Commodity Credit Corporation
Farm Service Agency
Foreign Agricultural Service
Forest Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Trade Representative, Office of United States
Fiscal Service
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Trade Representative, Office of United States
Fiscal Service
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
Fiscal Service
Internal Revenue Service
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.
Farm Service Agency, Commodity Credit Corporation, USDA.
Final rule.
This rule implements statutory provisions which render a producer ineligible for certain programs administered by the Farm Service Agency (FSA), or Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) if that person is found to have engaged in crop insurance fraud.
Effective: July 2, 2003.
Sandy Bryant, Branch Chief, Production, Emergencies, and Compliance Division, FSA, USDA, STOP 0517, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0517, telephone (202) 720-4380.
This final rule was reviewed in conformance with Executive Order 12866, has been determined to be not significant, and therefore has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This rule has a potential impact on all programs listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance in the Agency Program Index under the Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency and Natural Resources Conservation Service. Other assistance programs are also impacted.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act is not applicable to this rule.
The environmental impacts of this proposed rule have been considered in accordance with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988. This final rule preempts any State law that is inconsistent with its provisions. Before any legal action may be brought concerning this rule, all administrative remedies provided must be exhausted.
Executive Order 12372 requires consultation by Federal Agencies with State and local officials when providing funds or assistance that may require non-Federal input. The programs affected by this rule were excluded from the scope of this Executive Order in the Notice related to 7 CFR part 3015 published at 48 FR 29115 on June 24, 1983.
This rule contains no Federal mandates as defined in Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA). Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.
This rule has no effect on the information collection requirements of the Agency.
This rule does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. The provisions contained in this rule will not have a substantial direct effect on States or their political subdivisions, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This rule implements section 121(a) of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 (ARPA) (Pub. L. 106-224), enacted June 20, 2000. ARPA amended the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1514) to provide that a producer may be disqualified for a period of up to 5 years from receiving certain benefits under a number of programs administered by the Department of Agriculture. A proposed rule, proposing to apply the disqualification to programs administered by FSA or conducted using funds of CCC, was published on September 12, 2002 (67 FR 57759). Comments were accepted for 60 days and no comments were received. Since this rule affects programs of CCC and FSA, it has been determined that its changes should be set forth in both FSA and CCC regulations. Accordingly, the final rule is changed from the proposed to reflect that it will appear in two places in the Code of Federal Regulations. