase effective August 19, 2002, (
In previous rulemakings, actual revenue for each pilotage area was not available. Only total revenue for the districts was being provided in financial statements. As a result, total revenue for each district was apportioned among pilotage areas based on the number of pilots authorized. Often this apportionment did not accurately approximate or reflect the actual revenue collected in a given pilotage area, most notably in Area 7 of District Three, where in 2001 actual revenue exceeded the apportioned amount by approximately $450,000. In the past, this apportionment caused an inflated pilotage rate in one area and also caused deflated rates in other areas. This year, with the cooperation of the districts, we were able to account for revenue in each of their respective pilotage areas. Using actual revenues greatly enhances the equity of the rate structure. The results of Step 3.A for each district are summarized below:
In 46 CFR part 404, Appendix A, Step 5(3), it states that “Assets subject to return on investment * * * must be reasonable in purpose and amount. If an asset or other investment is not necessary for the provision of pilotage services, that portion of the return element is not allowed for ratemaking purposes.” In calculating rate of return the Director considers property, equipment and cash necessary to cover pilots' associations expenses during the three-month period the St. Lawrence Seaway is closed. Some pilots' associations throughout the course of the navigation season choose to accumulate large cash balances from revenue received for pilotage service rather than distribute the money as pilot compensation. These large cash balances are reflected on their balance sheet as cash assets at the close of the calendar year (December 31). A significant portion of these cash assets are then immediately distributed the next calendar year as pilot compensation. The net effect inflates their investment base at the end of the calendar year. The Director's inclusion of cash assets in excess of what is required to operate during this period would encourage these associations to unnecessarily inflate their investment bases and provide a source of return available to few, if any, other private businesses. An analysis of pilots' associations' investment bases indicates that, ever since the concept of return on investment was introduced into the ratemaking methodology, Districts Two and Three have greatly increased their bases. In District Two, the base went from $265,488 in 1995 to $413,998 in 1996, of which only $116,041 represented property and equipment. In District Three, it went from $119,823 in 1995 to $994,896 in 1996, of which only $25,583 represented property and equipment.
In addition to property and equipment, the Director is recognizing $100,000, $150,000, and $200,000 for inclusion in the investment base for Districts One, Two, and Three, respectively, as cash necessary to cover operating expenses during the months the St. Lawrence Seaway is closed.
The investment base (Step 4) as calculated for each district is displayed below:
The target rate of return on investment (ROI) for 2002 was set at 7.04 percent. This is based on the preceding year's (2001's) average annual rate of return of new issues of high-grade corporate securities (Moody's AAA rating, average return).
We made the adjustment determination (revenue needed to cover operating expenses and pilot compensation) using the numbers listed above and following the formula found in Step 6 of 46 CFR part 404, Appendix A. The results for each district are displayed below:
To determine the adjustments to pilotage rates in each area, we multiplied the current pilotage rate in the area by the rate multiplier. The rate multiplier is calculated by dividing the revenue needed (from Step 6) by the revenue projection (from Step 3) for each area. The Director proposes to amend the pilotage rates for the waters treated in 46 CFR 401.405 through 46 CFR 401.410 with the rates obtained by multiplying the current pilotage rates times the rate multiplier for each pilotage area. The Adjustments of Pilotage Rates (Step 7) for each district are displayed below:
This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 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)).
We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary. This proposed rule would make adjustments to the pilotage rates paid by foreign flagged ships for the 2003 Great Lakes navigational season. While these adjustments to pilotage rates may seem relatively large they actually represent a small change to the overall cost of moving these vessels through the St. Lawrence Seaway system. The Coast Guard used the ratemaking methodology found in 46 CFR part 404, Appendix A, to identify adjustments necessary to achieve target pilot compensation and association expenses by establishing these new pilotage rates. This ratemaking methodology is designed to annually review pilotage rates in order to avoid fluctuations in pilot compensation thus avoiding large changes in pilotage rates. This notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) provides a step-by-step economic guide to show how the pilotage rates would be changed. The results of this proposed rulemaking are in keeping with the Coast Guard's desire for a fair and efficient pilotage system.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we 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.
For the Great Lakes region, small entities potentially affected by this proposed rulemaking include shippers, ports, carriers, and shipping agents. The proposed increases in pilotage rates should not significantly affect small businesses.
Therefore, 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 to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult Tom Lawler, Chief Economist, Great Lakes Pilotage (G-MW-1), U.S. Coast Guard, at 202-267-1241, by facsimile 202-267-4700, or by email at
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).
The Coast Guard has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and criteria in Executive Order 12612 and has determined that this proposed rule does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires
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 does not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may 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.
To help the Coast Guard establish regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with Indian and Alaskan Native tribes, we published a notice in the
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 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 proposed rule and concluded that under figure 2-1, paragraph 34 (a), of the Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. This rule is procedural in nature because it deals exclusively with adjusting pilotage rates for the Great Lakes. A
“Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket where indicated under
Administrative practice and procedure, Great Lakes, Navigation (water), Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seamen.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 46 CFR part 401 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 401 continues to read as follows:
46 U.S.C. 2104(a), 6101, 7701, 8105, 9303, 9304; 49 CFR 1.45, 1.46 (mmm), 46 CFR 401.105 also issued the authority of 44 U.S.C. 3507.
2. In § 401.405, revise paragraphs (a) and (b), including the footnote to Table (a), to read as follows:
(a) Area 1 (Designated Waters):
(b) Area 2 (Undesignated Waters):
3. In § 401.407, revise paragraphs (a) and (b), including the footnote to Table (b), to read as follows:
(a) Area 4 (Undesignated Waters):
(b) Area 5 (Designated Waters):
4. In § 401.410, revise paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) to read as follows:
(a) Area 6 (Undesignated Waters):
(b) Area 7 (Designated Waters):
(c) Area 8 (Undesignated Waters):
5. In § 401.420—
a. In paragraph (a), remove the number “$53” and add, in its place, the number “$66”; and remove the number “$831” and add, in its place, the number “$1,039”.
b. In paragraph (b), remove the number “$53” and add, in its place, the number “$66”; and remove the number “$831” and add, in its place, the number “$1,039”.
c. In paragraph (c)(1), remove the number “$314” and add, in its place, the number “$392”; in paragraph (c)(3), remove the number “$53” and add, in its place, the number “$66”; and, also in paragraph (c)(3), remove the number “$831” and add, in its place, the number “$1,039”.
6. In § 401.428, remove the number “$321” and add, in its place, the number “$401”.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
This document initiates a reevaluation of the scope of communications services that should provide access to basic and enhanced emergency services. The action is needed to establish a record on which to decide whether remains appropriate to continue to exempt certain wireless and wireline service providers from 911 and Enhanced 911 (E911) regulations and requirements.
Comments are due on or before February 3, 2003. Reply Comments are due on or before February 28, 2003.
Gregory W. Guice, Attorney Advisor, Policy Division, (202) 418-0095; David Siehl, Attorney Advisor, Policy Division, (202) 418-1313; Arthur Lechtman, Attorney Advisor, Policy Branch, (202) 418-1465.
This is a summary of the Commission's Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, (FNPRM) released December 20, 2002 (FCC 02-326). The full text of the FNPRM available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text also may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor. Copies may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC, telephone (202) 863-2893, facsimile (202) 863-2898, or via e-mail
1. In this FNPRM, the Commission seeks comment on whether providers of various services and devices not currently within the scope of the Commission's 911 rules should, consistent with the public interest, be
2. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on the general criteria that it wants commenters to use in analyzing whether the enumerated services and devices should be included within the scope of services that offer 911 service. The Commission proposes analyzing each service or product based on whether: (1) It offers real-time, two-way voice service that is interconnected to the public switched network on either a stand-alone basis or packaged with other telecommunications services; (2) the customers using the service or device have a reasonable expectation of access to 911 and E911 services; (3) the service competes with traditional CMRS or wireline local exchange services; and (4) it is technically and operationally feasible for the service or device to support E911.
3. The FNPRM then turns to the individual services on which the Commission seeks comment and raises additional questions where needed. The enumerated services are mobile satellite service, telematics service, multi-line telephone systems, resold cellular and PCS service, pre-paid calling, disposable mobile phones, automated maritime telecommunications systems, and other emerging services and devices, such as IP telephony.
4. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the proposals suggested in this Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making. Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments filed in this FNPRM, and must have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA. This is a summary of the full text of the IRFA. The full text of the IRFA may be found at Appendix B of the full text of the FNPRM.
5. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further Notice), CC Docket No. 94-102 and IB Docket No. 99-67. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Further Notice. The Commission will send a copy of the Further Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
6. The Further Notice initiates a reevaluation of the scope of communications services that should provide access to emergency services. The Further Notice examines and seeks comment on the need to require compliance with the Commission's basic and enhanced 911 (E911) rules, or similar requirements, by various other mobile wireless and certain wireline voice and data services. The Further Notice considers whether existing services such as telematics or voice service provided by multi-line systems should be required to provide access to 911 service. The Further Notice also considers whether certain new services should be subject to any E911 requirements. The Further Notice additionally seeks comment on the impact that exclusion of these services and devices from the Commission's 911 rules may have on consumers, as well as the technological and cost issues involved in providing E911, taking into account the expectations of consumers for 911 service when they use these services and devices. The Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking also seeks comment on a proposal to require mobile satellite service (MSS) providers (in particular, MSS providers offering real-time, interconnected two-way voice service) to establish emergency call centers to answer 911 emergency calls.
7. The proposed action is authorized under Sections 1, 4(i), 7, 10, 201, 202, 208, 214, 222(d)(4)(A)-(C), 222(f), 222(g), 222(h)(1)(A), 222(h)(4)-(5), 251(e)(3), 301, 303, 308, 309(j), and 310 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 157, 160, 201, 202, 208, 214, 222(d)(4)(A)-(C), 222(f), 222(g), 222(h)(1)(A), 222(h)(4)-(5), 251(e)(3), 301, 303, 308, 309(j), 310.
8. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under Section 3 of the Small Business Act. Under the Small business Act, a “small business concern” is one that: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). A small organization is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” Nationwide, as of 1992, there were approximately 275,801 small organizations.
9. The definition of “small governmental jurisdiction” is one with populations of fewer than 50,000. There are 85,006 governmental entities in the nation. This number includes such entities as states, counties, cities, utility districts and school districts. There are no figures available on what portion of this number has populations of fewer than 50,00. However, this number includes 38,978 counties, cities and towns, and of those, 37,556, or ninety-six percent, have populations of fewer than 50,000. The Census Bureau estimates that this ratio is approximately accurate for all government entities. Thus, of the 85,006 governmental entities, we estimate that ninety-six percent, or about 81,600, are small entities that may be affected by our rules.
10. Individual voice services and devices that are examined as to appropriateness for 911 and E911 service provision include: mobile satellite service, telematics service, multi-line telephone systems, resold cellular and personnel communications service, pre-paid calling, disposable phone, automated maritime telecommunications systems, and emerging services and devices.
11. We have included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis. As noted above, a “small business” under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard (
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23. The reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements ultimately adopted will depend on the rules adopted and the services subject to those rules. First, any and all of the affected entities who the Commission finds appropriate to provide 911 and E911 services (
24. The Further Notice, in paragraphs 57-80, considers possible 911 and E911 regulation for the telematics service. Telematics can be generally defined as the integrated use of location technology and wireless communication to enhance the functionality of motor vehicles. In that regard, paragraphs 65-73 of the Further Notice analyzes the plus and minuses and prospective regulations associated with telematics systems providing access to PSAPs through an intermediary or jointly packaged mobile voice service. Paragraph 70, suggests that telematics systems give notice to consumers regarding any current limitations of telematics service in directly transmitting emergency information to a PSAP. Paragraphs 74-75 suggest a requirement that telematics providers deliver automatic crash notification data to PSAPs This requirement raises possible issues of technical modifications and coordination between telematics providers and PSAPs.
25. The Further Notice, in paragraphs 81-91, examines whether to require multi-line telephone systems, including wireline, wireless, and Internet Protocol-based systems, to deliver call-back and location information. Possible requirements that the Further Notice suggests if the Commission decides that multi-line telephones systems should provide these services include technical standards as discussed in paragraphs 86-90 of the Further Notice. Paragraphs 92-97 of the Further Notice discuss issues that arise when consumers buy service from carriers and other service providers that resell minutes of use on facilities-based wireless carriers' networks. In that regard, the Further Notice raises the possibility of requiring the underlying facilities-based licensee to ensure that its resellers offer basic and E911 service compatible with its method of providing these services, or whether the resellers should be held accountable. Similarly, paragraphs 98-102 seek comment on whether the Commission should impose E911 requirements directly on pre-paid calling providers that are not also licensees or whether the underlying licensee should be required to ensure compliance with the E911 rules by the pre-paid calling provider.
26. Paragraphs 103-106 of the Further Notice discuss the possibility of access to emergency service by consumers who purchase disposable mobile handsets. In this case, the Further Notice notes that disposable handsets are a new product offering and as such, the Commission has little information on these devices. However, the Further Notice invites comment on whether, if disposable phone service is determined to be appropriate for offering 911 and E911 services, requiring mobile wireless service providers to ensure that the handsets used to access their networks comply with the 911 and E911 rules is sufficient or whether the Commission should place the burden for compliance on manufacturers of these handsets. If it is also determined that these handsets do not provide PSAPs with an opportunity to contact the handset user for further critical location information if necessary, some time of regulatory solution, such as a readily identifiable code to notify the PSAP that the incoming call is placed from a handset which does not offer call-back capability, could be adopted. The Further Notice also seeks comment on whether to extend 911 and E911 regulation to automated maritime telecommunications systems (paragraphs 107-110) and to emerging voice services and devices (paragraphs 111-115).
27. Other regulations and requirements are possible for those services discussed in the Further Notice found suitable for 911 and E911 service. Such rules and requirements could be found appropriate, based on comment filed in response to the Further Notice and would be designed to meet the consumer needs and licensee situations in each service and service area.
28. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
29. The critical nature of the 911 and E911 proceedings limit the Commission's ability to provide small carriers with a less burdensome set of E911 regulations than that placed on large entities. A delayed or less than adequate response to an E911 call can be disastrous regardless of whether a small carrier or a large carrier is involved. The various licensees scrutinized in the Further Notice have been exempt to date from the Commission's 911 and E911 regulations as the Commission sought information from which to judge the appropriateness of requiring that those services provide 911 and E911 service. The Further Notice continues this examination and reflects the Commission's concern that only those entities that can reasonably be expected to provide emergency services, financially and otherwise, be asked to provide this service. The Further Notice affords small entities another opportunity to comment on the appropriateness of the affected services providing emergency services and on what the Commission can due to minimize the regulatory burden on those entities who meet the Commission's criteria for providing such service.
30. Throughout the Further Notice, the Commission tailors its request for comment to devise a prospective regulatory plan for the affected entities, emphasizing the individual needs of the service providers and manufacturers as well as the critical public safety needs at the core of this proceeding. The Commission will consider all of the alternatives contained not only in the Further Notice, but also in the resultant comments, particularly those relating to minimizing the effect on small businesses.
31. The most obvious alternatives raised in the Further Notice are whether the services under discussion should be required to comply with the Commission's basic and enhanced 911 rules or whether the Commission should continue to exempt these entities from providing this service. The Further Notice, to assist in this discussion, suggests, in paragraphs 12-15, criteria to determine the appropriateness of each service under consideration to provide emergency services. These criteria are open for comment and this provides an excellent opportunity for small entity commenters and others concerned with small entity issues. Again, we seek comment to determine the appropriate service groups to provide critical services.
32. Along these lines, discussion of criteria and alternatives could focus on implementation schedules. In discussing each of the prospective entities and soliciting further information, throughout the Further Notice the Commission invites comment on the schedule for implementing 911 and E911 services which best meets the abilities, technically and financially suitable to the individual entities. In the past, the Commission has best been able to offer affected small and rural entities some relief from E911 by providing small entities with longer implementation periods than larger, more financially flexible entities that are better able to buy the equipment necessary to successful 911 and E911 implementation and to first attract the attention of equipment manufacturers.
33. In its discussion of MSS, the Further Notice recognizes that satellite carriers face unique technical difficulties in implementing both basic and enhanced 911 features. Thus, in paragraphs 22-26, the Further Notice examines the use of call centers in response to this problem. Paragraph 25 of the Further Notice notes that several commenters, thus far, have indicated that MSS callers tend to be located in remote areas where no PSAP may be available. The Further Notice suggests alternative solutions to this problem noting that, in the context of the 911 Act proceeding, stating that in areas where no PSAP has been designated, carriers still have an obligation not to block 911 calls and clarifying where such calls can be directed when no designated PSAP exists. There are a number of alternatives raised in the Further Notice in discussing the specifics of the calling center alternative. For example, should the Commission require carriers to relay automatically available location information to emergency call centers, and what reasonably achievable accuracy standards could be established for this location information?
34. Paragraphs 30-32 of the Further Notice recognize that high costs are associated with modifying satellite network infrastructures to accommodate E911 emergency call information and route it to appropriate PSAPs. These paragraphs discuss alternate solutions suggested in the comments to date, and request further comment aimed at reducing such costs. For example, some carriers argue that network modifications are necessary to forward ANI and ALI data, such as retrofitting switches throughout the network and making costly private trunking arrangements between earth stations and PSAPs. One commenter suggested that the retrofit costs could be reduced if (1) a single, central emergency call service could receive calls for the nation, or (2) each of the 50 states has a single point of emergency contact. Additionally, in paragraphs 35-41, the Further Notice considers alternatives for providing ALI. The Further Notice discusses a Coast Guard recommendation that the Commission require strict ALI accuracy standards for GMPCS. There are a number of issues and alternatives relating to the need for GPS that could conceivably impact small entities.
35. The Further Notice, in paragraphs 49-54, discusses international issues connected to MSS. The Further Notice seeks comment on a number of related alternatives, including whether resolution of international standards should in any way further delay adoption of a call center requirement or E911 rules for MSS, and on liability issues in connection with recognition of multiple emergency access codes. Finally, in regards to possible MSS emergency service requirements, the Further Notice, in paragraph 55, considers integration of the Ancillary Terrestrial Component.
36. In considering possible 911 and E911 regulation for telematics systems, the Further Notice, in paragraphs 64-71, questions whether a telematics call-center approach to 911 calls might be more appropriate that an approach based solely on 911 calls placed through a jointly packaged mobile voice service. Paragraphs 74-75 of the Further Notice weigh the benefits and costs involved in requiring telematics providers to deliver automatic crash notification data to PSAPs. Further, paragraph 80 of the Further Notice considers whether the Commission's legal authority might lead it to impose requirements directly on telematics providers or equipment manufacturers.
37. The Further Notice, in paragraphs 81-91, examines potential 911 and E911 requirements for multi-line telephone
38. In considering possible basic and enhanced 911 requirements for resold cellular and personal communications services, the Further Notice, in paragraphs 92-97, weighs whether to impose a more express obligation on either the reseller or the underlying licensee to ensure compliance with the E911 rules.
39. None.
40. The FNPRM contains proposed information collections. The Commission will open a period for public comment in the
41. This is a permit-but-disclose notice and comment rule making proceeding. Members of the public are advised that ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed under the Commission's Rules.
42. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before February 3, 2003 and reply comments on or before February 28, 2003. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. 63 FR. 24121, 1998.
43. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to
44. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rule making number appear in the caption of this proceeding, commenters must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rule making number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). The Commission's contractor, Vistronix, Inc., will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. Comments and reply comments will be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center of the Federal Communications Commission, Room TW-A306, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
45. Parties who choose to file by paper should also submit their comments on diskette. These diskettes should be submitted to the Commission's Secretary, Marlene H. Dortch, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. The Commission's contractor, Vistronix, Inc., will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered diskette filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be addressed to: 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. Such a submission should be on a 3.5-inch diskette formatted in an IBM compatible format using Word for Windows or compatible software. The diskette should be accompanied by a cover letter and should be submitted in “read only” mode. The diskette should be clearly labeled with the commenter's name, the docket number of this proceeding, type of pleading (comment or reply comment), date of submission, and the name of the electronic file on the diskette. The label should also include the following phrase “Disk Copy—Not an Original.” Each diskette should contain only one party's pleading, preferably in a single electronic file. In addition, commenters must send diskette copies to the Commission's copy contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554.
46. Alternative formats (computer diskette, large print, audio cassette and Braille) are available to persons with disabilities by contacting Martha Contee at (202) 418-0260, TTY (202) 418-2555, or via e-mail to
47. This Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 7(a), 303(b), 303(f), 303(g), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151,
Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services Administration (GSA).
Proposed rule with request for comments; notice of public meeting.
The General Services Administration (GSA) is proposing to amend the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) to implement section 211 of the E-Government Act of 2002. Section 211 authorizes the Administrator of GSA to provide for the use by States or local governments of its federal supply schedule for “automated data processing equipment (including firmware), software, supplies, support equipment, and services (as contained in Federal supply classification code group 70).” To facilitate an open dialogue between the Government and interested parties on the implementation of section 211, GSA will hold a public meeting on the proposed GSAR rule on February 4, 2003.
Submit written comments to—General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (MVA), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, Attn: Ms. Laurie Duarte, Washington, DC 20405.
Submit electronic comments via the Internet to—
Please submit comments only and cite 2002-G505 in all correspondence related to this case.
If you wish to attend the meeting and/or make presentations on the proposed rule, please contact and submit a copy of your presentation by January 28, 2003, to—General Services Administration, Acquisition Policy Division (MVP), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4033, Attn: Beverly Cromer, Washington, DC 20405. Telephone: (202) 208-6750.
Submit electronic materials via the Internet to—
Please submit presentations only and cite Public Meeting 2002-G505 in all correspondence related to this public meeting. The submitted presentations will be the only record of the public meeting. If you intend to have your presentation considered as a public comment on the proposed rule, the presentation must be submitted separately as a public comment as instructed above.
The Regulatory Secretariat, Room 4035, GS Building, Washington, DC, 20405, (202) 501-4225, for information pertaining to status or publication schedules. For clarification of content, contact Ms. Beverly Cromer, Procurement Analyst, at (202) 208-6750. Please cite GSAR case 2002-G505.
The Federal Supply Schedule Program, which is directed and managed by GSA, is designed to provide Federal agencies with a simplified process of acquiring commonly used commercial supplies and services at prices associated with volume buying. Ordering activities conduct streamlined competitions among a number of schedule contractors, issue orders directly with the selected contractor, and administer orders.
Section 211 of the E-Government Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-347) amends the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act to allow for “cooperative purchasing,” where the Administrator of GSA provides States and localities access to certain items offered through GSA's supply schedules. Specifically, section 211 amends 40 U.S.C. 502 by adding a new subsection “(c)” that allows, to the extent authorized by the Administrator, a State or local government to use “Federal supply schedules of the General Services Administration for automated data processing equipment (ADPE)(including firmware), software, supplies, support equipment, and services (as contained in Federal supply classification code group 70).” “State or local government” includes any State, local, regional, or tribal government, or any instrumentality thereof (including any local educational agency or institution of higher education).
The proposed rule would establish a new GSAR subpart 538.70 and associated clauses to address cooperative purchasing from supply schedules by eligible non-federal organizations. Among other things, the rule would define the scope of cooperative purchasing, its usage, and applicable terms and conditions, including payment and the handling of disputes.
With respect to payment, proposed GSAR clause 552.232-81 would provide that the terms and conditions of a State's prompt payment law apply to orders placed by eligible non-federal ordering activities. If the ordering activity is not otherwise subject to a State prompt payment law, the activity would be covered by the Federal Prompt Payment Act, 31 U.S.C. 3901,
The Federal government would not be liable for the performance or nonperformance of contracts established under the authority of this rule between schedule contractors and eligible non-federal entities. Disputes that could not be resolved by the parties to the new contract could be litigated in any State or Federal court with jurisdiction over the parties, using principles of Federal procurement law and the Uniform Commercial Code, as applicable and appropriate.
The prices of supplies and services available on schedule contracts include an administrative fee. The fee covers the administrative costs incurred by GSA to operate the Schedules program. The fee is periodically adjusted as necessary to recover the cost of operating the program.
Interested parties are encouraged to attend a public meeting that will be held on February 4, 2003, to discuss the contents of the proposed GSAR rule and other ideas regarding the implementation of section 211. GSA is developing a training plan to help acclimate parties with cooperative purchasing. Additional non-regulatory guidance will also be developed as necessary.
Finally, GSA intends to track the level of cooperative purchasing, including participation by small business schedule contractors. It will also monitor the effect of cooperative purchasing on Federal purchasing, including any changes in access for Federal customers and the impact on GSA's ability to negotiate favorable pricing and terms and conditions.
As required by section 211(c) of the E-Government Act, a report will be submitted to Congress by December 31, 2004, on the implementation and effects of cooperative purchasing.
The following statutes and Executive orders do not apply to this rulemaking: Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995; Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments; and Executive Order 13132, Federalism.
This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) has been prepared and submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Copies of the IRFA are available from the Regulatory Secretariat. GSA will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected GSAR Parts in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C 601,
This Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has been prepared consistent with the criteria of 5 U.S.C. 604.
1. Description of the reasons why action by the agency is being considered.
To implement section 211, Authorization for Acquisition of Information Technology By States and Local Governments Through Federal Supply Schedules, of the E-Government Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-347). Section 211 amends section 502 of title 40, United States Code, to authorize the Administrator to provide for use by State or local governments of Federal Supply Schedules of the General Services Administration for automated data processing equipment (including firmware), software, supplies, support equipment, and services (as contained in Federal supply classification code group 70).
2. Succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, the proposed rule.
The proposed rule will implement section 211 of the E-Government Act of 2002 with the objective of opening the Federal supply schedule 70 for use by other governmental entities to enhance intergovernmental cooperation. The goal of the new rule is to make “government” (considering all levels) more efficient by reducing duplication of effort and utilizing volume purchasing techniques for the acquisition of IT products and services.
3. Description of, and where feasible, estimate of the number of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply.
The proposed rule will affect large and small entities including small businesses, that are awarded Schedule 70 contracts under the GSA Federal supply schedule program; non-schedule contractors, including small businesses, contracting with State or local governments; and small governmental jurisdictions that will be eligible to place orders under Schedule 70 contracts. Approximately sixty-eight percent (2,300) of GSA Schedule 70 contractors are small businesses. All of those small business Schedule 70 contractors will be allowed, at the schedule contractor's option, to accept orders from State and local governments. Obviously, the expanded authority to order from Schedule 70 contracts could increase the sales of small business schedule contractors. It is difficult to identify the number of non-schedule small businesses that currently sell directly to State and local governments. The ability of governmental entities to use Schedule 70 may affect the competitive marketplace in which those small businesses operate. State and local government agencies could realize lower prices on some products and services, less administrative burden and shortened procurement lead times. The rule does not affect or waive State or local government preference programs. Finally, small governmental jurisdictions will also be affected. The 50 states, 3139 counties, 19,365 incorporated municipalities, 30,386 minor subdivisions, 3,200 public housing authorities, 14,178 school districts, 1,625 public educational institutions of higher learning, and 550 Indian tribal governments would be among those affected if they chose to order from Schedule 70 contracts. Federal supply schedule contracts are negotiated as volume purchase agreements, with generally very favorable pricing. The ability of small governmental entities to order from Schedule 70 holds out the potential for significant cost savings for those organizations.
4. Description of projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance
The proposed rule makes changes in certain provisions or clauses in order to recognize the fact that authorized non-federal ordering activities may place orders under the contract. The Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act have previously approved these clauses and the changes do not impact the information collection or recordkeeping requirements.
5. Identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlaps or conflict with the proposed rule.
The proposed rule when finalized does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
6. Description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rule that accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and that minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.
There are no practical alternatives that will accomplish the objective of this rule.
The new provision at GSAR 552.232-82, Contractor's Remittance (Payment) Address, contains an information collection requirement that is subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
The new clause at GSAR 552.232-83, Contractor's Billing Responsibilities, contains a recordkeeping requirement that is subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
The revised clause at GSAR 552.238-75, Price Reductions, contains an information collection requirement that is subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Government procurement.
Therefore, GSA proposes to amend 48 CFR parts 532, 538, and 552 as set forth below:
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 532, 538, and 552 continues to read as follows:
40 U.S.C. 486(c).
2. Amend section 532.206 by redesignating the existing paragraph as paragraph (a) and by adding paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(b) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 552.232-81, Payments by Non-Federal Ordering Activities, in solicitations and schedule contracts for Schedule 70.
(c) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 552.232-82, Contractor's Remittance (Payment) Address, in solicitations and schedule contracts for Schedule 70.
(d) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 552.232-83, Contractor's Billing Responsibilities, in solicitations and schedule contracts for Schedule 70.
3. Amend section 532.7003 in paragraph (a) by removing “Payment by Governmentwide Commercial Purchase Card” and adding “Payment by Credit Card” in its place.
4. Amend paragraph (a) of section 538.272 by removing “Government” each time it is used (twice) and adding “eligible ordering activities” in its place.
5. Add subpart 538.70 to read as follows:
This subpart prescribes policies and procedures that implement statutory provisions authorizing non-federal organizations to use Schedule 70 contracts.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(i) The governing body of any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community located in the continental United States (excluding the State of Alaska) that is recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians; and
(ii) Any Alaska Native regional or village corporation established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601
(a) 40 U.S.C. 501, (the Act) authorizes the Administrator of General Services to procure and supply personal property and nonpersonal services for the use of Executive agencies. Under 40 U.S.C. 502, the goods and services available to executive agencies are also available to mixed ownership Government corporations, establishments within the legislative or judicial branches of Government (excepting the Senate, House of Representatives, Architect of the Capitol, and any activities under the direction of the Architect of the Capitol), the District of Columbia, and Qualified Non-profit Agencies.
(b) Section 211 of the E-Government Act of 2002 amends 40 U.S.C. 502 to authorize the Administrator of General Services to provide for use of certain Federal supply schedules of the GSA by a State or local government, which includes any State, local, regional, or tribal government, or any instrumentality thereof (including any local educational agency or institution of higher education).
(c) State and local governments are authorized to procure only from the information technology Federal supply schedule (Schedule 70) as follows:
(1) Information technology products that fall under the Federal supply classification code group 70 (ADP equipment (including firmware), software, supplies and support equipment);
(2) Services that fall under Federal Supply Classification Code d3 (ADP and telecommunication services); and
(3) Support items for these classifications listed in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section.
(a) 52.212-4, Contract Terms and Conditions—Commercial Items.
(b) 52.216-19, Order Limitations.
(c) 52.216-22, Indefinite Quantity.
(d) 52.229-1, State and Local Taxes.
(e) 52.232-7, Payments Under Time-and-Materials and Labor-Hour Contracts.
(f) 52.232-17, Interest.
(g) 52.232-34, Payment by Electronic Funds Transfer—Other Than Central Contractor Registration.
(h) 52.232-36, Payment by Third Party.
(i) 52.246-2, Inspection of Supplies (Fixed Price).
(j) 52.246-4, Inspection of Services-Fixed Price.
(k) 52.246-6, Inspection-Time-and-Material and Labor-Hour.
(l) 52.246-16, Responsibility for Supplies.
(m) 52.247-1, Commercial Bill of Lading Notations.
(n) 52.247-34, F.O.B. Destination.
(o) 52.247-38, F.O.B. Inland Carrier Point of Exportation.
(p) 52.247-53, Freight Classification Description.
(a) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 552.238-77, Definition (Federal Supply Schedules), in solicitations and schedule contracts for Schedule 70.
(b) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 552.238-78, Eligible Ordering Activities, in solicitations and contracts for Schedule 70.
(c) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 552.238-79, Use of Federal Supply Schedule Contracts by Certain Entities—Cooperative Purchasing, in solicitations and Schedule 70 contracts.
6. Amend section 552.211-75 by revising the date of the clause to read “(Date)” and removing from the last sentence of the clause “ordering agency” and adding “ordering activity” in its place.
7. Amend section 552.211-77 by—
a. Revising the date of the clause to read “(Date)”;
b. Removing from paragraph (a)(3) the word “Government” and adding the words “Ordering activity” in its place; and
c. Removing from the introductory text of paragraph (b) the word “Government” and adding the words “ordering activity” in its place.
8. Amend section 552.216-72 by—
a. Revising the date of the clause to read “(Date)”;
b. Removing from the last sentence of paragraph (c) of the clause “other agencies” and adding “other ordering activities” in its place; and
c. Removing from the first sentence of paragraph (d) “Federal agency” and adding “ordering activity” in its place, and removing from the last sentence “Federal agencies” and adding “Ordering activities” in its place.
9. Amend section 552.232-8 by revising the date of the clause to read “(Date)”; and removing paragraph (d) and redesignating paragraphs (e), (f), and (g) as (d), (e), and (f), respectively.
10. Amend section 552.232-77 by revising the section and clause headings and paragraphs (a) and (b); and in paragraphs (b) and (c) of Alternate I by removing “Governmentwide commercial purchase card” and adding “credit card” in its place. The revised text reads as follows:
(a)
(b) At the option of the ordering activity and if agreeable to the Contractor, payments of * * * or less for oral or written orders may be made using the credit card.
11. Add sections 552.232-81, 552.232-82, and 552.232-83 to read as follows:
As prescribed in 532.206(b), insert the following clause:
If eligible non-federal ordering activities are subject to a State prompt payment law, the terms and conditions of the applicable State law apply to the orders placed under this contract by such activities. If eligible nonufederal ordering activities are not subject to a State prompt payment law, the terms and conditions of the Federal Prompt Payment Act as reflected in Federal Acquisition Regulation clause 52.232-25, Prompt Payment, or 52.212-4, Contract Terms and Conditions—Commercial Items, apply to such activities in the same manner as to Federal ordering activities. (End of clause)
As prescribed in 532.206(c), insert the following provision:
(a) The offeror shall indicate below the payment address to which checks should be mailed for payment of proper invoices submitted under a resultant contract.
Payment Address: ______
(b) Offeror shall furnish by attachment to this solicitation, the remittance (payment) addresses of all authorized participating dealers receiving orders and accepting payment in the name of the Contractor in care of the dealer, if different from their ordering address(es) specified elsewhere in this solicitation. If a dealer's ordering and remittance address differ, both must be furnished and identified as such.
(c) All offerors are cautioned that if the remittance (payment) address shown on an actual invoice differs from that shown in paragraph (b) of this provision or on the attachment, the remittance address (es) in paragraph (b) of this provision or attached will govern. Payment to any other address will require an administrative change to the contract.
All delivery orders placed against a Federal Supply Schedule contract are to be paid by the individual ordering activity placing the order. Each delivery order will cite the appropriate ordering activity payment address, and proper invoices should be sent to that address. Proper invoices should be sent to GSA only for orders placed by GSA. Any other ordering activity's invoices sent to GSA will only delay your payment.
(End of provision)
As prescribed in 532.206(d), insert the following clause:
(a) The Contractor is required to perform all billings made pursuant to this contract. However, if the Contractor has dealers that participate on the contract and the billing/payment process by the Contractor for sales made by the dealer is a significant administrative burden, the following alternative procedures may be used. Where dealers are allowed by the Contractor to bill ordering activities and accept payment in the Contractor's name, the Contractor agrees to obtain from all dealers participating in the performance of the contract a written agreement, which will require dealers to—
(1) Comply with the same terms and conditions regarding prices as the Contractor for sales made under the contract;
(2) Maintain a system of reporting sales under the contract to the manufacturer, which includes—
(i) The date of sale;
(ii) The ordering activity to which the sale was made;
(iii) The service or product/model sold;
(iv) The quantity of each service or product/model sold;
(v) The price at which it was sold, including discounts; and
(vi) All other significant sales data.
(3) Be subject to audit by the Government, with respect to sales made under the contract; and
(4) Place orders and accept payments in the name of the Contractor in care of the dealer.
(b) An agreement between a Contractor and its dealers pursuant to this procedure will not establish privity of contract between dealers and the Government. Price reductions made by a participating dealer on sales under this contract will result in an overall price reduction being assessed against the Contractor as provided for in the Price Reduction clause. (End of clause)
12. Amend section 552.238-71 by revising the date of the clause to read “(Date)” and by removing from paragraph (a) “Federal Government” and adding “ordering activity” in its place.
13. Amend section 552.238-75 by—
a. Revising the date of the clause;
b. Removing from paragraph (c)(2) “Government” and adding “eligible ordering activities” in its place;
c. Removing from the end of paragraph (d)(2) “or”; and
d. Redesignating paragraph (d)(3) as (d)(4), and adding a new paragraph (d)(3) to read as follows:
(d) * * *
(3) To eligible ordering activities under this contract; or
(End of clause)
14. Add sections 552.238-77 through 552.238-79 to read as follows:
As prescribed in 538.7004(a), insert the following clause:
As prescribed in 538.7004(b), insert the following clause:
(a) The following activities are authorized to place orders under this contract on an optional basis:
(1) Executive agencies (as defined in 48 CFR 2.1), including nonappropriated fund activities as prescribed in 41 CFR 101-26.000.
(2) Government contractors authorized in writing by a Federal agency pursuant to FAR 51.1.
(3) Mixed ownership Government corporations (as defined in the Government Corporation Control Act).
(4) Federal agencies, including establishments in the legislative or judicial branch of Government (except the Senate, the House of Representatives and the Architect of the Capitol and any activities under the direction of the Architect of the Capitol).
(5) The District of Columbia.
(6) Tribal governments when authorized under 25 U.S.C. 450j(k).
(7) Qualified Nonprofit Agencies as authorized under 40 U.S.C. 502(b).
(8) Organizations, other than those identified in paragraph (b) of this clause, authorized by GSA pursuant to statute or regulation to use GSA as a source of supply.
(b) The following activities may place orders against Schedule 70 contracts to include Schedule 70 products (ADP equipment (including firmware), software, supplies and support equipment; Schedule 70 services and Schedule 70 support items), on an optional basis;
As prescribed in 538.7004(c), insert the following clause:
(a) If an entity identified in paragraph (b) of the clause at 552.238-78, Eligible Ordering Activities, elects to place a delivery order under this contract, such order shall be subject to the following conditions:
(1) When the Contractor accepts an order from such an entity, a separate contract is formed which incorporates by reference all the terms and conditions of the Schedule contract except the Disputes clause, the patent indemnity clause, and the portion of the Commercial Item Contract Terms and Conditions that specifies “Compliance with laws unique to Government contracts” (which applies only to contracts with entities of the Executive branch of the U.S. Government). The parties to this new contract which incorporates the terms and conditions of the Schedule contract are the individual ordering activity and the Contractor. The U.S. Government shall not be liable for the performance or nonperformance of the new contract. Disputes which cannot be resolved by the parties to the new contract may be litigated in any State or Federal court with jurisdiction over the parties, using principles of Federal procurement law and the Uniform Commercial Code, as applicable.
(2) Where contract clauses refer to action by a Contracting Officer or a Contracting Officer of GSA that shall mean the individual responsible for placing the order for the ordering activity (
(3) As a condition of using this contract, eligible ordering activities agree to abide by all terms and conditions of the Schedule contract, except for those deleted clauses or portions of clauses mentioned in paragraph (a)(1) of this clause. Ordering activities may not modify, delete or add to the terms and conditions of the Schedule contract. To the extent that orders placed by such ordering activities may include additional terms and conditions not found in the Schedule contract, those terms and conditions are null, void, and of no effect. The ordering activity and the Contractor expressly acknowledge that, in entering into an agreement for the ordering activity to purchase goods or services from the Contractor, neither the ordering activity nor the Contractor will look to, primarily or in any secondary capacity, or file any claim against the United States or any of its agencies with respect to any failure of performance by the other party.
(4) The ordering activity is responsible for all payments due the Contractor under the contract formed by acceptance of the ordering activity's order, without recourse to the agency of the U.S. Government, which awarded the Schedule contract.
(5) The Contractor is encouraged, but not obligated, to accept orders from such entities. The Contractor may, within 5 days of receipt of the order, decline to accept any order, for any reason. The Contractor shall fulfill orders placed by such entities, which are not declined within the 5-day period.
(6) The supplies or services purchased will be used for governmental purposes only and will not be resold for personal use. Disposal of property acquired will be in accordance with the established procedures of the ordering activity for the disposal of personal property.
(b) If the Schedule Contractor accepts an order from an entity identified in paragraph (b) of the clause at 552.238-78, Eligible Ordering Activities, the Contractor agrees to the following conditions:
(1) The ordering activity is responsible for all payments due the Contractor for the contract formed by acceptance of the order, without recourse to the agency of the U.S. Government which awarded the Schedule contract.
(2) The Contractor is encouraged, but not obligated, to accept orders from such entities. The Contractor may, within 5 days of receipt of the order, decline to accept any order, for any reason. The Contractor shall fulfill orders placed by such entities which are not declined within the 5-day period. (End of clause)
15. Amend section 552.246-73 by revising the date of the clause to read “(Date)); removing from paragraph (b)(1) “Government” and adding “ordering activity” in its place; and removing from paragraph (b)(3) “The Government” and adding “the ordering activity” in its place.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule.
NMFS issues a proposed rule to seasonally prohibit directed fishing for groundfish by vessels using trawl, pot, or hook-and-line gear in waters located near Cape Sarichef in the Bering Sea subarea. This action is necessary to support NMFS research on the effect of fishing on the localized abundance of Pacific cod and to further the goals and objectives of the Fishery Management Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area (FMP).
Comments on the proposed rule must be received on or before February 7, 2003.
Comments should be sent to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668, Attn: Lori Durall, or delivered to room 413-1 in the Federal Building at 709 W 9th St., Juneau, AK. Comments also may be faxed to 907-586-7557, marked Attn: Lori Durall. Copies of the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) prepared for this action are available from the same address or by calling the Alaska Region, NMFS, at (907) 586-7228.
Melanie Brown at (907) 586-7228, or
NMFS manages the domestic groundfish fisheries in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI) under the FMP. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the FMP under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Maguson-Stevens Act). Regulations governing the groundfish fisheries of the BSAI appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 679.
In October 2002, the Council adopted a proposed regulatory amendment to seasonally prohibit directed fishing for groundfish by vessels using trawl, pot, or hook-and-line gear in a portion of the waters off Cape Sarichef in the Bering Sea subarea. The purpose of this action is to support a NMFS research project investigating the effect of commercial fishing on Pacific cod abundance in localized areas. This study is an integral part of a NMFS comprehensive research program designed to evaluate effects of fishing on the foraging behavior of Steller sea lions. The western distinct population segment (DPS) of Steller sea lions is listed as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act and is likely to be adversely affected by the Atka mackerel, pollock, and Pacific cod fisheries. Steller sea lion protection
Currently, the information available to evaluate alternative methods for protecting Steller sea lions and their critical habitat is very limited. Improved information could enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of existing protection measures. NMFS and other management agencies and organizations have undertaken numerous research initiatives to learn more about Steller sea lions and interactions with their environment, including fishery related effects potentially associated with the ongoing decline of the western DPS of Steller sea lions. One such activity is a controlled experiment by NMFS off Cape Sarichef to improve the information that can be used to assess further management actions to protect Steller sea lions and their critical habitat.
The goal of the study is to evaluate the effects of commercial trawl fishing on Pacific cod and to test a localized depletion hypothesis. This hypothesis states that the commercial fisheries may adversely affect the critical habitat of Steller sea lions by localized depletion of Steller sea lion prey. This study is designed as a comparison between sites within the area subject to intensive seasonal trawling and control sites within a nearby zone where trawling is prohibited. A complete description of the study is available in the EA/RIR/IRFA for this action (see
This proposed rule would impose a seasonal ban on all directed fishing for groundfish by vessels using trawl, pot, or hook-and-line gear in all waters located outside of the existing 10 nm no trawl area around Cape Sarichef and inside the boundary of the following coordinates joined in order by straight lines:
54°30′ N lat., 165°14′ W long.;
54°35′ N lat., 165°26′ W long.;
54°48′ N lat., 165°04′ W long.;
54°44′ N lat., 164°56′ W long.; and
54°30′ N lat., 165°14′ W long.
Cape Sarichef is located at coordinates 164°56.8′ W long. and 54°34.30′ N lat. See Figure 21 in the proposed regulatory language below.
This proposed fishing restriction would be in effect annually during the period of March 15 through March 31 in the years 2003 through 2006. The Council would review the experimental results after March 2003 to decide if any changes to the rule are needed in 2004 through 2006.
The trawl, pot, or hook-and-line fishing restriction is necessary to support NMFS research designed to identify and quantify the effects of commercial trawl fishing on the availability of Pacific cod to foraging Steller sea lions within a finite area. This research is intended to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of alternative management methods for ensuring that Pacific cod fisheries off Alaska neither jeopardize the continued existence of the western DPS of endangered Steller sea lions nor adversely modify its critical habitat.
The design of this study requires that experimental pot gear be deployed before and after the period of intense trawl fishing for Pacific cod. NMFS would deploy pot fishing gear in the restriction area during March 15 through March 31, a time period that historically includes the intense trawl fishery for Pacific cod. The trawl closure is necessary to prevent gear conflicts, including the risk of trawl gear disturbing the experimental pot gear. Trawl gear contacting pot gear would result in the displacement or loss of the pots. Pot loss or displacement would lead to economic losses to NMFS and would reduce the quality of the information gathered in the study. The commercial pot and hook-and-line gear closures are necessary to ensure that observed fishing effects are due to trawl fishing and not to additional fishing effort by hook-and-line and pot gear vessels moving into the area due to the trawl closure. A concern also exists that pot and hook-and-line gear vessels would enter areas historically fished by trawl gear. The pot and hook-and-line gear closures will prevent a redistribution of these fisheries and potential future conflicts with trawl gear.
NMFS has determined that the seasonal adjustments of fishery closures this proposed rule would implement are consistent with the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
This proposed action does not result in any changes in reporting or recordkeeping requirements.
Species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) are present in the action area. According to an informal consultation completed on November 25, 2002, no listed species are likely to be adversely affected by this proposed action.
The analysis for this proposed action did not reveal any existing Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this action.
An IRFA to examine impacts of the preferred alternative on regulated small entities was conducted for this action in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603(b). The proposed closure area is a small portion of Alaska State statistical reporting area 655430 and very small portions of areas 655410 and 645434. Observer data indicated that insignificant amounts of groundfish fishing occurs in areas 655410 and 645434, compared to 655430 and, therefore, catch data from these areas are not included in the analysis for this action. The entities regulated by this proposed action would be the catcher vessels and catcher-processors that have fished in the closure area in the second half of March, but that would not be able to do so during that period from 2003 through 2006. The estimated number of small entities that have fished in this area at that time ranges from 21 to 56 per year from 1998 through 2001. Statistical area 655430 includes waters other than those in the closure area; therefore, these estimates of entity numbers likely are high based on the data available for analysis.
The estimated annual average gross revenues for these small operations (from all their Alaskan fisheries) range between approximately $1.02 million and $1.63 million from 1998 through 2001. The estimated average gross revenues for these small entities in statistical area 655430 during the last 2 weeks in March, were about $10,000 in 1998, $18,000 in 1999, $19,000 in 2000, and $17,000 in 2001. As noted earlier, statistical area 655430 includes waters outside of the closure area; therefore, these estimates of average revenue probably exceed average revenues earned in the closure area.
The preferred alternative would prevent trawling, hook-and-line, and pot gear fishing in the closure area from March 15 to March 31 in the years 2003 through 2006. Fishing vessels that would otherwise have fished in the closure area during that period, would likely alter their fishing patterns so as to fish elsewhere. Many vessels may fish in waters to the north or northeast of the closure area. These alternative waters are further from the delivery ports and support services available at Akutan, Unalaska, and King Cove. These operational changes may impose somewhat higher costs on the vessels, and may lead to some loss of revenues. Moreover, the shift in fishing area may increase the bycatch rate on non-targeted species.
The impacts of the proposed action on these operations will be minor. The average gross revenues from statistical area 655430 are minor compared to overall small entity average gross revenues over the course of the year. They are also relatively minor compared to their total revenues from fishing activity in the last 2 weeks of March. These vessels likely would be able to alter their operations to continue their fishing activity elsewhere in the second half of March and, therefore, actual revenue loss should be much less than the average revenue from the closure area. Thus, the average gross revenues overstate the total adverse impact of the proposed rule on small entities.
An IRFA should include a description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rule that accomplish the stated objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and any other applicable statutes and that would minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities. Two alternatives that would have had less adverse impacts on small entities were considered. Alternative 1, the status quo alternative, would not have imposed restrictions on groundfish fishing in this area. This alternative was rejected because it created an unacceptably high risk of loss of experimental pot gear and consequent reduction in the statistical power of the experiment. This could have reduced the value of the experimental results for management purposes. Alternative 2 would have only restricted trawling in the closure area. This alternative was rejected because of concerns that, with no trawling in the closure area, hook-and-line and pot gear fishermen would enter in increasing numbers with consequent increased removals of Pacific cod that might be interpreted by the experiment as a trawl effect. Moreover, this alternative could have led to increased risk of gear conflicts between trawl and hook-and-line and pot gear following the end of the closure, as pot and hook-and-line gear vessels moved into the area closed to trawling but historically fished with trawl gear. Finally, the closure area under this alternative differed in its dimensions from the closure area in this proposed rule; these differences were introduced to reduce the adverse impact on small trawl entities under the proposed rule.
Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 679 continues to read as follows:
16 U.S.C. 773
(a)* * *
(11)
54°30′ N lat., 165°14′ W long.;
54°35′ N lat., 165°26′ W long.;
54°48′ N lat., 165°04′ W long.;
54°44′ N lat., 164°56′ W long.; and,
54°30′ N lat., 165°14′ W long.
(ii)
Office of the Secretary, USDA.
Notice of Intent; establishment of Advisory Board.
The Department of Agriculture is proposing to establish the Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board to obtain advice and recommendations on a broad range of forest issues such as forest plan revisions or amendments, travel management, forest monitoring and evaluation, and site-specific projects having forestwide implications.
Geraldine Bower, Planning Specialist, Ecosystem Management Coordination, Forest Service, (202) 205-1022.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Black Hills National Forest, proposes to establish a Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board. The Board will provide advice and recommendations on a broad range of forest planning issues. The Board membership will consist of individuals representing commodity interests, amenity interests, and state and local government.
The establishment of this Board has been determined to be in the public interest in connection with the duties and responsibilities of the Black Hills National Forest. National forest management requires improved coordination among the interests and governmental entities responsible for land management decisions and the public that the agency serves. The Board will consist of 15 members that shall be representative of the following interests (this membership closely follows the membership outlined by the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act for Resource Advisory Committees (16 U.S.C. 500,
The chairing responsibility of the Board will be determined by the membership of the Board. The Forest Supervisor of the Black Hills National Forest will serve as the designated federal official under sections 10(e) and (f) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.).
The Black Hills National Forest will provide further notices, as needed, of additional actions that will be taken to complete the formation of the Board.
Equal opportunity practices are followed in all appointments to advisory committees. To ensure that the recommendations of the Board have taken into account the needs of diverse groups served by the Black Hills National Forest, membership will include, to the extent practicable, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent minorities, women, and persons with disabilities.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service.
Proposed collection; comments requested.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Rural Business-Cooperative Service's (RBS) intention to request an extension for a currently approved information collection in support of the Rural Economic Development Loan and Grant Program (7 CFR 1703, subpart B).
Comments on this notice must be received by March 24, 2003, to be assured of consideration.
Patricia Wing, Specialty Lenders Division, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 3225, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250-3225, Telephone (202) 720-9558.
RBS needs to receive the information contained in this collection of information to select the projects it believes will provide the most long-term economic benefit to rural areas. The selection process is competitive, and RBS has generally received more applications than it could fund. RBS also needs to make sure the funds are used for the intended purpose and, in the case of the loan, that the funds will be repaid. RBS must determine that loans made from revolving loan funds established with grants are used for eligible purposes.
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Cheryl Thompson, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, at (202) 692-0043.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of RBS, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the RBS estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (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 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. Comments may be sent to Cheryl Thompson, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, STOP 0742, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.
Notice.
The Rural Business-Cooperative Service hereby announces the maximum dollar amount on loan and grant awards under the Rural Economic Development Loan and Grant (REDLG) program for fiscal year (FY) 2003. The maximum dollar award on zero-interest loans for FY 2003 is $450,000. The maximum dollar award on grants for FY 2003 is $200,000. The maximum loan and grant awards stated in this notice are effective for loans and grants made during the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2002, and ending September 30, 2003. REDLG loans and grants are available to Rural Utilities Service electric and telephone utilities to assist in developing rural areas from an economic standpoint.
Patricia Wing, Loan Specialist, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA, STOP 3225, Room 6866, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-3225. Telephone: (202) 720-9558. FAX: (202) 720-2213.
The maximum loan and grant awards are determined in accordance with 7 CFR 1703.28. The maximum loan and grant awards are calculated as 3.0 percent of the projected program levels, rounded to the nearest $10,000; however, as specified in 7 CFR 1703.28(b), regardless of the projected total amount that will be available, the maximum size may not be lower than $200,000. The projected program level during FY 2003 for zero-interest loans is $14.966 million, and the projected program level for grants is $4 million. Applying the specified 3.0 percent to the program level for loans, rounded to the nearest $10,000, results in the maximum loan award of $450,000. Applying the specified 3.0 percent to the program level for grants results in an amount lower than $200,000. Therefore, the maximum grant award for FY 2003 will be $200,000. This notice will be amended should an appropriation in excess of projected levels be received.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce
Notice of public meetings.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling two public meetings of its (1) Monkfish Oversight Committee and (2) representatives of its Groundfish, Monkfish, Habitat, Sea Scallop, Skate, Whiting and Herring Advisory Panels in February, 2003 to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from these groups will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
The meetings will be held between February 6-13, 2003. See
The meetings will be held in Taunton, MA and South Portland, ME. See
Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council (978) 465-0492.
Thursday, February 6, 2003, at 9:30 a.m and Friday, February 7, 2003, at 8:30 a.m. Joint Advisory Panels Representatives Meeting.
Location: Holiday Inn Taunton, 700 Myles Standish Boulevard, Taunton, MA 02780; (508) 823-0430.
There will be a joint meeting of representatives from the Council's Groundfish, Monkfish, Habitat, Sea Scallop, Skate, Whiting and Herring Advisory Panels to comment on and develop alternatives to Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) area management currently proposed for the Scallop Amendment 10 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
Wednesday, February 12, 2003, at 10 a.m and Thursday, February 13, 2003 at 8:30 a.m. Monkfish Oversight Committee Meeting.
Location: Sheraton South Portland Hotel, 363 Maine Mall Road, South Portland, ME 04106; telephone: (207) 775-6161.
The Committee will discuss issues and options to be included in the Monkfish Amendment 2 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS). Alternatives designed to achieve the approved goals and objectives include, but are not limited to: Permit qualification criteria for vessels fishing south of 38°N; management program for a deepwater directed fishery in the SFMA; separation of monkfish days-at-sea (DAS) from multispecies and sea scallop DAS programs, including counting of monkfish DAS as 24-hour days; measures to minimize impacts of the fishery on endangered sea turtles; measures to minimize bycatch in directed and non-directed fisheries; an exemption program for vessels fishing for monkfish outside of the EEZ (in the NAFO Regulated Area); alternative measures to minimize impacts of the fishery on EFH; measures to improve data collection and research on monkfish, including mechanisms for funding cooperative research programs; and, timing of the annual review and adjustment process. The Committee may develop and recommend other management alternatives not included in the list above.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard (see
Office of Strategic Planning (OSP), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of intent to prepare a new NOAA Strategic Plan; request for comments.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA) is the United State's premier agency for environmental assessment and prediction and management providing broad benefits to the Nation in the areas of economy, public safety and the environment. NOAA has recently begun the process of creating a new Strategic Plan for the agency responding to growing needs of the Nation for environmental information and management. One of the objectives of the new NOAA Strategic Plan is to directly address the President's Management Agenda including principles for a citizen-centered, results oriented, and market-based government. To that end, NOAA has conducted a series of stakeholder and employee workshops in Seattle, New Orleans, Boston, Washington, DC, Boulder, Cleveland and Puerto Rico over the past several months and has used this input to lay the foundation for drafting the new NOAA Strategic Plan. Important themes that emerged from these meetings were ecosystem approaches to coastal and ocean resource management, climate variability and change and weather and water information needs as well as agency-wide cross-cutting priorities that will enhance NOAA's mission and provide leadership in the environmental sciences to better serve America in the 21st century. When finalized in early 2003, after public and internal review, the new NOAA Strategic Plan will become the blueprint for the direction of NOAA's core and future missions and will become institutionalized in every aspect of NOAA's resource planning and priority setting.
Public comments on this document must be received at the appropriate email address (see
The NOAA Draft Strategic Plan is available at the OSP web site:
James Burgess, Office of Strategic Planning (OSP), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Herbert C. Hoover Building (HCHB), Room 6121, 14th and Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20230, phone: 202-482-5181, fax: 202-501-3024.
NOAA encourages all stakeholders and users to review the draft Strategic Plan. All comments must be submitted by individual participants (persons, businesses, organizations, etc.). Group consensus comments will not be accepted. The discussion draft of the NOAA Strategic Plan and directions for submitting comments have been posted on the website. Comments, questions and suggestions are welcomed from both scientific and stakeholder communities. All comments received will be reviewed and considered in the final drafting of NOAA's new Strategic Plan.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice of availability of terms and conditions of proposed amendments to the CME's weight specifications, speculative position limits, delivery locations, and delivery
The Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME or Exchange) has requested that the Commission approve the subject proposed amendments for the live cattle futures contract. The proposals were submitted pursuant to the provisions of Section 5c(c)(2) of the Commodity Exchange Act (Act) and Commission Regulation 40.4(a). Under the proposals, the Exchange will:
1. Increase the maximum live cattle average deliverable live weight by 25 pounds to 1,350 pounds, and increase the maximum individual animal live weight by 25 pounds to 1,400 pounds for cattle graded on a live weight basis;
2. Establish a “scale down” spot month speculative position limit of 450 contracts which applies during the period beginning with the close of business on the first business day following the first Friday of the contract month until the close of business on the business day preceding the last five business days of the contract month, after which period existing 300 contract limit will apply through the last day of trading;
3. Add delivery locations at Guymon and Texhoma, Oklahoma;
4. Establish penalties to be imposed at the sole discretion of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) grader, on any seller who has not properly presorted cattle for grading, and on any buyer who disrupts the delivery process, at a rate of $0.15 per pound of live cattle delivered;
5. Grant the CME the authority to prohibit futures delivery on “auction days” at delivery stockyards;
6. Provide for the establishment of an annual uniform grading and documentation fee per delivery unit;
7. Eliminate the requirement that live-graded delivery cattle stand without water during the time interval between 9 a.m. and the time of grading; and
8. Provide for the application of price differentials to the delivery of steer carcasses weighing between 950 and 1,000 pounds.
The Exchange intends to implement the amendments with respect to all newly listed futures contract months beginning with the December 2003 contract month.
The Director of the Division of Market Oversight (Division) of the Commission, acting pursuant to the authority delegated by Commission Regulation 140.96, has determined that publication of the Exchange's proposed amendments for comment is in the public interest, and will assist the Commission in considering the views of interested persons.
Comments must be received on or before February 7, 2003.
Interested persons should submit their views and comments to Jean A. Webb, Secretary, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581. In addition, comments may be sent by facsimile transmission to (202) 418-5521 or by electronic mail to
Please contact Martin G. Murray of the Division of Market Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581, (202) 418-5276. Facsimile number: (202) 418-5527. Electronic mail:
The CME's live cattle futures contract calls for delivery at par of 40,000 pounds of USDA estimated Yield Grade 3, 55% Choice, 45% Select quality grade live steers, averaging between 1,100 pounds and 1,300 pounds with an individual steer weighing more than 100 pounds above or below the average weight for the unit. No individual animal weighing less than 1,050 pounds or more than 1,350 pounds is deliverable.
The Exchange proposes to increase the maximum average deliverable live weight to 1,350 pounds, and increase the maximum individual animal live weight to 1,400 pounds, for cattle graded on a live weight basis. In support of the proposal, the Exchange states, “The increase is recommended due to an evident trend in increased weights for slaughter steers and will allow the contract to follow industry standards.”
The Exchange proposes a “scale-down” spot month speculative position limit of 450 contracts which would apply during the period that begins with the close of business on the first business day following the first Friday of the contact month and continues until the close of business on the business day preceding the last five business days of the contract month. The contract's existing 300-contract limit would be applicable from the close of trading on the business day preceding the last five trading days throughout the last day of trading. Currently, there is a signed 300-contract limit applicable throughout the spot month beginning with the close of business on the first business day following the first Friday of the contract month through the last day of trading.
In support of the proposal, the Exchange notes that a “scale down” limit of 600 contract during the first part of the spot month and a 300-contract limit thereafter had been eliminated in favor of a single 300-contract spot month limit for the December 2002 through October 2003 contract months as a result of deliverable supply concerns. The Exchange believes that its subject proposals to widen the range of deliverable live weights, add two new delivery locations, and make other changes in the delivery process as discussed below, “will create a more efficient delivery process, attract more people who are willing to deliver and increase the deliverable supply,” thus justifying the establishment of the “scale down” limit of 450 contracts during the first part of the spot month.
The Exchange proposes to add Guymon and Texhoma, Oklahoma as delivery locations. In support of the proposal, the Exchange states that these locations would facilitate delivery from the Oklahoma panhandle. The Exchange further notes that Guymon had been a
The Exchange proposes to penalize any seller who has not properly pre-sorted cattle for grading, at a rate of $.015 per pound of live cattle delivered per business day until proper delivery is made. In addition, the Exchange proposes to penalize any buyer who disrupts the delivery process, at a rate of $.015 per pound of live cattle delivered. These penalties to the seller and buyer would be imposed at the discretion of the USDA grader.
In support of the proposal, the Exchange indicates that the potential imposition of penalties will increase the “throughput” of the delivery system, by reducing the likelihood of impediments to the efficient operation of the grading process resulting from the actions of sellers and buyers. In this regard, the Exchange notes that failure on the part of a deliverer to do a proper job of sorting the cattle prior to delivery reduces the number of deliveries that can be completed in a given time period, and takes unfair advantage of those delivering shorts who properly sort their cattle. In addition, disruptive behavior by receiving longs and/or their agents interferes with the delivery process and reduces the number of deliveries that can be completed in a given time period. The Exchange further believes that the USDA grader is the logical party to determine whether, and to what extent, a delivering short or receiving long has disrupted the delivery process because it is the only unbiased, independent participant in the process, and USDA personnel are present at every delivery. The Exchange notes that the USDA has agreed to accept the responsibility for making these determinations.
The Exchange proposes to give itself the discretion to prohibit delivery at particular stockyards on those dates when an auction or other activity that may interfere with futures delivery is taking place at such stockyards. In support of the proposal, the Exchange notes that all of the contract's existing delivery locations hold feeder cattle auctions as their primary business, and that live cattle futures deliveries compete for many of the same resources, such as scales, pens, sorting alleys, etc. Although the Exchange historically has relied on the operators of the delivery stockyards to discourage deliveries on auction dates, is has proven difficult in practice for operators to do so. As a result, deliveries made on auction days have resulted in greater failure rates caused by auction-related operational bottlenecks that prevent cattle from being presented in a timely manner to the USDA grader.
The Exchange notes that it will determine in advance and “black out” auction days in its electronic tender system, making it impossible for a delivering short to submit a tender for delivery on those dates. Further, the Exchange notes that this prohibition on auction-day deliveries would apply generally to all locations, with the exception of Amarillo and Dodge City, “where there are multiple scales and ample pens and sorting alleys.”
The Exchange is proposing to establish and set annually a uniform grading and documentation fee per delivery unit, which will be charged to sellers for each contract unit of cattle delivered on the futures contract. The fee will be applicable at all delivery locations. Currently, the Exchange passes through to the seller the actual costs billed to it by the USDA for grading services. The Exchange notes that USDA grading fees vary widely by location, ranging from $42 to $484, depending on the travel costs incurred by USDA to service a particular location. The Exchange believes that this variability has “introduced a large degree of uncertainty into the delivery process for those planning to deliver at locations which require USDA travel.” The Exchange further notes that the USDA is intending to propose a uniform flat fee of $100 per delivery unit for CME live graded deliveries.
The Exchange proposes to eliminate the requirement that live-graded delivery cattle stand without water during the time interval between 9 a.m. and the time of grading. Cattle will continue to be denied access to feed during this period.
The Exchange proposes to provide for the application of price differentials to the delivery of steer carcasses weighing between 950 and 1,000 pounds based on price data from USDA's National Weekly Direct Slaughter Cattle—Premiums and Discounts report, which is used under existing rules for establishing a price differential for cattle weighing between 900 and 950 pounds. Currently, cattle weighing between 950 and 1,000 pounds are discounted at a rate equal to 20% of the final settlement price. In support of the proposal, the Exchange states that the proposal “would allow more precise discounting of carcasses in this weight bracket.”
The Division is requesting comment on the proposals. Copies of the Exchange's proposed amendments will be available for inspection at the Office of the Secretariat, Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW, Washington, DC 20581. Copies of the proposed amendments can also be obtained through the Office of the Secretariat by mail at the above address or by phone at (202) 418-5100.
Other materials submitted by the CME in support of the request for approval may be available upon request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and the Commission's regulations there under (17 CFR Part 145 (2002)), except to the extent they are entitled to confidential treatment as set forth in 17 CFR 145.5 and 145.9. Requests for copies of such materials should be made to the FOI, Privacy and Sunshine Act Compliance Staff of the Office of Secretariat at the Commission's headquarters in accordance with 17 CFR 145.7 and 145.8.
Any person interested in submitting written data, views, or arguments pertaining to the proposed amendments or with respect to other materials submitted by the CME should send such comments to Jean A. Webb. Secretary, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581 by the specified date.
Notice.
The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Consideration will be given to all comments received by February 24, 2003.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Ms. Zeiher at the Office of Management and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Cushing, WHS/DIOR, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302.
Office of the Secretary, DOD.
Notice.
The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Consideration will be given to all comments received by February 24, 2003.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Ms. Zeiher at the Office of Management and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Cushing, WHS/DIOR, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302.
Department of Defense, Advisory Group on Electron Devices, DoD.
Notice.
Working Group A (Microwave Devices) of the DoD Advisory Group on Electron Devices (AGED) announces a closed session meeting. The announcement of the meeting is being published in less than the 15 day requirement by law because of scheduling conflicts.
The meeting will be held at 0900, Tuesday, January 21, 2003.
The meeting will be held at Palisades Institute for Research Services, 1745 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 500 Arlington, VA 22202.
David Cox, AGED Secretariat, 1745 Jefferson Davis Highway, Crystal Square Four, Suite 500, Arlington, Virginia 22202.
The mission of the Advisory Group is to provide advice to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to the Director of Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E), and through the DDR&E to the Director, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) and the Military Departments in planning and managing an effective and economical research and development program in the area of electron devices.
The Work Group A meeting will be limited to review of research and development programs which the Military Departments propose to initiate with industry, universities or in their laboratories. This microwave device area includes programs on developments and research related to microwave tubes, solid state microwave devices, electronic warfare devices, millimeter wave devices, and passive devices. The review will include details of classified defense programs throughout.
In accordance with section 10(d) of Public Law 92-463, as amended, (5 U.S.C. App. sec. 10(d) it has been determined that this Advisory Group meeting concerns matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1), and that accordingly, this meeting will be closed to the public.
Department of Defense, Advisory Group on Electron Devices, DOD.
Notice.
Working Group B (Microelectronics) of the DOD Advisory Group on Electron Devices (AGED) announces a change to a closed session meeting. The announcement of the meeting is being published in less than the 15-day requirement by law because of scheduling conflict.
The meeting will be held at 0900, Thursday, January 23, 2003.
The meeting will be held at Palisades Institute for Research Services, 1745 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22202.
Elise Rabin, AGED Secretariat, 1745 Jefferson Davis Highway, Crystal Square Four, Suite 500, Arlington, Virginia 22202.
The mission of the Advisory Group is to provide advice to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to the Director Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E), and through the DDR&E, to the Director Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Military Departments in planning and managing an effective research and development program in the field of electron devices.
The Working Group B meeting will be limited to review of research and development programs which the military proposes to initiate with industry, universities or in their laboratories. The microelectronics area includes such programs on semiconductor materials, integrated circuits, charge coupled devices and memories. The review will include classified program details throughout.
In accordance with Section 10(d) of Public Law 92-463, as amended, (5 U.S.C. App. Sec. 10(d)), it has been determined that this Advisory Group meeting concerns matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1), and that accordingly, this meeting will be closed to the public.
Department of Defense, Advisory Group on Electron Devices, DOD.
Notice.
The DoD Advisory Group on Electron Devices (AGED) announces a closed session meeting. The announcement of the meeting is being published in less than the 15 day requirement by law because of scheduling conflicts.
The meeting will be held at 0900, Wednesday, January 22, 2003.
The meeting will be held at the Palisades Institute for Research Services, 1745 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22202.
Mr. Eric Carr, AGED Secretariat, 1745 Jefferson Davis Highway, Crystal Square Four, Suite 500, Arlington, Virginia 22202.
The mission of the Advisory Group is to provide advice to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to the director of Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E), and through the DDR&E to the Director, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Military Departments in planning and managing an effective and economical research and development program in the area of electron devices.
The AGED meeting will be limited to review of research and development programs which the Military Departments proposed to initiate with industry, universities or in their laboratories. The agenda for this meeting will include programs on Radiation Hardened Devices, Microwave Tubes, Displays and Lasers. The review will include details of classified defense programs throughout.
In accordance with section 10(d) of Public Law 92-463, as amended, (5 U.S.C. App. Sec. 10(d)), it has been determined that this Advisory Group meeting concerns matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1), and that accordingly, this meeting will be closed to the public.
Department of Defense.
Notice.
In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), announcement is made of the following Committee meeting:
March 12, 2003 from 9 a.m. to 5:45 p.m. and March 13, 2003 from 8:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
Holiday Inn Arlington at Ballston, 4610 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203.
Ms. Veronica Rice, SERDP Program Office, 901 North Stuart Street, Suite 303, Arlington, VA or by telephone at (703) 696-2119.
Research and Development proposals and continuing projects requesting Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program funds in excess of $1M will be reviewed.
This meeting is open to the public. Any interested person may attend, appear before, or file statements with the Scientific Advisory Board at the time and in the manner permitted by the Board.
Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics)
Notice of advisory committee meeting.
The Threat Reduction Advisory Committee will meet in closed session on Thursday, March 20, 2003, at the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA), and on Friday, March 21, 2003 in the Pentagon, Washington, DC.
The mission of the Committee is to advice the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) on technology security, Counterproliferation, chemical and biological defense, sustainment of the nuclear weapons stockpile, and other matters related to the Defense Threat Reduction Agency's mission.
In accordance with section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix II), it has been determined that this Committee meeting concerns matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1), and that accordingly the meeting will be closed to the public.
Thursday, March 20, 2003, (8 a.m. to 4 p.m.) and Friday, March 21, 2003, (8 a.m. to 9:20 a.m.)
Institute for Defense Analyses, Board Room, 4850 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia and the USD (AT&L) Conference Room (3D1019), the Pentagon, Washington, DC.
Colonel Don Minner, Defense Threat Reduction Agency/AST, 8725 John J. Kingman Road MS 6201, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6201. Phone: (703) 767-5718.
Department of the Air Force, DoD.
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given of the forthcoming meeting of the 2003 S&T Review and the leadership of the Air Force Research Laboratory. The purpose of the meeting is to allow the SAB leadership to advise the commander of the AFRL on the outcome of the 2003 Review. Because classified and contractor-proprietary information will be discussed, this meeting will be closed to the public.
January 27, 2003.
Wright-Patterson AFB, Dayton, OH.
Maj. John Pernot, Air Force Scientific Advisory Board Secretariat, 1180 Air Force Pentagon, Rm 5D982, Washington, DC 20330-1180, (703) 697-4811.
Secretary of Education's Commission on Opportunity in Athletics, Department of Education.
Notice of open meeting; correction.
This notice corrects the notice of meeting of the Secretary of Education's Commission on Opportunity in Athletics (the Commission) published on January 8, 2003 (68 FR 1051). The location of the meeting has been changed. All other information in the January 8 notice remains the same.
Notice of this meeting is required under Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
January 29-30, 2003.
1.
2.
3.
View the Commission's Web site at:
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 published in the
Take notice that on January 10, 2003, Alliance Pipeline L.P. (Alliance) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, proposed to become effective January 1, 2003:
Alliance states that the filing is being made in compliance with the Commission's order issued on December 31, 2002, in the above referenced proceeding.
Alliance states that copies of its filing have been mailed to all customers, state commissions, and other interested parties.
Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with section 385.211 of the Commission's rules and regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the
Take notice that on January 13, 2003, Cove Point LNG Limited Partnership (Cove Point) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the revised tariff sheets listed on Appendix A to the filing.
Cove Point states that its filing moves into effect, with certain appropriate adjustments, the pro forma tariff sheets approved by the Commission when it granted certificate authorizations to Cove Point to construct and operate new facilities and to modify and reactivate existing facilities at its liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal in Calvert County, Maryland. Cove Point states that it anticipates that it will place its LNG import facilities in-service, and be ready to provide LNG tanker discharging service, on May 1, 2003. Cove Point proposes that the following tariff sheets become effective February 1, 2003:
Cove Point explains that these tariff sheets include advance notice requirements that must be in place by February 1, 2003, to allow service to begin on May 1, 2003. Cove Point proposes that the remainder of the filed tariff sheets included in Appendix A to the filing become effective on May 1, 2003.
Cove Point states that copies of the filing as been served on its customers and interested state commissions.
Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with section 385.211 of the Commission's rules and regulations. All such protests must be filed on or before January 23, 2003. 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 proceedings. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Take notice that on January 13, 2003, Dauphin Island Gathering Partners (Dauphin Island) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, Twelfth Revised Sheet No. 9 and Ninth Revised Sheet No. 10, to become effective January 1, 2003.
Dauphin Island states that these tariff sheets reflect changes to Maximum Daily Quantities (MDQ's) and the termination of three contracts.
Dauphin Island states that copies of the filing are being served contemporaneously on all participants listed on the service list in this proceeding and on all persons who are required by the Commission's regulations to be served with the application initiating these proceedings.
Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with section 385.211 of the Commission's rules and regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations. 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 proceedings. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Take notice that on December 31, 2002, East Tennessee Natural gas Company (East Tennessee) tendered for filing its service agreements between East Tennessee and NUI Energy Brokers, Inc., Duke Energy Murray, LLC, and Carolina Power & Light company. On November 20, 2002, the Commission issued to East Tennessee an “Order Denying Rehearing, Authorizing Abandonment, and Issuing Certificate” in the captioned proceeding. In compliance with ordering paragraph (G) of the November 20 Order, East Tennessee filed said service agreements with the Commission.
East Tennessee states that pursuant to 18 CFR 385.2010, East Tennessee is contemporaneously serving copies of its submittal to persons whose names appear on the official list for this proceeding.
Any person desiring to intervene and/or to protest this filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's rules and regulations. 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. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
On October 8, 2002, the Director, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance (Director), issued an order denying a requested extension of time and issuing notice of probable termination of license for the George W. Andrews Project No. 7115, located on the Chattahoochee River in Houston County, Alabama, and Early County, Georgia.
On November 6, 2002, Homestead Energy Resources, LLC, filed a timely request for rehearing of the Director's order. On December 6, 2002, the Director rescinded the October 8, 2002, order. Therefore, the request for rehearing is moot and dismissed.
This notice constitutes final agency action. Requests for rehearing by the Commission of this dismissal must be filed within 30 days of the date of issuance of this notice, pursuant to 18 CFR 385.713.
Take notice that on January 14, 2003, Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern) tendered for filing to become part of Northern's FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets proposed to be effective on February 14, 2003:
Northern states that the reason for this filing is to delete certain negotiated rate transactions that have terminated.
Northern further states that copies of the filing have been mailed to each of its customers and interested State Commissions.
Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with section 385.211 of the Commission's rules and regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations. 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 proceedings. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Take notice that on December 31, 2002, Questar Pipeline Company (Questar), 180 East 100 South, Salt Lake City, Utah 84145, filed in Docket No. CP03-36-000 a request pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.208 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations (18 CFR 157.205 and 157.208) under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) for authorization to construct and operate a 15.81-mile, 24-inch diameter interconnect, known as Tie Line (TL) 112, between the interstate pipeline systems of Questar and Overthrust Pipeline Company (Overthrust), under Questar's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-491-000, pursuant to section 7 of the NGA, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. This filing is available for review at the Commission or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Questar states that the proposed TL 112 will extend from an interconnection with Overthrust's 36-inch diameter main line at Uinta County, Wyoming to Questar's Main Line (ML) 48 in Rich County, Utah. Questar states that at the eastern terminus of the interconnect, located in Whitney Canyon, Uinta County, Wyoming, Questar proposes to install a custody-transfer measurement station. Questar further states that at the
Questar explains that the proposed project is in the public interest because it is required to support growing residential, commercial and industrial demand for natural gas along Questar's principal end-use market in northern Utah served by its local distribution company affiliate, Questar Gas Company (QGC). Questar states that since TL 112 will be constructed for the purpose of receiving additional gas supplies into Questar's existing system for ultimate delivery to the Salt Lake City metropolitan area and to interconnect the systems of two open-access transporters, the proposed interconnect will be installed as an eligible facility as defined in section 157.202 of the Commission's regulations. Questar further states that QGC has entered into a 10-year firm contract for the transportation of up to 52,000 dekatherms per day from three receipt points on Questar's northern system to the Wasatch Front via TL 112.
Any questions concerning this request may be directed to Lenard G. Wright, Director of Federal Regulation, Questar Pipeline Company, 180 East 100 South, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 at (801) 324-2459 or lenardw@questar.com.
Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, pursuant to rule 214 of the Commission's procedural rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to section 157.205 of the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
Protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper,
Take notice that on November 19, 2002, SCG Pipeline, Inc. (SCG) tendered for filing its
SCG states that a copy of the filing has been mailed to each person designated on the official service list compiled by the Secretary of the Commission in this proceeding, as well as to all customers and interested state commissions.
Any person desiring to intervene and/or to protest this filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's rules and regulations. 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. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Take notice that on November 20, 2002, Texas Gas Transmission Corporation (Texas Gas) tendered for filing detailed responses to matters discussed in Ordering Paragraph B of the Commission's October 31, 2002, order. The order accepted and suspended a tariff sheet filed by Texas Gas on August 30, 2002, which reflected its annual adjustment to be fuel retention percentages subject to refund and conditions and further review.
Texas Gas states that copies of its filing are being mailed to all parties on the service list in this docket.
Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with section 385.211 of the Commission's rules and regulations. All such protests must be filed in acordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations. 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 proceedings. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Take notice that on December 13, 2002, Viking Gas Transmission Company (Viking) tendered for filing a report of refunds in accordance with the Offer of Settlement and Stipulation and Agreement filed by Viking on September 13, 2002, in the above-referenced docket and approved by the Commission by order issued November 8, 2002.
Viking states that copies of its filing have been served on all parties designated on the official service list in this proceeding, and on all Viking's jurisdictional customers and to affected state regulatory commissions.
Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's rules and regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations. 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 proceedings. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Take notice that on January 6, 2003, Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company (Williston Basin), P.O. Box 5601, Bismarck, North Dakota 58506-5601, filed in Docket No. CP03-37-000, an application pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), as amended, and part 157 of the regulations of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), for permission and approval to abandon compression and appurtenant facilities in Hot Springs County, Wyoming, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
Williston Basin proposes to abandon approximately a 369 horsepower compressor unit and appurtenant facilities at the Thermopolis Compressor Station. It is stated that Williston Basin no longer needs the facilities at this location to fulfill its service obligations, because gas needed to serve the town of Thermopolis, Wyoming, does not move through the compressor unit. It is stated that the facilities would be abandoned in place, with the possibility that they could be removed at a later date if needed at another location. Williston Basin estimates that the cost of abandoning the facilities would be $1,503.
Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Keith A. Tigelaar, Director of Regulatory Affairs, at (701) 530-1560.
This filing is available for review at the Commission or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should file on or before the comment date with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's rules of practice and procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
If the Commission decides to set the application for a formal hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, the Commission will issue another notice describing that process. At the end of the Commission's review process, a final Commission order approving or denying a certificate will be issued.
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.
k. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests and requests for cooperating agency status: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
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.
The Commission's rules of practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
Motions to intervene and protests and requests for cooperating agency status may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.
l. This application has been accepted, but is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
m. The existing Buffalo River Project consists of: (1) A 142-foot-long by 12-foot-high timber-faced rock-filled diversion dam; (2) a 40-foot-long by 3-foot-high concrete slab spillway with stop logs; (3) a fish passage structure; (4) a concrete intake structure with a 5-foot steel slide gate; (5) a trash rack; (6) a 52-foot-long by 5-foot-diameter concrete encased steel penstock; (7) a 34-foot-long by 22-foot-high masonry block powerhouse containing a 250-kilowatt Bouvier Kaplan inclined shaft turbine; and (8) other appurtenant facilities. The applicant estimates that the total average annual generation would be 1,679 megawatthours.
n. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
o. Anyone may submit a protest or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of rules of practice and procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, 385.211, and 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any protests or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular application.
All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “PROTEST” or “MOTION TO INTERVENE;” (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application.
Take notice that the following 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. Please include the project number (P-2816-020) on any comments or motions filed.
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene—Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of rules of practice and procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents—Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS”, “PROTEST”, OR “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application.
p. Agency Comments—Federal, State, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the applicant's representatives.
q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper.
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. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to intervene: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
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;
The Commission's rules of practice and procedure require all interveners filing documents 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 Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k.
Applicant estimates that the average annual generation would be 6 GWh and would be sold to a local utility.
l. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
m. Competing Preliminary Permit—Anyone desiring to file a competing
n. Competing Development Application—Any qualified development applicant desiring to file a competing development application must submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the particular application, either a competing development application or a notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30(b) and 4.36.
o. Notice of Intent—A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary permit application or a development application (specify which type of application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this public notice.
p. Proposed Scope of Studies under Permit—A preliminary permit, if issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts. Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to construct and operate the project.
q. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene—Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
r. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents—Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION”, “COMPETING APPLICATION”, “PROTEST”, “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be sent to Director, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, at the above-mentioned address. A copy of any notice of intent, competing application or motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
s. Agency Comments—Federal, State, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
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. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to intervene: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
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;
The Commission's rules of practice and procedure require all interveners filing documents 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 Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k.
Applicant estimates that the average annual generation would be 56 GWh and would be sold to a local utility.
l. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
m. Competing Preliminary Permit—Anyone desiring to file a competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified comment date for the particular application (
n. Competing Development Application—Any qualified development applicant desiring to file a competing development application must submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the particular application, either a competing development application or a notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30(b) and 4.36.
o. Notice of Intent—A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary permit application or a development application (specify which type of application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this public notice.
p. Proposed Scope of Studies under Permit—A preliminary permit, if issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts. Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to construct and operate the project.
q. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene—Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
r. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents—Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION”, “COMPETING APPLICATION”, “PROTEST”, “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be sent to Director, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, at the above-mentioned address. A copy of any notice of intent, competing application or motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
s. Agency Comments—Federal, State, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
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. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to intervene: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
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;
The Commission's rules of practice and procedure require all interveners filing documents 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 Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k.
Applicant estimates that the average annual generation would be 18 GWh and would be sold to a local utility.
l. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
m. Competing Preliminary Permit—Anyone desiring to file a competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified comment date for the particular application (
n. Competing Development Application—Any qualified development applicant desiring to file a competing development application must submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the particular application, either a competing development application or a notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30(b) and 4.36.
o. Notice of Intent—A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary permit application or a development application (specify which type of application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this public notice.
p. Proposed Scope of Studies under Permit—A preliminary permit, if issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts. Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to construct and operate the project.
q. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene—Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of rules of practice and procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
r. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents—Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION”, “COMPETING APPLICATION”, “PROTEST”, “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be sent to Director, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, at the above-mentioned address. A copy of any notice of intent, competing application or motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
s. Agency Comments—Federal, State, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
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. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to intervene: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
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;
The Commission's rules of practice and procedure require all interveners filing documents 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 Commission relating to the merits of an
k.
Applicant estimates that the average annual generation would be 142 GWh and would be sold to a local utility.
l. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
m. Competing Preliminary Permit—Anyone desiring to file a competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified comment date for the particular application (
n. Competing Development Application—Any qualified development applicant desiring to file a competing development application must submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the particular application, either a competing development application or a notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30(b) and 4.36.
o. Notice of Intent—A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary permit application or a development application (specify which type of application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this public notice.
p. Proposed Scope of Studies under Permit—A preliminary permit, if issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts. Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to construct and operate the project.
q. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene—Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of rules of practice and procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
r. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents—Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION”, “COMPETING APPLICATION”, “PROTEST”, “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be sent to Director, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, at the above-mentioned address. A copy of any notice of intent, competing application or motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
s. Agency Comments—Federal, State, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
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. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to intervene: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
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;
The Commission's rules of practice and procedure require all interveners
k.
Applicant estimates that the average annual generation would be 13 GWh and would be sold to a local utility.
l. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
m. Competing Preliminary Permit—Anyone desiring to file a competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified comment date for the particular application (
n. Competing Development Application—Any qualified development applicant desiring to file a competing development application must submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the particular application, either a competing development application or a notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30(b) and 4.36.
o. Notice of Intent—A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary permit application or a development application (specify which type of application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this public notice.
p. Proposed Scope of Studies under Permit—A preliminary permit, if issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts. Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to construct and operate the project.
q. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene—Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of rules of practice and procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
r. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents—Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION”, “COMPETING APPLICATION”, “PROTEST”, “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be sent to Director, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, at the above-mentioned address. A copy of any notice of intent, competing application or motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
s. Agency Comments—Federal, State, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
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. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to intervene: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
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;
The Commission's rules of practice and procedure require all interveners filing documents 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 Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k.
Applicant estimates that the average annual generation would be 12.3 GWh and would be sold to a local utility.
l. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
m. Competing Preliminary Permit—Anyone desiring to file a competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified comment date for the particular application (
n. Competing Development Application—Any qualified development applicant desiring to file a competing development application must submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the particular application, either a competing development application or a notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30(b) and 4.36.
o. Notice of Intent—A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary permit application or a development application (specify which type of application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this public notice.
p. Proposed Scope of Studies under Permit—A preliminary permit, if issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts. Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to construct and operate the project.
q. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene—Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of rules of practice and procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
r. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents—Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION”, “COMPETING APPLICATION”, “PROTEST”, “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be sent to Director, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, at the above-mentioned address. A copy of any notice of intent, competing application or motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
s. Agency Comments—Federal, State, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
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. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to intervene: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
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;
The Commission's rules of practice and procedure require all interveners filing documents 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 Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. Description of Project: The proposed project would utilize the Corps' existing Kentucky Lock and Dam #3 and consist of: (1) a proposed powerhouse containing 11 generating units having an installed capacity of 22.75 MW, (2) a proposed 14.7 kV transmission line, and (3) appurtenant facilities.
Applicant estimates that the average annual generation would be 150 GWh and would be sold to a local utility.
l. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
m. Competing Preliminary Permit—Anyone desiring to file a competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified comment date for the particular application (
n. Competing Development Application—Any qualified development applicant desiring to file a competing development application must submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the particular application, either a competing development application or a notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30(b) and 4.36.
o. Notice of Intent—A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary permit application or a development application (specify which type of application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this public notice.
p. Proposed Scope of Studies under Permit—A preliminary permit, if issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts. Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to construct and operate the project.
q. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene—Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of rules of practice and procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
r. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents—Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION”, “COMPETING APPLICATION”, “PROTEST”, “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be sent to Director, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, at the above-mentioned address. A copy of any notice of intent, competing application or motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
s. Agency Comments—Federal, State, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
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. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to intervene: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
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;
The Commission's rules of practice and procedure require all interveners filing documents 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 Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k.
Applicant estimates that the average annual generation would be 16 GWh and would be sold to a local utility.
l. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
m. Competing Preliminary Permit—Anyone desiring to file a competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified comment date for the particular application (
n. Competing Development Application—Any qualified development applicant desiring to file a competing development application must submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the particular application, either a competing development application or a notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30(b) and 4.36.
o. Notice of Intent—A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary permit application or a development application (specify which type of application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this public notice.
p. Proposed Scope of Studies under Permit—A preliminary permit, if issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts. Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to construct and operate the project.
q. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene—Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of rules of practice and procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
r. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents—Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION”, “COMPETING APPLICATION”, “PROTEST”, “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the project number of the particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be sent to Director, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, at the above-mentioned address. A copy of any notice of intent, competing application or motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
s. Agency Comments—Federal, State, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
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. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to intervene: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
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;
The Commission's rules of practice and procedure require all interveners filing documents 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 Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
j.
k. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
l. Competing Preliminary Permit—Anyone desiring to file a competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified comment date for the particular application (
m. Competing Development Application—Any qualified development applicant desiring to file a competing development application must submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the particular application, either a competing development application or a notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30(b) and 4.36.
n. Notice of Intent—A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary permit application or a development application (specify which type of application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this public notice.
o. Proposed Scope of Studies under Permit—A preliminary permit, if issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts. Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to construct and operate the project.
p. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene—Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
q. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents—Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION”, “COMPETING APPLICATION”, “PROTEST”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the project number of the particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be sent to Director, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, at the above-mentioned address. A copy of any notice of intent, competing application or motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
r. Agency Comments—Federal, tate, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
This document advises interested persons of a meeting of the Public Safety National Coordination Committee (“NCC”), which will be held in Washington, DC. The Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, requires public notice of all meetings of the NCC. This notice advises interested persons of the nineteenth meeting of the Public Safety National Coordination Committee.
February 21, 2003 at 9:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Designated Federal Officer, Michael J. Wilhelm, (202) 418-0680, e-mail
Following is the complete text of the Public Notice: This Public Notice advises interested persons of the nineteenth meeting of the Public Safety National Coordination Committee (“NCC”), which will be held in Washington, DC. The Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, requires public notice of all meetings of the NCC.
The NCC Subcommittees will meet from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. the previous day. The NCC General Membership Meeting will commence at 9:30 a.m. and continue until 12:30 p.m. The agenda for the NCC membership meeting is as follows:
The FCC has established the Public Safety National Coordination Committee, pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, to advise the Commission on a variety of issues relating to the use of the 24 MHz of spectrum in the 764-776/794-806 MHz frequency bands (collectively, the 700 MHz band) that has been allocated to public safety services. See The Development of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements For Meeting Federal, State and Local Public Safety Agency Communications Requirements Through the Year 2010 and Establishment of Rules and Requirements For Priority Access Service, WT Docket No. 96-86, First Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 98-191, 14 FCC Rcd 152 (1998), 63 FR 58645 (11-2-98).
The NCC has an open membership. Previous expressions of interest in membership have been received in response to several Public Notices inviting interested persons to become members and to participate in the NCC's processes. All persons who have previously identified themselves or have been designated as a representative of an organization are deemed members and are invited to attend. All other interested parties are hereby invited to attend and to participate in the NCC processes and its meetings and to become members of the Committee. This policy will ensure balanced participation. Members of the general public may attend the meeting. To attend the nineteenth meeting of the Public Safety National Coordination Committee, please RSVP to Joy Alford of the Policy and Rules Branch of the Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau of the FCC by calling (202) 418-0680, by faxing (202) 418-2643, or by E-mailing at
Additional information about the NCC and NCC-related matters can be found on the NCC Web site located at:
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
This document is in compliance with the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, which requires the Commission to report annually to Congress on the status of competition in the market for the delivery of video programming.
On December 23, 2002, the Commission adopted its ninth annual report (
Marcia Glauberman or Anne Levine, Media Bureau (202) 418-7200, TTY (202) 418-7172.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's
1. The
2. The number of cable subscribers reached nearly 68.8 million as of June 2002, up about 0.4 percent from the 68.55 million cable subscribers in June 2001. Although industry data collected for this report period reflect continued growth through June 2002, a number of major cable system operators have experienced significant subscriber losses and calendar year 2002 may be the first year in which the cable industry as a whole experiences a net loss of subscribers.
3. The total number of non-cable MVPD subscribers grew to 21.1 million as of June 2002 from 19.3 million as of June 2001, an increase of more than nine percent. Direct broadcast satellite (DBS) service has grown significantly and now represents 20.3 percent of all MVPD subscribers. Between June 2001 and June 2002, the number of DBS subscribers grew from almost 16 million households to about 18 million households, which is significantly higher than the cable subscriber growth rate.
4. Over the last year, the number of subscribers to multichannel multipoint distribution service (MMDS) and large dish satellite service (HSD) continue to decline. The participation of incumbent local exchange carriers in the distribution of video programming also continue to decline. The number of subscribers to open video systems (OVS) and private cable has remained relatively stable, although their market share remains small.
5. During the period under review, cable rates continued to rise. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, between June 2001 and June 2002, cable prices rose 6.3 percent compared to a 1.1 percent increase in the Consumer Price Index, which measures general price changes. Concurrently with these rate increases, the number of video and non-video services offered increased and programming costs increased.
6. As the Commission reported earlier, the four largest incumbent local exchange carriers or telephone companies, have largely exited the video business. This remains true today. A few smaller local exchange carriers continue to offer, or are preparing to offer, MVPD service over existing telephone lines. Alternatively, several cable multiple system operators continue to offer telephone services. Cable operators are beginning to deploy Internet protocol telephony solutions in addition to circuit-switched telephone offerings.
7. The most significant convergence of service offerings continues to be the pairing of Internet service with other service offerings. Cable operators continue to build-out the broadband infrastructure that permits them to offer high-speed Internet access. Like cable, the DBS industry is developing ways to bring advanced services to their customers. Many MMDS and private cable operators also offer Internet services. In addition, broadband service providers continue to build advanced systems specifically to offer a bundle of services, including video, voice, and high-speed Internet access.
8. Non-cable MVPDs continue to report that regulatory and other barriers to entry limit their ability to compete with incumbent cable operators. Non-cable MVPDs continue to experience some difficulties in obtaining programming from vertically-integrated cable programmers and from unaffiliated programmers which continue to make exclusive agreements with operators. In multiple dwelling units potential entry may be discouraged or limited because an incumbent video programming distributor has a long term and/or exclusive contract. In addition, non-cable MVPDs report problems obtaining franchises from local governments and difficulties in gaining access to utility poles needed to build out their systems.
9. In sum, the
10. The
11. The Commission's Office of Legislative Affairs shall send copies of the
12. The proceeding in MB Docket No. 02-145 is terminated.
Federal Election Commission.
Tuesday, January 28, 2003, at 10 a.m.
999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g.
Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g, 438(b), and title 26, U.S.C.
Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration.
Internal personnel rules and procedures or matters affecting a particular employee.
Thursday, January 30, 2003, at 10 a.m.
999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC (ninth floor).
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Correction and approval of minutes.
New and amended FEC reporting forms—BCRA implementation.
New and amended instructions for FEC reporting forms—BCRA implementation.
Administrative matters.
Mr. Ron Harris, Press Officer. Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
The Federal Maritime Commission hereby gives notice that the following Ocean Transportation Intermediary licenses have been revoked pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. app. 1718) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, effective on the corresponding date shown below:
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreement(s) under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties can review or obtain copies of agreements at the Washington, DC offices of the Commission, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Room 940. Interested parties may submit comments on an agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within 10 days of the date this notice appears in the
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
Notice is hereby given that the following Ocean Transportation Intermediary licenses have been reissued by the Federal Maritime Commission pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984, as amended by the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998 (46 U.S.C. app. 1718) and the regulations of the Commission
Federal Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Federal Trade Commission announces the revised thresholds for interlocking directorates required by the 1990 amendment of section 8 of the Clayton Act. Section 8 prohibits, with certain exceptions, one person from serving as a director or officer of two competing corporations if two thresholds are met. Competitor corporations are covered by section 8 if each one has capital, surplus, and undivided profits aggregating more than $10,000,000, with the exception that no corporation is covered if the competitive sales of either corporation are less than $1,000,000. Section 8(a)(5) requires the Federal Trade Commission to revise those thresholds annually, based on the change in gross national product. The new thresholds, which take effect immediately, are $18,919,000 for Section 8(a)(1), and $1,891,900 for section 8(a)(2)(A).
January 23, 2003.
James F. Mongoven, Bureau of Competition, Office of Policy and Evaluation, (202) 326-2879.
By direction of the Commission
Office of the Secretary, Office of Public Health and Science.
Notice of meeting.
As stipulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) is hereby giving notice that the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS (PACHA) will hold a meeting. This meeting is open to the public. A description on the Council's functions is included also with this notice.
January 30, 2002, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., and January 31, 2003, 8 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
Hubert Humphrey Building, Room 800; 200 Independence Ave. SW.; Washington, DC 20201.
Patricia F. Ware, Executive Director, Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS, 734 Jackson Place, NW.; Washington, DC 20503; (303) 456-7334 or visit the Council's website at
PACHA was established by Executive Order 12963, dated June 14, 1995, as amended by Executive Order 13009, dated June 14, 1996. The Council was established to provide advice, information, and recommendations to the Secretary regarding programs and policies intended to (a) promote effective prevention of HIV disease, (b) advance research on HIV and AIDS, and (c) promote quality services to persons living with HIV disease and AIDS. PACHA was established to serve solely as an advisory body to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The Council is to be composed of not more than 35 members. Council membership is selected by the Secretary from individuals who are considered authorities with particular expertise in, or knowledge of, matters concerning HIV/AIDS.
The agenda for this Council meeting includes the following topics: disparities in HIV/AIDS health care, HIV/AIDS prevention, and HIV/AIDS international issues. Time will be allotted during the meeting for public comment.
This notice is being published less than 15 days in advance of the meeting due to scheduling conflicts.
This program is authorized under sections 301(a), 317A and 317B of the Public Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. 241(a), 247b-1, and 247b-3], as amended by the Children's Health Act of 2000. Program regulations are set forth in Title 42, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51b to State and local health departments. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number is 93.197.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the availability of fiscal year (FY) 2003 funds for a cooperative agreement program for Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Programs (CLPPP). This program addresses the “Healthy People 2010” environmental health objective to eliminate elevated blood lead levels in children. (found at:
The purpose of the program is to assist state and local partners in building capacity to eliminate childhood lead poisoning as a major public health problem. The focus of the program is children under the age of six. Special emphasis will be placed on children under the age of 3 who have elevated blood lead levels. The program will also address families with children under the age of six who do not yet have elevated blood lead levels.
Measurable outcomes of the program will be in alignment with the following
A glossary of scientific and technical terms can be found in Appendix I. A background statement about the CDC program can be found in Appendix II. All appendices and attachments are posted with this announcement on the CDC Web site.
Applications may be submitted by state health departments, their bona fide agents, and the health departments of the following five local jurisdictions that have the highest estimated number of children with elevated blood lead levels: New York, NY; Chicago, IL; Detroit, MI; Los Angeles County, CA, and Philadelphia, PA, or their bona fide agents. (See Appendices III and IV for more information on city blood lead levels.) Applications may also be submitted by the health departments or other official organizational authorities of the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Republic of Palau, and federally recognized Indian tribal governments. Competition is limited to these entities by authorizing legislation.
Title 2 of the United States Code section 1611 states that an organization described in section 501c(4) of the Internal Revenue Code that engages in lobbying activities is not eligible to receive Federal funds constituting an award, grant or loan.
Approximately $31,000,000 is available in FY 2003 to fund approximately 40 awards. It is expected that the average award will be $775,000, ranging from $75,000 to $1,700,000. It is expected that the awards will begin on or about July 1, 2003 and will be made for a 12-month budget period within a project period of up to three years. Funding estimates may change, depending on availability of funds.
Continuation awards within an approved project period will be made on the basis of satisfactory progress as evidenced by required reports and the availability of funds.
Funds must be used for the following program activities: (a) The writing, implementation and evaluation of a jurisdiction-wide childhood lead poisoning elimination plan; (b) the writing, implementation, and evaluation of screening plans to target resources to children at the highest risk for lead poisoning; (c) a jurisdiction-wide childhood lead surveillance program, with an analysis plan for collected data; (d) primary prevention activities for pregnant women and/or families with children at high risk for lead poisoning; (e) an assurance plan for timely and appropriate case management of children with elevated blood lead levels; (f) demonstration of strategic partnering with community organizations and with other state/local agencies involved in environmental and child health activities; (g) substantial coordination with organizations and agencies involved in lead-based paint hazard reduction activities and development of protective policy; and (h) evaluation of programmatic impact on childhood lead poisoning within the applicant's jurisdiction.
Funds may not be expended for medical care and treatment, or for environmental remediation of sources of lead exposure. However, the applicant must provide a plan to ensure that these program activities are carried out and demonstrate their program's appropriate involvement with medical care, treatment and remediation efforts.
Not more than 10 percent (exclusive of direct assistance) of any cooperative agreement or contract (sub-grantee or consultant) funded through the cooperative agreement may be obligated for administrative costs. This 10 percent limitation is in lieu of, and replaces, the indirect cost rate.
Matching funds are not required for this program. Applicant must assure that income earned by the CLPPP will be returned to the program to support lead poisoning prevention activities.
CDC will give funding preference to state programs that have significant estimated numbers of children with elevated blood lead levels, and that direct federal funds to localities with high concentrations of children at risk for childhood lead poisoning. CDC will also give funding preference to the five local jurisdictions with the highest estimated number of children with elevated blood lead levels. Guidance is available in Appendices III and IV, CDC's estimate of children under age six with elevated blood lead levels by city and state, respectively.
In conducting activities to achieve the purpose of this program, the recipient will be responsible for the activities in 1. Recipient Activities, and CDC will be responsible for the activities listed in 2. CDC Activities.
• Programs must establish an advisory workgroup or committee (or expand the scope of its current advisory group) to publish and implement a statewide or jurisdiction-wide childhood lead poisoning elimination plan. The group should also serve to monitor the progress of the elimination plan, and to leverage resources and enhance cooperative efforts towards this goal.
Further guidance on developing the elimination plan and forming the advisory workgroup or committee is located in Appendix V, “Guidance for Developing a Jurisdiction-wide Strategic Plan for the Elimination of Childhood Lead Poisoning.”
• Programs will write, implement and evaluate a jurisdiction-wide screening plan to target resources to impact the largest numbers of children at high risk for lead poisoning. Particular emphasis should be placed on children under three years of age and at high risk. Applicants should refer to the CDC publication, “Screening Young Children for Lead Poisoning: Guidance for State
• Programs with an approved jurisdiction-wide screening plan already in place should include a copy as an appendix to their application. Application work plans must include goals and objectives describing screening performance measures and plans for periodic evaluation and improvement of the screening plan.
• Programs without a screening plan will provide work plan objectives for publishing and implementing a screening plan within one year of award.
• The screening plan should address uses of health education and communication to the targeted screening population. Additionally, the screening plan should address the education and communication of screening recommendations and childhood lead poisoning prevention efforts to health care providers.
• The screening plan will be reviewed and updated at least annually, and resubmitted to the assigned CDC Project Officer for review and comment.
• Programs must maintain and/or enhance a statewide or jurisdiction-wide childhood lead surveillance system to meet the criteria in Appendix VI (Elements Of Developing And Maintaining A Surveillance System). If programs do not have an existing surveillance system that meets these criteria, the application work plan should include objectives demonstrating how the surveillance system will be designed and implemented to meet the criteria within the first year of the project period. The program should also describe the implementation, or planned implementation, of regulations within the state or jurisdiction requiring the reporting of all blood lead results for children less than 72 months of age.
• Programs must conduct childhood lead poisoning primary prevention activities for families at high risk for lead poisoning to include those who live in housing built prior to 1978. The program should focus activities on pregnant women and/or families with young children at high-risk for lead poisoning exposure. The program should consider, but is not limited to, the examples of primary prevention activities in Appendix VII.
• Educational material and media campaigns may be used to support primary prevention activities.
• Primary prevention activities must be regularly evaluated for effectiveness in reducing the childhood lead burden in higher risk communities and/or populations. Evaluation of primary prevention activities should not include human subjects research.
• Provide a written case management plan consistent with published state and local guidelines, or the recommendations from the National Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention, “Managing Elevated Blood Lead Levels Among Young Children”, (found at:
• Establish specific application work plan goals and objectives for reducing over-all morbidity (in children identified with elevated blood lead levels) by tracking and assuring appropriate and timely coordination of case management activities in accordance with established protocols.
• Implement targeted health education and communication activities to support improvements in timely and appropriate care.
• Case management will be evaluated at least quarterly using surveillance and case management data. At a minimum, the program should review the time frames for (a) initiating and completing case management services, including the first home visit; (b) a written care plan for each case; (c) the reduction of blood lead level rates; and (d) the rates of case closure by category (e.g., medical or administrative closure.)
• The program should demonstrate the development of strategic partnerships with community organizations, health-care providers, and other governmental and non-governmental organizations conducting childhood lead poisoning prevention activities and/or developing protective policies, as well as other programs focused on children likely to be at high risk for lead poisoning (e.g., Women, Infant and Children Program (WIC), Immunizations, Asthma Control, Head Start and Healthy Start).
• Strategic partnerships should be demonstrated by the inclusion of letters of support, memoranda of understanding, and/or contracts in the application.
• Guidance for working with and within communities can be found in the CDC document, “Principles of Community Engagement” (found at:
• The applicant should demonstrate coordination of, or plans to coordinate activities with those organizations engaged in lead remediation and abatement (
• Planned or ongoing activities should include the education and communication of childhood lead poisoning prevention efforts and protective policies to target audiences (
• Planned or ongoing coordination activities should be demonstrated by the inclusion of letters of support, memoranda of understanding, and/or contracts in the application.
The evaluation plan should address the effectiveness of the CLPPP by program area, as well as the overall impact of the program in reducing and preventing childhood lead poisoning within the jurisdiction. Evaluation should take place at least annually.
The evaluation plan should: (1) Address the program as a whole; (2) specifically address each program goal; (3) have measurable, achievable and time-phased objectives; (4) focus on programmatic outcome/impact on eliminating childhood lead poisoning as a public health problem; (5) include the name and qualifications of the person responsible for conducting the evaluation; (6) specify how often evaluation will be conducted; and (7) discuss how the results of the evaluation will be built into improving each of the program components.
The same terms and definitions used for the work plan should be used in the evaluation plan (see Appendix VIII).
Guidance related to the components of an effective evaluation plan can be found in the CDC document “Framework for Program Evaluation in Public Health” (found at:
The program should specify whether or not identifiable information will be
a. Provide technical assistance and scientific consultation on program development, implementation, and operational issues.
b. Provide technical assistance and scientific consultation regarding the development and implementation of all surveillance activities, including data collection methods and analysis of data. Assist with improving data linkages with federally funded, means-tested public benefit programs (WIC, Head Start, etc.)
c. Assist in the development of elimination plans and targeted screening plans by providing technical assistance and training on tools such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS) software.
d. Assist with interpretation of individual state surveillance data.
e. Review draft work plans and provide guidance.
f. Review draft program evaluation criteria and presentation formats, and provide guidance.
The Program Announcement title and number must appear in the application. Use the information in the Program Requirements, Other Requirements, and Evaluation Criteria sections to develop the application content. Your application will be evaluated on the criteria listed, so it is important to follow them in laying out your program plan. The narrative should be no more than 35 pages, double-spaced, printed on one side, with one-inch margins, and unreduced 12-point font.
The narrative should consist of, at a minimum, a work plan, an evaluation plan, and budget. The work plan must include project goals and first year objectives for each of the program areas listed under Program Requirements, Recipient Activities in this announcement (paragraph E, 1., a.-h.), The applicant should also include a tentative work plan and timetable for the remaining years of the proposed project.
The applicant should provide a detailed work plan that describes how the overall CLPPP and each of the eight program areas described within the application will be conducted. See Appendix VIII (Work Plan) for guidance.
Pursuant to section 317A of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247b-1), as amended by Section 303 of the “Preventive Health Amendments of 1992” (Pub. L. 102-531), applicants must meet the following requirements: For CLPPP services that are Medicaid-reimbursable in the applicant's state:
• Applicants directly providing these services must be enrolled with their state Medicaid agency as a Medicaid provider.
• Providers entering into agreements with the applicant to provide such services must be enrolled with their State Medicaid agency as a Medicaid provider. An exception to this requirement will be made for providers whose services are provided free of charge, and who accept no reimbursement from any third-party payer. Providers accepting voluntary donations may still be exempted from this requirement.
To satisfy this program requirement, applicants must submit a copy of a Medicaid provider certificate or statement as proof that this requirement will be met. Failure to include this information will result in the application being returned. This information should be placed immediately behind the budget and budget justification pages.
Submit the signed original and two copies of PHS 5161-1 (OMB Number 0920-0428). Forms are available at the following Internet address:
If you do not have access to the internet, or if you have difficulty accessing the forms on-line, you may contact the CDC Procurement and Grants Office Technical Information Management Section (PGO-TIM) at (770) 488-2700. Application forms can be mailed to you.
Application forms must be submitted in the following order:
The application must be received by 4 p.m. Eastern Time, March 24, 2003. Submit the application to: Technical Information Management—PA#03007, Procurement and Grants Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2920 Brandywine Road, Room 3000, Atlanta, GA 30341-4146.
Applications may not be submitted electronically.
A postcard will be mailed to you by PGO-TIM, notifying you that CDC has received your application.
Applications shall be considered as meeting the deadline if they are received before 4 p.m. Eastern Time on the deadline date. Any applicant who sends their application by the United States Postal Service or commercial delivery services must ensure that the carrier will be able to guarantee delivery of the application by the closing date and time. If an application is received after closing due to (1) carrier error, when the carrier accepted the package with a guarantee for delivery by the closing date and time, or (2) significant weather delays or natural disasters, CDC will, upon receipt of proper documentation, consider the application as having been received by the deadline.
Any application that does not meet the above criteria will not be eligible for competition, and will be discarded. The applicant will be notified of their failure to meet submission requirements.
Applicants are required to provide measures of effectiveness that will demonstrate the accomplishment of the various identified objectives of the cooperative agreement. Measures of effectiveness must relate to the performance goal stated in the purpose section of this announcement. Measures must be objective and quantitative and must measure the intended outcome. These measures of effectiveness must be submitted with the application and will be an element of evaluation.
An independent review group appointed by CDC will evaluate each application against the following criteria:
The announcement is focused on the elimination of childhood lead poisoning as a major public health problem. Therefore, the assessment of need within the applicant's jurisdiction should include focus on communities and populations where there is significant evidence of high numbers of children under six years old who are at
• Provide evidence that the applicant has published and implemented a jurisdiction-wide screening plan that targets screening resources to children at highest risk. A copy of the plan should be included with the application. Or, describe plans to implement a screening plan in the first year of the proposed project period.
• The implementation, or planned implementation, of regulations within the state or jurisdiction requiring the reporting of all blood lead results for children under 72 months of age.
• The extent to which the applicant describes their jurisdictional childhood blood lead surveillance system in the following areas:
• Extent to which the applicant demonstrates use of surveillance data to target lead poisoning prevention activities (
• Extent to which strategic partnerships, programs, and activities within the jurisdiction have been implemented to eliminate childhood lead poisoning from the community.
• Extent to which applicant has committed their resources (personnel and financial) to the elimination of childhood lead poisoning.
• Extent to which the goals relate to the project purpose of childhood lead poisoning elimination, screening, surveillance, primary prevention, case-management, strategic community partnerships, and activities coordinated with agencies involved in lead hazard reduction activities and policies.
• Objectives must be time-phased, achievable, measurable, and must be provided for the first budget year.
• The submission of a clearly written work plan that includes project goals; supporting first year objectives that are relevant, specific, measurable, achievable, and time-phased; activities leading to the completion of objectives; a timetable for completing the proposed activities; identification of the program staff responsible for accomplishing each objective; and process evaluation measures for each proposed objective.
• The inclusion of a tentative work plan and timetable for the remaining years of the proposed project.
• Applicant's ability to involve strategic partners in the publication and implementation of a targeted screening plan, the and implementation of strategies to eliminate childhood lead poisoning.
• Extent to which surveillance and program data are utilized to produce jurisdiction-wide screening recommendations, with specific attention given to the Medicaid population, as required in the Children's Health Act of 2000.
• Demonstrated strategic partnerships through letters of support, memoranda of understanding, contracts, or other documented evidence of relationships. Examples of key partners include Medicaid agencies, child health-care providers and provider groups, managed-care organizations, insurers, community-based organizations, housing agencies (especially HUD funded lead hazard reduction programs), and banking, real estate, and property-owner interests.
• Description of a systematic assessment of the operations and outcomes of the program as a means of contributing to the elimination of childhood lead poisoning.
• Effective strategies and approaches to monitor and improve the quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of the program.
• Description of how evaluation findings will be used to assess changes in public policy and measure the program's effectiveness of strategic partnering activities.
• Description of how the program will document progress made in childhood lead poisoning prevention.
• Documentation of the ability to develop and carry out activities described as recipient activities in the program requirements section of this announcement. This should include a description of the proposed health department staff roles, their specific responsibilities, and their level of effort and time.
• Inclusion of assurances that vacant positions will be filled within a reasonable time after receiving funding.
• Inclusion of a plan to provide training and technical assistance to health department personnel and consultation to strategic partners.
The extent to which the budget is reasonable, clearly justified, and consistent with the intended use of funds. The applicant should include costs for up to two people to travel to Atlanta, GA (three-overnight stays), to attend a Program Partners' meeting in 2003, and for one person to travel to Atlanta, GA (three-overnight stays), to attend the 6th National Environmental Health Conference December 3-5, 2003.
The extent to which the application is aligned with the NCEH focus of environmental health, specifically, helping states reduce the burden of lead poisoning in children.
Provide CDC with the original plus two copies of:
1. Quarterly data progress reports. These quarterly reports are required by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) authorizing legislation (OMB Form 0920-0282.) The reports are due 30 days after the end of each quarter.
2. An interim progress narrative report, due no less than 90 days before the end of the budget period. This progress report will serve as your non-competing continuation application, and must contain the following elements:
a. Progress on Current Budget Period Objectives and Activities.
b. Current Budget Period Financial Progress.
c. New Budget Period Proposed Program Objectives and Activities.
d. Detailed Line-Item Budget and Justification.
3. Calendar-year surveillance data, submitted annually in the approved OMB format, no later than April 30. In addition, a written surveillance summary must be disseminated to state and local public health officials, policy makers, the CDC project officer, and others.
4. Financial Status Reports, due within 90 days of the end of the budget period.
5. Final financial reports and performance reports, due within 90 days after the end of the project period.
6. Projects that involve the collection of information from 10 or more individuals, and are funded by a cooperative agreement will be subject to review by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Data collection initiated under this cooperative agreement program has been approved by OMB under OMB number 0920-0337, “National Childhood Blood Lead Surveillance System”, Expiration Date: 6/30/2004.
Send all reports to the Grants Management Specialist identified in the “Where to Obtain Additional Information” section of this announcement.
The following additional requirements are applicable to this program. For a complete description of each, see Attachment I of the program announcement as posted on the CDC Web site.
Executive Order 12372 does not apply to this program.
Two telephone conference calls for application technical assistance will be held during the application period. For further information, please contact Rob Henry at (770) 488-4024. This, and other CDC announcements, necessary applications, and associated forms can be found on the CDC home page Internet address:
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 March 24, 2003.
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.
Peggy Robbins, Office of Information Resources Management (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1223.
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 or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or
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.
Section 521(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 360k(a)) provides that no State or local government may establish, or continue in effect, any requirement with respect to a medical device that is different from, or in addition to, any Federal requirement applicable to the device under the act. Under section 521(b) of the act, following receipt of a written application from the State or local government involved, FDA may exempt from preemption a requirement that is more stringent than the Federal requirement, or that is necessitated by compelling local conditions and compliance with the requirement would not cause the device to be in violation of any portion of any requirement under the act. Exemptions are granted by regulation issued after notice and opportunity for an oral hearing.
The regulations in 21 CFR 808.20 require a State or local government that is seeking an exemption from preemption to submit an application to FDA. The application must include a copy of the State or local requirement, as well as information about its interpretation and application, and a statement as to why the applicant believes that the requirement qualifies for exemption from preemption under the act. FDA will use the information in the application to determine whether the requirement meets the criteria for exemption in the act and whether granting an exemption would be in the interest of the public health.
In addition, 21 CFR 808.25 provides that an interested person may request a hearing on an application by submitting a letter to FDA following the publication by FDA of a proposed response to the application.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
FDA based its estimates of the number of submissions expected in the future contained in table 1 of this document on the number of submissions submitted in the last 3 years and on the number of inquiries received indicating that applications would be submitted in the next year. FDA based its estimates of the time required to prepare submissions on discussions with those who have prepared submissions in the last 3 years.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Regulations Requiring Manufacturers to Assess the Safety and Effectiveness of New Drugs and Biological Products in Pediatric Patients” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA).
Karen L. Nelson, Office of Information Resources Management (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1482.
In the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Prescription Drug Product Labeling; Medication Guide Requirements” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Karen L. Nelson, Office of Information Resources Management (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1482.
In the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Postmarket Surveillance” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Peggy Robbins, Office of Information Resources Management (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1223.
In the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Cosmetic Product Voluntary Reporting Program” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Peggy Robbins, Office of Information Resources Management (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1223.
In the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that the proposed collection of information listed below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Submit written comments on the collection of information by February 24, 2003.
Submit written comments on the collection of information to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, New Executive Office Bldg., 725 17th St. NW., rm. 10235, Washington, DC 20503, Attn: Stuart Shapiro, Desk Officer for FDA.
JonnaLynn P. Capezzuto, Office of Information Resources Management (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-4659.
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
Under the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262), FDA is required to ensure the marketing of only those biological products that are safe and effective. FDA must, therefore, be informed of all adverse experiences occasioned by the use of licensed biological products. FDA issued the adverse experience reporting (AER) requirements in part 600 (21 CFR part 600) to enable FDA to take actions necessary for the protection of the public health in response to reports of adverse experiences related to licensed biological products. The primary purpose of FDA's AER system is to flag potentially serious safety problems with licensed biological products, focusing especially on newly licensed products. Although premarket testing discloses a general safety profile of a new drug's comparatively common adverse effects, the larger and more diverse patient populations exposed to the licensed biological product provides the opportunity to collect information on rare, latent, and long-term effects. Reports are obtained from a variety of sources, including patients, physicians, foreign regulatory agencies, and clinical investigators. Information derived from the AER system contributes directly to increased public health protection because such information enables FDA to recommend important changes to the product's labeling (such as adding a new warning), to initiate removal of a biological product from the market when necessary, and to assure the manufacturer has taken adequate corrective action if necessary.
The regulation in § 600.80(c)(1) requires the licensed manufacturer to report each adverse experience that is both serious and unexpected, regardless of source, as soon as possible, but in any case, within 15 working days of initial receipt of the information. Section 600.80(e) requires licensed manufacturers to submit a 15-day alert report obtained from a postmarketing clinical study only if there is a reasonable possibility that the product caused the adverse experience. Section 600.80(c)(2) requires the licensed manufacturer to report each adverse experience not reported under paragraph (c)(1) at quarterly intervals, for 3 years from the date of issuance of the product license, and then at annual intervals. The majority of the periodic reports will be submitted annually since a large percentage of the current licensed biological products have been licensed longer than 3 years. Section 600.80(i) requires the licensed manufacturer to maintain for a period of 10 years records of all adverse experiences known to the licensed manufacturer, including raw data and any correspondence relating to the adverse experiences. Section 600.81 requires the licensed manufacturer to submit information about the quantity of the product distributed under the product license, including the quantity distributed to distributors at an interval of every 6 months. The semiannual distribution report informs FDA of the quantity, the lot number, and the dosage of different products.
Section 600.90 requires a licensed manufacturer to submit a waiver request with supporting documentation when asking for waiving the requirement that applies to them under §§ 600.80 and 600.81. Manufacturers of biological products for human use must keep records of each step in the manufacture and distribution of products including recalls of the product. The recordkeeping requirements serve preventative and remedial purposes. These requirements establish accountability and traceability in the manufacture and distribution of products, and enable FDA to perform meaningful inspections.
Section 600.12 requires that all records of each step in the manufacture and distribution of a product be made and retained for no less than 5 years after the records of manufacture have been completed or 6 months after the latest expiration date for the individual product, whichever represents a later date. In addition, records of sterilization of equipment and supplies, animal necropsy records, and records in cases of divided manufacturing of a product are required to be maintained. Section 600.12(b)(2) requires complete records to be maintained pertaining to the recall from distribution of any product. Respondents to this collection of information are manufacturers of biological products. Under table 1 of this document, the number of respondents is based on the estimated number of manufacturers that submitted the required information to FDA in the years 2000 and 2001. Based on information obtained from the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research's (CBER's) database system, there were approximately 95 licensed manufacturers. This number excludes those manufacturers who produce blood and blood components and in vitro diagnostic licensed products because they are specifically exempt from the regulations. However, not all manufacturers may have any submissions in a given year and some may have multiple submissions. The total annual responses are based on the estimated number of submissions received annually by FDA. There were an estimated 13,938 15-day alert reports, 10,102 periodic reports, and 339 distribution reports submitted to FDA. The number of 15-day alert reports for postmarketing studies as stated in § 600.80(e) was minimal and is included in the total number of 15-day alert reports. FDA received an average of 12 waiver requests under § 600.90, of which 11 were approved for exemption of the AER requirements. The hours per response are based on FDA's experience. The burden hours required to complete the MedWatch Form for § 600.80(c)(1), (e), and (f) are reported under OMB control number 0910-0291.
In the
Under table 2 of this document, the number of respondents is based on the number of manufacturers subject to those regulations. Based on information obtained from CBER's database system, there were approximately 329 licensed manufacturers of biological products. However, the number of recordkeepers listed for § 600.12(a) through (e), excluding paragraph (b)(2), is estimated to be 111. This number excludes manufacturers of blood and blood components because their burden hours for recordkeeping have been reported under § 606.160 in OMB control number 0910-0116. The total annual records is based on the annual average of lots released (6,747), number of recalls made (1,646) and total number of AER reports received (24,040) in the years 2000 and 2001. The hours per record are based on FDA's experience. FDA estimates the burden of this recordkeeping as follows:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; correction.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice that appeared in the
Joyce Strong, Office of Policy (HF-27), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-7010.
In FR Doc. 02-28715, appearing on page 68877 in the
1. On page 68877, in the third column, under section II, in the fourth line “(21 CFR 5.99)” is corrected to read “(21 CFR 5.34)”.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
March 24, 2003.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB
[John Garrity (202) 708-4300 (this is not a toll-free number) for copies of the proposed forms and other available documents:]
The Department is submitting the Proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended).
This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) 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; (2) Evaluate the accuracy for the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
This Notice also lists the following information:
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Wayne Eddins, Reports Management Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., L'Enfant Plaza Building, Room 8003, Washington, DC 20410 or
Barbara Chiapella, Deputy Director, Office of Multifamily Housing Assistance Restructuring, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1280 Maryland Avenue, SW., Suite 4000, Washington, DC 20410; e-mail
The Department is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended).
This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
This Notice also lists the following information:
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35, as amended.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) is announcing its intention to request approval to continue the collections of information under 30 CFR Part 795, Permanent Regulatory Program—Small Operator Assistance Program (SOAP), and two technical training program course effectiveness evaluation forms. These information collection activities were previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and assigned clearance numbers 1029-0061 and -0110, respectively.
Comments on the proposed information collection activities must be received by March 24, 2003, to be assured of consideration.
Comments may be mailed to John A. Trelease, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 1951 Constitution Ave, NW., Room 210-SIB, Washington, DC 20240. Comments may also be submitted electronically to
To request a copy of the information collection request, explanatory information and related forms, contact John A. Trelease, at (202) 208-2783.
OMB regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities [
The following information is provided for each information collection: (1) Title of the information collection; (2) OMB control number; (3) summary of the information collection activity; and (4) frequency of collection, description of the respondents, estimated total annual responses, and the total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden for the collection of information.
OMB Control Number: 1029-0061.
On the basis of the record
Pursuant to § 207.18 of the Commission's rules, the Commission also gives notice of the commencement of the final phase of its investigation. The Commission will issue a final phase notice of scheduling, which will be published in the
The Secretary will prepare a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the investigation.
On November 20, 2002, a petition was filed with the Commission and Commerce by Washington Mills Company, Inc., North Grafton, MA,
Notice of the institution of the Commission's investigation and of a public conference to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission transmitted its determination in this investigation to the Secretary of Commerce on January 6, 2003. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 3572 (January 2003), entitled Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China: Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Preliminary).
By order of the Commission.
Pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h), the United States hereby publishes below the comments received on the proposed Final Judgments on
Copies of the comment and response are available for inspection at Room 200 of the Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, 325 Seventh Street, NW., Washington, DC 20530, telephone (202) 514-2481, and at the Office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Albert V. Bryan United States Courthouse, 401 Courthouse Square, Alexandria, VA 22314. Copies of any of these materials may be obtained upon request and payment of a copying fee.
Pursuant to Section 5(d) of the Clayton Act, as amended by Section 2 of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act (codified at 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h) (the “Tunney Act”)), the United States responds to public comments received regarding the proposed Final Judgments submitted for entry in this civil antitrust proceeding.
On June 21, 2002, the United States filed a civil antitrust Complaint alleging that The MathWorks, Inc., (“The MathWorks”) and Wind River Systems, Inc. (“Wind River”), head-to-head competitors in the sale of dynamic control system design software products, restrained competition in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1. The Complaint alleged that, on February 16, 2001, The MathWorks and Wind River entered into a number of agreements (hereinafter, collectively, the “MATRIXx Agreement”) pursuant to which,
In April 2000, Wind River acquired Integrated Systems, Inc. (“ISI”). At the time, ISI was a well regarded vendor of software, tools, and engineering services for the embedded systems market.
Wind River, itself a significant vendor of software for embedded systems, pursued the acquisition of ISI, in large part, to obtain a skilled pool of embedded system software developers that it hoped would shorten the time it takes to reach the market of critical new embedded system products. Wind River soon came to view MATRIXx as a struggling product line within ISI with small revenue and no growth potential. More importantly, the MATRIXx market was neither within Wind River's core competency nor its central strategic focus for the future. Thus, Wind River decided not to devote any of its resources to the continued development and sale of MATRIXx.
Shortly after Wind River's acquisition of ISI, The MathWorks approached Wind River and began vigorously negotiating to acquire the MATRIXx assets. On February 16, 2001, The MathWorks and Wind River entered into the MATRIXx Agreement under which Wind River granted The MathWorks exclusive distribution and license rights to the MATRIXx toolset and the MATRIXx intellectual property (including the right to incorporate MATRIXx source code into The MathWorks products) during a thirty-month license period beginning on February 16, 2001. Following the expiration of the thirty-month license period, The MathWorks would have the option to acquire MATRIXx.
Under the MATRIXx Agreement, The MathWorks was required to provide two years of customer support (ending in February 2003) for existing MATRIXx users.
In return, The MathWorks agreed to make payments to Wind River totaling $11,500,000 over a three-year period on a set schedule, which were not contingent on the volume of MATRIXx products The MathWorks sold. Further, Wind River granted The MathWorks an option to purchase MATRIXx and certain MATRIXx intellectual property (
On the same date that the United States filed its Complaint against The MathWorks and Wind River, the United States filed a Stipulation and proposed Final Judgment with Wind River that was designed to obtain the divestiture of the MATRIXx assets to a competitively viable third party. Although the nominal owner of the MATRIXx assets, Wind River's consent alone was insufficient to effectuate fully the relief sought by the United States in the Complaint because The MathWorks had previously acquired significant rights in the MATRIXx assets under the MATRIXx Agreement. The lawsuit therefore continued against The MathWorks. On August 15, 2002, the United States and The MathWorks filed a Stipulation and proposed Final Judgment that, in conjunction with the proposed Final Judgment agreed to by Wind River, would lead to either the prompt and certain divestiture of the MATRIXx assets to a competitively viable third party or the dismissal of the Complaint in this action.
The proposed Final Judgment agreed to by The MathWorks provides a framework detailing the manner and process pursuant to which a court-appointed Trustee would seek to sell the MATRIXx assets to a competitively viable third party. Among other things, this framework specifically outlines the rights and responsibilities of the United States and The MathWorks, addresses the period of time in which a definitive sales and licensing agreement must be consummated, and sets a minimum price at which the MATRIXx assets may be sold.
The Court may enter the proposed Final Judgments against Wind River and The MathWorks following compliance with the Tunney Act.
On November 18, 2002, the United States received a comment regarding The MathWorks' proposed Final Judgment in this matter from Sudarshan Bhat addressing a single provision of The MathWorks' proposed Final Judgment. A true and correct copy of Mr. Bhat's comment, with confidential information redacted, is attached as Exhibit A. On December 20, 2002, the United States received a comment regarding the proposed Final Judgments in this matter from The Center for the Advancement of Capitalism (“CAC”) which purports to address the propriety of the proposed Final Judgments
Mr. Bhat complains that the minimum sale price of $2 million plus the costs and expenses of the Trustee for the MATRIXx assets, as required by Section IV(L) of The MathWork's proposed Final Judgment, “makes no financial sense without additional contingencies.”
Mr. Bhat insists that “true competition can only be restored when marketing, customer support, development, sales and annual, revenues for MATRIXx assets are restores to the annual 15-16 million dollar levels immediately prior to Mathworks acquisition of MATRIXx assets.”
The United States disagrees with the conclusions asserted by Mr. Bhat in his comment. In light of the fact that the MATRIXx assets have been successfully sold, it is unnecessary to amend the proposed Final Judgment in the manner suggested by Mr. Bhat.
CAC is a non-profit organization with the mission or providing analysis based on Ayn Rand's philosophy of objectivism.
CAC, in essence, challenges the constitutionality of the Sherman Act and advocates for a form of laissez-faire capitalism unregulated by the Government. The United States disagrees with CAC's position. The Supreme Court has, on numerous occasions, upheld the constitutionality of the Sherman Act and the prohibition in Section 1 of the Act against any contract, combination or conspiracy that “unreasonably” deprives consumers of the benefits of competition or that would otherwise result in higher prices or inferior products and services.
CAC also argues that “[n]othing in the proposed judgment benefits producers, consumers, or the foundations of the free market, unless it is held that capitalism is advanced by turning producers into serfs.”
During the United States' investigation in this matter, the Defendants argued that the MATRIXx assets had no economic value in the marketplace and that no competitively viable third party would be interested in purchasing the MATRIXx assets for any significant amount of money. Taking Defendants' arguments, along with customer concerns, into account, the United States agreed to a proposed settlement that would both test Defendants' assertions as to the MATRIXx assets' market value and maximize the possibility of restoring in a timely manner competition lost as a result of the illegal conduct. At the time, the United States firmly believed that one or more competitively viable purchasers existed and that an independent agent would succeed in finding a buyer. Pursuant to Section IV(O) of The MathWorks' proposed Final Judgment, however, the United States agreed that if no alternative viable purchaser emerged, the United States would dismiss the Complaint in this action. As noted above, SoundView, the court-appointed Trustee charged with attempting to sell the MATRIXx assets, has informed the United States that it has successfully sold the MATRIXx assets pursuant to a definitive sales and licensing agreement that meets the requirements of The MathWorks' proposed Final Judgment. The proposed Final Judgment in this matter strikes an appropriate balance between the public interest of prohibiting conduct the effect of which is to substantially lessen competition, and the desire for the marketplace to decide the economic and competitive value of goods and services based on their relative merits.
Mr. Bhat urges the United States to amend The MathWorks' proposed Final Judgment in order to make the MATRIXx assets more valuable to prospective purchasers thereby justifying the required minimum sales price. CAC, on the other hand, urges the Court to reject the proposed Final Judgments altogether and dismiss the Complaint with prejudice. The United States, however, has concluded that the proposed Final Judgments reasonably and appropriately addresses the harm alleged in the Complaint. Therefore, following publication of this Response to Comments in the
Dated: January 15, 2003.
Respectfully submitted,
I certify that on January 15, 2003, a true and correct copy of the United States' Response to Public Comments, related to the proposed Final Judgments in this matter against Defendants and agreed to by Defendants pursuant to the Stipulations and Orders filed with the Court, was served on the following counsel:
Dear Hesse, I believe the 2 million dollar sale price plus the US Department of Justice trustee costs is acceptable if the additional MATRIXx revenue shortfall contingencies mentioned later in this letter are imposed on Mathworks to quickly and effectively restore competitiveness to the dynamics and control tools marketplace.
The MATRIXx assets sale makes no financial sense without additional contingencies. The 2 million dollar purchase price is too much risk in the current market conditions. The risk is due to severely reduced [redacted as confidential] annual MATRIXx revenue under Mathworks that is likely to reduce much further without the proper measures to restore competitiveness in the dynamics and control tools marketplace.
It was Mathworks that blatantly committed anti-trust violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. It must be Mathworks that pays for restoring competition in the marketplace. It is just not fair for the MATRIXx customers to be held hostage and pay the price for restoration of credibility to the MATRIXx products.
From a marketing standpoint large legacy aerospace projects (examples are International Space Station and Boeing projects) have too much invested in MATRIXx tools over the last two decades that simply cannot switch to Simulink/RealTime Workshop tools because of prohibitive costs, lack of Ada support and lack of tool maturity. MATRIXx tools SystemBuild and AutoCode has evolved and has been successfully used on large aerospace projects for over 20 years while Simulink and RealTime Workshop have only been around for about 5 years. RealTime Workshop Ada has not even been released.
I believe true competition can only be restored when marketing, customer support, development, sales and annual revenues for MATRIXx assets are restored to the annual 15-16 million dollar levels immediately prior to Mathworks' acquisition of MATRIXx assets. The software development effort for MATRIXx under Wind River for financial year 2001 is estimated at about 2.5 million dollars. The marketing, customer support and sales were rolled into the overall WindRiver budget.
An ISI colleague of mine has already contacted a large number of people who were MATRIXx software developers just prior to Mathworks' acquisition of MATRIXx assets and confirmed that a substantial number of them were willing to join our group or for that matter any group willing to acquire MATRIXx assets and repair the market damage inflicted on the product by Mathworks. Formation of such a workforce would immediately place a demand for MATRIXx operating budgets which I would estimate about 4-5 million dollars annually. Compared to all the potential buyers, some key ex-ISI employees, including myself, are the most qualified to put together the original ISI/WindRiver team of MATRIXx developers and restore competition in the marketplace. And I urge the US Department of Justice to seriously evaluate this issue when choosing a suitable buyer for the MATRIXx assets.
I believe it is imperative that the US Department of Justice impose an annual penalty on Mathworks equal to MATRIXx sales revenue shortfall from the 2001 15-16 million dollar levels until the MATRIXx revenues are restored to the 2001 levels or until September 1, 2007, whichever comes first. These revenues are to be used to cover any operating budget shortfall for whoever is best qualified to acquire MATRIXx assets and restore competition to the marketplace. I also urge that the US Department of Justice require that Mathworks place such funds in escrow because there have been recent complaints by WindRiver about Mathworks not making the most recent installment payment.
In summary when I place a bid for MATRIXx assets, the bid will be contingent upon Mathworks making up for the revenue shortfall until MATRIXx products is restored to the pre-2001 annual revenue levels. I would appreciate the cooperation of the US Department of Justice, its trustee, SoundView Technology Group, and all the parties involved to make this happen and restore competitiveness to the dynamics and control tools marketplace.
Pursuant to the Tunney Act
The Center for the Advancement of Capitalism (“CAC”) is a District of Columbia corporation organized in 1998, and exempt from income tax under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. CAC's mission is to present to policymakers, the judiciary and the public analyses to assist in the identification and protection of the individual rights of the American people. CAC applies Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism to contemporary public policy issues, and provides empirical studies and theoretical commentaries on the impact of legal and regulatory institutions upon the rights of American citizens.
CAC has no financial interest in the outcome of this case, nor has CAC received any compensation from the defendants in connection with these comments.
The Proposed Final Judgment (“PFJ”) currently before the Court seeks to undo the impact of the February 2001 agreement between MathWorks and Wind River. MathWorks obtained the exclusive right to distribute Wind River's MATRIXx software, and as a result MathWorks was able to combine
This case is part of a federal antitrust effort to micromanage various facets of the private technology sector. In the past year alone, the Department of Justice prosecuted Computer Associates International for their alleged conduct during the consummation of an otherwise lawful merger
This matter picks up where those cases left off. Now the United States claims the right to force the sale of a business they know to be unprofitable to a mystery competitor that may not exist. The government wants to “restore” competition beyond the level that actually existed prior to the challenged conduct. In doing so, the United States has ignored the economic realities of the marketplace and the technical knowledge of the specific market they seek to regulate. Thus, the PFJ here results not from the United States acting in the public interest, but from the DOJ submitting a specious claim before the Court. For this reason, the United States should withdraw from the PFJ and dismiss its complaint, or in the alternative, the Court should reject entry of the PFJ under the Tunney Act.
At the heart of this case is the independent viability of the MATRIXx product line. Wind River acquired control of MATRIXx when they acquired Integrated Systems, Inc., in April 2000. In its own competitive impact statement, the United States admits that MATRIXx was on the road to decline well before the consummation of the agreement challenged here:
“Wind River, itself a significant vendor of software for embedded systems, pursued the acquisition of ISI, in large part, to obtain a skilled pool of embedded system software developers that it hoped would shorten the time to market for critical new embedded system products. Wind River soon came to view MATRIXx as a struggling product line within ISI with small revenue and no growth potential. More importantly, the MATRIXx market was neither within Wind River's core competency nor central strategic focus or the future. Thus, Wind river decided not to devote any of its resources to the continued development and sale of MATRIXx.”
The Government never refutes or challenges Wind River's claims with respect to MATRIXx. Instead, the DOJ simply ignores these concerns, and merrily proceeds on the basis of alleged consumer harm. There is no effort to place the challenged conduct in an overall business context, nor does the DOJ consider any evidence that the defendants' agreement benefited competition. Instead, the DOJ relied upon its own prejudiced theories of antitrust, and imposed this proposed judgment to force the defendants' behavior to conform to the Government's expectations. The DOJ thus substituted its own
By the DOJ's admission, this case was initiated in large part by consumer complaints. Apparently, some MATRIXx users were unhappy at the prospect of having to pay the transitional costs of eventually converting to Simulink. An impartial observer would conclude that while the customers' short-term costs might increase as a result of the MATRIXx acquisition, in the long term, competition would benefit from Wind River's decision to shed an unprofitable and stagnant product line. In the free market, the more efficient allocation of resources is often fostered through the natural elimination of unnecessary or redundant competition, as appears to be the case here. Short-term pricing policies are not the overriding concern of the marketplace, yet they are the
Free competition cannot be enforced by government fiat. Competition is an inherently dynamic process that must account for multiple variables, including the freedom to either enter or exit the market as the facts demand. Businesses rely on the expertise of their officers, employees, and partners to ensure both the profitability of the firm and the fulfillment of consumer needs. Businesses that successfully answer the question of production gain customers and wealth, businesses that fail lose both.
The DOJ, by contrast, relies on static rules that fail to account for the complexity of business and yet seek to enforce an unjust and unworkable egalitarianism. While claiming that it is protecting the free market, the Government maintains total faith in its ability to identify and enforce what is in the best interest of every single businessman and consumer in the United States absent their own un-coerced choices. This faith is usually referred to as protecting the “public interest.”
Reasonable people understand, however, that the DOJ can not speak for the “public interest,” because no such interest has ever existed. The United States is a nation predicated on the defense of individual rights, not the collective interests of opposed pressure groups. Every individual has the right to assert their right to economic self-determination through the pursuit of voluntary trade. Objective laws are necessary to ensure the protection of individual rights in our system of voluntary trade, but that is far different than assigning the government arbitrary and capricious power to dictate economic outcomes, as is the situation here. In this case, the DOJ is suspending individual rights and replacing them with a definition of the “public interest” that doesn't hold water. Simply by asserting the metaphysical existence of the public interest in its enforcement of the antitrust laws, the DOJ denies almost every fact that drives the voluntary exchange between individuals in the free market.
This case reveals both the fundamental defects of both the antitrust laws and the strategy employed by the Government in their enforcement. Previously, in the DOJ's answer to CAC's objections to its proposed settlement agreement in United States v. Computer Associates International, Inc.,
Nothing in the proposed judgment benefits producers, consumers, or the
The Court must put a stop to the DOJ by rejecting entry of the proposed final judgment and dismissing the complaint with prejudice. The Court is well within its mandate under the Tunney Act to reject the proposed remedy in relationship to the violations that the United States alleges in its Complaint by holding the Government's definition of how the public interest is served by the remedy to be invalid. By protecting the public from gratuitous settlements that unjustly punish defendants, the Court would properly establish that the Tunney Act is a door that swings both ways. At a minimum, the Court should conduct a full hearing on the proposed remedy and demand the DOJ produce evidence placing the challenged conduct in its proper context.
Respectfully Submitted,
The Center for the Advancement of Capitalism
Dated: December 19, 2002.
Notice is hereby given that, on December 19, 2002, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and AAF Association, Inc. intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
On March 28, 2000, AAF Association, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on September 17, 2002. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on December 18, 2002, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Notice is hereby given that, on October 28, 2002, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Mobile Wireless Internet Forum intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
On May 25, 2000, Mobile Wireless Internet Forum filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on July 18, 2002. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on December 30, 2002, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, CALNET, Vienna, VA; Cyberoptics Corporation, Minneapolis, MN; and Eastman Kodak Company, Rochester, NY have been dropped as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and NEMI intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
On June 6, 1996, NEMI filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on November 7, 2001. A notice was published in the
60-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: Reinstatement of a currently approved collection, National Corrections Reporting Program.
The Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for “sixty days” until March 24, 2003. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
If you have comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Lawrence A. Greenfeld, Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh Street, NW., Washington, DC 20531.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) 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;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) 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,
Overview of this information collection:
(1)
(2)
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Justice sponsoring the collection: Form number(s): NCRP-1A, NCRP-1B, NCRP-1C, and NCRP-1D. Corrections Statistics Unit, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, United States Department of Justice.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: The National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP) is the only national data collection furnishing annual individual-level information for State prisoners admitted or released during the year, those in custody at year-end, and persons discharged from parole supervision. The NCRP collects data on sentencing, time served in prison and on parole, offense, admission/release type, and demographic information. BJS, the Congress, researchers, and criminal justice practitioners use these data to describe annual movements of adult offenders through State correctional systems. Providers of the data are personnel in the State Departments of Corrections and Parole.
(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: BJS anticipates 44 respondents for report year 2003 with a total annual burden of 2.491 hours. Magnetic media or other electronic formats are expected from 41 respondents and 3 respondents
The estimated average amount of time required to manually complete the NCRP-1A, NCRP-1B, and NCRP-1C questionnaires are 10 minutes, 5 minutes, and 3 minutes per inmate, respectively. The respondent burden is directly related to the number of cases reported. For 2000, the three manually reporting States submitted about 3,100 completed questionnaires for the NCRP-1A; about 2,700 for the NCRP-1B; and about 580 for the NCRP-1C. The estimated total burden for these respondents who submitted data manually was 771 hours. We expect no additional manual reporters in the future; and we expect an insignificant amount of increase in the number of prison admissions, prison releases and parole exists in the three States that currently report manually.
(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: There are an estimated 2,491 burden hours annually associated with this information collection.
If additional information is required contact: Brenda E. Dyer, Department Deputy Clearance Officer, Information Management and Security Staff, Justice Management Division, United States Department of Justice, Patrick Henry Building, Suite 1600, 601 D Street, NW., Washington, DC 20530.
60-Day Emergency Notice of Information Collection Under Review: Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired. Certification of Compliance with Eligibility Requirements of Section 826 of the Higher Education Amendments of 1998.
The Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office on Violence Against Women has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with emergency review procedures of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. OMB approval has been requested by January 31, 2003. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. If granted, the emergency approval is only valid for 180 days. Comments should be directed to OMB, Office of Information and Regulation Affairs, Attention: Department of Justice Desk Officer (202) 395-6466, Washington, DC 20503.
During the first 60 days of this same review period, a regular review of this information collection is also being undertaken. All comments and suggestions, or questions regarding additional information, to include obtaining a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, should be directed to Cathy Poston, Attorney/Advisor, Office on Violence Against Women, Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice, 810 7th Street NW., Washington DC 20531, or call (202) 305-2589.
Request written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) 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;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) 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.
Overview of this information:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Brenda E. Dyer, Department of Deputy Clearance Office, Information Management and Security Staff, Justice Management Division, United States Department of Justice, 601 D Street NW, Patrick Henry Building, Suite 1600, NW., Washington, DC 20530.
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 an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or
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 below on or before March 24, 2003.
The Department of Labor is particularly interested in comments which:
• 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, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.
Send comments to Darrin A. King, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Mr. King can be reached on 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll free number) or by e-mail at
The Department of Labor (DOL) conducts a variety of voluntary Customer Satisfaction Surveys of regulated/non-regulated entities, which are specifically designed to gather information from a customer's perspective as prescribed by E.O. 12862, Setting Customer Service Standards, September 11, 1993. These Customer Satisfaction Surveys provide information on customer attitudes about the delivery and quality of agency products/services and are used as part of an ongoing process to improve DOL programs. This generic clearance allows agencies to gather information from both Federal and non-Federal users.
In addition to conducting Customer Satisfaction Surveys, the Department also includes the use of evaluation forms for those DOL agencies conducting conferences. These evaluations are helpful in determining the success of the current conference, in developing future conferences, and in meeting the needs of the Department's product/service users.
Over the past three years the DOL has conducted more than two dozen Customer Satisfaction Surveys and conference evaluations, which have helped assess the Departments products and services and has led to improvements in areas deemed necessary. Office of Management and Budget approval for this collection of information expires June 30, 2003. DOL proposes to seek continued approval for this collection of information for an additional three years.
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.
The Department of Labor (DOL) has submitted the following public information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). A copy this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Department of Labor. To obtain documentation contact Darrin King at (202) 693-4129 or E-Mail
Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for MSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 ((202) 395-7316), within 30 days from the date of this publication in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• 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,
* The total respondents are 893 underground mines or 1,514 surface mines; however, only 25% of the mine operators perform these tasks utilizing mine-staff, the remaining 75% utilize contracting services. The contracting services are included as an Operating and Maintenance cost (shown below).
The Department of Labor (DOL) has submitted the following public information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). A copy of each individual ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Department of Labor. To obtain documentation contact Marlene Howze on (202) 693-4158 or e-mail
Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for ESA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 ((202) 395-7316), within 30 days from the date of this publication in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• 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, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
The OWCP-1168 is used to obtain profile information on each provider such as tax identification number, specialty, and addresses. Failure to obtain this data will prolong the bill payment process and increase the burden on providers by requiring them to resubmit bills that were previously rejected by DCMWC due to inadequate provider information.
The Department of Labor (DOL) has submitted the following public information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Department of Labor. To
Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer VETS, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 (202) 395-7316, within 30 days from the date of this publication in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• 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,
The Department of Labor (DOL) has submitted the following public information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). A copy of each individual ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Department of Labor. To obtain documentation contact Marlene Howze at ((202) 693-4148 or e-mail
Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for ESA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 ((202) 395-7316), within 30 days from the date of this publication of the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• 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, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
• WECEP Application—2 hours.
• Written Training Agreement—1 hours.
• WECEP Program Information—1 hour.
• Filing of WECEP Record and Training Agreement—One-half minute.
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)]. The 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 Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is soliciting comments concerning the extension of the information collection related to the 30 CFR Sections
Submit comments on or before March 24, 2003.
Send comments to Jane Tarr, Management Analyst, Administration and Management, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2171, Arlington, VA 22209-3939. Commenters are encouraged to send their comments on computer disk, or via Internet E-mail to
Jane Tarr, Management Analyst, Records Management Group, U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration, Room 2171, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22209-3939. Ms. Tarr can be reached at
Section 302(a) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act), 30 U.S.C. 846, requires that a roof control plan and revisions thereof suitable to the roof conditions and mining system of each coal mine be first approved by the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) before implementation by the operator. The plan must show the type of support and spacing approved by the Secretary, and the plan must be reviewed at least every 6 months by the Secretary.
Under 30 CFR 75.221, the information required to be submitted and approved in the roof control plan includes the following: (1) The name and address of the company; (2) the name, address, mine identification number, and location of the mine; (3) the name and title of the company official responsible for the plan; (4) a description of the mine strata; (5) a description and drawings of the sequence of installation and spacing of supports for each method of mining used; (6) the maximum distance that an ATRS system is to be set beyond the last row of permanent support (if appropriate); (7) specifications and installation procedures for liners or arches (if appropriate); (8) drawings indicating the planned width of openings, size of pillars, method of pillar recovery, and the sequence of mining pillars; (9) a list of all support materials required to be used in the roof, face and rib control system; (10) the intervals at which test holes will be drilled (if appropriate); and (11) a description of the methods to be used for the protection of persons. Under 30 CFR 75.215, the roof control plan for each longwall mining section is required to specify the methods that will be used to maintain a safe travelway out of the section through the tailgate side of the longwall and the procedures that will be followed if a ground failure prevents travel out of the section through the tailgate side of the longwall.
MSHA is particularly interest in comments which:
• 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; the
• 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,
A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the employee listed in the “For Further Information Contact” section of this notice, or viewed on the Internet by accessing the MSHA home page (
Falls of roof, face and rib continue to be a cause of injuries and death in underground coal mines. All underground coal mine operators are required to develop and submit roof control plans to MSHA for evaluation and approval. These plans provide the means to instruct miners, who install roof supports, and the minimum requirements and placement of roof supports. The plan also provides a reference for mine supervisors to assist them in compliance with the plan requirements. In that regard the plan is a working document for the miners.
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 will also become a matter of public record.
Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration, Department of Labor.
Notice.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA 95). 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 Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration is soliciting comments on the proposed extension of the disclosure provisions of the Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 2002-12, Cross-Trades of Securities by Index and Model Funds.
A copy of the information collection request (ICR) can be obtained by contacting the individual shown in the Addresses section of this notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the office shown in the Addresses section on or before March 24, 2003.
Joseph S. Piacentini, Department of Labor, Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, (202) 693-8410, FAX (202) 219-5333. (These are not toll-free numbers.)
PTE 2002-12 exempts certain transactions that would be prohibited under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (the Act or ERISA) and the Federal Employees' Retirement System Act (FERSA), and provides relief from certain sanctions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code). The exemption permits cross-trades of securities among index and model-driven funds (Funds) managed by investment managers, and among such Funds and certain large accounts (Large Accounts) that engage such managers to carry out a specific portfolio restructuring program or to otherwise act as a “trading adviser” for such a program. By removing existing barriers to these types of transactions, the exemption increases the incidences of cross-trading, thereby lowering fees to plans from what they would otherwise be if based on multiple individual trades.
In order for the Department to grant an exemption for a transaction or class of transactions that would otherwise be impermissible under ERISA, the statute requires the Department to make a finding that the exemption is administratively feasible, in the interest of the plan and its participants and beneficiaries, and protective of the rights of the participants and beneficiaries. To insure that investment managers have complied with the requirements of the exemption, the Department has included in the exemption certain recordkeeping and disclosure obligations that are designed to safeguard plan assets by periodically providing information to independent plan fiduciaries about changes in the cross-trading program. Initially, where plans are not invested in Funds, investment managers must have authorization from a plan fiduciary to invest plan assets in Funds. For plans that are currently invested in Funds, certain notices must be provided that describe the cross-trading program, update changes in Funds, and provide the plan with an opportunity to withdraw from the program. For Large Accounts, information must be provided by the investment manager about the results of transactions involved in a portfolio-restructuring program. Finally, the exemption requires that Funds and Large Accounts maintain for a period of 6 years the records necessary to enable certain persons authorized by the exemption (e.g., Department representatives or contributing employers, to determine whether the conditions of the exemption have been met.)
The exemption affects participants and beneficiaries of employee benefit plans whose assets are invested in Index or Model-Driven Funds, large pension plans and other large accounts involved in portfolio restructuring programs, as well as the Funds and their investment managers.
• The Department of Labor (Department) 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 of forms of information technology,
Extension of the information collection provision of the exemption is important because, without the disclosures and recordkeeping provided for in the exemption, participants and beneficiaries' investments in a pension plan might not be protected. In addition, investment managers, that cross trade securities among Funds or engage in the restructuring of a portfolio of a Large Account would be subject to statutorily imposed sanctions under ERISA. Lastly, the exemption provides a benefit to plans and participants through savings that result from index/model cross-trading. No change to the existing ICR is proposed or made at this time.
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 will also become a matter of public record.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration announces an open meeting of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC), Task Force on International Space Station Operational Readiness (IOR).
Friday, February 21, 2003, 12 Noon—1 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.
This meeting will be conducted via teleconference; hence participation will require contacting Mr. Lee Pagel (202/358-4621) before 12 Noon Eastern, February 14, 2003, and leaving your name, affiliation, and phone number.
Mr. Lee Pagel, Code IH, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546-0001, 202/358-4621.
This meeting will be open to the public up to the capability of the teleconferencing system. The agenda for the meeting is as follows:
It is imperative that the meeting be held on this date to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration announces a meeting of the NASA Advisory Council, Biological and Physical Research Advisory Committee.
Thursday, February 13, 2003, from 10 a.m. until 6 p.m. and Friday, February 14, 2003 from 8 a.m. until 12 Noon.
NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street SW., Room 7H46, Washington, DC 20546.
Dr. Bradley Carpenter, Code UG, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546, 202/358-0826.
The meeting will be open to the public up to the seating capability of the meeting room. Due to the increased security at NASA facilities, any members of the public who wish to attend this meeting of the Biological and Physical Research Advisory Committee must provide their name, date and place of birth, citizenship, social security number, or passport and visa information (number, country of issuance and expiration), business address and phone number, if any. This information is to be provided at least 72 hours (10 a.m. EDT on February 10, 2003) prior to the date of the public meeting. Identification information is to be provided to Dr. Bradley Carpenter at 202/358-0826 or via e-mail at
It is imperative that the meeting be held on this date to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants. Visitors will be requested to sign a visitor's register.
1 p.m. to 5 p.m., March 5, 2003; 8:30 a.m. to 12 p.m., March 6, 2003.
Embassy Suites Hotel Alexandria'Old Town, 1900 Diagonal Road, Alexandria, VA 22314.
Parts of this meeting will be open to the public. The rest of the meeting will be closed to the public.
Reports from the Chairperson and the Executive Director, Committee meetings and Committee reports, executive session, unfinished business, new business, announcements, adjournment.
Reports from the Chairperson and the Executive Director, Committee meetings and Committee reports, unfinished business, new business, announcements, adjournment.
Executive session.
Mark S. Quigley, Director of Communications, 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),
The National Council on Disability (NCD) is an independent Federal agency composed of 15 members appointed by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Its overall purpose is to promote policies, programs, practices, and procedures that guarantee equal opportunity for all people with disabilities, including people from culturally diverse backgrounds, regardless of the nature or significance of the disability; and to empower people with disabilities to achieve economic self-sufficiency, independent living, and inclusion and integration into all aspects of society.
Those needing sign language interpreters or other disability accommodations should notify NCD at least one week prior to this meeting.
In accordance with E.O. 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency, those people with disabilities who are limited English proficient and seek translation services for this meeting should notify NCD at least one week prior to this meeting.
People with multiple chemical sensitivity/environmental illness must reduce their exposure to volatile chemical substances to attend this meeting. To reduce such exposure, NCD requests that attendees not wear perfumes or scented products at this meeting. Smoking is prohibited in meeting rooms and surrounding areas.
National Endowment for the Arts.
Notification of availability.
The National Endowment for the Arts is requesting proposals leading to one (1) award of a Cooperative Agreement to support the continuing activities of: “The Mayors' Institute on City Design.” Eligibility for award of the Cooperative Agreement is limited to 501(c)(3) organizations with national programming, a mission that includes education and advocacy regarding policies and practices affecting the design of American cities, and a national constituency. The initial Cooperative Agreement will be for one year, anticipated to commence in May of 2003. Funding of $400,000 is available through the Endowment. A match of at least 30% will be required. The Mayors' Institute on City Design is a forum designed to foster an understanding of and appreciation for the role of design in creating vibrant, livable cities, and the importance of mayors and their role as design advocates in American cities. Activities of the Mayors' Institute include workshops, newsletters, and a website. Those interested in receiving the solicitation package should reference Program Solicitation PS 03-01 in their written request and include two (2) self-addressed labels. Verbal requests for the Solicitation will not be honored. The Program Solicitation will also be posted on the Endowment's Web site at
Program Solicitation PS 03-01 is scheduled for release and posting on the Internet on approximately February 5, 2003. Proposals will be due on March 10, 2003.
Request for the Solicitation should be addressed to the National Endowment for the Arts, Grants & Contracts Office, Room 618, 1100 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20506.
William Hummel, Grants & Contracts Office, National Endowment for the Arts, Room 618, 1100 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20506 (202/682-5482).
National Science Foundation, National Science Board, Task Force on National Workforce Policies for Science & Engineering.
January 30, 2003 2 p.m.-3 p.m. Open Session.
The National Science Foundation, Stafford One Building, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 120, Arlington, VA 22230.
This meeting will be open to the public.
—Discussion of the draft report of the NSB/EHR Task Force on National Workforce Policies for S&E.
Gerard Glaser, Executive Officer, NSB, (703) 292-7000,
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of an Order pursuant to Section 274f of the Atomic Energy Act that would modify an Order transmitted to Envirocare of Utah, Inc. (Envirocare) on May 24, 1999. The Order was published in the
Envirocare is licensed by the State of Utah, an NRC Agreement State, under a 10 CFR part 61 equivalent license for
In letters dated July 3, 2002, and July 29, 2002, Envirocare requested that the 1999 Order be amended as discussed below. Staff's safety analysis for the revisions to the 1999 Order are discussed in the companion Safety Evaluation Report (SER).
Envirocare proposes that NRC amend the 1999 Order as follows: (1) Include stabilization of liquid waste streams containing SNM; (2) include the thermal desorption process; (3) change the homogenous contiguous mass limit from 145 kg to 600 kg; (4) change the language and SNM limit associated with footnotes “c” and “d” of Condition 1 to reflect all materials in Conditions 2 and 3; and (5) omit the confirmatory testing requirements for debris waste.
The 1999 Order limited certain mixed waste processing activities to those specifically approved in the Order. Envirocare is expanding its mixed waste processing capabilities to include stabilization of liquid waste streams and thermal desorption for economic reasons. Moreover, Envirocare's State of Utah licenses have been modified to include these processes, and revision of the 1999 Order is required to allow for treatment by these processes of waste streams containing SNM. Envirocare has been operating under the Order since 1999 and believes that some conditions need to be clarified.
The NRC staff considered two alternatives to the proposed action. One alternative to the proposed action would be to not revise the exemption (no-action alternative). Another alternative would be to revise the exemption as requested by Envirocare but with additional conditions.
NRC has prepared an environmental impact statement (EIS) (NUREG-1476), SERs, and EAs for its licensing action. The affected environment is discussed in detail in NUREG-1476.
The staff has concluded in the SER, dated January 14, 2003, for this exemption request that the proposed action (
Officials from the State of Utah, Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Radiation Control were contacted about this EA for the proposed action and had no comments. Because the proposed action is not expected to have any impact on treated or endangered species or historic resources, the Fish and Wildlife Service and State of Utah Historic Preservation Officer were not consulted.
The environmental impacts of the proposed action have been reviewed in accordance with the requirements set forth in 10 CFR part 51. Based upon the foregoing EA, the NRC finds that the preferred alternative of revising the exemption with additional conditions will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment.
Accordingly, the NRC has decided not to prepare an EIS for the proposed exemption.
The requests for modifying the Order are available for inspection at NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room at
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Thursday, January 30, 2003, 1:30 p.m. (open portion); 1:45 p.m. (closed portion).
Offices of the Corporation, Twelfth Floor Board Room, 1100 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
Meeting open to the public from 1:30 p.m. to 1:45 p.m. Closed portion will commence at 1:45 p.m. (approx.).
1. President's report.
2. Testimonials:
(Closed to the public, 1:45 p.m.)
1. Finance project in Pakistan;
2. Finance project in South Africa;
3. Finance project in Bolivia;
4. Finance project in Sub-Saharan Africa;
5. Insurance project in Kazakhstan;
6. Pending major projects;
7. Reports.
Information on the meeting may be obtained from Connie M. Downs at (202) 336-8438.
Aquila, Inc. (formerly known as UtiliCorp United, Inc.), a Delaware corporation (“Issuer”), has filed an application with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to section 12(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Board of Directors (“Board”) of the Issuer approved a resolution on December 2, 2002 to withdraw its Security from listing on the Exchange. The Issuer states that it decided to delist the Security from the PCX as part of the cost-saving measures currently employed by the Issuer in light of its challenging financial situation. In addition, the low volume of trading in the Security (less than 1%) on the PCX does not justify the PCX's listing cost. The Issuer states that 99.6% of the trading in the Security is traded on the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (“NYSE”).
The Issuer stated in its application that it has complied with the rules of the PCX that govern the removal of securities from listing and registration on the Exchange. The Issuer's application relates solely to the withdrawal of the Security from listing and registration on the PCX and from registration under section 12(b)
Any interested person may, on or before February 7, 2003, submit by letter to the Secretary of the Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609, facts bearing upon whether the application has been made in accordance with the rules of the PCX and what terms, if any, should be imposed by the Commission for the protection of investors. The Commission, based on the information submitted to it, will issue an order granting the application after the date mentioned above, unless the Commission determines to order a hearing on the matter.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
DST Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Issuer”), has filed an application with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 12(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Issuer states in its application that it has met the requirements of the rules of the Exchange (CHX Article XXVIII, Rule 4) by complying with Exchange's rules governing an issuer's voluntary withdrawal of a security from listing and registration and by complying with all laws in effect in the State of Delaware.
On May 14, 2002, the Board of Directors of the Issuer unanimously approved a resolution to withdraw the Issuer's Securities from listing on the CHX. In making the decision to withdraw the Securities from listing and registration on the CHX, the Issuer states that the expense and administrative time associated with remaining list on the CHX outweighs the limited
The Issuer's application relates solely to the withdrawal of the Securities from listing and registration on the CHX and from registration under Section 12(b) of the Act
Any interested person may, on or before February 7, 2003, submit by letter to the Secretary of the Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609, facts bearing upon whether the application has been made in accordance with the rules of the CHX and what terms, if any, should be imposed by the Commission for the protection of investors. The Commission, based on the information submitted to it, will issue an order granting the application after the date mentioned above, unless the Commission determines to order a hearing on the matter.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of application for an order pursuant to section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (“1940 Act”), providing exemptions from sections 2(a)(32), and 27(i)(2)(A) of the 1940 Act and rule 22c-1 thereunder to the extent necessary to permit the recapture of certain bonus credits.
American United Life Insurance Company (“AUL”), AUL American Individual Variable Annuity Unit Trust (the “Separate Account”), and OneAmerica Securities, Inc. (the “Distributor”), collectively the “Applicants.”
Applicants seek an order pursuant to Section 6(c) of the 1940 Act exempting them, to the extent deemed necessary, from Sections 2(a)(32) and 27(i)(2)(A) of the 1940 Act and Rule 22c-1 thereunder, to permit AUL to recapture part or all of a credit applied to premium payments made within the first twelve months after a Contract is issued, in the following instances: (i) When a Contract owner exercises the Contract's free look provision; and (ii) when a Contract owner makes any withdrawal from a Contract within the first seven Contract years. Applicants request that the order extend to other variable annuity contracts that are substantially similar in all material respects to the Contracts that AUL, its affiliates and successors in interest may issue in the future.
The application was filed on June 28, 2002, and amended and restated on November 8, 2002, December 26, 2002 and January 16, 2003.
An order granting the application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Secretary of the Commission and serving Applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on February 10, 2003, and should be accompanied by proof of service on Applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons may request notification of a hearing by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549. Applicants: c/o John C. Swhear, Esq., American United Life Insurance Company, One American Square, Indianapolis, Indiana 46282. Copies to: Ethan D. Corey, Esq., Dechert, 1775 Eye Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006-2401.
Patrick F. Scott, Attorney, or Lorna J. MacLeod, Branch Chief, Office of Insurance Products, Division of Investment Management, at (202) 942-0670.
The following is a summary of the application; the complete application may be obtained for a fee from the Public Reference Branch of the Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549 (202) 942-8090.
1. AUL is an Indiana stock insurance company. AUL is the depositor and sponsor of the Separate Account, a separate account established under Indiana law.
2. The Separate Account is registered with the Commission under the 1940 Act as a unit investment trust. AUL owns the assets of the Separate Account that supports obligations under certain individual variable annuity contracts (the “Contracts”). The Separate Account is currently divided into sub-accounts referred to as Investment Accounts. Each Investment Account invests exclusively in shares of one of the underlying open-end management investment companies, or series thereof, available as investment options under the Contracts. Premiums may be allocated to one or more Investment Accounts available under a Contract. AUL may in the future establish additional Investment Accounts of the Separate Account, which may invest in other securities, mutual funds, or investment vehicles.
3. The individual variable annuity contracts, which are issued by AUL through the Distributor, are unbundled. That is, there is a base contract, with a standard death benefit, and annuity payout options, as well as transfer privileges and dollar cost averaging. Other features under the contract include several optional benefit riders that may be added at the time the Contract is issued for an additional asset-based fee. The Contract has the following charges: (i) A deferred sales charge as a percentage of contributions withdrawn as described above; (ii) an administrative expense fee equal to 0.15% of average Variable Account value on an annual basis; (iii) an annual Contract fee of $50 for contracts with Account Values less than $20,000; $30 for contracts with Account Values $20,000 or greater, but less than $50,000; and $0 for contracts with Account Values $50,000 or greater; (iv) a mortality and expense risk charge equal to 1.15% of average Variable Account value on an annual basis; and (v) any applicable charge for each of the selected riders, described in the Application. Contract owners in certain states may also be required to pay any applicable state premium tax. In addition, assets invested in the Investment Accounts are charged with the annual operating expenses of the underlying Funds.
4. Premiums under the Contracts may vary in amount and frequency, subject to certain limitations. The Contracts also provide for the accumulation of values either on a variable basis, a fixed basis, or both, as well as several options for fixed and variable annuity payments to begin on a future date. Premium payments under the Contracts may be made at any time during the Contract owner's life and before the Contract's annuity date. The Contract owner has the right to return the Contract for any reason within the “free look” period, which is a ten-day period beginning when the Contract owner receives the Contract. If a particular state requires a longer free look period, then eligible Contract owners in that state will be allowed the longer statutory period to return the Contract. The returned Contract will be deemed void and AUL will refund the Account Value, which is the total sum of a Contract owner's interest in the Variable Account and the Fixed Account(s). Initially, the Account Value is equal to the initial premium less any applicable premium tax and thereafter reflects the net result of premiums, investment experience, charges deducted, and any withdrawals taken.
5. The optional Extra Credit Premium Rider offers a credit of 3%, 5% or 6% of the total first year premium payments (the “Credit”). The Contract owner may select the 3% Credit rider only when the Six Year Contract Withdrawal Charge Rider is selected. If a Contract owner selects the Extra Credit Premium Rider at the time of application, AUL will credit an extra amount to the Contract each time the Contract owner makes a premium payment within the first twelve months after the Contract is issued. AUL will allocate Credit amounts pro rata among the Investment Accounts in the same ratio as the premium payment to which the Credit relates. AUL will fund the Credit amounts from its general account assets.
The annual charge for the Credit Rider will be initially set at 0.55%, 0.65% and 0.75%, of average Account Value, respectively, for the 3%, 5% and 6% Credit amounts. This rider charge will apply until the Credit is totally vested, according to the following vesting schedule:
AUL will discontinue the charge for the Extra Credit Premium Rider at the end of the fifth contract year for the 3% Extra Credit Premium Rider and at the end of the seventh contract year for the 5% and 6% Extra Credit Premium Riders.
6. If a Contract owner exercises the free look right, his or her Account Value will be adjusted to reflect the recapture of non-vested Credit amounts paid on the Contract, consistent with the vesting schedule above. However, any earnings or loss on the non-vested Credit will be fully vested and considered part of the Account Value. AUL will refund the premium paid in those states where required by law and for individual retirement annuities. In all other cases, the Contract owner bears the investment risk during the period prior to AUL's receipt of request for cancellation. In addition, all or part of the Credit may be recaptured by AUL if the Contract owner makes a withdrawal in the first seven contract years, depending upon the vesting schedule above. Regardless of whether or not the Credit is vested, all gains or losses attributable to the Credit are part of the Contract owner's Contract value and are immediately vested.
7. During the lifetime of the annuitant, at any time before the annuity date and subject to the limitations under any applicable qualified plan and applicable law, a Contract owner may surrender a Contract or take a withdrawal from a Contract. A withdrawal may be requested for a specified percentage or dollar amount of a Contract owner's Account Value. Upon payment, the Contract owner's Account Value will be reduced by an amount equal to the payment, any applicable withdrawal charge, calculated as a percentage of first year premium, and any recapture of non-vested Credit amounts consistent with the vesting schedule above. The withdrawal charge is based on the following schedule:
An amount withdrawn during a Contract year, referred to as the “free withdrawal amount,” will not be subject to an otherwise applicable withdrawal charge. The free withdrawal amount is 12% of Account Value, including any vested and non-vested Credit amounts, at the beginning of the Contract year in which the withdrawal is being made.
8. Applicants state that if a contract owner has not chosen an Extra Credit Premium Rider, AUL will first provide a 12% free withdrawal amount, which is calculated based on the Account Value at the most recent contract anniversary. Any amounts withdrawn in excess of the free withdrawal amount will be assessed a withdrawal charge based on the table above. The withdrawal charge is calculated as a percentage of first year premium not previously withdrawn. After the withdrawal, the first year premium amount upon which a withdrawal charge may be assessed in the future is reduced by the total amount of the withdrawal, which includes the free withdrawal amount.
9. Applicants further state that, if a contract owner has chosen an Extra Credit Premium Rider, AUL will first provide a 12% free withdrawal amount. Next, any amounts withdrawn in excess of the free withdrawal amount will be subject to a recapture of non-vested Credit amounts (see vesting schedule in paragraph 5 above, explaining the “Extra Credit Premium Rider”) and assessed a withdrawal charge as described above. The credit will be
After the withdrawal, the first year premium amount from which non-vested Credit amounts may be recaptured and upon which a withdrawal charge may be assessed in the future, is reduced by the total amount of the withdrawal, which includes the free withdrawal amount. In other words, while a withdrawal charge will be assessed and credit recaptured only on the amount in excess of the free withdrawal amount, the premium upon which future recaptures and withdrawals may be assessed is reduced by the total amount of the withdrawal. Once the remaining premium is reduced to zero, no further withdrawal charges may be assessed and no further credits may be recaptured, since withdrawal charges and recaptures are based on first year premium, and the first year premium has been exhausted.
10. The Six Year Contract Withdrawal Charge Rider will reduce the withdrawal charge period by two years. The final two years of the withdrawal charge will be dropped, and the withdrawal charges assessed during the previous years are consistent with the Withdrawal Charge schedule listed above. The annual charge for this rider will be initially set at 0.30% of average Value. The 3% optional Extra Credit Premium Rider must be selected with the Six Year Contract Withdrawal Charge Riger. No other Extra Credit Premium Rider is available with this rider.
11. The Long Term Care Facility and Terminal Illness Rider provides a waiver of both withdrawal charges and recapture of Credits if the Extra Premium Rider is selected, on withdrawals that qualify under the Rider. Therefore, under the rider, if a Contract owner is confined for a continuous 90-day period to a long-term care facility or for a 30-day period to a hospital, as defined by the rider provisions, Withdrawal charges will not apply and Credits will not be recaptured, if the Extra Credit Premium Rider is selected. In addition, if the Contract owner has been diagnosed by a physician to have a terminal illness, as defined by the rider, and AUL has received a physician's letter at its home office, no withdrawal charges will be deducted upon withdrawal, and no Credits will be recaptured, if the Extra Credit Premium Rider is chosen. The charge for this benefit is included in the base mortality and expense risk charge.
1. Section 27(i) of the 1940 Act was added to the Act to implement the purpose of the National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996. Section 27(i)(2)(A) of the 1940 Act provides that it shall be unlawful for a separate account or sponsoring insurance company to sell a contract funded by the registered separate account unless such contract is a redeemable security. Section 2(a)(32) defines “redeemable security” as any security, other than short-term paper, under the terms of which the holder, upon presentation to the issuer, is entitled to receive approximately his or her proportionate share of the issuer's current net assets, or the cash equivalent thereof.
2. Applicants assert that the recapture of the Credit in the circumstances set forth in this application would not deprive a Contract owner of his or her proportionate share of the issuer's current net assets. A Contract owner's interest in the Credit allocated to his or her Contract value upon receipt of a contribution is not fully vested until the eighth contract year. Until the right to recapture has expired and any Credit amount is vested, AUL retains the right and interest in the Credit, although not in the earnings attributable to that amount. Thus, Applicants assert, when AUL recaptures any Credit, it is merely retrieving its own assets, and the Contract owner has not been deprived of a proportionate share of the applicable Separate Account's assets because his or her interest in the Credit has not vested.
3. Applicants additionally represent that permitting a Contract owner to retain a Credit under a Contract upon the exercise of the free look provision would not only be unfair, but would also encourage individuals to purchase a Contract with no intention of keeping it and to return it for a quick profit. Furthermore, the recapture of the full amount of Credits applied to premium payments made within the first twelve months after issuance is designed to provide AUL with a measure of protection against anti-selection. The risk here is that, rather than spreading contributions over a number of years, a Contract owner might make very large contributions during the first Contract year, the Credits vest, the Contract owner then returns the Contract and is permitted to keep the Credit amounts, thereby leaving AUL little time to recover the cost of the Credits.
4. For the foregoing reasons, Applicants submit that the provisions for recapture of Credits under the Contracts and other variable annuity contracts that are substantially similar in all material respects to the contracts described in the application, that AUL, its affiliates and successors in interest may issue in the future (“Future Contracts”), do not violate Sections 2(a)(32) and 27(i)(2)(A) of the 1940 Act because the recapture would not deprive a Contract owner of his or her proportionate share of the issuer's current net assets.
5. Applicants further assert that a Contract owner's interest in the Credit allocated to his or her Contract value upon receipt of a contribution is not fully vested until the eighth contract year, when the right to recapture has expired and any Credit amount has vested. Until that time, Applicants state, AUL retains the right and interest in the Credit, although not in the earnings attributable to that amount. Thus, when AUL recaptures any Credit, it is merely retrieving its own assets, and the Contract owner has not been deprived of a proportionate share of the applicable Separate Account's assets because his or her interest in the Credit has not vested.
6. In addition Applicants state, permitting a Contract owner to retain a Credit under a Contract upon the exercise of the free look provision would not only be unfair, but would also encourage individuals to purchase a Contract with no intention of keeping it and to return it for a quick profit. On the other hand, Applicants assert, the recapture of the full amount of Credits applied to premium payments made within the first twelve months after issuance is designed to provide AUL with a measure of protection against such anti-selection.
7. Applicants submit that the application of a Credit to premium payments made under the Contracts should not raise any questions as to AUL's compliance with the provisions of Section 27(i). However, to avoid any uncertainty as to full compliance with the 1940 Act, Applicants request an exemption from Section 2(a)(32) and 27(i)(2)(A), to the extent deemed necessary, to permit the recapture of any Credit under the circumstances described in this application without the loss of relief from Section 27 provided by Section 27(i).
8. Rule 22c-1, promulgated under Section 22(c) of the 1940 Act, prohibits a registered investment company issuing any redeemable security from selling, redeeming, or repurchasing any such security except at a price based on the current net asset value of such security which is next computed after receipt of a tender of such security for redemption or of an order to purchase or sell such security. Rule 22c-1 is intended to avoid the dilution of the value of outstanding redeemable securities of registered investment companies through their sale at a price
9. The proposed recapture of the Credit, Applicants assert, does not pose such a threat of dilution, nor does it promote speculative trading practices, calculated to take advantage of backward pricing, the two evils that Rule 22c-1 was intended to eliminate or reduce. To effect a recapture of a Credit, AUL will redeem interests in a Contract at a price determined on the basis of the current accumulation unit value(s) of the Investment Account(s) to which the Contract owner's Contract value is allocated. The amount recaptured will equal the amount of the Credit paid out of AUL's general account assets. Although the Contract owner will be entitled to retain any investment gain attributable to the Credit, the amount of that gain will be determined on the basis of the current accumulation unit values of the applicable Investment Accounts. Thus, Applicants assert, no dilution will occur upon the recapture of the Credit.
10. Applicants argue that because neither of the harms that Rule 22c-1 was meant to address is found in the recapture of the Credit, Rule 22c-1 should not apply to any Credit. However, to avoid any uncertainty as to full compliance with the 1940 Act, Applicants request an exemption from the provision of Rule 22c-1 to the extent deemed necessary to permit them to recapture the Credit under the Contracts and Future Contracts.
11. Applicants submit that their request for an order that applies to the Separate Account and any Future Accounts established by AUL, in connection with the issuance of the Contracts and Future Contracts, is appropriate in the public interest. Such an order would promote competitiveness in the variable annuity market by eliminating the need to file redundant exemptive applications, thereby reducing administrative expenses and maximizing the efficient use of Applicants' resources. Applicants further submit that Investors would not receive any benefit or additional protection by requiring Applicants to repeatedly seek exemptive relief that would present no issue under the Act that has not already been addressed in this application. Additionally, Applicants state that requiring Applicants to file additional applications would impair Applicants' ability to take advantage of business opportunities as they arise. Further, if Applicants were required repeatedly to seek exemptive relief with respect to the same issues addressed in this application, investors would not receive any benefit or additional protection thereby. Applicants undertake that Future Contracts funded by the Separate Accounts or by Future Accounts, which seek to rely on the order issued pursuant to this Application, will be substantially similar to the Contracts in all material aspects.
Section 6(c) of the Act, in pertinent part, provides that the Commission, by order upon application, may conditionally or unconditionally exempt any persons, security or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities or transactions, from any provisions of the Act, or any rule or regulation thereunder, to the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Applicants submit, for the reasons stated herein, that their exemptive requests meet the standards set out in Section 6(c) and that an order should, therefore, be granted.
For the Commission by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The proposed rule change will adjust the trade comparison fees for GSCC members that use GSCC's real time trade matching (“RTTM”) process but do not submit trade data on an interactive and timely basis.
In its filing with the Commission, GSCC 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. GSCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Since its inception in December 2000, GSCC's RTTM service has grown to encompass an increasing portion of trades that are submitted to GSCC. The expansion of the use of RTTM for government securities, its introduction for mortgage backed securities products (which is scheduled for September 2002), and ultimately its use for other fixed-income products remains GSCC's most significant initiative.
In order to encourage members to shift to interactive processing, GSCC imposed, effective July 1, 2001, a five-cent per side comparison surcharge for non-interactive members.
In order to ensure that members not only participate in the RTTM process but also submit transaction data on a timely basis and in order to cover the cost of batch processing, GSCC is imposing the following new fees (which fees are
The fees became effective on September 1, 2002, for netting members and on January 1, 2003, for comparison-only members.
GSCC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder because it involves a change to GSCC's fee structure that will encourage members to move to interactive processing and thereby allow GSCC and its members to achieve important risk management benefits.
GSCC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any impact or impose any burden on competition.
Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not yet been solicited or received. GSCC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by GSCC.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
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. Comments may also be submitted electronically at the following e-mail address:
For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
The International Securities Exchange, Inc. (“ISE” or “Exchange”) has filed an application with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 12(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
ISE Rule 503(a) generally provides that, whenever the Exchange determines that an underlying security previously approved for options transactions on the Exchange should no longer be approved, whether because it does not meet the standards for continued approval or for any other reason, the Exchange shall not open any additional options series of that class for trading, and may take steps thereafter to prohibit opening purchase transactions in options series of that class previously opened to the extent it deems such actions appropriate. When an underlying security becomes no longer approved for options transactions, the Exchange may apply to strike the related option contracts from listing and trading once all such option contracts have expired. Under this provision, the ISE has determined to strike from listing and trading the call and put option classes relating to the underlying common stock of the following companies:
The Commission, having considered the facts stated in the ISE's application and having due regard for the public interest and protection of investors, orders that the application be, and it hereby is, granted, effective at the opening of business on January 17, 2003.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
The Office of International Visitors of the Division of Professional and Cultural Exchanges, of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA/PE/V), United States Department of State (DoS) announces an open competition for assistance awards to develop and implement International Visitor Programs (IVP). The IVP seeks to increase mutual understanding between the U.S. and foreign publics through carefully designed professional programs for approximately 4,600 foreign visitors per year from all regions of the world. The awards will fund programming for a minimum of 100 and a maximum of 550 International Visitors (IVs). Funding will be for FY-2004 (October 1, 2003—September 30, 2004). Public and private non-profit organizations meeting the provisions described in Internal Revenue Code section 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3) and not already receiving Office of International Visitor assistance awards for FY-2004 may submit proposals. [See Project Objectives, Goals and Implementation (POGI) for definitions of program-related terminology.]
The intent of this announcement is to provide the opportunity for organizations to develop and implement a variety of programs for International Visitors from multiple regions of the world or from a single region. (Please refer to POGI for breakdown of regions). The award recipients will function as national program agencies (NPAs) and will work closely with Department of State Bureau staff, who will guide them through programmatic, procedural and budgetary issues for the full range of IV programs. (Hereafter, the terms “award recipient” and “national program agency” will be used interchangeably to refer to the grantee organization(s).)
The Bureau seeks proposals from non-profit organizations for development and implementation of professional programs for Bureau-sponsored International Visitors to the U.S. Once the awards are made, separate proposals will be required for each group project [Single Country (SCP)*, Sub-Regional (SRP)*, Regional (RP)*, and Multi-Regional (MRP)*] as well as less formal proposals for Individual and Individuals Traveling Together (ITT)* programs. At this time proposals are not required for Voluntary Visitor (VolVis)* programs. Each program will be focused on a substantive theme. Some typical IV program themes are: (1) U.S. foreign policy; (2) U.S. government and political system; (3) economic development; (4) education; (5) media; (6) information technology; (7) freedom of information; (8) NGO management; (9) women's issues; (10) tolerance and diversity; (11) counter-terrorism; (12) democracy and human rights; (13) rule of law; (14) international crime; and (15) environmental issues.* IV programs must conform to all Bureau requirements and guidelines. *Please refer to the Program Objectives, Goals, and Implementation (POGI) document for a more detailed description of each type of IV program.
1. Programs must contain substantive meetings that focus on foreign policy goals and program objectives and are presented by experts. Meetings, site visits, and other program activities should promote dialogue between participants and their U.S. professional counterparts. Programs must be balanced to show different sides of an issue.
2. Most programs will be 21 to 30 days in length and will begin in Washington, D.C., with an orientation and overview of the issues and a central examination of federal policies regarding these issues. Well-paced program itineraries usually include visits to four or five communities. Program itineraries ideally include urban and rural small communities in diverse geographical and cultural regions of the U.S., as appropriate to the program theme.
3. Programs should provide opportunities for participants to experience the diversity of American society and culture. Participants in RPs or MRPs are divided into smaller sub-groups for simultaneous visits to different communities, with subsequent opportunities to share their experiences with the full group once it is reunited.
4. Programs may provide opportunities for the participants to share a meal or similar experience (home hospitality) in the homes of Americans of diverse occupational, age, gender, and ethnic groups. Some individual and group programs might include an opportunity for an overnight stay (home stay) in an American home.
5. Programs should provide opportunities for participants to address student, civic and professional groups in relaxed and informal settings.
6. Participants should have appropriate opportunities for site visits and hands-on experiences that are relevant to program themes. The award recipients may propose professional “shadowing” experiences with U.S. professional colleagues for some programs; (A typical shadowing experience means spending a half- or full-workday with a professional counterpart.)
7. Programs should also allow time for participants to reflect on their experiences and, in group programs, to share observations with program colleagues. Participants should have opportunities to visit cultural and tourist sites; and
8. The award recipients must make arrangements for community visits through affiliates of the NCIV. In cities where there is no such council, the award recipients will arrange for coordination of local programs.
1. Applicants' proposals must demonstrate four years of successful experience in coordinating international exchanges.
2. Applicants' proposals must demonstrate the ability to develop and administer IV programs.
3. Proposals should demonstrate an applicant's broad knowledge of international relations and U.S. foreign policy issues.
4. Proposals should demonstrate an applicant's broad knowledge of the United States and U.S. domestic issues.
5. The award recipients must have a Washington, D.C. presence. Applicants who do not currently have a Washington, DC presence must include a detailed plan in their proposal for establishing such a presence by October 1, 2003. The costs related to establishing such a presence must be borne by the award recipient. No such costs may be included in the budget submission in this proposal. The award recipient must have e-mail capability, access to Internet resources, and the ability to exchange data electronically with all partners involved in the International Visitor program.
6. Proposals should demonstrate that an applicant has an established resource base of programming contacts and the ability to keep the base continuously updated. This resource base should include speakers, thematic specialists, or practitioners in a wide range of professional fields in both the private and public sectors.
7. All proposals must demonstrate sound financial management.
8. All proposals must contain a sound management plan to carry out the volume of work outlined in the Solicitation. This plan should include an appropriate staffing pattern and a work plan/time frame.
9. Applicants must include in their proposal narrative a discussion of “lessons learned” from past exchanges coordination experience, and how these will be applied in implementing the International Visitor Program.
10. The award recipients must have the capability to utilize the world wide web for the electronic retrieval of program data from the Department of State's IV program website. The award recipient's office technology must be capable of exchanging information with all partners involved in the International Visitor program. The award recipient must have the capability to electronically communicate with the Department of State's standard data exchange mechanism, the Information Exchange and Management System (IEMS) by utilizing either the IEMS application, which can be provided to the award recipient, or an approved DoS interface with the IEMS where legacy system exists. IEMS is a combination of client/server applications which collect program data from DoS missions for the International Visitor office, stores the data electronically, and enables the national program agencies to download and prepare projects for a visitor's stay in the U.S.
11. Applicants must include as a separate attachment under TAB G of their proposals the following:
a. Samples of at least two schedules for international exchange or training programs that they have coordinated within the past four years that they are particularly proud of and that they feel demonstrate their organization's competence and abilities to conduct the activities outlined in the RFGP;
b. Samples of orientation and evaluation materials used in past international exchange or training programs.
Instead of Letters of Endorsement, DoS will use past performance as an indicator of an applicant's ability to successfully perform the work. TAB E of the proposal must contain between three and five references who may be called upon to discuss recently completed or ongoing work performed for professional exchange programs (may include the IV program). The reference must contain the information outlined below. Please note that the requirements for submission of past performance information also apply to all proposed sub recipients when the total estimated cost of the sub award is over $100,000.
At a minimum, the applicant must provide the following information for each reference:
• Name of the reference organization
• Project name
• Project description
• Performance period of the contract/grant
• Amount of the contract/grant
• Technical contact person and telephone number for referenced organization
• Administrative contact person and telephone number for referenced organization
DoS may contact representatives from the organizations cited in the examples to obtain information on the applicant's past performance. DoS also may obtain past performance information from sources other than those identified by the applicant.
Applicants are required to submit a comprehensive line-item administrative budget in accordance with the instructions in the Solicitation Package (Proposal Submission Instructions.) The submission must include a summary budget and a detailed budget showing all administrative costs. Proposed staffing and costs associated with staffing must be appropriate to the requirements outlined in the RFGP and in the Solicitation Package. Cost sharing is encouraged and should be shown in the budget presentation.
The Department of State is seeking proposals from public and private non-profit organizations that are not already in communication with DoS regarding an FY-2004 assistance award from ECA/PE/V. All applicants must have four years' experience conducting international exchanges; an ability to closely consult with DoS staff throughout program administration; and proven fiscal management integrity. Please refer to the Solicitation Package for complete budget guidelines and formatting instructions.
The Office of International Visitors, Janet B. Beard, Chief, Group Projects Division (ECA/PE/V/P) by e-mail (
Please read the complete
The entire Solicitation Package may be downloaded from the Bureau's Web site at
All proposal copies must be received at the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs by 5 p.m. Washington, DC time on March 31, 2003. Faxed documents will not be accepted at any time. Documents postmarked the due date but received on a later date will not be accepted. Each applicant must ensure that the proposals are received by the above deadline.
Applicants must follow all instructions in the Solicitation Package. The original and twelve copies of the application should be sent to: U.S. Department of State, SA-44, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Ref.: ECA/PE/V-04-01, Program Management, ECA/EX/PM, Room 534, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547.
Pursuant to the Bureau's authorizing legislation, programs must maintain a non-political character and should be balanced and representative of the diversity of American political, social, and cultural life. “Diversity” should be interpreted in the broadest sense and encompass differences including, but not limited to ethnicity, race, gender, religion, geographic location, socio-economic status, and physical challenges. Applicants are strongly encouraged to adhere to the advancement of this principle both in program administration and in program content. Please refer to the review criteria under the “Support for Diversity” section for specific suggestions on incorporating diversity into the total proposal. Public Law 104-319 provides that “in carrying out programs of educational and cultural exchange in countries whose people do not fully enjoy freedom and democracy,” the Bureau “shall take appropriate steps to provide opportunities for participation in such programs to human rights and democracy leaders of such countries.” Public Law 106-113 requires that the governments of the countries described above do not have inappropriate influence in the selection process. Proposals should reflect advancement of these goals in their program contents, to the full extent deemed feasible.
The Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs places great emphasis on the secure and proper administration of Exchange Visitor (J visa) Programs and adherence by grantees, program sponsors, and participants to all regulations governing the J visa program status. Therefore, proposals should demonstrate the applicant's capacity to meet all requirements governing the administration of Exchange Visitor Programs as set forth in 22 CFR 6Z. If the applicant is a designated Exchange Visitor Program Sponsor the applicant should provide evidence of their compliance with 22 CFR 6Z
ECA will be responsible for issuing DS-2019 forms to participants in this program. A copy of the complete regulations governing the administration of Exchange Visitor (J) programs is available at
The Bureau will acknowledge receipt of all proposals and will review them for technical eligibility. Proposals will be deemed ineligible if they do not fully adhere to the guidelines stated herein and in the Solicitation Package. All eligible proposals will be reviewed by the program office, as well as the Public Diplomacy section overseas, where appropriate. Eligible proposals will be subject to compliance with Federal and Bureau regulations and guidelines and forwarded to Bureau grant panels for advisory review. Proposals may also be reviewed by the Office of the Legal Adviser or by other Department elements. Final funding decisions are at the discretion of the Department of State's Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs. Final technical authority for assistance awards or cooperative agreements resides with the Bureau's Grants Officer.
Technically eligible applications will be competitively reviewed according to the criteria stated below. These criteria are not rank ordered and all carry equal weight in the proposal evaluation:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Overall grant making authority for this program is contained in the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, Public Law 87-256, as amended, also known as the Fulbright-Hays Act. The purpose of the Act is “to enable the Government of the United States to increase mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the people of other countries* * *; to strengthen the ties which unite us with other nations by demonstrating the educational and cultural interests, developments, and achievements of the people of the United States and other nations* * *and thus to assist in the development of friendly, sympathetic and peaceful relations between the United States and the other countries of the world.” The funding authority for the program above is provided through legislation.
The terms and conditions published in this RFGP are binding and may not be modified by any Bureau representative. Explanatory information provided by the Bureau that contradicts published language will not be binding. Issuance of the RFGP does not constitute an award commitment on the part of the Government. The Bureau reserves the right to accept proposals in whole or in part and make an award or awards in accordance with what best serves the interests of the International Visitor Program. The Bureau also reserves the right to reduce, revise, or increase proposal budgets in accordance with the needs of the program and the availability of funds. Awards made will be subject to periodic reporting and evaluation requirements.
Final awards cannot be made until funds have been appropriated by Congress, allocated and committed through internal Bureau procedures.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice; request for comments.
The Office of the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) is providing notice that on October 7, 2002, the United States received from Argentina a request for consultations under the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (“WTO Agreement”) regarding the sunset review of the antidumping duty order on oil country tubular goods (“OCTG”) from Argentina. Argentina alleges that the sunset review determinations made by U.S. authorities concerning this product, and certain related matters, are inconsistent with Articles 1,2,3,5,6,11,12 and 18 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“AD Agreement”), Articles VI and X of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“GATT 1994”), and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement. USTR invites written comments from the public concerning the issues raised in this dispute.
Although USTR will accept any comments received during the course of the dispute settlement proceedings, comments should be submitted on or before February 21, 2003, to be assured of timely consideration by USTR.
Comments should be submitted (i) electronically, to
William D. Hunter, Associate General Counsel, Office of the United States Trade Representative, 600 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC, (202) 395-3582.
Section 127(b) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”) (19 U.S.C. 3537(b)(1)) requires that notice and opportunity for comment be provided after the United States submits or receives a request for the establishment of a WTO dispute settlement panel. Consistent with this obligation, but in an effort to provide additional opportunity for comment, USTR is providing notice that consultations have been requested pursuant to the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding (“DSU”). If such consultations should fail to resolve the matter and a dispute settlement panel is established pursuant to the DSU, such panel, which would hold its meetings in Geneva, Switzerland, would be expected to issue a report on its findings and recommendations within six to nine months after it is established.
With respect to the measures at issue, Argentina's request for consultations refers to the following:
• The final results of the sunset review by the U.S. Department of Commerce (“DOC”) of the antidumping duty order on OCTG from Argentina (65 FR 66701 (November 7, 2000));
• The final determination in the sunset review by the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) of the antidumping duty order on OCTG from Argentina (USITC Pub. No. 3434 (June 2001));
• The DOC's determination to continue the antidumping duty order on OCTG from Argentina (66 FR 38630 (July 25, 2001));
• Sections 751(c) and 752 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended;
• The URAA Statement of Administrative Action, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, vol. 1 (1994);
• The DOC's Sunset Policy Bulletin (63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998));
• The DOC's sunset review regulations, 19 CFR § 351.218; and
• The ITC's sunset review regulations, 19 CFR §§ 207.60-69.
With respect to the claims of WTO-inconsistency, Argentina's request for consultations refers to the following:
• The DOC failed to base the initiation of its sunset review on sufficient evidence that the termination of the antidumping duty order would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping;
• The use by the United States of a de minimis standard of 0.5 percent in a sunset review;
• The DOC's misapplication of the “likelihood” standard;
• The U.S. standard for determining whether the termination of antidumping orders would be “likely” to lead to the continuation or recurrence of injury;
• The failure by the ITC to conduct an “objective examination” of the record and its failure to base its determination of “positive evidence”; and
• The U.S. statutory requirements that the ITC determine whether injury would be likely to continue or recur “within a reasonably foreseeable time” and that the ITC “shall consider that the effects of revocation or termination may not be imminent, but may manifest themselves only over a longer period of time”.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning the issues raised in this dispute. Persons submitting comments may either send one copy by U.S. mail, first class, postage prepaid, to Sandy McKinzy at the address listed above, or transmit a copy electronically to
Information or advice contained in a comment submitted, other than business confidential information, may be determined by USTR to be confidential in accordance with section 135(g)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2155(g)(2)). If the submitting person believes that information or advice may qualify as such, the submitting person—
(1) Must so designate the information or advice;
(2) Must clearly mark the material as “SUBMITTED IN CONFIDENCE” in a contrasting color ink at the top of each page of each copy; and
(3) Is encouraged to provide an non-confidential summary of the information or advice.
Pursuant to section 127(e) of the URAA (19 U.S.C. 3537(e)), USTR will maintain a file on this dispute settlement proceeding, accessible to the public, in the USTR Reading Room, which is located at 1724 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508. The public file will include non-confidential comments received by USTR from the public with respect to the dispute; if a dispute settlement panel is convened, the U.S. submissions to that panel, the submissions, or non-confidential summaries of submissions, to the panel received from other participants in the dispute, as well as the report of the panel; and, if applicable, the report of the Appellate Body. An appointment to review the public file (Docket No. WT/DS-268, Argentina Sunset Dispute) may be made by calling the USTR Reading Room at (202) 395-6168. The USTR Reading Room is open to the public from 9:30 a.m. to 12 noon and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation.
Termination of review of joint venture agreements.
As required by 49 U.S.C. 41720, Delta Air Lines, Northwest Airlines, and Continental Airlines submitted code-sharing and frequent-flyer program reciprocity agreements to the Department for review. After analyzing the agreements and conducting an extensive informal investigation, the Department has determined that the agreements, if implemented as presented by the three airlines, could result in a significant adverse impact on airline competition, unless the airlines formally accept and abide by certain conditions that are intended to limit the likelihood of competitive harm. If the airlines choose to implement the agreements without accepting those conditions, the Department will direct its Aviation Enforcement office to institute a formal enforcement proceeding regarding the matter.
Thomas Ray, Office of the General Counsel, 400 Seventh St. SW., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-4731.
On August 23, 2002, as required by 49 U.S.C. 47120, Delta, Northwest, and Continental (“the Alliance Carriers”) submitted code-sharing and frequent-flyer program reciprocity agreements to us for review. That statute requires such agreements between major U.S. airlines to be submitted to us more than 30 days before they are implemented. We may extend that waiting period by up to 150 days for code-sharing agreements and 60 days for other types of agreements. The airline parties to a joint venture agreement may implement the agreement without obtaining our approval once the waiting period has expired.
Our authority to extend the waiting period enables us to conduct an informal investigation and make a preliminary determination as to whether the agreement may unreasonably reduce competition and therefore constitute an unfair method of competition that would violate 49 U.S.C. 41712, formerly section 411 of the Federal Aviation Act.
Rather than institute a formal enforcement proceeding, we may also ask the airline parties to make changes to their agreement to address our concerns about the agreement's impact
The proposed agreements, and their potential effects, are unusually complex. To allow sufficient time to complete our analysis, we extended the waiting period as to the code-sharing agreement for a total of 120 days, and we extended the waiting period for the frequent flyer agreement for 60 days. 67 FR 59328 (September 20, 2002); 67 FR 64960 (October 22, 2002); 67 FR 69804 (November 19, 2002); 67 FR 78036 (December 20, 2002). The airlines have not implemented either of those agreements.
In our meetings with the Alliance Carriers, we advised them that the agreements as presented to us raised serious competitive issues. We explained that this proposed alliance presents more serious competitive concerns than did the United/US Airways alliance, which we allowed to take effect subject to conditions imposed independently by the Department of Justice, in carrying out its separate statutory authority responsibilities to enforce the antitrust laws. This proposed alliance is fundamentally different from that presented to us by United/US Airways, because of the much greater overlap between the route systems of these three airlines and their possession of a substantially larger share (approximately 35 percent) of the national airline market. We invited them to propose ways that they could alleviate our concerns. We reviewed their proposals and concluded that they were not adequate. We therefore presented specific comments to the three airlines that were intended to address our primary competitive concerns while preserving the alliance's principal benefits for the traveling public and the airlines. We have had lengthy further discussions with the airlines about the terms of proposed conditions and have considered their concerns. If the Alliance Carriers formally accept and agree to abide by the conditions set forth herein, we would not seek to block their implementation of their alliance agreements at this time.
The conditions we have developed are intended to lessen the likelihood of unlawful collusion, to prevent the three airlines from hoarding airport facilities at their hubs and to make underutilized facilities available to competitors, to address the three airlines' potentially dominant combined market share at many cities and the resulting detrimental effect on entry by competitors and therefore on consumers, and to prevent anti-competitive practices involving joint marketing. We have developed these conditions in furtherance of our statutory responsibilities under 49 U.S.C. 40101 and our authority under section 411 to prevent unfair methods of competition in the airline industry and on the basis of our analysis of the alliance's potential impact on airline competition. Our conditions, designed to address this Department's present concerns under our unique statutory scheme, are in addition to, and independent of, any conditions that may be required by the Department of Justice, pursuant to its separate and distinct statutory authority to enforce the antitrust laws, and its own independent review of the proposed alliance's competitive effects.
(9) preventing unfair, deceptive, predatory, or anticompetitive practices in air transportation,
(10) avoiding unreasonable industry concentration, excessive market domination, monopoly powers, and other conditions that would tend to allow at least one air carrier * * * unreasonably to increase prices, reduce services, or exclude competition in air transportation, and
(13) encouraging entry into air transportation markets by new and existing air carriers and the continued strengthening of small air carriers to ensure a more effective and competitive airline industry.
Consistent with these provisions, Congress has charged us with a responsibility to review anti-competitive conduct in the airline industry. This Department's authority under section 411 to prohibit airlines from engaging in unfair methods of competition was intended to supplement, but in no way to supplant or interfere with, the Justice Department's authority to enforce the antitrust laws. As the Supreme Court has stated, “[S]ection 411 * * * was designed to bolster and strengthen antitrust enforcement.”
When Congress deregulated the airline industry in 1978, Congress retained the pre-existing authority of our predecessor agency, the Civil Aeronautics Board, to prevent unfair competition in the airline industry. The Airline Deregulation Act did not reduce or modify the Board's authority to prohibit unfair methods of competition. Similarly, when Congress enacted the Civil Aeronautics Board Sunset Act of 1984, Public Law 98-443, 98 Stat. 1703, it reaffirmed its intent that deregulation must be coupled with the authority to prevent anticompetitive conduct. Section 3 of that statute transferred to this Department the Board's authority to prohibit unfair methods of competition in the airline industry. Congress explained that maintaining that authority was both necessary and consistent with airline deregulation, H.R. Rep. No. 98-793, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. (1984) at 4-5:
There is also a strong need to preserve the Board's authority under Section 411 to ensure fair competition in air transportation * * *. Although the airline industry has been deregulated, this does not mean that there are no limits to competitive practices.
Subsequently, Congress expressly determined that this Department should implement special procedures to ensure that the potential anti-competitive effects of code-share agreements and other joint venture agreements between major airlines are thoroughly analyzed before the agreements may go into effect. Congress implemented that determination by enacting 49 U.S.C. 47120. Congress enacted section 47120 after several announcements of proposed code-share arrangements between major U.S. airlines, including the existing arrangement between Northwest and Continental.
The three airlines have vigorously asserted that their alliance will benefit consumers by providing on-line services to travellers in markets that now have no on-line service and improved access to frequent flyer programs and airport lounges. They contend that each of them will independently set its own fares and schedules. They assert that they will engage in some discussions on subjects such as flight arrival times, gate locations, and certain other service features in order to provide “more seamless service.” Delta, Continental, and Northwest also contend that they have structured their alliance so that they will continue to compete independently. That contention is based primarily on the fact that the ticket price paid by a traveller would go to the operating airline, even if the passenger bought the ticket from a marketing airline. Since the marketing airline does not share in the ticket revenue, that airline assertedly should have an incentive to operate its own flights. In addition, their agreements would not authorize any discussions prohibited by the antitrust laws.
The leading case on the scope of our authority under section 411 is
Nonetheless, based on all the facts presented to us, our independent knowledge of and long experience with the airline industry, and our detailed analysis under our governing statute, the Delta/Continental/Northwest alliance presents serious competitive concerns. It is substantially different from previous alliances between U.S. airlines, both in terms of the combined size of the three partners and the extent of overlap between their route systems.
First, in contrast to earlier alliances, the Delta/Continental/Northwest alliance involves three airlines that together have a large share of the national market. Northwest and Continental together have a national market share of 18 percent as measured by domestic revenue passenger miles, and Delta has 17 percent of the national market. The proposed three-airline alliance would therefore have a national market share of 35 percent. In contrast, the largest of the previous alliances, United/US Airways, resulted in a combined market share of 23 percent, and that share may be expected to decline if the two airlines' financial difficulties ultimately lead to a shrinkage of their route systems.
More significantly, both the existing Continental/Northwest alliance and the recent United/US Airways alliance involved airlines whose route systems overlapped relatively little. In 2001, Continental and Northwest overlapped in 558 markets, accounting for 6.5 million annual passengers. The United/US Airways alliance involved 543 overlapping markets accounting for 15.1 million annual passengers. United has a largely east-west route system, while US Airways has a largely north-south route system along the East Coast. In dramatic contrast, the three alliance partners' services overlap in 3,214 markets accounting for approximately 58 million annual passengers.
Thus, the Delta/Continental/Northwest alliance is not an end-to-end alliance, unlike most of the other domestic and international alliances reviewed by us, which typically have expanded the network of each alliance partner. Contrary to the three airlines' representations regarding new on-line service, Delta's code-share with Continental would give Delta access to only eleven domestic airports not now
It also appears that the Delta/Continental/Northwest alliance would create neither substantial operating efficiencies nor substantial cost reductions for the three airlines. The alliance instead would benefit the three partners by increasing their ability to attract passengers away from competing airlines. Their ability to take passengers away from competing airlines would in part result from their improved service, such as an increased ability for travellers to earn frequent flyer awards, and, in part, from the significant advantages created when an airline (or airline alliance) dominates a city.
We recognize that the alliance could benefit a number of travellers. Travellers in some markets will have a greater choice of flights, and the members of the three airlines' frequent flyer programs will gain a greater ability to earn and use frequent flyer awards. Some markets, albeit very small markets, that now have no on-line service could, if the Alliance Carriers choose to code-share in those markets, obtain such service. In analyzing the three carriers' proposal, we must weigh the potential benefits of the alliance against its potential anti-competitive effects. The conditions set forth herein, while not preventing the airlines from implementing their alliance, would attempt to ensure that the alliance provides the benefits that its partners promised to the public. The conditions would attempt to limit the anti-competitive harm that could result from the alliance without interfering with the partners' ability to code-share in most markets, to offer reciprocity to each airline's frequent flyer and airport lounge program members, and to engage in joint marketing efforts in most cities.
In analyzing the alliance's potential impact on airline competition, we have considered the data available to us regarding the Continental/Northwest alliance, which the three airlines contend has caused no discernible competitive harm. We presently believe that that experience does not provide a valid basis for comparison. It appears that the Delta/Continental/Northwest alliance would create far fewer new on-line service opportunities, involve much more overlapping service, and pose a greater danger of collusion than did the Continental/Northwest alliance.
Our decision to allow United and US Airways to proceed with their alliance is not inconsistent in any way with our present view that the Delta/Continental/Northwest alliance presents serious competitive issues. We expressed reservations about the United/US Airways alliance, even though United and US Airways have a significantly smaller share of the national market and their route systems overlap much less than do the route systems of Delta and the existing Northwest/Continental alliance. We allowed United and US Airways to go forward, without imposing conditions additional to those imposed by the Justice Department, based on the airlines' representations that they would continue to compete independently, our analysis of the likelihood that the alliance would reduce competition, and our analysis of the potential public benefits of the alliance. 67 FR 62846 (October 8, 2002). Importantly, we did not find that the United/US Airways alliance would not reduce competition. Instead, we stated: “At the present time, the material we have reviewed is not sufficient for us to conclude that an enforcement proceeding under 49 U.S.C. 41712 would be warranted.” 67 FR 62847.
In sum, based on the information provided to us, we presently believe that the Delta/Continental/Northwest alliance proposal raises several serious competitive issues. Consumer access to low fares and adequate service cannot be assured without adequate competition. The goal of maintaining competition requires (i) that the partners continue competing with each other to the maximum extent possible and (ii) that unaffiliated airlines continue serving the three partners' markets or can enter those markets without artificial barriers.
Our concerns with this alliance proposal flow directly from our responsibilities under our unique statutory scheme. We do not seek to protect favored airlines. Competition works when individual competitors find ways to improve their lot relative to others, thus forcing others to respond. The end result is more efficient airlines, better service, lower fares, and economic growth. Here, however, multiple carriers would join forces in many different ways, making it extremely difficult, it appears, for other carriers to respond effectively, and thus forcing those competing carriers to exit some markets. Unaligned carriers could be particularly vulnerable to the unprecedented market power of the Delta/Continental/Northwest alliance, and many could be weakened or cease to exist. Accordingly, we have a number of specific concerns with the alliance, which we would attempt to address through the conditions described below. We would, of course, monitor the alliance's effects on competition, and would retain the power to take further action if necessary.
We recognize that the alliance proposed by Delta, Continental, and Northwest would not give any single airline a dominant market share and that the three airlines represent that they will continue to compete independently on fares, capacity, and scheduling. Nonetheless, we believe that at many cities the alliance's impact on the prospects of entry by competing airlines would be substantially equivalent to the impact that a single airline's dominance would have at that city. Indeed, the documents provided to us confirm that the three airlines seek through the alliance to increase their collective market share in ways that would undermine the competitive position of other airlines. They intend to offer joint corporate discount contracts, joint travel agency incentive programs, and, from the traveller's perspective, combine their frequent flyer programs. Their proposed code-sharing would also increase their dominance through the simple fact of multiplying the apparent number of flights offered by each of them. In these respects, the three airlines seek to secure the same competitive advantages of a dominant market share that would accrue to them through a merger.
We have developed six conditions, after considering the three airlines' responses to our stated concerns. For convenience, our conditions are set forth below, along with a short summary of the basis for each of them:
1. The following condition is intended to reduce the possibility of collusion that would be inconsistent with 49 U.S.C. 40101 or unlawful under 49 U.S.C. 41712:
2. The following condition is intended to implement the Alliance Carriers' agreement to release “Surplus Gates” and reduce the possibility that the Marketing Agreement will impede competition due to “hoarding” underutilized facilities at certain congested airports:
3. The following condition is intended to ensure that the Alliance Carriers implement their representations of consumer benefits due to on-line service expansion:
4. The following condition is intended to encourage continued independent competition and reduce the possibility of joint marketing arrangements that reduce competition:
5. The following condition is designed to limit the potential anti-competitive effects of multiple listings of one service under different codes,
6. The following condition is intended to limit the duration of the potential anti-competitive effects of the exclusivity clauses of the Marketing Agreement to its proposed term:
The following agreements were filed with the Department of Transportation under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 412 and 414. Answers may be filed within 21 days after the filing of the application.
Office of the Secretary, DOT.
Notice of Availability—Fleet (AFV) Report.
In accordance with the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) (42 U.S.C. 13211-13219) as amended by the Energy Conservation Reauthorization Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-388), and E.O. 13149, “Greening the Government Through Federal Fleet and Transportation Efficiency,” the Department of Transportation's annual alternative fuel vehicle reports are available on the following Department of Transportation Web site:
Kurt T. Ettenger, Departmental Fleet Manager, Office of Security and Administrative Management, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-2093.
Coast Guard, DOT. Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice of application.
The Coast Guard and the Maritime Administration (MARAD) give notice, as required by the Deepwater Port Act of 1974, as amended, that they have received an application for the licensing of a deepwater port, and that the application appears to contain the required information. The notice summarizes the applicant's plans and the procedures we will follow in considering the application.
Any public hearing held in connection with this application must be held not later than September 22, 2003. The application will be approved or denied within 90 days after the last public hearing held on the application.
The mailing address for the clerk in this proceeding is: Commandant (G-M), U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 Second Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001. Public docket USCG-2003-14294 is maintained by the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. The Docket Management Facility office maintains a Web site,
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Department of Transportation's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
If you have questions on this notice call Robert Nelson, U.S. Coast Guard, (202) 267-0496,
A deepwater port must be licensed, and the Act provides that a license applicant submit detailed plans for its facility to the Secretary of Transportation, along with its application. The Secretary has delegated the processing of deepwater port applications to the Coast Guard and MARAD. The Act allows 21 days following receipt of the application to determine if it contains all required information. If it does, we must publish a notice of application in the
The present application involves a proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility. As such, MTSA excepts the application from the restrictions of 33 U.S.C. 1504(d)(1)-(3) and 33 U.S.C. 1504(i)(1)-(3). While this permits submission and consideration of competing applications for the same “application area”, there may still be practical restrictions from a navigation safety standpoint with regard to the proximity of multiple deepwater ports.
We will review the application under the current deepwater port regulations published in 33 CFR part 148. On May 30, 2002 (67 FR 37920) the Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) indicating its intent to revise those regulations. Public comments have been received in response to the NPRM and we will consider those comments prior to adopting revised regulations. In addition, MTSA mandates that we revise existing deepwater port regulations as soon as practicable to implement extension of deepwater port regulations to natural gas. It also allows for the issuance of an interim final rule without public notice and comment. Thus, the current regulations may be amended before we have fully processed the application. In that event, the amended regulations will govern further processing of the application as soon as they take effect.
The Deepwater Port will consist of a Submerged Turret Loading (STL) system that is comprised of a submerged turret buoy; chains, lines and anchors; a flexible riser; and a subsea manifold. Other components of the Deepwater Port will include approximately 1.93 miles of 20-inch pipeline; a small meter platform and risers; a 20-inch diameter pipeline approximately 3.96 miles in length that will extend from the meter platform to Sea Robin Pipeline Company (Sea Robin), an offshore natural gas pipeline subject to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) Natural Gas Act (NGA) jurisdiction; and a separate 20-inch diameter pipeline approximately 1.38 miles in length that will extend from the meter platform to a section of pipe that will interconnect to an offshore natural gas pipeline system commonly referred to as the Blue Water system. This system is owned in part by Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company and in part by Columbia Gulf Transmission Company, another interstate pipeline subject to the FERC's NGA jurisdiction. The natural gas transported by Sea Robin and Blue Water will come ashore at the Louisiana coast.
The Deepwater Port will be used to deliver to onshore markets natural gas derived from the regasified LNG that will be received from sources worldwide. The gas to be transported through the Deepwater Port will be owned by Deepwater Energy L.P., (Deepwater Energy) an affiliate of Energy Bridge GOM. Deepwater Energy will utilize the entire capacity of the Deepwater Port.
Gas will be delivered to the Deepwater Port by conventional LNG vessels, which incorporate shipboard regasification capabilities. The vessels will operate in foreign commerce and be leased to affiliates of Energy Bridge GOM. The vessels that will be used to deliver natural gas to the Deepwater Port will have a capacity to hold 138,000 cubic meters of LNG and will regasify the LNG onboard at the point of delivery to the Deepwater Port so that imports will consist of gas in its vaporous state, rather than in a liquefied state. Each 138,000 cubic meter LNG vessel will deliver approximately 2.9 billion cubic feet (BCF) of natural gas through the Deepwater Port. The first El Paso Energy Bridge vessel (EPEBV) will be available to commence service by November of 2004. Each vessel will have fully-integrated regasification facilities on-board, using the same type of proven regasification technology that is used in land-based regasification terminals. Each EPEBV will also have the alternate capability to deliver LNG to conventional onshore regasification terminals in the same manner as existing LNG vessels.
When an EPEBV reaches the location of the Deepwater Port, it will retrieve and connect to the STL system. For that purpose, a winch located on the vessel will raise the submerged buoy from its subsurface location, where it is located when not connected to an EPEBV. The buoy will be drawn into an opening in the hull of the vessel. After it is secured to the EPEBV, the buoy will serve both as the mooring system for the vessel and as the offloading mechanism for transferring the natural gas. After the buoy is attached to the vessel and all start-up prerequisites are satisfied, the on-board LNG regasification process will commence. The gas is then discharged through the buoy into the subsea flexible riser. The gas will move
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
Notice.
The FAA, in cooperation with the NPS, is initiating development of an Air Tour Management Plan (ATMP) for the Haleakala National Park pursuant to the National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-181) and its implementing regulations contained in title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, part 136,
The Public Information Workshop will be held February 26, 2003, at 6 p.m.
The Public Information Workshop will be held at the Pukalani Community Center, 91 Pukalani Street, Pukalani, Hawaii.
Brian Armstrong, Air Tour Management Plan Program Manager, Executive Resource Staff, AWP-4, Federal Aviation Administration, Western-Pacific Region. Mailing address: P.O. Box 92007, Los Angeles, California 90009-2007. Telephone: (310) 725-3818. Street address: 15000 Aviation Boulevard, Hawthorne, California 90261. Email:
The FAA, in cooperation with the NPS, is initiating development of an Air Tour Management Plan (ATMP) for the Haleakala National Park pursuant to the National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-181) and its implementing regulations contained in title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, part 136,
In developing the ATMP and associated rulemaking actions, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and National Park Service (NPS) are required to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 (NEPA), which calls on Federal agencies to consider environmental issues as part of their decision making process. For the purposes of compliance with NEPA, the FAA is the Lead Agency and the NPS is a Cooperating Agency. An Environmental Assessment will be prepared for the ATMP in accordance with NEPA and its implementing regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508).
Interested individuals, groups, and other members of the public are invited to attend a Public Information Workshop to be held on February 26, 2003, at 6 p.m. The workshop will consist of brief presentations by the FAA, the NPS, and the Acoustical Department of the VOLPE National Transportation Center beginning at 6 p.m. These presentations will conclude by approximately 7 p.m. Following the presentations, attendees may browse displays, collect information, talk with FAA and NPS officials, discuss concerns, and register to receive further information regarding development of the Haleakala National Park ATMP.
This is a public information workshop only. Public testimony or comments will not be formally recorded at this time. A public scoping period, during which public comments will be formally received, will be held at a later time in compliance with the procedures established under NEPA. The scoping period will be announced through the
Additional information on the ATMP Program is available on the FAA's ATMP Website located at
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
Notice.
The FAA, in cooperation with the NPS, is initiating development of an Air Tour Management Plan (ATMP) for the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park pursuant to the National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-181) and its implementing regulations contained in title 14, Code
The Public Information Workshop will be held February 24, 2003, at 5:30 p.m.
The Public Information Workshop will be held at the Cooper Center, 19-4030 Wright Road, Volcano, Hawaii.
Brian Armstrong, Air Tour Management Plan Program Manager, Executive Resource Staff, AWP-4, Federal Aviation Administration, Western-Pacific Region. Mailing address: P.O. Box 92007, Los Angeles, California 90009-2007. Telephone: (310) 725-3818. Street address: 15000 Aviation Boulevard, Hawthorne, California 90261. Email:
The FAA, in cooperation with the NPS, is initiating development of an Air Tour Management Plan (ATMP) for the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park pursuant to the National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-181) and its implementing regulations contained in title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, part 136, National Parks Air Tour Management, published October 25, 2002 (67 FR 65662). The objective of the ATMP is to mitigate or prevent the significant adverse impacts, if any, of commercial air tour operations upon the natural and cultural resources, visitor experiences, and abutting tribal lands, of the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. Following a Federal rulemaking action, the ATMP will be incorporated into part 136.
In developing the ATMP and associated rulemaking actions, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and National Park Service (NPS) are required to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 (NEPA), which calls on Federal agencies to consider environmental issues as part of their decision making process. For the purposes of compliance with NEPA, the FAA is the Lead Agency and the NPS is a Cooperating Agency. An Environmental Assessment will be prepared for the ATMP in accordance with NEPA and its implementing regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508).
Interested individuals, groups, and other members of the public are invited to attend a Public Information Workshop to be held on February 24, 2003, at 5:30 p.m. The workshop will consist of brief presentations by the FAA, the NPS, and the Acoustical Department of the VOLPE National Transportation Center beginning at 5:30 p.m. These presentations will conclude by approximately 6:30 p.m. Following the presentations, attendees may browse displays, collect information, talk with FAA and NPS officials, discuss concerns, and register to receive further information regarding development of the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park ATMP.
This is a public information workshop only. Public testimony or comments will not be formally recorded at this time. A public scoping period, during which public comments will be formally received, will be held at a later time in compliance with the procedures established under NEPA. The scoping period will be announced through the
Additional information on the ATMP Program is available on the FAA's ATMP Website located at
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of meeting.
The FAA issues this notice to advise the public of the second joint FAA/NASA workshop to discuss Object Oriented Technology (OOT) in Aviation. This notice announces the dates, times, location, and registration information for the workshop.
The workshop is scheduled for March 25th through March 27th, 2003, starting at 8:30 a.m., and ending at 5 p.m. daily, except for the last day when the workshop will end at 12:30 p.m.
The workshop will be held at the Sheraton Norfolk Waterside Hotel, 777 Waterside Drive, Norfolk, VA, 23510 USA, Telephone (757) 622-6664.
Kelly Hayhurst, NASA Langley Research Center; e-mail
The agenda for the workshop includes:
• Opening session (welcome and workshop overview, workshop vision).
• Overview of OOT Handbook and general issues.
• Breakout sessions covering:
• Discussion of breakout session results.
• Closing session (future activities, adjournment).
This workshop is open to anyone interested in OOT issues related to developing or approving aviation software products that comply with RTCA Document No. RTCA/DO-178B,
Workshop Registration fee is $100 (USD) if paid by February 28, 2003 and $300 (USD) if paid after that date. Use the following web-site to make your reservations and to obtain additional details pertaining to the workshop:
A block of rooms are reserved at the Sheraton Norfolk Waterside Hotel, 777 Waterside Drive, Norfolk, VA, 23510 USA, Telephone (757) 622-6664 or central reservations number (800) 325-
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of Intent to Rule on Application.
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application to, impose and use the revenue from a PFC at Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport under the provisions of the 49 U.S.C. 40117 and part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158).
Comments must be received on or before February 24, 2003.
Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered in triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Washington Airports District Office, 23723 Air Freight Lane, Suite 210, Dulles, VA 22016.
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Bryan O. Elliott, Director of Aviation, of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority at the following address: Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority, 201 Bowen Loop, Charlottesville, Virginia 22901.
Air carriers and foreign air carriers may submit copies of written comments previously provided to the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority under section 158.23 of part 158.
Arthur Winder, Program Manager, Washington Airports District Office, 23723 Air Freight Land, Suite 210, Dulles, VA. 22016, (703) 661-1363. The application may be reviewed in person at this same location.
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC at Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport under the provisions of the 49 U.S.C. 40117 and part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158).
On December 24, 2002, the FAA determined that the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC submitted by capital Region Airport Commission was substantially complete within the requirements of section 158.25 of part 158. The FAA will approve or disapprove the application, in whole or in part, no later than March 29, 2003.
The following is a brief overview of the application.
Impose $850,000.
Use $850,000.
Any person may inspect the application in person at the FAA office listed above under
In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application, notice and other documents germane to the application in person at the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of intent.
The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that an Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared for proposed roadway and bridge improvement project in Cass County, Nebraska, and Mills County, Iowa.
Mr. Edward Kosola, Realty/Environmental Officer, FHWA, Federal Building, Room 220, 100 Centennial Mall North, Lincoln, NE 68508-3851, (402) 437-5765. Mr. Arthur Yonkey, Planning and Project Development Engineer, Nebraska Department of Roads. PO Box 94759, 1500 Highway 2, Lincoln, NE, 68509, (402) 479-4795. Mr. James Rost, Office of Location and Environment, Iowa Department of Transportation, 800 Lincoln Way, Ames, Iowa 50010, Telephone: (515) 239-1798.
The Transportation Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2002 included funding for a study of a possible replacement bridge over the Missouri River on Highway U.S. 34 at Plattsmouth, Nebraska. The FHWA, in cooperation with the Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR) and the Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT), will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Rehabilitation/Replacement and Roadway Study project for the U.S. 34 Plattsmouth Bridge.
The existing two-lane U.S. 34 toll bridge over the Missouri River at the east edge of Plattsmouth has been listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The existing bridge is a multi-span through-truss structure approximately 1,400 feet long with a 20-foot wide driving surface. This bridge is both functionally and structurally obsolete. The existing alignment of U.S. 34 is through the Central Business District of Plattsmouth. The roadway portion of the study will include a connection to Highway U.S. 75 at the west edge of Plattsmouth.
Alternatives under consideration include: (1) Taking no action; (2) rehabilitating/replacing the existing two-lane bridge; (3) constructing a new two-lane bridge on new location with a connection to the existing roadway system; and (4) constructing a new two-
An agency scoping meeting and a public scoping/information meeting are planned. Letters describing the proposed action and soliciting comments will be sent to appropriate federal, state, and local agencies, and to private organizations and citizens who are known to be interested in this proposed project. Public input will be sought throughout the project via a series of public meetings to be held in 2003 and 2004. A Draft EIS will be prepared and a public hearing will be held. Public notice will be given of the time and place of the public meetings and public hearing.
To ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposed action are addressed and all significant issues are identified, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Comments or questions concerning this proposed action and the EIS should be directed to the Nebraska Department of Roads, Iowa DOT or FHWA at the address provided in the caption
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), DOT.
Notice of Safety Advisory 2003-01.
FRA is issuing Safety Advisory 2003-01 addressing the importance of the hazardous materials offeror's requirement to verify the compatibility of all packaging components, such as valves and gaskets, in the event a change is made to the chemical constituents of a hazardous material in a railroad tank car. This action is being taken to improve the safety and reliability of hazardous material shipments in transportation.
William S. Schoonover, Specialist, Hazardous Materials Division, Office of Safety Assurance and Compliance, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Telephone: 202-493-6229, e-mail:
On February 18, 1999, railroad tank car number UTLX 643593, spotted on an unloading rack at the Essroc Cement Corporation's Logansport cement plant near Clymers, Indiana, sustained a sudden and catastrophic rupture that propelled the tank an estimated 750 feet over a multistory storage tank. The 20,000-gallon tank car initially contained about 161,700 pounds (14,185 gallons) of a toxic and flammable hazardous waste being used as fuel for the plant's kilns. Fortunately, there were no injuries or fatalities. However, total damages, including property damage and costs from lost production, were estimated at nearly $8.2 million. During the investigation of this incident, the safety relief device from this car and four other cars built to the same design were tested at a tank car repair facility to determine compliance with Federal regulations. Investigators determined that the gasket material in the safety relief devices exhibited varying degrees of brittleness, swelling, hardness, and cracking that contributed to the failure of the pressure relief devices to comply with Federal and industry requirements.
Incidents such as the one near Clymers, Indiana, result from noncompliance with the requirements in the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR). Specifically, these incidents derive from improper material selection and consideration of all components. The safety and reliability of hazardous materials shipments in transportation depend on a disciplined approach to material selection and maintenance.
FRA is issuing Safety Advisory 2003-01 to further discuss the requirements concerning gasket material selection in the event a change is made in the chemical constituents of the hazardous material shipped. This document provides general guidance only. Shippers should not rely on this document as a substitute for sound engineering, material selection, and maintenance management.
Tank car UTLX 643593, a DOT specification 111J100W1 tank car built in early 1993, was one of 52 tank cars designed for toluene diisocyanate (TDI) transportation. The certificate of construction for UTLX 643593, and the other cars listed on the built certificate, indicates that these cars were approved for carriage of “Non-regulated commodities and commodities authorized in DOT Part 173 for which there are no other requirements and which are
The hazardous material within the tank car, TDI waste matter, was loaded in October 1993 and stored until March 1998. It was transported to the Logansport facility for further storage until being moved for unloading in February 1999. On February 18, 1999, while spotted on an unloading rack, tank car UTLX 643593 sustained a sudden and catastrophic rupture that propelled the tank an estimated 750 feet over a multistory storage tank. Immediately after the incident, an investigation was conducted by the National Transportation Safety Board and FRA. Laboratory analysis obtained during the investigation revealed that two other constituents had been added to the material before shipping to the Logansport facility. A blending agent was added to the TDI to reduce its viscosity. The blending agents were HAN 906® (a mixture of flammable petroleum hydrocarbons such as naphthalene and trimethylbenzene) and monochlorobenzene (MCB). Both blending agents are classified as hazardous materials when shipped individually.
The transportation of the solvent blend wastes and TDI matter wastes in UTLX 643593 and the other tank cars approved for the transport of pure TDI constituted a change in the “compatibility status” of the tank and service equipment. This change in compatibility status, which resulted in deterioration of the components, was a key contributor to the pressure relief devices failure to meet Federal requirements (See 49 CFR 173.24(e)).
After the Clymers accident, FRA mandated, in a letter to the tank car owner, that the pressure relief devices from four of the 24 tank cars containing the TDI matter wastes in storage at the Logansport rail yard be pressure-tested in accordance with the HMRs before any of the tank cars could be transported for unloading. The tear down and inspection of the pressure relief devices from these five tank cars (the four cars that FRA required to be tested and UTLX 643593) demonstrated that the
“A Chemical Resistance Guide to Elastomers” provided to the investigators by the tank car manufacturer contained guidance about the resistance of available gasket, “O”-ring, and sealing materials to degradation upon exposure to various chemicals. According to this guide, ethylene propylene rubber, the material that constituted the “O”-rings in the pressure relief devices from the tank cars, offers good to excellent resistance to chemical attack from pure TDI at temperatures up to 70 °F and should not exhibit more than minor swelling, softening, or surface deterioration. The guide also recommends against using ethylene propylene rubber with either MCB or naphthalene, one of the primary components of the HAN 906® solvent. Investigators concluded that the swelling, hardness, and brittleness of the ethylene propylene rubber “O”-rings in the pressure relief devices from the tank cars that were examined likely resulted from exposure to the MCB in the TDI matter waste.
The offeror of tank car UTLX 643593 apparently did not consider that the presence of MCB and HAN 906® solvent in the TDI waste mixtures might adversely affect the “O”-rings in the pressure relief devices and other gaskets on the tank cars used to store and transport these wastes. Consequently, the offeror did not find that the presence of these chemicals changed the compatibility status from the transport of pure TDI. The investigation, however, showed that the presence of MCB and HAN 906® solvent in the TDI waste mixtures was sufficient to chemically attack the “O”-rings in the pressure relief devices on tank cars carrying TDI waste mixtures. Therefore, the transportation of the solvent-blend wastes and TDI-matter wastes in the tank cars approved for the transport of pure TDI constituted a change in product compatibility.
The HMR, 49 CFR parts 171-180, set forth requirements for the safe transportation of hazardous materials in commerce by railcar, aircraft, vessel, and motor vehicle. In general, the HMR apply to each person who performs, or causes to be performed, functions related to the transportation of hazardous materials in commerce. The HMR prescribe requirements for classification, packaging, hazard communication, shipping papers, incident reporting, handling, loading, unloading, segregation, and movement of hazardous materials.
Material selection and use of an appropriate packaging for a hazardous material are essential to ensuring the safety and reliability of the shipment while in transportation. Only packagings compatible with the hazardous material may be used to ship hazardous materials in transportation. Persons must ensure that a packaging will retain its contents during temperature variances, changes in atmospheric pressure, vibration, or other conditions that may be encountered during normal conditions of transport. These requirements also apply to tank cars containing only a residue of a hazardous material.
The HMR place the responsibility for ensuring that a package is appropriate for transportation on the offeror (typically the shipper) of the material. The selection should be made with input from the tank car owner and the component/gasket manufacturer to ensure that the configuration is appropriate for the device and that other entities having similar responsibilities in relation to the tank car's maintenance are aware of the requirements and can modify inspection and maintenance cycles as necessary. In addition, the tank car manufacturer and tank car repair facilities each have a responsibility to ensure that the approved materials are used during the assembly of the tank car and for repairs or replacement. The HMR require the offeror to ensure that the components on the tank car are correct before offering the tank car for transportation.
Even when appropriate test intervals are established and followed, carriage of cargos that chemically attack gaskets and “O”-rings in valves and fittings can undermine the integrity of the valves and fittings. The addition of a new chemical constituent to a commodity approved for transportation in a tank car changes the chemical composition of that commodity and results in the exposure of gaskets and seals on the tank car to a new mixture. The concentration of a newly added chemical constituent may be sufficiently diluted so as to present little or no risk of chemical attack to gaskets and seals, but the risk level can best be ascertained by tests or verification through technical literature that the new chemical constituent is compatible with the gaskets and seals on the tank car.
While no information or guidance regarding gasket and fitting compatibility in conjunction with changes in product service has yet been issued by FRA, the topic continues to be addressed through various programs. For example, on September 21, 1995, the Research and Special Programs Administration amended the performance standards for the gaskets used on tank cars. The regulations require that each tank car used in anhydrous ammonia, division 2.1 or division 2.3, service have gaskets designed according to temperature, application, media, pressure, and size, so that a positive seal is created and the safety and reliability of the shipment will be maintained.
In recognition of the need to assure safety, FRA strongly urges all persons involved in the packaging and offering of hazardous materials to carefully examine all of their internal procedures and processes to ensure proper compliance. In addition, FRA reminds offerors of hazardous materials of their responsibility to verify the compatibility of all tank car components, such as valves and gaskets, to resist corrosion, permeability, premature aging, pitting, or embrittlement. In making these determinations, offerors should combine their knowledge of the materials to be shipped with component compatibility information available from the component and gasket manufacturers and communicate their requirements to the tank car owner. Technical organizations such as the National Association of Corrosion Engineers (
Interested parties can obtain additional information through several methods. You may request an informal written interpretation, a regulatory clarification, or a response to a question, or offer an opinion concerning hazardous materials transportation by sending a written submission to the
Pursuant to Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 235 and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), the following railroad has petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval for the discontinuance or modification of the signal system or relief from the requirements of 49 CFR part 236 as detailed below.
The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) seeks relief from the requirements of the Rules, Standard and Instructions, Title 49 CFR, part 236, Section 236.312, on the Crescent Bridge at Rock Island, Illinois, on the Illinois Division, Barstow Subdivision, LS 7, milepost 253.89 to the extent that BNSF is neither required to detect proper rail surface and alignment to within three-eighths (
Any interested party desiring to protest the granting of an application shall set forth, specifically, the grounds upon which the protest is made and include a concise statement of the interest of the party in the proceeding. Additionally, one copy of the protest shall be furnished to the applicant at the address listed above.
All communications concerning this proceeding should be identified by the docket number and must be submitted to the Docket Clerk, DOT Central Docket Management Facility, Room PL-401 (Plaza Level), 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice will be considered by the FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All written communications concerning these proceedings are available for examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above facility. All documents available for inspection and copying on the internet at the docket facility's Web site at
FRA expects to be able to determine these matters without an oral hearing. However, if a specific request for an oral hearing is accompanied by a showing that the party is unable to adequately present his or her position by written statements, an application may be set for public hearing.
Pursuant to Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 235 and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), the following railroad has petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval for the discontinuance or modification of the signal system or relief from the requirements of 49 CFR part 236 as detailed below.
The Canadian National Railroad seeks approval of the proposed discontinuance and removal of the interlocked signal system on the single main track, Fox River Swing Bridge, at milepost 2.4, on the Wisconsin Central Division, Luxemburg Subdivision near Green Bay, Wisconsin.
The reason given for the proposed changes is that the track now has minimal usage.
Any interested party desiring to protest the granting of an application shall set forth, specifically the grounds upon which the protest is made, and include a concise statement of the interest of the party in the proceeding. Additionally, one copy of the protest shall be furnished to the applicant at the address listed above.
All communications concerning this proceeding should be identified by the docket number and must be submitted to the Docket Clerk, DOT Central Docket Management Facility, Room PL-401 (Plaza Level), 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice will be considered by the FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All written communications concerning these proceedings are available for examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web site at
FRA expects to be able to determine these matters without an oral hearing. However, if a specific request for an oral hearing is accompanied by a showing that the party is unable to adequately present his or her position by written statements, an application may be set for public hearing.
Pursuant to Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 235 and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), the following railroad has petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval for the discontinuance or modification of the signal system or relief from the requirements of 49 CFR part 236 as detailed below.
The Canadian National Railroad seeks approval of the proposed discontinuance and removal of the interlocked signal system on the single main track, H-43-E Manitowoc River Drawbridge, at milepost 43.83, on the Wisconsin Central Division, Manitowoc Subdivision near Manitowoc, Wisconsin.
The reason given for the proposed changes is that the track now has minimal usage.
Any interested party desiring to protest the granting of an application shall set forth specifically the grounds upon which the protest is made, and include a concise statement of the interest of the party in the proceeding. Additionally, one copy of the protest shall be furnished to the applicant at the address listed above.
All communications concerning this proceeding should be identified by the docket number and must be submitted to the Docket Clerk, DOT Central Docket Management Facility, Room P-401 (Plaza Level), 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice will be considered by the FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All written communications concerning these proceedings are available for examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for inspection and copying on the internet at the docket facility's Web site at
FRA expects to be able to determine these matters without an oral hearing. However, if a specific request for an oral hearing is accompanied by a showing that the party is unable to adequately present his or her position by written statements, an application may be set for public hearing.
Pursuant to Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 235 and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), the following railroad has petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval for the discontinuance or modification of the signal system or relief from the requirements of 49 CFR part 236 as detailed below.
The Canadian National Railroad seeks approval of the proposed discontinuance and removal of the interlocked signal system on the single main track, H-43-D Manitowoc River Drawbridge, at milepost 43.61, on the Wisconsin Central Division, Manitowoc Subdivision near Manitowoc, Wisconsin.
The reason given for the proposed changes is that the track now has minimal usage.
Any interested party desiring to protest the granting of an application shall set forth, specifically, the grounds upon which the protest is made, and include a concise statement of the interest of the party in the proceeding. Additionally, one copy of the protest shall be furnished to the applicant at the address listed above.
All communications concerning this proceeding should be identified by the docket number and must be submitted to the Docket Clerk, DOT Central Docket Management Facility, Room PL-401 (Plaza Level), 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice will be considered by the FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All written communications concerning these proceedings are available for examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for inspection and copying on the internet at the docket facility's Web site at
FRA expects to be able to determine these matters without an oral hearing. However, if a specific request for an oral hearing is accompanied by a showing that the party is unable to adequately present his or her position by written statements, an application may be set for public hearing.
Pursuant to Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 235 and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), the following railroad has petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval for the discontinuance or modification of the signal system or relief from the requirements of 49 CFR part 236 as detailed below.
Safe Handling Rail, Incorporated seeks approval of the proposed temporary discontinuance and removal from service, the Carlton Drawbridge Interlocking, milepost 30.0 on the Rockland Branch near Bath, Maine for a period of approximately six months associated with on going construction and upgrades.
The reasons given for the proposed changes are due to the activities of an outside contractor, the delivery schedule of cable, and the necessity of
Any interested party desiring to protest the granting of an application shall set forth, specifically, the grounds upon which the protest is made and include a concise statement of the interest of the party in the proceeding. Additionally, one copy of the protest shall be furnished to the applicant at the address listed above.
All communications concerning this proceeding should be identified by the docket number and must be submitted to the Docket Clerk, DOT Central Docket Management Facility, Room PL-401 (Plaza Level), 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice will be considered by the FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All written communications concerning these proceedings are available for examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for inspection and copying on the internet at the docket facility's Web site at
FRA expects to be able to determine these matters without an oral hearing. However, if a specific request for an oral hearing is accompanied by a showing that the party is unable to adequately present his or her position by written statements, an application may be set for public hearing.
Customs Service, Treasury.
General notice.
This notice advises the public of the quarterly Internal Revenue Service interest rates used to calculate interest on overdue accounts (underpayments) and refunds (overpayments) of Customs duties. For the calendar quarter beginning January 1, 2003, the interest rates for overpayments will be 4 percent for corporations and 5 percent for non-corporations, and the interest rate for underpayments will be 5 percent. This notice is published for the convenience of the importing public and Customs personnel.
January 1, 2003.
Ronald Wyman, Accounting Services Division, Accounts Receivable Group, 6026 Lakeside Boulevard, Indianapolis, Indiana 46278, (317) 298-1200, extension 1349.
Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1505 and Treasury Decision 85-93, published in the
The interest rates are based on the Federal short-term rate and determined by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on behalf of the Secretary of the Treasury on a quarterly basis. The rates effective for a quarter are determined during the first-month period of the previous quarter.
In Revenue Ruling 2002-70 (
For the convenience of the importing public and Customs personnel the following list of IRS interest rates used, covering the period from before July of 1974 to date, to calculate interest on overdue accounts and refunds of Customs duties, is published in summary format.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
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 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)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Revenue Procedure 97-15, section 103—Remedial Payment Closing Agreement Program.
Written comments should be received on or before March 24, 2003, to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Glenn P. Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6411, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of revenue procedure should be directed to Carol Savage, (202) 622-3945, or through the internet
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
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 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)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning an existing final regulation, REG-209709-94 (TD 8865), Amortization of Intangible Property (§ 1.197-2).
Written comments should be received on or before March 24, 2003, to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Glenn P. Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6411, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulation should be directed to Carol Savage, (202) 622-3945, or through the internet (
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
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 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)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8508, Request for Waiver From Filing Information Returns Magnetically (Forms W-2, W-2G, 1042-S, 1098, 1099 Series, 5498-MSA, and 8027.
Written comments should be received on or before March 24, 2003, to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Glenn P. Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6411, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Carol Savage, (202) 622-3945, or through the internet (
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
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 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)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Revenue Procedure 96-60, Procedure for filing Forms W-2 in certain acquisitions.
Written comments should be received on or before March 24, 2003, to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Glenn P. Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6411, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the revenue procedure should be directed to Carol Savage, (202) 622-3945, or through the internet (
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
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 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)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning form 4419, Application for Filing Information Returns Magnetically/ Electronically.
Written comments should be received on or before March 24, 2003, to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Glenn P. Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6411, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Carol Savage, (202) 622-3945, or through the internet (
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
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 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)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning existing final regulations, FI-7-94 (TD 8718; TD 8538) and FI-36-92 (TD 8476), Arbitrage Restrictions on Tax-Exempt Bonds (§§ 1.148-2, 1.148-3, 1.148-4, 1.148-7, and 1.148-11).
Written comments should be received on or before March 24, 2003, to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Glenn P, Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6411, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of regulations should be directed to Carol Savage, (202) 622-3945, or through the Internet (
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
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 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)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Revenue Procedure 99-50, Combined Information Reporting.
Written comments should be received on or before March 24, 2003, to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Glenn P. Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6411, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of revenue procedure should be directed to Carol Savage, (202) 622-3945, or through the Internet
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
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 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)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 5310, Application for Determination for Terminating Plan, and Form 6088, Distributable Benefits from Employee Pension Benefit Plans.
Written comments should be received on or before March 24, 2003, to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Glenn P. Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6411, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the forms and instructions should be directed to Carol Savage, (202) 622-3945, or through the Internet (
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
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 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)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 5310-A, Notice of Plan Merger or Consolidation, Spinoff, or Transfer of Plan Assets or Liabilities; Notice of Qualified Separate Lines of Business.
Written comments should be received on or before March 24, 2003, to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Glenn P. Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6411, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Carol Savage, (202) 622-3945, or through the Internet (
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
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 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)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Notice 2000-3, Guidance on Cash or Deferred Arrangements.
Written comments should be received on or before March 24, 2003, to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Glenn P. Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6411, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of noticeshould be directed to Carol Savage, (202) 622-3945, or through the Internet (
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
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 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)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 706-CE, Certificate of Payment of Foreign Death Tax.
Written comments should be received on or before March 24, 2003 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Glenn Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6411, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Allan Hopkins, at (202) 622-6665, or through the Internet (
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
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 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)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8832, Entity Classification Election.
Written comments should be received on or before March 24 ,2003 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Glenn Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6411, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Allan Hopkins, (202) 622-6665, or through the Internet (
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
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 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)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 4029, Application for Exemption From Social Security and Medicare Taxes and Waiver of Benefits.
Written comments should be received on or before March 24, 2003, to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Glenn Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6411, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Larnice Mack, at (202) 622-3179, or
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
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 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)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning form 1120X, Amended U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return.
Written comments should be received on or before March 24, 2003, to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Glenn Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6411, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Larnice Mack at (202) 622-3179, or
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice.
An open meeting of the Ad Hoc Issue Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted (via teleconference).
The meeting will be held Monday, February 3, 2003.
Anne Gruber at 1-888-912-1227, or 206-220-6095.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Ad Hoc Issue Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Monday, February 3, 2003, from 1 p.m. p.s.t. to 3 p.m. p.s.t. via a telephone conference call. The public is invited to make oral comments. Individual comments will be limited to 5 minutes. If you would like to have the TAP consider a written statement, please call 1-888-912-1227 or 206-220-6095, or write Anne Gruber, TAP Office, 915 2nd Ave, Seattle, WA 98174. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate in the telephone conference call meeting must be made in advance with Anne Gruber. Ms. Gruber can be reached at 1-888-912-1227 or 206-220-6095.
The agenda will include the following: various IRS issues.
Last minute changes to the agenda are possible and could prevent effective advance notice.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice.
An open meeting of the Area 3 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted.
The meeting will be held Friday, February 7, 2003.
Sallie Chavez at 1-888-912-1227, or 954-423-7979.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Area 3 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Friday, February 7, 2003, from 3 p.m. e.s.t. to 7 p.m. e.s.t. at the Omni Jacksonville Hotel, 245 Water St., Jacksonville, Florida. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. Individual comments will be limited to 5 minutes. If you would like to have the TAP consider a written statement, please call 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7979, or
The agenda will include the following: various IRS issues.
Last minute changes to the agenda are possible and could prevent effective advance notice.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (TAP) Multilingual Initiative Issue (MLI) Committee will be conducted (via teleconference).
The meeting will be held Friday, February 14, 2003.
Inez E. De Jesus at 1-888-912-1227, or 954-423-7977.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Multilingual Initiative Issue Committee will be held Friday, February 14, 2003, from 1 p.m. e.s.t. to 2 p.m. e.s.t. via a telephone conference call. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. Individual comments will be limited to 5 minutes. If you would like to have the TAP consider a written statement, please call 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7977, or write Inez E. De Jesus, TAP Office, 1000 South Pine Island Rd., Suite 340, Plantation, FL 33324. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate in the telephone conference call meeting must be made with Inez E. De Jesus. Ms. De Jesus can be reached at 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7977.
The agenda will include the following: various IRS issues.
Last minute changes to the agenda are possible and could prevent effective advance notice.
Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury 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. Today, the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) within the Department of the Treasury solicits comments on proposed changes to the Thrift Financial Report (TFR), effective with the March 31, 2004 report. A proposal to amend Schedule CMR, Consolidated Maturity and Rate, a schedule that addresses interest rate risk, will be published separately at a later date.
The following subjects are discussed in more detail below:
(1) Definition of Mortgage Loans;
(2) Mortgage Backed Securities;
(3) Asset-backed Securities;
(4) Junior liens;
(5) Multifamily mortgages;
(6) General Valuation Allowances;
(7) Credit Cards;
(8) Servicing Assets in Schedule SC;
(9) Bank-Owned Life Insurance;
(10) Minority Interest on the Balance Sheet;
(11) Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income;
(12) Optional Narrative Statement;
(13) FHLB Dividend Income;
(14) Goodwill Expense;
(15) Schedule VA, Valuation Allowance Reconciliation;
(16) Troubled Debt Restructured;
(17) Guaranteed Loans Past Due;
(18) Unused Balances of Credit Cards and Home Equity Lines of Credit;
(19) Deletion of Lines in Schedule CF (Cash Flow);
(20) Refinancing Loans
(21) Nonmortgage Loan Activity;
(22) Mortgage Derivative Securities Activity Detail;
(23) Deposit Information and Deposit Insurance Premium Assessment Information;
(24) Summary of Changes in Equity Capital;
(25) Thrift Investment in Service Corporations;
(26) Savings Association and Subsidiary Web Site Addresses;
(27) IRS Domestic Building and Loan Association (DBLA) Test;
(28) Mutual Fund and Annuity Sales;
(29) Transactions with affiliates;
(30) Average Balance Sheet Data;
(31) Schedule SB, Small Business Loans;
(32) Holding Company Information;
(33) Reporting Frequency of Schedule CSS (Subordinate Organization Schedule);
(34) Consolidation of Subordinate Organizations;
(35) Schedule CCR (Capital Requirement);
(36) Shorter Deadlines for TFR, Including Schedules HC and CMR.
At the end of the comment period, the comments and recommendations received will be analyzed to determine the extent to which OTS should modify the proposed revisions prior to giving its final approval. OTS will then submit the revisions to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.
Submit written comments on or before March 24, 2003.
Send comments to Information Collection Comments, Chief Counsel's Office, Office of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552, Attention 1550-0023. Hand deliver comments to the Guard's Desk, east lobby entrance, 1700 G Street, NW., between 9 A.M. and 4 P.M. on business days. Send facsimile transmissions to FAX Number (202) 906-6518. Send e-mails to
You can access sample copies of the proposed March 2004 TFR form on OTS's web site,
OTS had proposed in August 2000 to collect most of the data being proposed today beginning with the first quarter of 2001. However, OTS decided to postpone certain changes to the TFR until March 2004. The original proposal can be accessed on the OTS web site at
This proposal also addresses certain aspects of sections 307(b) and (c) of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 (the Riegle Act). These sections direct the federal banking agencies to work jointly toward more uniform reporting, review the information that institutions currently report, and eliminate existing reporting requirements that are not warranted for safety and soundness or other public policy purposes.
Several reporting changes being proposed would introduce more uniformity for savings associations, banks, and bank holding companies to certain aspects of regulatory reporting. In this regard, over the past several years, the federal banking regulators have sought greater consistency among the reporting requirements imposed on savings associations, banks, and bank holding companies.
Increasing the uniformity of reporting requirements, among the different types of institutions supervised by the federal financial institution regulators, is a necessary step toward achieving the goal of a single set of reporting requirements for the filing of core information that is set forth in section 307(b) of the Riegle Act.
We propose redefining mortgages for TFR reporting to encompass all real estate loans subject to 12 CFR 560.100-101 (real estate lending standards) and OTS Thrift Bulletin 72a. This revised definition would include all loans predicated upon a security interest in real property. All revolving home equity loans and second mortgages would be reported as mortgages, not as consumer loans. The only loans that would be reported as nonmortgage loans are unsecured loans and those that are otherwise substantially secured by collateral other than real estate, where a mortgage was taken as an abundance of caution (for example, an auto loan with an incidental lien on a residence), and where the terms as a consequence have not been made more favorable than they would have been in the absence of the lien. If a loan can be placed under more than one classification (for example, when a loan to finance a small business is primarily secured by a single-family residence), the institution may classify the loan as either single-family or commercial for purposes of HOLA percent-of-assets limitations and for purposes of the TFR. However, even if the institution places such a loan in a non-real-estate category, it is subject to § 560.100-101.
The current criteria for classification as a mortgage—that a loan is fully secured by the property and that an appraisal or other evaluation has been performed—would no longer apply. If this change in mortgage loan definition is adopted, mortgage loan classification in the TFR would be more consistent with the mortgage loan classification by commercial banks on the Call Report. Increasing uniformity between the TFR and the Call Report is a step toward achieving the goal of a single set of reporting requirements for the filing of core information that is set forth in section 307(b) of the Riegle Act.
We propose combining mortgage-backed pass-through securities and mortgage derivatives into one section in the balance sheet (Schedule SC); breaking out insured or guaranteed pass-through securities into two lines:
(1) Guaranteed by GNMA; and
(2) Issued by FNMA and FHLMC.
We propose breaking out mortgage derivative securities into three lines:
(1) Those issued or guaranteed by FNMA, FHLMC, or GNMA;
(2) Those collateralized by securities issued or guaranteed by FNMA, FHLMC, or GNMA; and
(3) All others.
This would provide consistent information with the commercial bank Call Report, would be more consistent with the presentation of mortgage-backed securities in financial statements included with filings under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and would provide information on the degree of risk of the derivative investment. Consistent with the commercial bank Call Report, mortgage-backed bonds would be reported with other investment securities on SC185.
OTS proposes to add a line under “Investment Securities” on the balance sheet (Schedule SC) to collect securities collateralized by nonmortgage loans (asset-backed securities), including securities backed by credit cards, other consumer loans, and commercial loans. Asset-backed securities are currently reported with other types of investment securities on SC185. The addition of this line item would provide important information concerning the holdings of these securities.
OTS proposes to separately collect first liens and junior liens under “Permanent Mortgages” on 1-4 dwelling units in the balance sheet (Schedule SC) to better monitor the riskier junior lien market. Currently, the TFR does not collect data on single-family residential junior liens. This change would make the TFR mortgage loan breakdown consistent with the commercial bank Call Report. This change would also be made to the breakdown of residential mortgages in the charge-off and recovery data on Schedule VA and past-due data in Schedule PD.
OTS proposes to rename “5 or More Dwelling Units” to “Multifamily (5 or more) Residential Properties” throughout the TFR. The use of
OTS proposes removing from Schedule SC general valuation allowances on investment securities (SC199), real estate held for investment (SC481), and equity investments (SC529). This would require savings associations to report these items net of general valuation allowances, if there are any. It is OTS's opinion that a general valuation allowance on these items should be rare.
OTS proposes to collect credit cards separately under the heading “Consumer Loans.” Currently, credit cards are combined with other similar plans such as overdraft lines on checking accounts. These other similar plans would be reported with “Other Consumer Loans.” Because the change in the definition of mortgage loans mentioned above results in restructuring the consumer loan categories in Schedule SC, we would eliminate the distinction between closed-end and open-end consumer loans. Consequently, the line for “Other, Including Leases” would contain both closed-end loans and open-end loans such as those currently reported with credit cards. Credit cards would be broken out separately on the balance sheet (Schedule SC), in charge-offs and recoveries (Schedule VA), and in past due and nonaccrual (Schedule PD). This presentation would be consistent with the Call Report.
OTS proposes adding a section in Schedule SC to characterize servicing assets as intangibles, as required by Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Statement No. 142. No new lines would be added; this change would simply regroup intangible assets. Under this proposal a new subheading “Intangible Assets” would be added. Grouped under this heading would be Servicing Assets on Mortgage Loans (line SC642), Servicing Assets on Nonmortgage Loans (line SC644), and Goodwill and Other Intangibles (line SC660).
OTS proposes adding two lines in Schedule SC (Statement of Condition) to collect balances of key person life insurance and other bank-owned life insurance. These lines would facilitate monitoring of the level of bank-owned life insurance held by thrifts, an amount that has risen considerably over the past several years. Key person life insurance is defined as: life insurance where the intended purpose is to provide the institution protection against the potential for losses arising from the untimely death of a key employee or borrower. These policies are generally surrendered when the key employee leaves the institution or when the borrower pays off his loan. OTS currently collects this information in Other Assets (SC690).
OTS proposes changing the caption of SC799 from “Redeemable Preferred Stock and Minority Interest” to “Minority Interest.” The FASB has on their agenda consideration of a change in the financial reporting of redeemable preferred stock. It is anticipated that a statement will be released in 2003, to be effective in 2004. This change likely will clarify that redeemable preferred stock and similar instruments should be reported as borrowings and will no longer be reported in the balance sheet mezzanine area. We may be required to make additional changes to the TFR based on FASB's final pronouncement at a later date.
OTS proposes to add a subsection in the equity section of the balance sheet (Schedule SC) for accumulated other comprehensive income to conform to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). This section would include the existing line for unrealized gains (losses) on available-for-sale securities and two additional lines for:
(1) Gains (losses) on cash flow hedges; and
(2) Other, including foreign currency translation adjustments and minimum pension liability adjustments.
This change would put Schedule SC in conformity with GAAP, as described in FASB Statement No. 130.
OTS proposes adding a space for thrift management to submit a brief narrative statement concerning data reported in their TFR. This would permit institutions to provide narrative information on significant transactions, mergers, organizational adjustments, reclassifications, prior period adjustments, etc., of which they want OTS and the public to be aware. The narrative statement is optional and, therefore, poses no additional burden. The contents of the narrative would be the responsibility of management, would not be edited or screened by OTS, and would be released to the public.
OTS proposes adding a separate line in Schedule SO (Statement of Operations) for FHLB dividend income. FHLB dividends comprise a relatively large portion of net income for many institutions. Because of the magnitude of FHLB dividend income, we currently require the reporting of FHLB dividends in the detail of other noninterest income, leaving only two detail lines for other noninterest income. Creating a separate line for FHLB dividends would provide us with three detail lines describing other noninterest income as originally intended.
OTS proposes revising the title of SO560 from “Amortization of Goodwill” to “Goodwill and Other Intangibles Expense” to provide for periodic write-down of goodwill along with amortization of other intangibles, pursuant to FASB Statement No. 142.
OTS proposes to change the caption in the last column of the charge-off and recovery schedule from “Total” to “Adjusted Net Charge-offs” to better reflect its purpose.
OTS proposes to break out Troubled Debt Restructured (TDR) reported on VA941 into TDR in compliance with modified terms and past-due TDR. We would delete VA941 (TDR) and replace it with a line for TDR in compliance. We would add new lines in Schedule PD for each of the past due categories (30-89 days, 90 days or more, and nonaccrual) for past-due TDR included in Schedule PD. This would give OTS important monitoring information concerning the relative risk of the TDR on the books of an institution. It would also permit industry analysts to better identify assets with possible problems, since TDR in compliance may not present as much of a risk. This corresponds to the Call Report break out of TDR—troubled debt restructured and in compliance with modified terms, RC-C, Part I, Memoranda item 1 and troubled debt restructured past due, which is reported on RC-N, Memoranda item 1.
OTS proposes adding a line in each of the past due categories (30-89 Days, 90 Days or More, and Nonaccrual) in Schedule PD for the guaranteed portion of loans and leases that are wholly or partially guaranteed by the U.S. Government or Agency thereof. All loans, regardless of any guarantee, are included in Schedule PD, and all of Schedule PD is released to the public. The addition of this data would benefit institutions. Because investment and loan ratings are based on amounts reported in Schedule PD, without this new line, delinquent guaranteed loans could bring a rating down when in fact these loans may present no credit risk to the institution if they are properly underwritten and administered. This line is included in the Call Report on RC-N item 10.a.
OTS proposes to add two lines in Schedule CC (Commitment and Contingencies) to collect data on the unused balance of credit cards, and outstanding home equity lines of credit that have not yet been drawn down; currently these amounts are included with Open-end Consumer Lines on CC410.
OTS proposes to delete the following lines that are no longer used:
•
•
In order to track total refinancing loans, OTS proposes to change the definition of CF360, Refinancing Loans, to include not only refinanced loans where the reporting institution held the original mortgage, but also refinanced loans where another institution held the original mortgage. Line CF360 would be deleted and replaced with a new line using the revised definition. This would provide OTS with more complete information when assessing the amount of refinancing activity in an institution or in a geographical area.
Because nonmortgage loans have become a larger, and, in most cases, riskier part of the thrift industry's loan portfolio, OTS proposes adding two lines capturing sales of commercial and consumer nonmortgage loans. Schedule CF currently reconciles the activity in mortgage loans, deposits, and mortgage pool securities; however, nonmortgage commercial and consumer loans have only one line each for originations and purchases. These lines along with the proposed lines would improve reconciliation of nonmortgage loans and would indicate the volume of nonmortgage loans that are acquired and sold within the same quarter.
OTS proposes adding activity detail on mortgage derivative securities, i.e., purchases, sales, and other balance changes. For some institutions, period-to-period swings in these assets can be more significant than in their loan portfolio balances. This section would be placed in Schedule CF immediately following purchases and sales of mortgage pool securities.
OTS proposes to move the deposit data and deposit insurance premium assessment information from Schedule SI (Supplemental Information) to a new schedule, Schedule DI (Deposit Information). Schedule SI was designed to contain supplementary data not collected elsewhere in the TFR. Because the number of items collected for deposit insurance premium assessment purposes has increased substantially over the past ten years, we believe it is preferable to move these data items to a separate schedule. This schedule would correspond to Call Report Schedules RC-E and RC-O.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) Assessments Branch has requested that we re-establish a line that was deleted in 1996 that collected reciprocal balance accounts deducted from insured deposits in calculating the deposit insurance premium. We propose adding this line, which would be collected in the new Schedule DI and would be captioned: “Adjustments to Demand Deposits for Reciprocal Demand Balances with Commercial Banks and Other Savings Associations.” These reciprocal demand balances are currently collected along with other items in SI247. This line corresponds to Call Report RC-O Line 11.a.
OTS also proposes adding balance information on:
• Transaction accounts,
• Money market deposit accounts,
• Passbook accounts, and
• Time deposits.
Similar data are currently collected for those institutions that file Schedule CMR, but is not publicly released. Placing these balances on the new Schedule DI would provide publicly available data for all institutions, consistent with the breakdown of deposits in the Call Report, RC-E.
Currently SI670, Other Adjustments to Equity Capital, is made up of various items and, for most savings associations, this miscellaneous data item is the largest reconciling amount to capital. To provide a better understanding of this adjustment, OTS proposes adding the following three lines in the reconciliation of equity capital in Schedule SI:
• Other Comprehensive Income (an amount that can be generated in the electronic filing software and would require no input by the reporting savings association);
• Other Capital Contributions (where no stock is issued); and
• Prior Period Adjustments (for periods that can no longer be amended).
We would change the title of this section to “Summary of Changes in Equity Capital.” The inclusion of current comprehensive income in the summary of changes in equity capital would put this reconciliation in conformity with GAAP, as described in FASB Statement No. 130.
OTS proposes adding a line in Schedule SI to collect the thrift's aggregate investment in service corporations. The definition of service corporation investment would include the thrift's total exposure, that is, all equity investments, unsecured loans, and third party guarantees. Under OTS rules, a thrift can make investments in service corporations and lower-tier entities. For determining compliance with lending and investment limits, a federal thrift has the flexibility to place loans to service corporations or lower-tier entities in either the service corporation investment category or another applicable investment category
OTS proposes the addition of an Internet home page address and transactional web site addresses as defined in § 555.300(b) to assist in monitoring the activities of savings associations on their web sites. These data items would be collected in Schedule SQ (Supplementary Questions). OTS also proposes adding a similar data item to collect transactional web site addresses of subsidiaries in Schedule CSS (Subordinate Organization Schedule).
OTS proposes to add a line for those savings associations that do not use the Home Owners' Loan Act (HOLA) Qualified Thrift Lender (QTL) test, but instead use the IRS Domestic Building and Loan Association (DBLA) test. The addition of this line would more exactly identify savings associations that are using the IRS DBLA test and would enable the regions to better monitor the QTL status of those associations. This line would be added in Schedule SI following the lines for QTL. It would be required only of those associations using the DBLA test, who are currently required to calculate their DBLA test monthly. Thus, the addition of this line would pose no additional burden.
OTS proposes eliminating the collection of data on quarterly sales of annuities, mutual funds, and proprietary products, SI800 through SI850. In place of these items, each savings association would respond to a “yes” or “no” question asking whether it sells private label or third party mutual funds and annuities. In addition, savings associations would report the total assets under their management in proprietary mutual funds and annuities. The data item collecting fee income from the sale and servicing of mutual funds and annuities would be retained. For savings associations with proprietary mutual funds and annuities, reporting the amount of assets under management should be significantly less burdensome than reporting the quarterly sales volume for these proprietary products. These changes were made to the Call Report in March 2001.
OTS proposes adding memoranda information in Schedule SI on certain transactions the savings association has with its affiliates. The term “affiliate” is defined in 12 CFR 563.41(b)(1). For purposes of the collection of this information, “affiliate” is defined as the holding company(s), any holding company subsidiary(s), a bank or thrift subsidiary of the savings association, and any company controlled by or for the benefit of shareholders or which shares a majority of the same directors with the savings association or holding company. These data generally would not include transactions with subsidiaries of the savings association. Additionally, any transaction by a savings association or its subsidiaries with any person or entity is a transaction with an affiliate if the proceeds of the transaction are used for the benefit of, or transferred to, an affiliate.
The items to be collected are:
• Fees/expenses paid by the thrift to affiliates during the quarter including interest, management and service fees, tax sharing payments, and other general and administrative expenses;
• The amount of assets sold to affiliates during the quarter;
• The outstanding balance at the end of the quarter of:
• The percentage of the thrift's directors who are also directors of affiliates; and
• The percentage of the thrift's officers who are also officers of the affiliates.
More complex business plans and increased merger and acquisition activity have changed the nature of the relationship of the thrift with its affiliates. OTS proposes to collect this information for the purpose of off-site monitoring and to more precisely scope its on-site examinations.
OTS proposes to add the collection of average balances for the following selected balance sheet items:
• Total assets (SC60);
• Deposits and Investments, excluding cash and non-interest-earning items (SC10 less SC110);
• Mortgage Loans and Mortgage-Backed Securities;
• Nonmortgage Loans;
• Deposits and Escrows; and
• Total Borrowings.
Associations may calculate the average balances based upon close-of-business balances using either all the business days in the quarter or weekly balances, using one day of the week consistently, other than Friday. Associations with less than $100 million in total assets may calculate average balance based upon month-end averages. Average balances for securities would be calculated based upon the following: for debt securities use amortized cost and for equity securities use historical cost, except for those securities held in a trading account for which use determinable fair values. This information would produce more accurate data for use in ratio analysis; would avoid skewed data when restructurings, sales, and acquisitions occur; and would enable calculation of better yield and cost data. The Call Report collects average data in Schedule RC-K.
OTS proposes adding a question at the beginning of Schedule SB asking: “Do you have any small business loans to report in this schedule?” This question would permit those institutions not required to file this schedule to respond “no” and omit the rest of the schedule. Currently institutions must answer the first three questions on Schedule SB even if they have no loans to report.
More complex business plans, advances in technology, increased merger and acquisition activity, and earnings pressures have changed the nature of the relationship of the thrift with its affiliates. OTS seeks to more fully leverage its collection of holding company information for the purpose of improving off-site monitoring and to more precisely scope its on-site examinations. Therefore, OTS proposes to expand Schedule HC (Thrift Holding Company) to collect additional data on thrift holding companies and intends to substantially reduce the data collection in the H-b(11), the details of which will be announced at a later date. Bank holding companies are excluded from reporting. Schedule HC is not released to the public. The changes to Schedule HC would include:
• Replace the question HC120 (is any company in this holding company's corporate structure required to file periodic securities disclosure documents with the SEC, pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934?) with a new data item collecting the stock exchange ticker symbol.
• Add SEC number.
• Add web site address.
• For the consolidated entity:
• Add the following parent-only financial information:
• Add the following supplemental questions:
The holding company would provide this information to the savings association, and the holding company schedule would continue to be filed as part of the TFR.
In 1996, OTS reduced the reporting frequency of Schedule CSS from quarterly to annually in order to reduce reporting burden of the industry. While annual reporting of subordinate organizations was adequate at that time, we now have a need for more frequent reporting and propose to again collect Schedule CSS quarterly. The basic data for all subordinate organizations are contained in the OTS electronic filing software database; therefore, institutions would only be required to make necessary changes to the subordinate organization database and update financial data.
OTS proposes revising Schedule CSS to include the following question: “Is this entity a GAAP-consolidated subsidiary of the parent savings association?” The addition of this question would provide information as to whether the assets and liabilities of the subordinate organization are consolidated with the parent savings association in Schedule SC. An institution would respond “No” if the subordinate organization was not consolidated and was accounted for using the equity or cost method of accounting.
OTS proposes to update Schedule CCR by making the following changes:
• Renumber the lines in Tier 1 Capital to be sequential;
• Eliminate the lines that are either obsolete or seldom used;
• Add lines for “Other” in each category under Tier 1 Capital and Supplementary Capital;
• Change the caption of CCR125 to “Minority Interest and REIT Preferred Stock of Includable Consolidated Subsidiaries;” the instructions for CCR125 were expanded in June 2002 to include REIT preferred stock;
• Change the caption of CCR115 and CCR155 to “Goodwill and Certain Other Intangible Assets;” adding the word “Certain” to these lines, since servicing rights are included as intangible assets under FASB Statement No. 142 but are not deducted on CCR115 and CCR155.
• Combine CCR408, “Notes and Obligations of FDIC,” and CCR410, “FDIC Covered Assets,” into one line;
• Expand CCR430, “20% Risk Weight: High-quality MBS,” to include asset-backed securities eligible for 20% risk weighting;
• Expand CCR470, “50% Risk Weight: Other MBS Backed by Qualifying Mortgage Loans,” to include Asset-Backed Securities eligible for 50% risk weighting; and
• Add a line in the 100% Risk Weight for “Securities Risk Weighted at 100% Under the Ratings Based Approach.”
The following lines would be eliminated:
• CCR120, “Nonqualifying Equity Instruments”;
• CCR130, “Mutual Institutions’ Nonwithdrawable Deposit Accounts Reported on SC710”;
• CCR320, “Capital Certificates;” and
• CCR330, “Nonwithdrawable Deposit Accounts Not Reported on CCR130.”
Items that would have been reported on these lines would be included in the new “Other” categories. These changes are largely required by regulatory and accounting changes.
Savings associations are required to submit their TFR electronically so that OTS receives it no later than thirty days after the quarter-end reporting date. Savings associations have been provided additional time (a total of forty-five days) to complete Schedule CMR (Consolidated Maturity and Rate) a schedule that addresses interest rate risk, and Schedule HC (Thrift Holding Company). This later due date was granted to allow more time in which to receive information from data service providers and holding companies that was needed to complete these schedules. OTS's monitoring and analysis of interest rate risk exposure in individual savings associations and for the thrift industry as a whole and of its holding company and affiliates' activity and exposure is impeded by the delayed submission of these schedules. Furthermore, with the technological advances over the past several years, savings associations have the ability to receive data from their data service providers and from their holding companies on a timelier basis and transmit it conveniently through the Electronic Filing System software provided by OTS. Therefore, OTS proposes to shorten the filing due date for the TFR from thirty (30) to twenty (20) calendar days after the end of the quarter, and for Schedules HC and CMR from forty-five (45) to thirty (30) calendar days after the end of the quarter. This would allow OTS to provide data publicly on an earlier schedule, provide for the compilation and timelier analysis of individual and aggregate statistics on the condition and performance of savings associations, and provide the Uniform Thrift Performance Report (UTPR) to associations on a timelier basis. An earlier deadline for Schedule CMR would also enable OTS to transmit the Interest Rate Risk Exposure Report to reporting associations on a timelier basis. With the advances in technology coupled with the improvements in OTS's electronic filing system software, earlier due dates should not create a significant burden to the industry.
Because some of these proposed changes will not affect all savings associations that file the TFR, the burden hours reflected above may vary from institution to institution. OTS invites comment on how savings associations think the burden would change given these form changes.
(a) Whether the proposed revisions to the TFR collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the agency's functions, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of information collections on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, the Internet, or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
OTS will summarize or include comments submitted in response to this notice with the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
(1) In order to modify the rules of origin under the NAFTA, general note 12 to the HTS is modified as provided in the Annex to this proclamation.
(2) Any provisions of previous proclamations and Executive Orders that are inconsistent with the actions taken in this proclamation are superseded to the extent of such inconsistency.
(3) The modifications made by the Annex to this proclamation shall be effective with respect to goods of Canada that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after January 1, 2003. The modifications made by such Annex shall be effective with respect to goods of Mexico that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after a date to be announced in the
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the availability of fiscal year (FY) 2003 funds for a cooperative agreement program for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion Programs.
This program is authorized under section 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 93.283.
This program is authorized under sections 1501-1509 [42 U.S.C. 300k-300n-4a] of the Public Health Service Act, as amended. The consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000, Public Law 106-113, also authorizes this program. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number is 93.283. See
This program is authorized under section 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 93.945.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the availability of fiscal year (FY) 2003 funds for a cooperative agreement program for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion Programs. This program addresses the “Healthy People 2010” focus areas of Tobacco Use, Physical Activity and Fitness, Nutrition and Overweight, Public Health Infrastructure, Oral Health, Arthritis, Osteoporosis, Back Conditions, Educational and Community-Based Programs, Cancer, Diabetes, Genomics, and Surveillance and Data Systems.
The purpose of the program is to support capacity building, support program planning, development, implementation, evaluation, and surveillance for current and emerging chronic diseases conditions.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP) is issuing this program announcement in an effort to simplify and streamline the grant pre-award and post-award administrative process, provide increased flexibility in the use of funds, measure performance related to each grantee's stated objectives and identify and establish the long-term goals of Health Promotion programs through stated performance measures. These efforts include incorporation of improved performance measures, enhancement of short and long term objectives, combining multiple reports, establishment of consistent reporting requirements, and advancing from one public health program funding level to a higher level based on performance.
This program announcement incorporates funding guidance for the following seven program components: Tobacco; Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity; Well Integrated Screening and Evaluation for Women Across the Nation (WISEWOMAN); State-based Oral Disease Prevention; Arthritis; Behavior Risk Factor Surveillance Systems (BRFSS); and Genomics and Chronic Disease Prevention programs.
CDC encourages recipients to identify opportunities to link chronic disease and health promotion efforts across this and related program announcements, where appropriate (
Your application should be submitted as one application but should consist of each separate Specific Categorical Component. Applications will be due on March 28, 2003. The categorical components and specific purposes for each are:
The following statements are applicable for all Components: Measurable outcomes of the program will be in alignment with one or more of the following performance goals for the National Center for Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP): Reduce cigarette smoking among youth; support prevention research to develop sustainable and transferable community-based behavioral interventions; increase the capacity of State arthritis programs to address the prevention of arthritis and its complications at the community level; help States monitor the prevalence of major behavioral risks associated with premature morbidity and mortality in adults to improve the planning, implementation, and evaluation of disease prevention and health promotion programs; support high-priority State and local disease prevention and health promotion programs, and to help State use genetic information in their public health programs.
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 “B. 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.
Assistance will be provided only to the health departments of States or their bona fide agents, including the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Republic of Palau, and Federally recognized Indian tribal governments. A bona fide agent is an agency/organization identified by the State as eligible to submit an application under the State eligibility in lieu of a state application.
All applications received from current grant recipients under Program Announcements 99038, Component 1, (Comprehensive State-Based Tobacco Use Prevention and Control Programs); 00115 and 99135, Component 3 (Well Integrated Screening and Evaluation for Women Across the Nation WISEWOMAN) and 01098 (WISEWOMAN Enhanced); 01046, Component 4 (Support for State Oral Disease Prevention Programs); 01097, Component 5 (Reducing the Impact of Arthritis and Other Rheumatic Conditions); 99044, Component 6, (Behavior Risk Factor Surveillance Systems) will be funded upon receipt and approval of a technically acceptable application. In addition to the eligible applicants above, potential applicants that are eligible for specific components 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are:
Current CORE Program grantees that apply for Basic Implementation Program funding in year two and are not funded will continue to receive funding for the CORE (Capacity Building) Program. To make this possible, currently funded CORE (Capacity Building) Program grantees must provide a separate CORE (Capacity Building) Program Logic Model, Work Plan, budget, and budget justifications that addresses CORE (Capacity Building) Program activities to expedite the award process.
Eligible applicants for Capacity Building Program Level A are those currently funded under Program Announcement 99074 and health departments other than those listed above who meet the requirements outlined in the “Recipient Activities” section of this Component for Capacity Building Program Level B and Capacity Program Level A.
Approximately $91,700,000 is available in FY 2003 to fund approximately 194 awards.
It is expected that the awards will begin on or about June 30, 2003 and will be made for a 12-month budget period within a project period of up to five years.
Pending availability of funds, beginning in year two and each of the remaining years for this program announcement (June 30, 2004 through June 30, 2008), there will be an open season for competitive applications. Specific guidance will be provided with exact due dates and funding levels each year.
Applications from all new applicants as well as all currently funded programs, whose project period have ended or will end in FY 2003, will be competitively reviewed by an independent Objective Review Panel.
Continuation awards for year two and beyond will be made on the basis of satisfactory progress made toward the attainment of the goals, objectives, and corresponding performance measures as evidenced by required reports, and based on the availability of funds. Additional information is listed on a component-by-component basis.
Approximately $57 million is available in FY 2003 to fund 59 awards.
In year one, States and Territories currently funded under program announcement 99038 should apply for the same base amount that is currently received on a non-competitive basis. Applicants should refer to “Recipient Financial Participation” for information on required matching funds. The remaining unfunded Territory is Marshall Island that is eligible to apply for funds in the amount of $100,000 to $125,000. If Marshall Island submits an application, it will be reviewed under a competitive review process.
Continuation award amounts may be adjusted should a State receive lawsuit settlement funds, general funds, or excise tax funds for the State's comprehensive program.
CDC funds cannot be used to supplant existing State funding. Applicants may not use these funds to supplant funds from Federal or State sources, the Preventive Health and Health Service Block Grant or Center for Substance Abuse Prevention funding for youth access enforcement. Applicants must maintain current levels of support dedicated to tobacco use prevention and control from Federal, State sources, or the Preventive Health and Health Services Block Grant.
Funds may not be used to conduct research. Surveillance and evaluation activities are for the purposes of monitoring program performance, and are not considered research.
Cooperative agreement funds must be used for focused strategies to change systems, develop and implement policies, change the environment in which tobacco use occurs, and impact population groups rather than individuals. To this end, cooperative agreement funds may not be used to provide direct services such as individual and group cessation services, patient care, personal health services medications, patient rehabilitation, or other costs associated with the treatment of diseases caused by tobacco use. Funds may be used to support activities in line with CDC “Guidelines for School Health Program to Prevent Tobacco Use and Addiction” including curricula but may not be used for staff time to provide direct classroom instruction of students. Cooperative agreement funds may not be used to directly enforce tobacco control policies unless there are extenuating circumstances within the State. A justification must be provided and reviewed.
Federal sources as follows. During the first year of the award, States receiving funding from another source(s) that is equal to or greater than the CDC award will match one dollar of direct cash match from non-Federal sources for every dollar of Federal funds. All other States and Territories that do not receive funds from non-Federal sources that are equal to or greater than the CDC award will provide one dollar of cash or in-kind match from non-Federal sources for every ten dollars of Federal funds.
Beginning in the second year and in each subsequent year of the award, all States and Territories will provide one dollar from non-Federal sources for every four dollars of Federal funding. The match may be cash, in-kind, or a combination from State and/or public and private sources.
Technical assistance will be available for potential applicants through the following means: a minimum of two conference calls to be held on or around December 12, 2002 and January 10, 2003.
In conducting activities to achieve the purpose of this program component, the recipient will be responsible for the activities under “1. Recipient Activities,” and CDC will be responsible for the activities listed under “2. CDC Activities.”
A suggested minimum number of staff would be seven FTEs including one FTE Program Manager and one FTE for administrative support. Staff should have knowledge and skills in: Program development, coordination and management; fiscal management including management of funding to State and local partners; leadership development; tobacco control and prevention content; cultural competence; public health policy including analysis, development and implementation; community outreach and mobilization; training and technical assistance, health communications including counter-marketing; strategic use of media including media advocacy, earned and paid media; strategic planning; gathering and analyzing data (surveillance); and evaluation methods.
Funding from other sources increases the scope of the program, requiring additional staff to administer and monitor the program. A suggested number of staff based on increased funding levels would be an additional one to eight FTEs for a total of eight to sixteen FTEs with program justification including description of activities funded through other sources. The Program Manager and the administrative support position should be FTEs within the State Health Department (SHD). Other positions may be SHD FTEs or may be contractual.
Performance will be measured by evidence that the SHD has dedicated human resources to administer and manage the program effectively that is consistent with the competencies and staffing levels identified above in item (a) “Program Management.”
Evidence of the provision of ongoing training for staff can be demonstrated through staff participation in CDC sponsored training, meetings and conferences and other continuing education opportunities as identified by SHD program staff.
Evidence of organizational impact could be demonstrated by providing evidence that management staff have organizational access to the State Health Officer and by providing information to support senior level management involvement in the tobacco program.
2. Track and monitor the health and economic burden of tobacco use in the State through surveillance and evaluation activities, program activities supporting goals and objectives, tracking policy development and implementation.
Performance will be measured by evidence that the SHD activities resulted in accomplishment of items (a) through (d) above.
Performance will be measured by evidence that a five-year basic implementation, strategic State tobacco control plan has been developed and will be updated based on environmental changes. Evidence can be shown by a description of how the plan was developed and the submission of a plan that is consistent with the activities described above in item (a) “Strategic Planning.”
Performance will be measured by accomplishment of the activities described above in item (a) “Surveillance and Evaluation” and by providing the following evidence: A description of a comprehensive evaluation plan, including the involvement of stakeholders in the evaluation planning process; recommendations made and/or actions taken by an advisory group or task force composed of diverse State and local representation; a description of the data collection activities, including methodologies and data analysis; a description of process and outcome objectives and indicators to be used in program evaluation; a description of the SHD's role in coordinating surveillance and evaluation efforts and providing technical assistance and training on program monitoring, data collection, and evaluation; the production of useful evaluation reports, and the utilization of evaluation findings to improve, expand, or maintain the tobacco control program.
Performance will be measured by accomplishment of the activities described above in item (a) “Collaboration and Communication with Partners” and by providing the following evidence: Submission of letters of support that clearly define the level of commitment from the organization; description of grants, contacts, and memoranda of understanding; membership lists; active participation in meetings; clear role definitions for partners; active
Performance will be measured by accomplishment of the activities described above in item (a) “Local grant program.”
Performance will be measured by evidence that training and technical assistance needs have been assessed and provided by the State Tobacco Control Program to local health department staff, coalitions, and partners. Evidence can be shown by: The number and description of trainings planned and/or provided that include the strategic purpose of the trainings and anticipated impacts as related to short-term and long-term outcomes, description of the process and strategy to provide technical assistance.
Performance will be measured by accomplishment of the activities described above in item “(a) Prevent Initiation to Tobacco Use Among Young People.” Evidence can be shown by describing: Multi-component community interventions to reduce youth initiation that are science-based and policy focused such as price increase for tobacco products; educational activities that address the efficacy of policy initiatives such as restrictions on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorships and retailer licensing regulations; tobacco-free school policies school policies; identification of disparities related to youth initiation to tobacco use; partnerships with State and local education organizations to promote CDC “Guidelines for School Health Programs to Prevent Tobacco Use and Addiction;” Counter-marketing strategies that include media advocacy and paid advertising to disseminate messages regarding youth access; pro-health messages; State evaluation and data collection efforts to demonstrate local programs toward policies to reduce youth initiation.
Performance will be measured by accomplishment of the activities described above in item (a) “Eliminate Exposure to Secondhand Smoke.” Evidence can be shown by describing: Local coalition objectives and evidence-based activities that are linked to a policy change leading to short-term and long-term outcomes as identified within the State plan; counter-marketing strategies that are supportive of local policy efforts, including both earned and paid media and the numbers of people reached through earned and paid media strategies; recommendations made and/or actions taken by an advisory group or task force composed of diverse State and local representation; a description of disparities related to exposure to secondhand smoke and strategies to reduce those disparities; actions taken to expand policy coverage to new communities and/or to strengthen policies in communities where they are already in place. Evidence can also be shown by a State-specific database that tracks local clean indoor air ordinances work, where pre-emption exists, voluntary policies and reporting of the number of policies implemented; State evaluation and data collection efforts to demonstrate local progress toward policies to eliminate exposure to secondhand smoke.
Performance will be measured by accomplishment of the activities described above in item “(a) Promote Cessation Among Adults and Youth.” Evidence can be shown by describing: Strategies to promote guidelines published in “U.S. DHHS Public Health Services Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence” and “Community Prevention Services Guidelines for Tobacco Use;” strategies to reduce identified disparities; counter-marketing strategies that incorporate earned and paid media to provide information about and motivation for quitting and reach diverse populations and the number of people reached with paid media; Statewide activities, as detailed in the State strategic plan, to promote effective methods for quitting including support for and promotion of policy development and initiatives related to cessation services; links between the State program and other organizations to support and promote cessation.
Performance will be measured by accomplishment of activities in item (a) “Identify and eliminate tobacco-related disparities among specific population groups.” Evidence can be shown by: Assessing national data sources and research related to at-risk populations; outlining demographics reflecting Statewide diversity; coordinating available State and national data with at-risk populations in the State; augmenting State data with qualitative data (
Performance will be measured by accomplishment of the activities described above in item (a) “Information Exchange.”
Evidence can be shown by: Establishing a communication loop with CDC for the exchange and dissemination of information about program effectiveness, progress toward short and long-term objectives as defined in the strategic plan; participation on CDC sponsored workgroups/task forces and the frequency of that participation, number of presentations at national meetings and conferences, number of publications of data and evaluation outcomes via “Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report” (MMWR), peer-reviewed journals or as reports, number of reports on collaboration with programs and partners in neighboring States; posting information and resources on the CDC State forum; participation with Association of State Territorial Health Officers (ASTHO) regional networks and Tobacco Control Resource council and/or other tobacco-related projects sponsored by ASTHO.
b. Provide up-to-date information that includes diffusion of best practices for tobacco use prevention and control.
c. Provide resources and technical assistance to develop and improve monitoring and surveillance systems. Provide guidance to States to identify indicators that can be used to monitor and evaluate State level tobacco control programs.
d. Facilitate adoption of effective practices among grantees and other partners through workshops, conferences, training sessions, electronic and verbal communications.
e. Identify, develop, and disseminate media campaign materials for use by programs; facilitate coordination of counter advertising materials between programs; provide technical assistance on design, development, and evaluation of media.
f. Maintain an electronic center for State information sharing, State Forum, and the Chronicle, for progress reporting.
g. Develop and maintain partnerships with Federal and non-Federal organizations to assist in tobacco control and create a national infrastructure to complement State infrastructure.
h. Serve as a resource to States with regard to identifying and eliminating tobacco-related disparities among population groups.
i. Maintain a Web site with access to a data warehouse that contains comparable measures of tobacco use prevention and control from different data sources.
The program announcement title and number must appear in the application. Use the information in the Program Requirements, Other Requirements, and Evaluation Criteria sections to develop the application content. Your application will be evaluated on the criteria listed, so it is important to follow them in laying out your program plan. The narrative for this component, including the Executive Summary, should be no more than 45 double-spaced pages, printed on one side, with one-inch margins, and unreduced 12-point font. The annual action plan may be 20 pages, which will allow a total of 65 pages for the application (excluding budget and appendices). Appendices should total no more than 20 pages, excluding letters of support and the budget.
Focus the application content ONLY on the planned “Recipient Activities” for which you seek CDC funding. However, the Background and Need content should describe accomplishments regardless of funding source. Include a description of why CDC funding is needed and how these funds will be used strategically to complement other funding sources.
Provide supporting documentation such as resumes, job descriptions, and descriptions of coalitions and committees as appropriate. All materials must be suitable for photocopying.
Describe plans to collaborate with CDC and other Federal agencies, including participation in national or regional meetings and workgroups, and using the Internet to communicate and disseminate information.
Describe how the State's and partners' roles will complement each other as part of the overall effort. Provide letters of support demonstrating collaborative activities, roles, responsibilities, and/or commitment of funds or other resources.
Describe communication methods and channels used to inform and solicit information from stakeholders. Describe how the stakeholder communication plan was developed. Describe barriers in communicating with stakeholders. Describe plans to improve communication.
A maximum of five percent of the award may be used to directly support a statewide telephone cessation counseling service with program justification.
Include travel for a minimum of three staff members or selected representatives to attend each of two CDC-sponsored training meetings per
States and Territories can request that CDC cover the travel costs of out-of-State trainings and meetings for one staff person per required meeting or conference. If a State program elects to have CDC cover travel costs, clearly state that the program is electing this option and provide an estimated expense for travel. Under this arrangement, the State award will be reduced by the amount estimated for travel plus an additional administrative cost.
a. Background and Need (12 points). The extent to which the applicant describes Background and Need in Application Content, 2a.
b. Annual Action Plan (11 points). The extent to which the annual action plan is based on the strategic plan and include activities in line with Recipient Activities and Application Content for tobacco control program.
c. Program Management (7 points). The extent to which the applicant describes specific Recipient Activities in section 1a-d above and activities in Application Content, 2b.
d. Strategic Plan (7 points). The extent to which the applicant has addressed specific Recipient Activities in Section (2); and Application Content, b 5.
e. Surveillance and Evaluation (7 points). The extent to which the applicant clearly describes specific Recipient Activities in Section (3); and Application Content, b 6.
f. Collaboration and Communication with Partners (7 points). The extent to which the applicant describes specific Recipient Activities in Section (4a); and Application Content, b 7.
g. Local Grant Programs (7 points). The extent to which the applicant describes specific Recipient Activities, Section (5); and Application Content, b 8.
h. Training and Technical Assistance (7 points). The extent to which the applicant demonstrates specific Recipient Activities in Section (6); and Application Content, b 9.
i. Prevent Initiation to Tobacco Use Among Young People (7 points). The extent to which the applicant describes specific Recipient Activities in Section (7a); and Application Content, b 10.
j. Eliminate Exposure to Secondhand Smoke (7 points). The extent to which the applicant describes specific Recipient Activities in Section (8a); and Application Content, b 11.
k. Promote Cessation Among Adults and Young People (7 points). The extent to which the applicant describes specific Recipient Activities in Section (9a); and Application Content, b 12.
l. Identify and Eliminate Tobacco-Related Disparities Among Specific Population Groups (7 points). The extent to which the applicant describes specific Recipient Activities in Section (10a); and Application Content, b 13.
m. Information Exchange (7 points). The extent to which the applicant describes specific Recipient Activities in Section (11) and Application Content, b 14.
n. Executive Summary (not scored). The extent to which an overview of the program is provided in a clear and concise manner.
Approximately $7,000,000 is available in FY 2003 to fund approximately 16 State program awards for this component. Approximately $2,000,000 is available to fund one to two Basic Implementation Programs; approximately $5,000,000 is available to fund twelve to fourteen Capacity Building Programs. The average Capacity Building Program award will be $400,000 ranging from $350,000 to $450,000. The average Basic Implementation Program award will be $700,000 in year one ranging from $600,000 to $800,000.
Funds awarded under this component of this program announcement may not be used to supplant existing State or local funds. Cooperative agreement funds may be used to support personnel and to purchase equipment, supplies, and services directly related to program activities and consistent with the scope of the cooperative agreement. Cooperative agreement funds cannot be used to provide patient care, health screening, personal health services, medications, patient rehabilitation, or other costs associated with the treatment of obesity and chronic diseases. Population-based behavioral interventions are acceptable.
Recipient financial participation (matching funds) is required for only Basic Implementation programs in accordance with this Program Announcement. If applying for Basic Implementation programs, matching funds are required from non-Federal sources in an amount not less than one dollar for each four dollars. The matching funds may be cash or its equivalent in-kind or donated services, fairly evaluated. The contribution may be made directly or through donations from public or private entities.
Matching funds may not be met through: (1) The payment of treatment services or the donation of treatment, or direct patient education services; (2) services assisted or subsidized by the Federal Government; or (3) the indirect or overhead of an organization. Matching funds must be consistent with the work plan activities that are submitted and approved.
In conducting activities to achieve the purpose of this program, the recipient will be responsible for the activities
The focus of this program component is implementation of nutrition and physical activity strategies for health promotion for the entire population and for the prevention and control of obesity. Major program areas are: obesity prevention and control including balancing caloric intake and expenditure; improved nutrition including increased breastfeeding and increased consumption of fruits and vegetables, increased physical activity; and reduced television time. For all capacity building and basic implementation program recipient activities, efforts to address poor nutrition and physical inactivity should be coordinated with State Health Agency programs in cardiovascular health, cancer, diabetes, oral health, maternal and child health (including breastfeeding), arthritis, and WISEWOMAN, as well as with the State Agriculture Agency, and coordinated school health programs in the State Education Agency (
As part of this program component, detailed descriptions of the program and additional information related to Capacity Building and Basic Implementation programs are located in “Technical Assistance Manual for State Nutrition and Physical Activity Programs to Prevent Obesity and Other Chronic Diseases” at
(1) Develop a Coordinated Nutrition and Physical Activity Program Infrastructure. Provide indicators of sound program infrastructure including program staff placed high in the organization to coordinate the program with other related programs, high level administrative commitment to sustain the program, access to resources such as physical space, funding, and training, access to scientific resources such as subject matter specialists and surveillance resources, and broad partnerships to institutionalize nutrition and physical activity. Examples of coordination include shared positions; joint planning, and combined strategy development and implementation. Organizational location of the program is recommended to be in the agency's chronic disease or health promotion section so that this program is aligned with chronic disease programs, such as cardiovascular health and diabetes, to allow for maximum collaboration. (
(2) Collaborate and coordinate with State and local government and private partners, including members of the population throughout the planning process. (
(a) Develop new linkages and maintain collaborations with State and local partners to coordinate nutrition and physical activity efforts, especially State Health Agency programs in cardiovascular health, cancer, diabetes, oral health, maternal and child health (including breastfeeding), arthritis, and WISEWOMAN, as well as the State Agriculture Agency, coordinated school health in the State Education Agency, and other relevant State Agencies. State programs should serve as a training and technical assistance resource for local health departments and others to conduct nutrition, physical activity, and obesity prevention interventions.
(b) Collaborate with Prevention Research Centers, academic partners, and other relevant organizations in the State.
(3) Conduct a planning process that leads to a comprehensive nutrition and physical activity plan to prevent and control obesity and other chronic diseases, and start to implement the plan. (
(a) Describe the obesity epidemic and other chronic diseases in the State related to poor nutrition and physical inactivity.
(b) Describe the nutrition and physical activity risk factors associated with obesity and other chronic diseases.
(c) Describe the population subgroups affected by obesity that will be targeted for interventions.
(d) Conduct inventories of strategies and programs currently used in the State to prevent or control obesity and other chronic diseases in one or more settings, such as worksite, faith-based organizations, health care services, or communities.
(e) Establish priorities with and for the subgroups; identify the behaviors and influences of the population subgroups which are priorities for intervention.
(f) Use the social-ecological theoretical model to guide State planning to address obesity and other chronic diseases in these populations; select and implement interventions from the list of proven strategies at
(g) With key stakeholders, write the comprehensive State plan for nutrition and physical activity for the State, not just for the State Department of Public Health. One reference document to consider when developing the plan is the “Guidelines for Comprehensive Programs to Promote Healthy Eating and Physical Activity” at
Design the plan to address nutrition and physical activity needs of the population including the pediatric population. The State plan should address at a minimum the following major program areas: Obesity prevention and control including caloric intake and expenditure, improved nutrition including increased breastfeeding and increased consumption of fruits and vegetables, increased physical activity, and reduced television time.
Include descriptions of how the State Health Department will work with the State Education Agency to address nutrition and physical activity needs of the population through school programs.
(h) Begin to implement components of the comprehensive State plan for
(4) Identify and assess data sources to define and monitor the burden of obesity. Strengthen capacity to assess the burden of obesity and the impact of the program to change overweight and obesity related behaviors, particularly nutrition and physical activity. Data systems should monitor trends, disseminate data/information, and support evaluation efforts. Monitor at minimum, body mass index (BMI), BMI-for-age, and dietary and physical activity behaviors. Data sources may include established surveillance systems (
CDC will work with States to develop standard measures/indicators, and States will need to adopt these standardized measures. States are encouraged to retain flexible systems that can be modified as needed.
(5) Implement and evaluate an intervention to prevent obesity and other chronic diseases. (Complete between years two to five.)
Address one or more of the major program areas from the State plan in the intervention: Obesity prevention and control including caloric intake and expenditure, improved nutrition including increased breastfeeding and increased fruit and vegetable consumption, increased physical activity, and reduced television time. Provide a balance between nutrition and physical activity related interventions. Consider using a social marketing approach in the intervention. Specify clear, measurable process and impact objectives, and outcome objectives where feasible. Programs are encouraged to approach change at the State, community (towns, cities, counties, or regions), organizational (
(6) Evaluate progress and impact of the State plan and intervention projects.
Develop an evaluation plan that includes baseline data and intermediate outcomes for the State plan's objectives. CDC has developed a plan for evaluating the State Nutrition and Physical Activity Programs to Prevent Obesity and Other Chronic Diseases based on a logic model framework. State evaluation plans should include issues addressed in the national evaluation plan as well as specific State program components.
(1) Expand the existing coordinated nutrition and physical activity program infrastructure. (Year One) Expand staffing beyond the capacity building program to fully implement the State plan. Support and expand the program infrastructure at the local/regional level throughout the State.
(2) Implement the State comprehensive plan for nutrition and physical activity and review and update the plan periodically. Develop and provide mini-grants and other assistance to support communities to adopt effective interventions. (Years One-Five) Assure that there is a continuing focus on strategic planning to reach objectives agreed upon within the State and to respond to new challenges and events. Review the written State plan annually. Adopt and diffuse effective interventions statewide or in communities and populations based on the State plan. Select and implement interventions from proven strategies so that multiple levels of influence in the social-ecological model are addressed, as guided by the State plan. Interventions can target the full State or local populations. Implement the “Community Guide to Preventive Services” physical activity recommended interventions in more depth or in more communities. Build community capacity to carry out and sustain an effective nutrition program. Provide intervention mini-grants to communities. Basic implementation programs located in States with CDC-funded coordinated school health programs must include a school-based intervention, working closely with the State Education Agency.
(3) Expand partnerships with State Health Department units, the State Education Agency, other State agencies, local communities, and private partners to maximize impacts of the basic implementation program. (Years One-Five)
Leverage resources for nutrition and physical activity working with the health department director, other health department units, the State Education Agency, other State agencies that share mutual goals, and other partners including local health partners and community groups. Identify environmental and policy issues; promote optimal standards and practices for nutrition and physical activity programs; and increase capacity through shared resources and expertise.
(4) Develop a new or apply an existing intervention and evaluate its effectiveness to prevent or control obesity and other chronic diseases every five years. Provide a balance between nutrition and physical activity interventions. Basic implementation programs should design the intervention project to detect realistic changes in post-intervention outcome measures when compared with pre-intervention measures. Sample sizes should provide adequate power to detect these changes. Specify clear, measurable evaluation objectives using process, impact, and outcome objectives. Intervention protocol development, project evaluation, and the preparation of publications and presentation of findings should be done in collaboration with community partners, Prevention Research Centers, university affiliates, relevant experts, and CDC, as appropriate.
(5) Collaborate with partners on secondary prevention strategies. (Years One-Five).
Describe activities supporting secondary prevention related to obesity. Integrate secondary prevention strategies and activities into the State plan, partnerships, policy and environmental changes, and training for health professionals to ensure that recognized national guidelines are followed. (
(6) Develop resources and training materials to help other State and local projects adopt successful programs. (Years Four-Five).
Develop one or more training reports on at least one component of a program that works and train staff from other State or local programs. Assist in the dissemination and training of other State and local partners regarding the report findings. (
(7) Identify, assess, or develop data sources to further define and monitor the burden of obesity. See previous description of this activity under Capacity Building Recipient Activity 4.
(8) Evaluate progress and impact of the State plan and intervention projects. See previous description of this activity under Capacity Building Recipient Activity 6.
b. Provide ongoing guidance, consultation, and technical assistance to plan, implement, and evaluate all aspects of nutrition and physical activity program activities. Activities include coordinating national surveillance activities, monitoring data quality of national surveillance systems, assisting with analyses and interpretation of findings from qualitative and quantitative research; assisting in the social marketing process, guiding program evaluation, and sharing community, environmental and policy strategies to promote physical activity and healthy eating. Disseminate to recipients relevant state-of-the-art research findings and public health recommendations related to obesity and other chronic disease prevention and control through nutrition and physical activity interventions.
c. On a consultant basis, assist in the development and review of the intervention protocols and program evaluation methods.
d. Coordinate national level partnerships with relevant organizations and agencies involved in the promotion of physical activity and nutrition for the prevention and control of obesity and other chronic diseases.
The purpose of the telephone conference call is to help potential applicants:
Use the information in the Program Requirements, Other Requirements, and Evaluation Criteria sections to develop the application content. The application will be evaluated based on the evaluation criteria listed, so it is important to follow them when writing the program plan. The narrative for this component, not including budget justification, should be no more than 30 double-spaced pages for Capacity Building program applications or 40 double-spaced pages for Basic Implementation program applications, printed on one side, with one-inch margins and 12-point font. Applicants may also submit appendices that include State nutrition and physical activity plan, resumes, job descriptions, organizational chart, facilities, and other supporting documentation not to exceed 100 total pages. Letters of support should include the specific roles and responsibilities of the collaborator/partner to the State plan or intervention. All materials must be suitable for photocopying (
Describe how the State has fulfilled the capacity building recipient activities to date, including developing a comprehensive State nutrition and physical activity plan to prevent obesity and other chronic diseases, descriptions of the development, implementation, and evaluation of nutrition and physical activity interventions relevant to obesity and other chronic diseases, prevention activities, and what programs and partners were involved. If applying as a basic implementation program, include an appendix responding to the evaluation questions in Attachment 10 located at
b. Identify organizational placement of the program. Submit an organizational chart identifying
c. Identify staffing and contracting barriers for the State health agency in the last year. Describe how work plans addressing nutrition, physical activity or obesity changed or were delayed because of the barriers. Also, identify strategies to carry out the proposed work plan considering current barriers. In particular, describe how the program will change if vacancies or hiring freezes occur.
a. Evidence of State or community nutrition and physical activity policies, environmental supports, and/or legislative actions that are planned, initiated or modified for the prevention or control of obesity and other chronic diseases.
b. Evidence that communities have implemented a nutrition and physical activity plan for the prevention and control of obesity and other chronic diseases.
c. Evidence that an intervention for nutrition and physical activity was implemented and evaluated. If applying for Basic Implementation funds, submit the State nutrition and physical activity plan for the prevention and control of obesity and other chronic diseases as well as any intervention protocols and outcomes in the appendix. Capacity Building applicants submit if available.
Chronic disease prevention programs, by their nature, must be integrated and well coordinated due to common risk factors. Resources are scarce; it is essential that efforts not be duplicated. Explain how the State will avoid duplication (but enhance coordination and integration) with other CDC-funded programs that address nutrition and physical activity. Basic Implementation funded nutrition, physical activity, and obesity programs will be the primary location for the leadership and delivery of population-based health promotion rather than those responsibilities falling to CVD, Diabetes or other chronic disease specific programs. If a comprehensive State nutrition and physical activity plan already exists, describe how the process used to develop the plan included and integrated the activities of other chronic disease programs. Include the plan in the appendix.
Each set of the evaluation criteria is scored using a 100-point system. Evaluation criteria 1 through 5 are applicable for both programs. Specific Program Work Plan criteria are provided for each funding level. Applications will be evaluated individually against the following criteria by an independent review group appointed by CDC.
Point distribution for Capacity Building programs goals, objectives, and work plan methods by recipient activities:
a. Develop a coordinated nutrition and physical activity program infrastructure. (10 points).
b. Conduct a planning process that leads to a comprehensive nutrition and physical activity plan to prevent and control obesity and other chronic diseases and start to implement the plan. (10 points).
c. Evaluate progress and impact of the State plan and intervention projects. (10 points).
d. Implement and evaluate an intervention to prevent obesity and other chronic diseases. (10 points).
e. Collaborate and coordinate with State and local government and private partners, including members of the population throughout the planning process. (5 points).
f. Identify and assess data sources to define and monitor the burden of obesity. (5 points).
6. Point distribution for Basic Implementation programs goals, objectives, and work plan methods by recipient activities:
a. Develop a new or apply an existing intervention and evaluate it to prevent
b. Implement the State comprehensive plan for nutrition and physical activity and review and update the plan periodically. Develop mini-grants and other mechanisms to support communities to adopt effective interventions. (10 points).
c. Evaluate progress and impact of the State plan and intervention projects. (10 points).
d. Identify, assess, or develop data sources to further define and monitor the burden of obesity. (6 points).
e. Expand the existing coordinated nutrition and physical activity program infrastructure. (5 points).
f. Expand partnerships with State Health Department units, the State Education Agency, other State agencies, local communities, and private partners to maximize impacts of the comprehensive program (3 points).
g. Collaborate with partners on secondary prevention strategies. (3 points).
h. Develop resources and training materials to help other State and local projects to adopt successful programs. (3 points).
The degree to which the applicant has met the CDC Policy requirements regarding the inclusion of women, ethnic, and racial groups in any proposed research. This includes:
a. The proposed plan for the inclusion of both sexes and racial and ethnic minority populations for appropriate representation.
b. The proposed justification when representation is limited or absent.
c. A statement as to whether the design of the study is adequate to measure differences when warranted.
d. A statement as to whether the plans for recruitment and outreach for study participants include the process of establishing partnerships with community(ies) and recognition of mutual benefits.
1. Evidence of States conducting strategic planning activities to develop a comprehensive State nutrition and physical activity plan to prevent and control obesity and other chronic diseases.
2. Evidence that a quality comprehensive State nutrition and physical activity plan to prevent and control obesity and other chronic diseases promotes coordination of activities across all relevant State and community programs in which relevant partners are identified in substantive roles.
3. Evidence of at least one community that implemented a nutrition and physical activity plan for the prevention and control of obesity and other chronic diseases.
4. Evidence of outcomes/impacts of at least one intervention evaluating nutrition and physical activity strategies to prevent or control obesity and other chronic diseases.
5. Evidence of State or community nutrition and physical activity policies, environmental supports, and/or legislative actions that were initiated, modified, or planned for the prevention or control of obesity and other chronic diseases.
Five-Year Performance Measures for State Nutrition and Physical Activity Programs include:
1. Evidence that communities have implemented a nutrition and physical activity plan for the prevention and control of obesity and other chronic diseases.
2. Evidence of outcomes/impacts of interventions evaluating nutrition and physical activity strategies to prevent or control obesity and other chronic diseases.
3. Evidence of State or community nutrition and physical activity policies, environmental supports, and/or legislative actions that were initiated, modified, or planned for the prevention or control of obesity and other chronic diseases.
4. Evidence of increased physical activity and better dietary behaviors in communities reached through interventions.
5. Evidence that the levels of obesity decrease or the rate of growth of obesity is reduced in communities reached through interventions.
Approximately $9,200,000 is available to fund approximately 12 awards for grantees currently funded under program announcements 99135, 00115, and 01098. These grantees are only eligible for the second funding level (See Appendix A). To determine eligibility for first or second funding level see Appendices A and B which is found at the bottom of this document and at the CDC Web site address at
In addition, approximately $750,000 is available in FY 2003 to fund up to three WISEWOMAN Projects at the first funding level. Requests for these funds will be competitive. The project period is five years. In the first year, Standard Demonstration Project funding will range from $50,000 to $250,000. If all performance measures (
60/40 Requirements: Not less than 60 percent of cooperative agreement funds must be spent for screening, tracking, follow-up, lifestyle intervention, health education, and the provision of appropriate individually provided support services. Cooperative agreement funds supporting public education and outreach, professional education, quality assurance and improvement,
a. Recipient financial participation is required for this program in accordance with the authorizing legislation. Section 1502(a) and (b) (1), (2), and (3) or the PHS Act, as amended, requires matching funds from non sources in an amount not less than one dollar for every three dollars of Federal funds awarded under this program. However, Title 48 of the U.S. Code 1469a (d) requires DHHS to waive matching fund requirements for Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands up to $200,000.
b. Matching funds may be cash, in-kind, or donated services, or equipment. Contributions may be made directly or through donations from public or private entities. Public Law 93-638 authorizes tribal organizations contracting under the authority of Title 1 to use funds received under the Indian Self-Determination Act as matching funds.
c. All costs used to satisfy the matching requirements must be documented by the applicant and will be subject to audit. Specific rules and regulations governing the matching fund requirement are included in the PHS Grants Policy Statement, Section 6. Matching funds are not subject to the 60/40 requirements described above under “Use of Funds.” For further information about the matching fund requirement, see the WISEWOMAN Guidance Document.
No direct assistance funds will be awarded in lieu of financial assistance to successful WISEWOMAN component recipients.
In conducting activities to achieve the purpose of this program, the recipient will be responsible for the activities under “1. Recipient Activities,” and CDC will be responsible for the activities listed under “2. CDC Activities.”
Standard Demonstration Project (available for new applicants in FY 2003 and FY 2004, not available for new applicants in FY 2005 or later).
The major goal of a Standard Demonstration Project is to demonstrate the effectiveness of operational approaches to conducting the following activities for women aged 40-64 who participated in the NBCCEDP: Outreach, screenings for blood pressure, cholesterol, smoking, and other conditions (when appropriate); referral; lifestyle intervention (to include promotion of heart-healthy diet, increased physical activity, and tobacco cessation); tracking and follow-up; evaluation; professional and public education; and community engagement.
One major goal of an Enhanced Project is to use scientifically rigorous methods to test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a behavioral or lifestyle intervention that is grounded in the social and cultural context of the target population and aimed at preventing cardiovascular disease. The other major goal is to translate and transfer successful interventions and program strategies to other programs that serve financially disadvantaged women. Some important resources for understanding the scope of these translation and transfer activities can be found at
b. Staff with at least two professional staff members to work full-time on WISEWOMAN (one of whom should be a full-time program coordinator and the other should have experience in nutrition, physical activity, or health education), or a plan for hiring such staff members. If staff must be hired, describe the staff that will manage the program until the hiring is completed. Describe the WISEWOMAN evaluation team and provide information on their experience and academic degrees.
c. Work with health care systems that can effectively deliver WISEWOMAN services and that target the population in need of these services. This can best be accomplished by working with a health care system in which the State, Territory, or Tribal BCCEDP has previously been effective and that has successfully engaged the community to provide additional services/support to the population in need.
d. Establish a cardiovascular disease prevention program as the primary focus, with culturally appropriate interventions addressing multiple risk factors that must include physical inactivity, poor nutrition (high intake of saturated fat and low intake of fruit and vegetables), and tobacco use. Other cardiovascular risk factors may be addressed such as overweight or obesity, and pre-diabetes or undiagnosed diabetes.
Recipients may develop other preventive services to be delivered, such as intervention services aimed at prevention or relief of the following: Osteoporosis, arthritis, influenza or other diseases for which vaccines are readily available, or other significant conditions/diseases which affect large numbers of older women.
e. States, Territories, and Tribal Agencies should implement screening, referral, and follow-up according to the recommendations of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute for cholesterol screening using the Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP-III)
f. Recipients should design culturally appropriate lifestyle interventions aimed at lowering blood pressure or cholesterol, improving physical activity or nutrition, or achieving smoking cessation in a similar target population. A New Leaf Choices for Healthy Living is an example of an intervention that has been effective in improving nutrition (
Alternatively, the intervention can be newly designed if it incorporates sound theoretical principles of behavioral change such as use of the socio-ecologic model to intervene at multiple levels, individual tailoring, self-efficacy, self-monitoring and reinforcement, readiness for change, small achievable steps, social support, collaborative goal setting, and strategies to overcome barriers (see monograph entitled
g. Recipients should propose methods aimed at sustaining behavioral change. Maintaining behavioral change should involve strategies to provide the participant with ongoing contact such as with health facility staff or community health workers (either in person or by mail) and to educate regarding relapse prevention. The use of computer-tailored education can be especially useful (to view recommendations detailed in the monograph entitled
Environmental supports aimed at sustaining behavioral change such as increased walking, healthier food choices, and smoking cessation should also be considered. These might include activities such as improving the safety of neighborhoods, advocating for walking groups at shopping malls, improving the quality of foods in local grocery stores and changing community norms around tobacco. Although WISEWOMAN applicants may not be able to completely fund these environmental strategies due to restrictions on the use of funds (
h. Recipients should propose methods aimed at sustaining the program in future years. Methods include using the principles of community engagement (for more information, see CDC's monograph entitled “Principles of Community Engagement” at
i. Plan or conduct evaluation strategies to include reporting of suggested minimum data elements and cost information (see WISEWOMAN Guidance Document at
j. Formalize plans for Recipient Activities (a) to (i) through development of program protocols or conduct program operations according to previously developed and approved program protocols. Newly funded projects should conduct all program startup activities as detailed on page 18 of the monograph
k. Work collaboratively with other State, Territorial, or Tribal WISEWOMAN program staff and partners (such as CDC contractors) to develop methods that have the potential to be implemented in other WISEWOMAN programs.
b. Provide ongoing consultation and technical assistance to plan, implement, and evaluate program activities.
c. Conduct site visits to assess program progress and mutually resolve problems, as needed, and/or coordinate reverse site visits to CDC in Atlanta, GA.
d. Assist in the development of a research study protocol for IRB review by all cooperating institutions participating in the research project. If CDC IRB review is necessary, the CDC IRB will review and approve the protocol initially and on at least an annual basis until the research project is completed. For more detailed information on the CDC IRB
e. Collaborate with WISEWOMAN projects in the analysis of data and development of abstracts and publications that informs the program, public, scientific community, and Congress as to program progress and results.
f. Copy and distribute materials developed by State, Territorial, or Tribal WISEWOMAN projects for the purpose of aiding other WISEWOMAN projects and public health partners.
a. The number of uninsured women living in the State/Territory/Tribal area by race/ethnicity by two age categories if possible,
b. The current health care system in which State, Territorial, or Tribal BCCEDP and WISEWOMAN sites operate (
c. Community involvement or engagement in the BCCEDP and/or WISEWOMAN project to include use of community health workers, use of community members, engagement in partnership activities with community agencies that serve financially disadvantaged women, use of referral systems to other community services, and so forth.
a. An organizational chart that shows the location of The WISEWOMAN Program in relationship to the agency's health promotion section, chronic disease section, minority, or women's health section, Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program, and to other programs that address chronic disease (
b. The number of BCCEDP and WISEWOMAN sites in operation as of the January preceding the date of this application.
c. The total number of political subdivisions (
d. During the most recent program year include:
(1) The number of women served by BCCEDP and The WISEWOMAN Programs in the State, Territory, or Tribal area (provide data for each of the past 5 years, if available).
(2) The racial/ethnic characteristics of the population served (include educational Characteristics, if available).
(3) The percentage of women with a positive mammogram or pap test who did not go on for further diagnostics and reasons why women did not go on;
(4) The percentage of women with a WISEWOMAN alert value who did not go on for further diagnostics and reasons why women did not go on.
(5) The average length of time between a positive mammogram or Pap test and the receipt of a diagnostic test.
(6) The average length of time between detection of a WISEWOMAN alert value and the receipt of diagnostic test (
a. Site selection, the approximate number of sites to receive WISEWOMAN services, the characteristics of the sites, the proportion of State or Territorial BCCEDP sites that will receive WISEWOMAN services, and estimated number of women who are expected to receive such services during the upcoming year.
b. Screening and intervention services and start-up activities (if applying for Standard Demonstration Project funding level; see checklist of start-up activities in the WISEWOMAN Guidance Document at
c. A pilot study to test proposed methods.
d. Inclusion of letters of support for WISEWOMAN from a substantial number of State/Territorial BCCEDP site directors and medical staff.
e. Methods for tracking women through the system and after they leave the system [(for the purpose of bringing them back for further screening and intervention)(Standard Projects should ensure that at least 60 percent of new women receive the complete intervention)], for flagging, tracking, and managing women who need immediate referral because of extremely high blood pressure (≥180 systolic blood pressure or 110 diastolic blood pressure), cholesterol (>400 mg/dL), or glucose levels (>375 mg/dL).
f. Program tracking to determine which women receive which interventions; routine reporting on the progress of the program (see suggested quarterly report format in WISEWOMAN Guidance Document at
4.
5.
a. Describe the current evaluation team or propose a plan to establish the evaluation team using criteria such as prior work experience, professional training, and academic degrees.
b. Describe the current evaluation plan or propose an evaluation plan that includes clearly stated evaluation objectives with a time line for the collection of data throughout the project.
c. Describe the current database or propose a database that details data elements, methods for data management, the creation of unique identifiers, methods for identifying women who need immediate treatment, and other important data procedures.
6.
a. The extent to which a university or Prevention Research Center will be involved in the evaluation design.
b. The preliminary evaluation questions to be answered.
c. The type of evaluation design (
d. Length of follow-up and measurement intervals.
e. Protocol used to ensure that the maximum number of women will return for each evaluation.
f. Statistical techniques that will be used to analyze the data with preliminary estimates of the sample size needed to achieve adequate statistical power. To obtain the statistical power to evaluate the intervention, the program should add cholesterol and blood pressure screenings (and other optional screenings, if desired) to a sufficiently large number of State or Territorial BCCEDP sites to provide adequate statistical power for evaluating program effectiveness. States or Territories may want to consider including a total of at least 20 sites. The study design for this type of evaluation might include women from a number of sites assigned to intervention (
(1) The extent to which the evaluation team includes staff with expertise in translation and transfer activities;
(2) Clear objectives regarding translating strategies into products using lay language, compiling information in clear, user-friendly format, testing of the translation package for usability;
(3) Methods for providing technical assistance, orientation and training on implementing and ensuring fidelity with regard to implementing the translation package;
(4) Methods for evaluating and refining the translation package and plans for dissemination of the final package;
(5) A timeline with regard to translation and transfer activities. Some important resources for understanding the scope of these translation and transfer activities are found at
a. Meeting and teleconferences attendance for the purpose of developing forms, tracking systems, measurements, policy, etc.
b. Analyzing data and co-authoring abstracts and publications; sharing information with CDC and its contractors (stripped of identifying information) on a twice-yearly basis.
c. Plans to collaborate with other health promotion experts in the health agency including nutritionists, physical activity experts, tobacco control experts, and others who promote a healthy lifestyle through better eating, weight management, physical activity, and smoking cessation.
d. For Enhanced projects, plans for developing a monograph and/or training on methods to help other projects adopt successful program practices (See example “Integrating Cardiovascular Disease Prevention into Existing Health Services: The Experience of the North Carolina WISEWOMAN Program” at
a. Budget for the following travel:
(1) Up to two persons to attend the Nutrition and Public Health Course that is sponsored by the University of North Carolina Prevention Research Center and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This is a five-day course. For more information see
(2) Up to two persons to participate in the annual WISEWOMAN Project Directors Meeting that is held in conjunction with NCCDPHP Annual Chronic Disease Conference (four days) or other CDC Conferences. Details are provided at
(3) One person to attend the Physical Activity and Public Health Course that is sponsored by the University of South Carolina Prevention Research Center and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This is an eight-day Postgraduate Course on Research Directions and Strategies and a six-day Practitioner's Course on Community Interventions.
(4) Cost Data and Minimum Data Elements: Budget for collecting and reporting cost data and minimum data elements. (See WISEWOMAN Guidance Document at
Applications received from current grantees that are funded under program announcements 00115, 99135, and 01098 will be reviewed utilizing the Technical Review process. For applicants that apply competitively as Standard Demonstration Projects or Enhanced Projects, an independent objective review group appointed by CDC will evaluate each application individually using the following criteria:
1.1 The proposed plan for the inclusion of both sexes and racial and ethnic minority populations for appropriate representation.
1.2 The proposed justification when representation is limited or absent.
1.3 A statement as to whether the design of the study is adequate to measure differences when warranted.
1.4 A statement as to whether the plans for recruitment and outreach for study participants includes the process recognition of mutual benefits.
Approximately $2,600,000 is available in FY 2003 to fund approximately 13 Part 1 Capacity Building Program awards. It is expected that the Capacity Building Program average award will be $200,000, ranging from $65,000 to $400,000. Funding estimates may vary and are subject to change.
No funding is available in FY 2003 for Part 2 Basic Implementation Program awards. Pending available funding resources, applications will be accepted in years two through five.
Applicants may not use these funds to supplant oral health program funds from local, State, or Federal sources. Applicants must maintain current levels of support dedicated to oral health from other funding sources. Funding received under this program announcement cannot be used for the purchase of dental services, dental sealant equipment, or materials.
Applicants requesting funding for community water fluoridation equipment will be required to provide matching funds. Matching funds are required from State and/or local sources in an amount of not less than one dollar for each four dollars of Federal funds awarded for community water fluoridation equipment under this program announcement.
Matching funds are required from State and/or local sources in an amount of not less than one dollar for each four dollars of Federal funds awarded for a Basic Implementation Program.
Matching funds may be in cash or its equivalent, including donated or in-kind appropriate equipment, supplies, and or services. Do not include funds from other Federal sources including the Preventive Health and Health Services Block Grant.
CDC funding covers some of the costs of oral health core capacity, infrastructure, and community-based prevention interventions, but it is not intended to fully support all aspects of the oral health program.
You may request Federal personnel as direct assistance in years two through five, in lieu of a portion of financial assistance.
To request new direct-assistance assignees, include:
a. Number of assignees requested.
b. Description of the position and proposed duties.
c. Ability or inability to hire locally with financial Assistance.
d. Justification for request.
e. Organizational chart and name of intended supervisor opportunities for training, education, and work.
f. Opportunities for training, education, and work experience for assignees.
g. Description of assignee's access to computer equipment for communication with CDC (
In conducting activities to achieve the purpose of this program, the recipient will be responsible for the activities under 1.a and 1.b (Recipient Activities), and CDC will be responsible for the activities listed under 2. CDC Activities.
(1) Develop oral health program leadership capacity. Develop a State oral health team. Leadership capacity should include: (a) full-time dental director (oral health professional with public health training); (b) .25 time epidemiologic support at a minimum; (c) demonstrated access to at least .50 time of a water fluoridation engineer/specialist or coordinator, and (d) demonstrated access to appropriate program support, .50 to one time dental sealant coordinator, .25 time capacity for health education, health communication, and .25 time support staff, through leveraging of dollars, shared dedicated resources and letters of support.
Performance will be measured by evidence of established leadership capacity. Evidence of leadership capacity can be shown by: The composition of an oral health program team consistent with (1) above.
(2) Describe the oral disease burden, health disparities, and unmet needs in the State. Describe the oral disease burden within the State and document unmet oral health needs of target populations and existing oral health assets (
Performance will be measured by evidence that State oral disease burden has been accurately described. Evidence can be shown by: (a) a publicly available disease burden document describing oral disease burden and oral health disparities, issued in the past five years using the most recent data, preferably data no more than five years old; and (b) document includes oral health status with indicators consistent with the National Oral Health System (NOHSS), the Water Fluoridation Reporting
(3) Develop or update a comprehensive State Oral Health Plan. Develop or update a comprehensive State Oral Health Plan for oral health promotion, disease prevention, and control that includes specific objectives for future reductions in oral disease and related risk factors and objectives for the promotion of oral health. The plan should provide specific, measurable, and time-phased objectives to accomplish each goal related to the logic model (
Performance will be measured by evidence that a comprehensive State Oral Health Plan has been completed. Evidence can be shown by development of a plan consistent with the process described and with elements (a) through (j) above.
(4) Establish and sustain a diverse Statewide oral health coalition. Establish a coalition to assist in the formulation of plans, guide project activities, and identify additional financial resources for this project. Coalition membership should be representative of stakeholder organizations within the State health department, within the State government and groups external to State government, for examples
Performance will be measured by evidence of a sustained, diverse statewide oral health coalition. Evidence can be shown by: (a) Extent of progress towards coalition sustainability, such as written by-laws, goals and objectives, plans and procedures for operation, past accomplishments, clerical staff support, and evidence of leveraging of resources; (b) membership entities representing each, but not limited to, categories in the coalition framework at Web site; (c) clear responsibility; (d) coalition activity in infrastructure, community water fluoridation, and sealants. Coalition activities must address all of the following activities: Infrastructure development, community water fluoridation, school-based/school-linked dental sealant programs, unless the grantee can document how current activities in the State have already met or exceeded Health People 2010 objectives for these activities.
(5) Develop or enhance oral disease surveillance system. Develop key resources, data sources, and capabilities to promote the State's surveillance needs.
Performance will be measured by evidence of a developed or enhanced oral disease surveillance system. Evidence can be shown by: Documentation that key resources, data sources, capabilities and surveillance plan are in place to provide an adequate surveillance system via activities consistent with (a) through (c) above.
(6) Identify prevention opportunities for systemic, socio-political and/or policy change to improve oral health. Conduct a periodic assessment of policy and systems level strategies with potential to reduce oral diseases. The assessment should include identification of opportunities to make changes in policy and health systems to overcome barriers, capitalize on assets, increase capacity, and coordinate prevention interventions.
Performance will be measured by evidence of identification of socio-political and policy changes. Evidence can be shown by periodic assessments consistent with the activities above.
(7) Develop and coordinate partnerships to increase State-level and community capacity to address specific oral disease prevention interventions. Identify, consult with and involve appropriate partners to assess areas critical to the development of State-level and community-based oral health promotion and disease prevention programs, avoid duplication of efforts, ensure synergy of resources, and enhance the overall leadership within the State. Partnerships should augment the oral health coalition.
Performance will be measured by evidence of the development and coordination of partnerships. Evidence can be shown by: (a) Collaborative partnerships with Statewide and local entities (
(8) Coordinate and implement limited community water fluoridation program management. Provide coordination and management of a fluoridation program, provide/develop fluoridation training materials for engineers and water plant operators, and evaluate community water fluoridation accomplishments and new and/or replacement water fluoridation equipment.
Performance will be measured by the development, implementation, and coordination of a water fluoridation program. Evidence can be shown by: (a) Extent the water fluoridation program incorporates and makes progress towards the 1995 Engineering and Administrative Recommendations for Water Fluoridation (EARWF), including: (1) Daily testing; (2) access to .50 fluoridation engineer; (3) targeted inspection activity; (4) basic fluoridation training; (b) monthly monitoring consistent with the Water Fluoridation Reporting System (WFRS); (c) percent of fluoridated water systems consistently maintaining optimal levels of fluoride as defined by State and consistent with EARWF; (d) document communities and populations receiving new or replacement fluoridation equipment.
(9) Evaluate, document, and share State program accomplishments, best practices, lessons learned, and use of evaluation results. Evaluation activities should: (a) Be consistent with the CDC oral health global logic model, work plan: (
Performance will be measured by evidence that evaluation has been completed, State evaluation capacity and activities have become institutionalized; State program accomplishments have been collected, evaluated, and shared with stakeholders; and evaluation results are used to improve program performance. Evidence can be shown by: (1) Documentation of evaluation activities consistent with (a) through (e) above; and (2) documentation of participation in scientific forums consistent with the activities above.
(10) Capacity Building Prevention Intervention (To be undertaken after Part 1 Capacity Building Program 1-9 from above have been met).
a. Develop and Implement a water fluoridation program. Provide or develop fluoridation educational materials, as appropriate, to promote water fluoridation. Implement a program to support new replacement water fluoridation equipment. Evaluate the accomplishments of the water fluoridation program.
Performance will be measured by the development, implementation, and coordination of a water fluoridation program. Evidence can be shown by: (1) Documentation of appropriate education and promotion efforts; (2) documentation of communities and populations receiving replacement fluoridation equipment by funding source; (3) extent of progress towards reaching or exceeding Health People 2010 objective of 75 percent of population on public water supplies receiving fluoridated water.
b. Develop, coordinate and implement limited school-based or school-linked dental sealant programs. Describe and document the number of eligible public elementary or secondary schools, and existing related oral health assets. Document infrastructure is in place for the coordination and management of school-based or school-linked dental sealant program and show collaborative working relationships and formal agreements (
Develop school-based or school-linked dental sealant programs targeting public elementary or secondary schools located in: (a) Urban areas, and in which more than 50 percent of the student population of that school or school entity is participating in Federal or State free and reduced meal programs; or (b) rural school districts having a median income that is at or below 235 percent of the poverty line, as defined in section 673(2) of the Community Services Block Grant Act [42 U.S.C. 9902(2)].
Performance will be measured by the development, implementation, and coordination of school-based/school-linked dental sealant programs. Evidence can be shown by: (1) Extent that priority populations have been identified; (2) extent that implementation strategies appropriate to State setting have been developed; percent and number of children in funded programs receiving at least one permanent molar sealant; proportion of eligible schools participating in program; and proportion of children participating in free and reduced cost lunch program receiving at least one sealant.
Optional Cost Analysis Recipient Activities and Performance Measures: Measures include the collection, tracking, and completion of cost analysis for school-based/school-linked dental sealant program. Evaluate the accomplishments, efficiency, and effectiveness of the implemented school-based/school-linked dental sealant programs. Proposals may include requests for technical assistance for the following optional performance measures:
Performance will be measured by the collection, tracking, and accomplishment of a cost-analysis for school-based or school-linked dental sealant programs. Evidence can be shown by: (a) Documentation of baseline mean pit and fissure caries severity (
(1) Develop a Statewide community water fluoridation program or maintain Statewide fluoridation program that has reached the Healthy People 2010 objective. Enhance or expand existing community water fluoridation demonstration or pilot project into a statewide program showing annual progress.
Performance will be measured by evidence that water fluoridation efforts result in significant progress towards meeting, maintaining or exceeding Healthy People 2010 goals. Evidence can be shown by: (a) Extent that Statewide water fluoridation program incorporates and makes progress in meeting the Engineering and Administrative Recommendations for Water Fluoridation (EARWF, 1995), including: (1) Monthly monitoring and participation; (2) additional fluoridation engineers and/or specialist if appropriate; (3) all fluoridation engineers and/or specialists attend CDC fluoridation engineers and/or specialists attend CDC fluoridation training or equivalent; (4) all water plant operators receive basic fluoridation training; (5) all adjusted fluoridated water systems have annual inspections to insure that all the technical recommendations, including the (a) safety requirements of EARWF are followed; (b) all split sampling reference labs should participate in the CDC Lab Proficiency Testing Program; (c) document progress in increasing percent of fluoridated water systems consistently maintaining optimal levels of fluoride as defined by State and consistent with recommendations outlined in EARWF; (d) document progress toward reaching or exceeding Healthy People 2010 objective; (e) document communities and populations receiving new or replacement fluoridation equipment.
(2) Develop Statewide school-based or school-linked dental sealant program or
Performance will be measured by evidence that grantee is implementing and expanding school-based or school-linked dental sealant programs Statewide. Evidence can be shown by: (a) Documentation of progress towards reaching or exceeding goal of school-based or school-linked sealant programs in at least 50 percent of eligible schools; (b) significant progress towards increasing: The percent and number of children in Statewide funded programs receiving at least one permanent molar sealant; proportion of eligible schools participating in program; and proportion of eligible schools participating in program; and proportion of children in funded programs participating in free and reduced cost lunch program receiving at least one sealant; (c) demonstrated participation in ASTDD Best Practices project; (d) demonstrated leadership capacity in dissemination and technical assistance to other State sealant programs; (e) progress towards sustainability and institutionalization of sealant program through leveraging of dollars, partnership participation, billing Medicaid and/or SCHIP or other sources of support.
(3) Develop other evidence-based, population-based, intervention strategies consistent with the State Oral Health Plan. Strategies should include policy and systems level approaches. Interventions should be population based, with objectives that specify the population wide changes sought and may address use of dental sealants, water fluoridation efforts, tobacco use, diabetes, poor nutrition, oral health education and, secondary prevention.
Performance will be measured by demonstration of implementation of evidence-based, population-based strategies. Evidence will be shown by: (a) Documentation of evidence-based for intervention initiative; (b) extent that population-based interventions meet the established objectives specifying the population-wide changes sought; and (c) submission to the ASTDD Best Practices Project.
(4) Evaluate intervention components. Design and implement a public health practice evaluation system that collects and analyzes information to be used to measure program progress, community capacity changes, short-term and distal outcomes. Evaluation results and related findings should be used to add to and/or enhance program implementation.
Performance will be measured by evidence that State evaluation capacity and activities have become an on-going normative activity and that State program accomplishments have been collected, evaluated and shared with stakeholders. Evidence can be shown by: (a) Demonstration that the recipient is taking a leadership role in providing technical assistance and transfer of practice knowledge to other States; and b) quantification (in terms of dollars) of resources used and returns on those resources.
(5) Expand oral health program leadership capacity. Expand State oral health team beyond CAPACITY BUILDING level. Provide National leadership by sharing results, with one another, best practices, and other lessons learned to help shape the national agenda and improving the oral health of the public. Capacity should include: (a) Epidemiologic support .50 time at a minimum; (b) demonstrated access to 1.0 time fluoridation engineer/specialist or coordinator (may be less for States with small number of water systems or more for States with a large number of water systems); and (c) demonstrated access to appropriate program support at a minimum: 1.0 time program coordinator, 1.0 time dental sealant coordinator, .50 time capacity for health education, .50 time health communication, .50 time data manager, .25 time grant writer, 1.0 time support staff, and regional consultants, through leveraging of dollars, shared dedicated resources, and letters of support.
Performance will be measured by evidence of expanded leadership and access to needed functions through personnel, leveraging of dollars, shared dedicated resources and/or letters of support, sharing through publications and presentations at national and regional meetings. Evidence can be shown by: (a) The minimum composition of the oral health program is consistent with the activities outlined above; (b) demonstrated with the activities outlined above; and (c) demonstrated evidence of sharing best practices and other lessons learned inside and outside of the State borders through publications and meeting presentations.
(6) Develop and maintain expanded surveillance capacity. The surveillance system is maintained and sustainable, and able to compare State or smaller area data to those from national data sources. Surveillance system should be able to conduct original analyses or forge good working relationships with in-State agencies that will conduct the original analyses. Refer to surveillance logic model at Web site for more information.
Activities should include: (a) Development of regional or county level indicators; (b) development of surveillance system quality checks, establishment of data cleaning protocol, and document data linkages and security procedures; (c) utilization of original analytic analyses and comparisons to national data in dissemination activities and reports; (d) documentation of regional or county level indicators; and (e) collaboration with other programs in the health department to answer key epidemiological questions of mutual interest,
Performance will be measured by evidence that surveillance is on-going, sustainable activity within the State, is expanded beyond the basic requirements of a core system, and uses data to direct program planning and oral health promotion. Evidence can be shown by: Documentation of activities (a) through (e) above.
(7) Expand the diverse statewide oral health coalition. Expand statewide oral health coalition and address institutionalization and sustainability.
Performance will be measured by evidence of a sustained, diverse statewide oral health coalition with established plans for membership and recruitment of diverse stakeholders. Evidence can be shown by: (a) Extent that coalition has been significantly expanded in both numbers and types of members and documentation of expanded coalition activities; (b) documentation of dedicated support staff; (c) documentation of established communication measures and outreach to community, policy makers and stakeholders; (d) extent of progress towards coalition sustainability such as meeting minutes, schedule of meeting dates and locations; and (e) documentation of active support from stakeholders including funding sources and in-kind contributions.
(8) Address program sustainability by broadening resources. Address the institutionalization of the oral health unit, oral health surveillance system, statewide coalition, and the State's best practice programs.
Performance will be measured by demonstration of condition supportive of the sustainability of State oral health infrastructure and programs. Evidence can be shown by measures including: (a) Non-award funding and measures that activities are institutionalized; (b) demonstration of environment
(9) Collect, track and complete cost analysis for school-based or school-linked dental sealant program. Evaluate the accomplishments, efficiency, and effectiveness of the implemented school-based or school-linked dental sealant programs. Performance will be measured by the completion of a cost-analysis for school-based or school-linked dental sealant programs. Evidence can be shown by: (a) Documentation of baseline mean pit and fissure caries severity (
c. Communicate and share information, evaluations, data, and programmatic activities with other recipients and partners, as appropriate.
d. Coordinate conference calls, workshops, and other information sharing opportunities, as appropriate.
The program announcement title and number must appear in the application. Use the information in the Program Requirements, Other Requirements, and Evaluation Criteria sections to develop the application content. Your application will be evaluated on the criteria listed, so it is important to follow them in laying out your program plan.
This section will outline the requirements for each program and will note additional requirements for each specific Part.
The narrative for Part 1 CAPACITY BUILDING Program should be no more than 36 pages, double-spaced, printed on one side, with one-inch margins, and 12-point Universal unreduced font.
b. For each objective, specify how achievement will be documented including measures, data collection protocols, and data quality required to obtain needed information;
c. Using the logic model as a framework, specify: (1) Indicators for process and outcome objectives; (2) expected increase in capacity of the State oral health program, delivery systems, and communities; (3) changes in oral health outcomes;
d. Plans for analysis, interpretation and reporting of findings;
e. Plans for use of findings; and
f. Provide a time-line for the completion of the evaluation.
To the extent necessary, applicants are encouraged to include travel for: (a) Up to four persons associated with this project to each annually attend up to two technical assistance workshops. For
The narrative for Part 2 BASIC IMPLEMENTATION Program should be no more than 45 pages, double-spaced, printed on one side, with one-inch margins, and 12 point Universal unreduced font.
Use the application guidance from Part 1 Capacity Building Program with the exception of the page limits and the additional section as outlined below.
1. Executive Summary (not to exceed four pages)
2. Statement of Need (not to exceed seven pages)
3. Eligibility (not to exceed seven pages)
(a) Outline how State oral health program has accomplished activities and performance measures under the Capacity Building Program; (b) outline how your demonstration/pilot CAPACITY BUILDING PREVENTION INTERVENTIONS have been successful. Include a description of activities and performance measures under Section E.1.a as appropriate.
4. Five-year plan (Goals) (not to exceed five pages)
5. One-year Plan, Activities and Timeline (not to exceed nine pages)
6. Evaluation Plan (not to exceed seven pages)
7. Program management (not to exceed six pages)
8. Budget and Accompanying Justification (no page limit)
Applicants received from current grantees that are funded under Program Announcement 01046, will be reviewed utilizing the Technical Review process. Applications received from unfunded applicants (new), will be evaluated individually against the following criteria by an independent review group appointed by CDC.
Applications received from grantees funded under Program Announcement 01046 will be reviewed by independent reviewers utilizing the Technical Acceptability Review (TAR) process.
a. One Year Plan (30 points). The extent to which the applicant has addressed Recipient Activities 3 and item 4.a in the Application Content section of Component 4.
b. Five Year Plan (20 points). The extent to which the applicant has addressed Recipient Activities 3 and item 3 in the Application Content section of Component 4.
c. Program Management (20 points). The extent to which the applicant has addressed Recipient Activities 1, 7, 8, and 10 and item 6 in the Application Content section of Component 4.
d. Statement of Need (15 points). The extent to which the applicant has addressed Recipient Activities 1 and 2 and item 2 in the Application Content section of Component 4.
e. Evaluation Plan (15 points). The extent to which the applicant has addressed Recipient Activities 5, 6, and 9 and item 5 in the Application Content section of Component 4.
f. Budget (not scored). The extent to which the applicant has addressed item 7 in the Application Content section of Component 4.
a. One Year Plan (30 points). The extent to which the applicant has addressed Recipient Activities 3 and item 4.a in the Application Content section of Component 4.
b. Five Year Plan (20 points). The extent to which the applicant has addressed Recipient Activities 3 and item 3 in the Application Content section of Component 4.
c. Evaluation Plan (20 points). The extent to which the applicant has addressed Recipient Activities 5, 6, and 9 and item 5 in the Application Content section of Component 4.
d. Program Management (20 points). The extent to which the applicant has addressed Recipient Activities 1, 7, 8, and 10 and item 6 in the Application Content section of Component 4.
e. Statement of Need (10 points). The extent to which the applicant has addressed Recipient Activities 1 and 2 and item 2 in the Application Content section of Component 4.
f. Budget (not scored). The extent to which the applicant has addressed item 7 in the Application Content section of Component 4.
Approximately $6,000,000 is available in FY 2003 to fund up to 36 awards. Approximately $3,640,000 is available to fund 28 existing Capacity Building Program Level A grantees under Program Announcement 01097. Capacity Building Program Level A grantees will undergo a technical review of their application and will be funded pending receipt and approval of a technically acceptable application. It is expected that the average award will be $135,000 ranging from $120,000 to $150,000.
Approximately $2,360,000 is available to fund six to eight Capacity Building Program Level B programs. Requests for these funds will be competitive and will be reviewed by an independent objective review panel. It is expected that the average award will be $275,000 ranging from $250,000 to $300,000.
Continuation awards within an approved project period will be made on the basis of satisfactory progress as evidenced by required reports and the availability of funds. The interim progress report will be used as evidence of Capacity Building Program Level A attainment of their respective goals and objectives and readiness to compete for the next level of funding should funds be available. Capacity Building Program Level A grantees wishing to compete for the next level of funding should submit an application that is responsive to the Capacity Level B Program Performance Measures, Application Content and Recipient Activities section of this program announcement including a line-item budget and budget justification. Applications for advancement from a Level A to Level B program will be reviewed by CDC staff utilizing the Technical Acceptability Review (TAR) process. Applications can be submitted in fiscal year 2004, 2005, or 2006. Funding decisions will be made on the basis of satisfactory progress on the appropriate Performance Measures as evidenced by required reports and the availability of funds. Capacity Building Program Level A programs that unsuccessfully compete for Capacity Building Program Level B funding will be funded for a Capacity Building Program Level A.
Cooperative Agreement Funds may not be used to supplant State or Local funds. In addition, funds may not be used to support primary prevention activities.
Matching funds are not required for this program.
In conducting activities to achieve the purpose of this program, the recipient will be responsible for the activities under 1a. (Recipient Activities for Capacity Building Program Level A) and
a. Individuals with expertise in arthritis;
b. Agencies/organizations with activities relevant to arthritis, resources for arthritis activities, and access to target populations (
c. Persons with arthritis or family members of persons with arthritis.
As appropriate, States should establish internal workgroups with other components of State government that are directly or indirectly involved in some aspect of arthritis control and prevention.
Performance will be measured by the extent to which there is evidence of diverse, active, and viable partnerships. Documentation should include minutes of meetings, lists of members, copies of by-laws or written operating procedures.
a. Define and monitor the prevalence and impact of arthritis using the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). It is recommended that funded States collect data using the Arthritis Optional Module of the BRFSS in odd years (
b. Issue a State of Arthritis Report using, at a minimum, 2001 BRFSS arthritis data. (Arthritis data was collected by all States in calendar year 2001 through the BRFSS). This activity should be completed within the first two years of the cooperative agreement.
c. For years two and beyond surveillance activities should be expanded to include the measuring of intervention reach and effects. Measuring reach includes, but is not limited to, establishing mechanisms to determine annual availability and delivery of evidenced-based self-management programs such as ASHC, PACE, and Arthritis Foundation Aquatics programs. Availability measures the number of programs offered and their geographic dispersion; delivery measures both the number of programs given and the number of persons with arthritis attending. Measuring effects includes, but is not limited to, measuring changes in health impacts, improvement in quality of life, or functioning among those attending the above programs.
Performance will be measured by:
a. The extent to which there is evidence that the burden of arthritis has been defined using BRFSS data that identifies demographics, prevalence, and related risk behaviors (
b. The extent to which the grantee is able to demonstrate the ability to define and monitor the number of evidenced-based self management courses available within the State and the number of individuals impacted by these programs.
Performance will be measured by the extent to which documentation is provided that a written State plan for arthritis is completed. The plan should contain a description of the State burden of arthritis, and assessment of resources and resource gaps, strategies to decrease the burden of arthritis, priorities, and time-line for implementation of interventions. The plan should be endorsed and supported by partner organizations.
Performance will be measured by the extent that the grantee can provide documentation that one or more evidenced-base intervention was implemented including: the process used for selecting the intervention, the target audience, the location of the intervention, and data used to support the decision to implement.
In addition to continuing and enhancing the Recipient Activities for Capacity Building Program Level A, Capacity Building Program Level B Program will include:
Performance will be measured by the extent to which non-BRFSS data have been examined and have informed program decisions or enhanced existing activities.
Performance will be measured by:
a. The extent to which grantee can provide documentation that two or more evidenced-base interventions were implemented including: the process used for selecting the intervention, the target audience, the location of the intervention, the role of partners, and data used to support the decision to implement.
b. The extent to which non-evidence based programs have been implemented and evaluated.
All funded States are expected to adhere to the most current surveillance, intervention, and health communication recommendations that will be posted at
a. Provide consultation and technical assistance to plan, implement, and evaluate each component of the program.
b. Provide current information on the status of
c. National efforts as they relate to the implementation of recipient activities.
d. As needed, provide technical assistance in the coordination of surveillance efforts and the use of other data systems to measure and characterize the burden of arthritis, provide standard analyses of BRFSS data for States, and provide data for national level comparisons.
e. Facilitate communication among arthritis programs, other government agencies, and others involved in arthritis control and prevention efforts.
The program announcement title and number must appear in the application. Use the information in the Program Requirements, Other Requirements, and Evaluation Criteria sections to develop the application content. Your application will be evaluated on the criteria listed, so it is important to follow them in laying out your program plan. Applications for Capacity Building Program Level A should be no more than 30 pages and Capacity Building Program Level B Programs no more than 40 pages excluding Federal forms, budget, justification, abstract, and appendixes. All applications should be double-spaced, printed on one side, with one-inch margins, and 12-point font. All applicants should also submit as appendices, resumes, job descriptions, organizational charts, and any other supporting documentation as appropriate. All graphics, maps, overlays, etc., should be in black and white and meet the above criteria. All submitted materials must be suitable for photocopying. Your application must be submitted unstapled and unbound.
Capacity Building Level B Programs: a. Applicants for Capacity Building Programs Level B should provide evidence that they have significantly met the requirements specified in the Recipient Activities for Capacity Building Programs Level A (see Program Recipient Activities Section).
b. In addition, the applicant should adequately describe the burden of arthritis within the State including how the program defines arthritis using BRFSS and other data.
c. Include a description of the barriers the State currently faces in further developing and implementing programs for the control of arthritis.
1. Describe plans to monitor the burden of arthritis within the State using BRFSS data and include plans for the development and dissemination of a State of Arthritis Report.
2. Applicant should also describe the method to be used to develop mechanisms to measure programmatic reach and effects of evidenced-based arthritis self-management programs as defined in the “Recipient Activities” section of this announcement.
3. In addition to criteria under Capacity Building Program Level A, applicants for Capacity Building Level B Programs should present plans to examine the availability and applicability of other State-based data sources as described in the “Recipient Activities” section.
Applicants should describe the process to be used for engaging relevant partners and developing a State arthritis plan. If a State plan has been developed, describe the process used for its development, provide agendas for planning meetings, and provide the executive summary of the State plan.
1. Applicants should describe the process to be used to select the intervention to be implemented.
2. If an already existing State plan or partnership has provided guidance for the selection of the intervention, describe the relationship between the intervention and strategies identified within the State plan and the Public Health Framework for Arthritis. Provide a description of implementation plans, the proposed intervention(s) activity(ies), the target population, geographic location, the actual methods of implementation, a time-line, evaluation strategy, and the role of partners in this process.
a. Address the elements 1 and 2 under Capacity Building Program Level A.
b. If proposing the implementation of non evidenced-based intervention(s), provide an implementation plan that includes a description of the program and expected outcomes. In addition, the evaluation plan should describe how impact will be measured, domains of interest, proposed data collection tools, and how data will be analyzed.
Applications received from current grantees that are funded under Program announcement 01097, will be reviewed utilizing the Technical Review process. Applications received from States funded under program announcement 99074 and all other applicants will be evaluated individually against the following criteria by an independent review group appointed by CDC.
Approximately $5,000,000 is available in FY 2003 to fund approximately 54 existing grants under program announcement 99044. It is expected that the average award will be $75,000, ranging from $50,000 to $100,000. It is expected that the awards will begin on or about June 30, 2003 and will be made for a 12-month budget period within a project period of up to five years. Funding estimates may change.
Funds provided under this program announcement cannot be used to conduct community-based pilot or demonstration projects. Cooperative agreement funds may not be used to supplant State or local funds. Cooperative agreement funds may not be used to provide patient care, personal health services, medications, patient rehabilitation, or other cost associated with treatment. Funds awarded under this program announcement may be obligated and expended only for those BRFSS surveillance, data collection, and
In conducting activities to achieve the purpose of this program, the recipient will be responsible for the activities under 1. Recipient Activities, and CDC will be responsible for the activities listed under 2. CDC Activities.
b. Adopt the standard BRFSS written protocol that has been developed and formulate a plan for developing and conducting BRFSS data collection activities in conformance with protocols used by other participating States and delineated in the “BRFSS User's Guide” and numbered memorandums (The “BRFSS User's Guide” is available at
c. Develop and implement plans and written procedures for ongoing analysis of behavioral risk factor data Statewide and for selected local areas.
d. Develop and implement plans and written procedures to ensure the routine use of BRFSS data for directing program planning, evaluating programs, establishing program priorities, developing specific interventions and policies, assessing trends, and targeting relevant population groups.
e. Develop and implement plans for the use of BRFSS data to address emerging Public Health chronic disease and injury issues within the State.
f. Develop and implement procedures to increase collaboration with and among State, local, and, as appropriate, national, public, private, voluntary, for-profit and nonprofit agencies, organizations, and universities that analyze data or seek to reduce chronic disease and injury morbidity and mortality.
g. Assure active cooperation and collaboration with recipients of funding from other CDC supported programs (cancer, tobacco use, diabetes, alcohol use, women's health, etc.) and identify opportunities to link program and BRFSS efforts where appropriate and reinforcing, including co-funding of BRFSS activities.
h. Ensure adequate and, as required, periodic training of State BRFSS interviewers. Interviewers must follow the standard BRFSS questionnaire script developed in collaboration with BRFSS member States and should be trained with appropriate standards for telephone interviewing. (The BRFSS Interviewer Training is located in the training section of the BRFSS Web site referenced above in 1.b.)
i. Develop, maintain, and make available to CDC monthly, electronic BRFSS data sets for data management (
j. Conduct monthly, monitoring data quality and data management (
k. Develop and implement an analysis plan.
l. Participate with others in individual and multi-State analyses comparing data across BRFSS States.
m. Disseminate BRFSS findings through presentations and publications to health departments, professional societies, voluntary agencies, universities, other BRFSS States, and other interested individuals and organizations.
n. Make data and BRFSS findings available for training workshops and meetings at least once a year (
o. Assure that CDC receives final end-of-year BRFSS data sets on or before February 15 of the following year.
b. Assist BRFSS member States to establish standard survey protocols to be followed by States and disseminate them in the “BRFSS User's Guide” and in numbered memorandums; and, as appropriate, assist in the development of State-specific protocols.
c. Assist BRFSS member States with designing and obtaining appropriate telephone samples.
d. Assist BRFSS member States in the development of data processing procedures to be used by States and CDC to produce edited data files with standard, uniform formats. Provide program software, training, and on-going technical assistance for operations management, questionnaire data entry, and development of the BRFSS analysis database.
e. Develop and provide to States semi-annual and annual summary reports on selected risk factors related to the leading causes of State morbidity and mortality in a standardized and uniform manner.
f. Assist in training State staff related to data collection, data analysis, interpretation, and use.
g. Conduct or assist with the specification of cleaning, weighting, data editing, variable and format layouts of all data files.
h. Provide technical assistance to resolve problems regarding data collection procedures, response rates, sampling procedures (unbiased sampling and estimate omissions), and database file completeness.
i. Collaborate with State, Federal, and other programs on joint analysis of BRFSS data.
j. Coordinate and facilitate the interchange of technical information among cooperative agreement recipients.
k. Provide BRFSS States with programmatic, epidemiological, and statistical technical assistance.
l. In collaboration with State(s) conduct multi-State and single-State analyses and facilitate dissemination and translation of findings.
m. Participate with States in workshops, training, and meeting to exchange information.
n. Conduct site visits to monitor program operations and to provide technical assistance as needed.
Performance will be measured based on accomplishment of the activities listed above. Evidence can be demonstrated through the quality of data, adherence to survey recommendations, utilization of BRFSS data for program planning and evaluation.
The program announcement title and number must appear in the application. Use the information in the Program Requirements, Other Requirements, and Evaluation Criteria sections to develop the application content. Applications will be evaluated on the criteria listed, so it is important to follow them in laying out program plans. The narrative should be no more than 30 double-spaced pages, printed on one side, with one-inch margins, and unreduced font.
Available funds will be allocated first for the costs of an estimated base of 2,000 completed 100-question surveys in each State.
a. Identify the percentage of the project coordinator's time and related costs for project activities and describe procedures or process (
b. Include written procedures or describe plans to develop and implement the following:
c. BRFSS data analysis Statewide and for local areas.
d. Use of BRFSS data for directing program planning, program evaluation, setting program priorities, developing interventions, assessing trends, and targeting relevant population groups.
e. To address emerging public health issues.
f. To increase collaboration among State, local, and other agencies, organizations, and universities that analyze data or seek to reduce chronic disease and injury morbidity and mortality.
g. Provide a list of training taken by key BRFSS staff, to include data collection/interviewer staff, within the previous 12 months. Training list should include course title, a brief description of course content, dates of training, and names and titles of staff attending the training.
h. Provide a copy of projected staff training with the course title, course description, dates of training, and names and titles of staff who will be attending training.
a. Provide an estimate of the number of interviews to be completed in addition to the base number of 2000 completed interviews per State per year.
b. Provide a list of the survey questions to be asked in addition to the base-length questionnaire.
c. Identify the percentage of an analyst's time and related costs for analyzing data collected.
d. Provide the title and author(s) of publications produced and/or distributed using BRFSS data.
e. Upgrading computer-assisted telephone interviewing systems and computer systems for analysis and Internet activities.
f. Describe the nature and extent of collaboration and coordination with and support (
Describe the procedures currently used or planned to monitor the performance of the data collection system, adherence to prescribed data collection protocols, and the extent of the use and dissemination of the data.
Provide a detailed budget and line-item justification for all operating expenses. The budget should be consistent with the State's objectives and planned activities of the project. Budget requests should include the cost of two two-day trips to Atlanta for two individuals and the cost of one five-day trip (including travel days) for up to two individuals to attend the annual BRFSS conference. The budget should address funds requested, as well as the applicant's in-kind or direct support.
Applications received from current grantee that are funded under program announcement 99044, will be reviewed utilizing the Technical Review process.
Approximately $1,000,000 is available in FY 2003 to fund approximately three to five States' program awards. It is expected that the average award will be $200,000 ranging from $150,000 to $250,000.
Funds awarded under this component may not be used to conduct genomic research or pay for patient services such as genetic testing or counseling. Cooperative agreement funds may be used to develop or enhance the State Health Department's capacity for planning with other agency programs and outside partners, and implementing the use of genomic information (
In conducting activities to achieve the purpose of this program, the recipient will be responsible for the activities under 1. Recipient Activities, and CDC will be responsible for the activities listed under 2. CDC Activities.
In this announcement, integrating genomic and the use of family history into chronic disease program planning, policy development, and intervention design includes, but is not limited to, (a) Establishing or expanding leadership capacity in the field of genomics, (b) developing and implementing population-based assessments and incorporating genomic information into disease-specific data collection through surveillance and registries, (c) developing expanded uses of genomics in programmatic activities including BRFSS and the analysis of vital records and other sources important in population-based analysis, (d) educating the health workforce, policy makers, and the public about the importance of understanding the role of family history and genetic risk factors in disease etiology and prevention, and (e) specifically preparing the chronic disease workforce for using genomic tools to reduce the burden of specific diseases and understanding the benefits and limitations of available genetic tests.
a. Develop or strengthen the health agency organizational capacities for assessing and utilizing existing genomics and public health program experience and expertise in planning the integration of genomics into existing chronic disease prevention and health promotion programs.
b. Acquire or enhance the leadership capacity required to integrate genomics into existing or planned chronic disease prevention and health promotion programs. In this effort, coordination of the core public specialties (such as epidemiology, laboratory services, policy development, and infectious disease prevention) to integrate genomics and family history, as appropriate, is required. The use of genomics within public health requires collaboration with academic and health care organizations that can provide technical assistance and expertise in expanding program and policy development. Leadership capacity may include: (a) Designating a State agency-wide, or chronic disease genomics coordinator or team, expanding existing leadership roles to include chronic disease and other disease-specific responsibilities, and/or coordinating a team representing all or selected public health disease programs; (b) the availability of adequate epidemiologic, genomics, laboratory, health education, communications expertise and program support; and (c) a mechanism for assessing and increasing the genomic and public health competency of the chronic disease work-force through technical assistance and specific
c. Utilizes national, regional and State training and technical assistance resources for program development, and expands collaborative relationships with key academic institutions such as the Centers for Genomics and Public Health (Link to:
Ensures that State professional organizations, industry, community representatives or key partners and community are key partners throughout the planning process.
d. Develop and implement a plan for integrating genomics and related risk assessment tools such as family history into core public health activities and priorities for one or more chronic infectious, environmental, Maternal and Child Health or other public health programs during the first year.
e. Plan and coordinate the assessment and use of various types of targeted risk assessment strategies related to enhanced disease prevention based on genomics and family history tools. Collaborate with professional, industrial, and academic resources and partners in the testing, assessment, and usage of risk assessment tools that help organize knowledge about inheritable factors into a process for early recognition of increased disease susceptibility and strategies for disease prevention.
f. Plan and coordinate the assessment and use of various types of targeted risk assessment strategies related to enhanced disease prevention based on genomics and family history tools. Collaborate with CDC and the Centers for Genomics and Public Health in the testing, assessment, and usage of family history tools that help organize knowledge about heritable factors into a process for early recognition of increased disease susceptibility and strategies for disease prevention.
a. Convene workshop and/or teleconference of recipient Programs for information-sharing and problem solving.
b. Provide ongoing guidance, consultation, and technical assistance to plan, implement, and evaluate all aspects of program activities. Activities include assisting with analyses and interpretation of the rapidly expanding knowledge base on public health genomics and findings from qualitative and quantitative research; guiding program evaluation, and sharing community, environmental and policy strategies to promote the integration of genomics across health agency programs associated with chronic disease program activities. Disseminate relevant state-of-the-art research findings and public health recommendations related to genomics and disease-specific prevention and control.
c. On a consultative basis, assist in the development and review of intervention protocols and program evaluation methods.
d. Coordinate national level partnerships with relevant organizations and agencies involved in the translation of genomics and family history into relevant guidelines and recommendations for public health policy development and program action.
The program announcement title and number must appear in the application. Use the information in the Program Requirements, Other Requirements, and Evaluation Criteria sections to develop the application content. Your application will be evaluated on the criteria listed, so it is important to follow them in laying out your program plan. Applications should be no more than 20 pages excluding Federal forms, budget, justifications, abstract, and appendices. All applications should be double spaced, printed on one side, with one-inch margins, and 12-point font. All applicants should also submit as appendices, resumes, job descriptions, organizational charts, and any other supporting documentation as appropriate. All graphics maps, overlays, etc., should be in black and white and meet the above criteria. All submitted materials must be suitable for photocopying. Your application must be submitted UNSTAPLED and UNBOUND.
a. Program Objectives for each of the Recipient Activities. Objectives should describe what is to happen, by when, by whom, and to what degree.
b. The proposed method of achieving each of the objectives.
c. The proposed plan for evaluating progress toward attainment of the objectives.
d. A milestone, time line, and completion chart for all objectives for the project period.
Applications for this component will be objectively reviewed against the following criteria by an independent review group appointed by CDC.
a. Program Objectives (25 points). The extent to which the applicant presents specific, measurable, and time phased objectives for each Recipient Requirement (E.8.1.a-e).
b. Methods of Achieving the Objectives (25 points). The extent to which the applicant's plan for each Recipient Requirement (E.8.1 a-e) will accurately monitor, and permit re-direction of activities.
c. Plan for Evaluating Progress (15 points). The extent to which the evaluation plan for each Recipient Requirement (E.8.1 a-e) will accurately monitor, and permit re-direction of activities.
d. Milestone, Timeline, and Completion Chart (10 points). The extent to which the chart(s) provided represents an effective tool for monitoring program progress.
2. Evidence that States have identified and defined the nature and scope of population-based data, genomics information, and leadership capacity necessary to integrate genomics into chronic disease and other public health program activities.
3. Evidence that States have developed and initiated a plan for integrating genomics and risk assessment tools such as family history into one or more chronic, infectious, environmental, maternal and child health, or other public health programs.
4. Evidence that the States have formed partnerships with academic institutions, professional organizations, community and industry groups and involved them in the planning of genomic integration activities.
1. Evidence that the States have integrated genomics and related risk assessment tools, such as family history, as a routine component of disease investigations and analysis.
2. Evidence that the States have used population-based data and the expanding genomics knowledge base to develop or revise chronic, environmental, and infectious disease programmatic activities, interventions, and policies.
3. Evidence that the States have conducted preliminary evaluations of the impact of genomics in case identification, disease prevention, economic, and disease specific health outcome.
This section applies to all components.
Submit the original and two copies of CDC form 0.1246. Forms are available in the application kit and at the following Internet address:
Your application should be submitted as one application but should consist of specific Categorical Components to allow each categorical program to remove their section of the application to assist with the preparation of the application.
The application must be received by 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time March 28, 2003. Submit the application to: Technical Information Management Section—Program Announcement 03022, Procurement and Grants Office, Center For Disease Control and Prevention, 2920 Brandywine Road, Room 3000, Atlanta, Georgia 30341-4146.
Deadline Applications will be considered as meeting the deadline if they are received before 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the deadline date. Applicants sending applications by the United States Postal Service or commercial delivery services must ensure that the carrier will be able to guarantee delivery of the application by the closing date and time. If an application is received after closing due to carrier error, when the carrier accepted the package with a guarantee for delivery by the closing date and time, or if significant weather delays or natural disasters, CDC will upon receipt of proper documentation, consider the application as having been received by the deadline.
Applications which do not meet the above criteria will not be eligible for competition and will be discarded. Applicants will be notified of their failure to meet the submission requirements.
Provide CDC with original plus two copies of:
1. Interim progress report, the interim progress report will be due February 15, 2004, and subsequent interim progress reports will be due on the 15th of February each year through February 15, 2008, except for Component 6. The second report (annual progress report) is due 90 days after the end of the budget period (30th of September). The progress report, due in February, will serve as your non-competing continuation application and must include the following elements:
a. A succinct description the program accomplishments/narrative and progress made in meeting each Current Budget Period Activities Objectives during the first six months of the budget period (June 30th through December 31st).
b. A succinct description of the program accomplishments/narrative and progress made in meeting each Current Budget Period Activities Objectives during the first six months of the budget period (June 30th through December 31st).
c. The reason(s) for not meeting established program objectives and strategies to be implemented to achieve unmet objectives.
d. Current Budget Period Financial Progress.
e. New Budget Period Proposed Activities and Objectives.
f. Detailed Line-Item Budget and Justification.
g. For all proposed contracts, provide the name of contractor, method of selection, period of performance, scope of work, and itemized budget and budget justification. If the information is not available, please indicate “To Be Determined” until the information becomes available; it should be submitted to CDC Procurement and Grants Management Office contact identified in this program announcement.
The interim progress report that is due on the 15th of February will also be used as evidence of a program's readiness to move from level to the next higher level based on attainment of goals and objectives when funding is available. Applicants wishing to
Applicants can be submitted in fiscal years 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 but be received by February 15th of the specific submission year. Funding decisions will be made on the basis of attainment of current goals and objectives as evidenced by the require reports, application score, and the availability of funds.
2. Financial status report, no more than 90 days after the end of the budget period. The financial status report should include an attachment that identifies unspent balances for each program component.
3. Final financial 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 the “Where to Obtain Additional Information” section of this announcement.
The following additional requirements are applicable to this program.
For this and other CDC announcements, the necessary applications, and associated forms can be found on the CDC home page Internet address—
Business management and technical assistance may be obtained from: Lucy Picciolo, Grants Management Specialist, Procurement and Grants Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2920 Brandywine Road, Room 3000, Atlanta, GA 30341-4146, Telephone number: 770-488-2683, E-mail address:
Business management technical assistance for the U.S. Territories may be obtained from: Charlotte Flitcraft, Contract Specialist, Procurement and Grants Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2920 Brandywine Road, Room 3000, Atlanta, GA 30341-4146, Telephone number: 770-488-2632, E-mail address:
Business Management technical assistance for Territories may be obtained from: Charlotte Flitcraft, Contract Specialist, Procurement and Grants Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2920 Brandywine Road, Room 3000, Atlanta, GA 30341-4146, Telephone number: 770-488-2632, E-mail address:
For program technical assistance, contact: Component 1—Comprehensive State-Based Tobacco Use Prevention and Control Programs: Dianne May, Program Services Branch, Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Hwy, NE, MS K50, Atlanta, GA 30341, Telephone number: (770) 488-1104, E-mail address:
Component 2—State Nutrition and Physical Activity Programs to Prevent Obesity and Other Chronic Diseases: Robin Hamre, Obesity Prevention Programs Team Leader, Division of Nutrition and Physical Activity, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Hwy., NE, MS K24, Atlanta, GA 30341, Telephone number: (770) 488-6050, E-mail address:
Component 3—WISEWOMAN: Julie C. Will, PhD, MPH, WISEWOMAN Team Leader, Division of Nutrition and Physical Activity, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Hwy., NE, MS K26, Atlanta, GA 30341, Telephone number: (770) 488-6024, E-mail address:
For WISEWOMAN Definitions see WISEWOMAN Guidance Document: Interpretation of Legislative Language and Existing Documents at
Component 4—State Based Oral Disease Prevention Programs: Kathleen Heiden, RDH, MSPH, Division of Oral Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Hwy., NE, MS F10, Atlanta, GA. 30341, Telephone number: (770) 488-6056, E-mail address:
Component 5—Arthritis: Sakeena Smith, Division of Adult and Community Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Hwy., NE, MS K66, Atlanta, GA 30341-3717, Telephone (770) 488-5440, E-mail address:
Component 6—BRFSS: Ruth Jiles, Division of Adult and Community Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Hwy., NE, MS K66, Atlanta, GA 30341-3717, Telephone (770) 488-2542, E-mail address:
Component 7—Chronic Disease Genomics: Ann Malarcher, Division of Adult and Community Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Hwy., NE, MS K47, Atlanta, GA 30341, Telephone: (770) 488-8006, E-mail address:
Relevant to WISEWOMAN Component:
Applications received from current grant recipients under: Program Announcement 99038, Comprehensive State-Based Tobacco Use Prevention, and Control Programs, will be funded upon receipt and approval of a technically acceptable application.
Applications received from current grant recipients under Well Integrated Screening and Evaluation for Woman Across the nation (WISEWOMAN):
Applications received from current grant recipients under: Program Announcement 01046 Support State Oral Disease Prevention Programs, will be funded upon receipt and approval of a technically acceptable application.
Applications received from current grant recipients under: Program Announcement 01097 Reducing the Impact of Arthritis and Other Rheumatic Conditions, will be funded upon receipt and approval of a technically acceptable application.
Applications received from current grant recipients under: Program Announcement 99044 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), will be funded upon receipt and approval of a technically acceptable application.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Final rule.
This final rule revises HUD's regulations for the Multifamily Housing Mortgage and Housing Assistance Restructuring Program (Mark-to-Market). The final rule provides that the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner, and not the Director of the Office of Multifamily Housing Assistance Restructuring (OMHAR), has the authority to waive the Mark-to-Market regulation.
Effective Date: February 24, 2003.
Eliot C. Horowitz, Senior Advisor to the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 9110, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Telephone (202) 708-1490 (this is not a toll-free number). A telecommunications device for hearing- and speech-impaired persons (TTY) is available at 1-800-877-9339 (Federal Information relay Service) (this is a toll-free number).
The Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act (Pub. L. 101-235; 103 Stat.1987; December 15, 1989) (Reform Act), included provisions governing the manner in which HUD can waive regulations. Specifically, section 106 of the Reform Act amended section 7 of the Department of Housing and Development Act (HUD Act) by adding a new subsection 7(q) (42 U.S.C. 3535 (7)(q)). Section 7(q)(2) of the HUD Act provides that a regulation can only be waived “by an individual of Assistant Secretary rank or equivalent rank, who is authorized to issue the regulation to be waived.”
Section 622 of the Mark-to-Market Extension Act of 2001 (Title VI of the 2002 Appropriations Act for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and related agencies, Public Law 107-116, 115 Stat. 2177, approved January 10, 2002) amended section 572 of the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997, 42 U.S.C. 1437f note, (MAHRA), altering the manner in which the Director of OMHAR is appointed. Previously, the President made the appointment, subject to confirmation by the United States Senate. Under the new law, the President makes the appointment, but Senate confirmation is not required. Consequently, the individual appointed as the Director of OMHAR is not of the equivalent rank of an Assistant Secretary (as the latter appointment requires Senate confirmation).
The Mark-to-Market Extension Act of 2001 also amended section 578 of MAHRA to provide that “all authority and responsibilities assigned under this subtitle to the Secretary shall be carried out through the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development who is the Federal Housing Commissioner.”
In tandem, the three legislative provisions cited above require that the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner is authorized to waive regulations under part 401, whereas the Director of OMHAR cannot. The Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner has undertaken this responsibility since the enactment of the Mark-to-Market Extension Act of 2001. Today's amendment to 24 CFR 401.3 updates the regulation to comport with current law and practice.
In general, the Department publishes a rule for public comment before issuing the rule for effect, in accordance with its own regulations on rulemaking at 24 CFR part 10. Part 10 includes exceptions to the general rule, including where the regulatory amendment governs the Department's organization, internal practices or procedures. This rule amendment reflects statutory requirements that pertain to the Department's organization, practices and procedures and merely conforms part 401 to section 572 of MAHRA, as amended. The Department has determined, therefore, that prior notice and comment are not required.
This final rule does not direct, provide for assistance or loan and mortgage insurance for, or otherwise govern or regulate, real property acquisition, disposition, leasing rehabilitation, alteration, demolition, or new construction, or establish, revise or provide for standards for construction, or construction materials, manufactured housing or occupancy. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(1), this final rule is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (12 U.S.C. 1531-1538) establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This final rule will not impose a federal mandate that will result in expenditures by state, local, or tribal governments and the private sector within the meaning of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
The Secretary, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this rule before publication and by approving it certifies that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The reason for HUD's determination is that the rule only addresses the Department's internal practices and procedures.
Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either (1) imposes substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments and is not required by statute, or (2) the rule preempts state law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order. This final rule does not have federalism implications and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments or preempt state law within the meaning of the Executive Order.
Grant programs-housing and community development, Loan programs-housing and community development, Low and moderate income housing, Mortgage insurance, Mortgages, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
12 U.S.C. 1715z-1 and 1735f-19(b); 42 U.S.C. 1437f note and 3535(d).
The Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner may waive any provision of this part, subject to § 5.110 of this title.
Office of Inspector General, HUD.
Final rule.
This final rule amends the regulations of the Office of Inspector General (OIG) to implement the statutory requirements concerning the issuance of OIG subpoenas, and responses to subpoenas issued to OIG employees in proceedings where OIG is not a party. This final rule follows publication of a proposed rule on September 20, 2002. No public comments were received in response to the proposed rule. Accordingly, the Department is adopting the proposed rule without change.
Effective Date: February 24, 2003.
Bryan Saddler, Counsel to the Inspector General, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 8260, Washington, DC 20410. Telephone (202) 708-1613 (this is not a toll-free number). A telecommunications device for hearing- and speech-impaired persons (TTY) is available at 1-800-877-8339 (Federal Information Relay Services) (this is a toll-free number).
On September 20, 2002 (67 FR 59428), HUD published a proposed rule to amend the regulations of the HUD/OIG by updating the regulations in 24 CFR part 2004. The proposed rule provided that the Inspector General would delegate to the Counsel to the Inspector General the authority and responsibility for responding to requests and demands for production of OIG records and testimony of OIG employees (§ 2004.20). The proposed rule also identified the factors that OIG would consider in making determinations in response to such requests and what information requesters must provide (§§ 2004.21 and 2004.22). The proposed rule further specified when the request should be submitted (§ 2004.22), the time period for review (§ 2004.24), potential fees (§ 2004.29), and, if a request is granted, any restrictions that may be placed on the disclosure of records or the appearance of an OIG employee as a witness (§§ 2004.26 and 2004.27). The proposed rule also indicated that the charges for witnesses are the same as those provided by the federal courts. Additionally, the rule explained that the fees related to production of records are the same as those charged under OIG's Freedom of Information Act regulation at 24 CFR part 2002. The rule further advised that the proposed charges for time spent by an employee to prepare for testimony and for production of records by OIG are authorized under 31 U.S.C. 9701. Under 31 U.S.C. 9701, an agency may charge for services or things of value that are provided by the agency.
This final rule follows publication of the September 20, 2002, proposed rule, which invited public comment on the rule. The public comment period closed on November 19, 2002, with the Department's receiving no comments on the proposed rule. Accordingly, the Department is adopting the proposed rule without change.
This final rule does not direct, provide for assistance or loan and mortgage insurance for, or otherwise govern or regulate real property acquisition, disposition, leasing, rehabilitation, alteration, demolition, or new construction, or establish, revise, or provide for standards for construction or construction materials, manufactured housing, or occupancy. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(1), this rule is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321).
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U. S. C. 1531-1538) establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This final rule would not impose a federal mandate that will result in expenditures by state, local, or tribal governments and the private sector within the meaning of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
The Secretary, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this rule before publication and by approving it certifies that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. There are no anti-competitive discriminatory aspects of the rule with regard to small entities and there are not any unusual procedures that would need to be complied with by small entities. Although HUD has determined that this final rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, HUD welcomes comments regarding any less burdensome alternatives to this rule that will meet HUD's objectives as described in this preamble.
Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either (1) imposes substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments and is not required by statute, or (2) the rule preempts state law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order. This final rule does not have federalism implications and would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments or preempt state law within the meaning of the Executive Order.
Administrative practice and procedure, courts.
Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended (5 U.S.C. app.) and 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
(a) This part sets forth the policy for service of a subpoena issued by the Office of Inspector General (OIG), and policies and procedures that you must follow when you submit a demand or request to an employee of the OIG to produce official records and information, or provide testimony relating to official information, in connection with a legal proceeding. You must comply with these requirements when you request the release or disclosure of official records and information.
(b) The OIG intends these provisions to:
(1) Promote economy and efficiency in its programs and operations;
(2) Minimize the possibility of involving OIG in controversial issues not related to OIG's functions;
(3) Maintain OIG's impartiality among private litigants where OIG is not a named party; and
(4) Protect sensitive, confidential information and the deliberative processes of OIG.
(c) In providing for these requirements, OIG does not waive the sovereign immunity of the United States.
(d) This part provides guidance for the internal operations of OIG. This part does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, that a party may rely upon in any legal proceeding against the United States.
This subpart applies to demands and requests to employees for factual or expert testimony relating to official information, or for production of official records or information, in legal proceedings in which HUD or OIG is not a named party. However, this subpart does not apply to:
(a) Demands upon or requests for an OIG employee to testify as to facts or events that are unrelated to his or her official duties or that are unrelated to the functions of OIG;
(b) Requests for the release of records under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, or the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a; and
(c) Congressional demands and Congressional requests for testimony or records.
(1) Any current or former officer or employee of OIG;
(2) Any other individual hired through contractual agreement by or on behalf of OIG or who has performed or is performing services under such an agreement for OIG; and
(3) Any individual who served or is serving in any consulting or advisory capacity to OIG, whether formal or informal.
(1) All documents and materials that are OIG agency records under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552;
(2) All other documents and materials contained in OIG files; and
(3) All other information or materials acquired by an OIG employee in the performance of his or her official duties or because of his or her official status.
Service of a subpoena issued by OIG may be accomplished as follows:
(a)
(b)
No employee may produce official records and information or provide any testimony relating to official information in response to a demand or request without the prior, written approval of the Inspector General or the Counsel.
The Counsel or Inspector General, in their discretion, may grant an employee permission to testify on matters relating to official information, or produce official records and information, in response to a demand or request. Among the relevant factors that the Inspector General or the Counsel may consider in making this decision are whether:
(a) The purposes of this part are met;
(b) OIG has an interest in the decision that may be rendered in the legal proceeding;
(c) Allowing such testimony or production of records would assist or hinder OIG in performing its statutory duties or use OIG resources where responding to the request will interfere with the ability of OIG employees to do their work;
(d) The records or testimony can be obtained from other sources;
(e) The demand or request is unduly burdensome or otherwise inappropriate under the applicable rules of discovery or the rules of procedure governing the case or matter in which the demand or request arose;
(f) Disclosure would violate or be inconsistent with a statute, Executive Order, or regulation;
(g) Disclosure would reveal confidential or privileged information, trade secrets, or similar, confidential commercial, or financial information;
(h) Disclosure would impede or interfere with an ongoing law enforcement investigation or proceedings, or compromise constitutional rights;
(i) Disclosure would result in OIG appearing to favor one litigant over another;
(j) Disclosure relates to documents that were produced by another agency;
(k) The demand or request is in conformance with all other applicable rules;
(l) The demand or request is sufficiently specific to be answered; and
(m) For any other good cause.
You must comply with the following requirements whenever you issue demands or requests to an OIG employee for official records and information or testimony.
(a) Your request must be in writing and must be submitted to the Counsel. If you serve a subpoena on OIG or on an OIG employee before submitting a written request and receiving a final determination from the Counsel, OIG will oppose the subpoena on grounds that your request was not submitted in accordance with this subpart.
(b) Your written request must contain the following information:
(1) The caption of the legal proceeding, docket number, and name and address of the court or other authority involved;
(2) A copy of the complaint or equivalent document setting forth the assertions in the case and any other pleading or document sufficient to show relevance;
(3) A list of categories of records sought, a detailed description of how the information sought is relevant to the issues in the legal proceeding, and a specific description of the substance of the testimony or records sought;
(4) A statement as to how the need for the information outweighs the need to maintain any confidentiality of the information and outweighs the burden on OIG to produce the records or provide testimony;
(5) A statement indicating that the information sought is not available from another source, from other persons or entities, or from the testimony of someone other than an OIG employee, such as a retained expert;
(6) If testimony is requested, the intended use of the testimony, a general summary of the desired testimony, and a showing that no document could be provided and used in lieu of testimony;
(7) A description of all prior decisions, orders, or pending motions in the case that bear upon the relevance of the requested records or testimony;
(8) The name, address, and telephone number of counsel to each party in the case; and
(9) An estimate of the amount of time that the requester and other parties will require with each OIG employee for time spent by the employee to prepare for testimony, in travel, and for attendance in the legal proceeding.
(c) The OIG reserves the right to require additional information to complete your request where appropriate.
(d) Your request should be submitted at least 30 days before the date that records or testimony are required. Requests submitted less than 30 days before records or testimony are required must be accompanied by a written explanation stating the reasons for the late request and the reasons for expedited processing.
(e) Failure to cooperate in good faith to enable the Counsel to make an informed decision may serve as the basis for a determination not to comply with your request.
Subpoenas or requests for official records or information or testimony must be served on the Counsel to the Inspector General, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW, Room 8260, Washington, DC 20410-4500.
(a) After service of a demand or request to testify, the Counsel will review the demand or request and, in accordance with the provisions of this subpart, determine whether, or under what conditions, to authorize the employee to testify on matters relating to official information and/or to produce official records and information.
(b) The OIG will process requests in the order in which they are received. Absent exigent or unusual circumstances, OIG will respond within 30 days from the date that we receive all information necessary to the evaluation of the demand or request. The time for response will depend upon the scope of the request.
(c) The Counsel may grant a waiver of any procedure described in this subpart where a waiver is considered necessary to promote a significant interest of OIG, HUD, and the United States, or for other good cause.
The Counsel makes the final determination on demands and requests to employees for production of official records and information or testimony. All final determinations are within the sole discretion of the Counsel. The Counsel will notify the requester of the final determination, the reasons for the grant or denial of the demand or request, and any conditions that the Counsel may impose on the release of records or information, or on the testimony of an OIG employee.
(a) The Counsel may impose conditions or restrictions on the testimony of OIG employees including, for example, limiting the areas of testimony or requiring the requester and other parties to the legal proceeding to agree that the transcript of the testimony will be kept under seal or will only be used or made available in the particular legal proceeding for which testimony was requested. The Counsel may also require a copy of the transcript of testimony at the requester's expense.
(b) The OIG may offer the employee's written declaration in lieu of testimony.
(c) If authorized to testify pursuant to this part, an employee may testify as to facts within his or her personal knowledge, but, unless specifically authorized to do so by the Counsel, the employee shall not:
(1) Disclose confidential or privileged information;
(2) Testify as to facts when the Counsel determines such testimony would not be in the best interest of OIG, HUD and the United States; or
(3) Testify as an expert or opinion witness with regard to any matter arising out of the employee's official duties or the functions of OIG. This provision does not apply to requests from the United States for expert or opinion testimony.
(a) The Counsel may impose conditions or restrictions on the release of official records and information, including the requirement that parties to the proceeding obtain a protective order or execute a confidentiality agreement to limit access and any further disclosure. The terms of the protective order or of a confidentiality agreement must be acceptable to the Counsel. In cases where protective orders or confidentiality agreements have already been executed, OIG may condition the release of official records and information on an amendment to the existing protective order or confidentiality agreement.
(b) If the Counsel so determines, original OIG records may be presented for examination in response to a demand or request, but they are not to
If the Counsel declines to approve a demand for records or testimony and the court or other authority rules that the demand must be complied with irrespective of the instructions from the OIG not to produce the material or disclose the information sought, the employee or former employee upon whom the demand has been made shall respectfully decline to comply with the demand, citing
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)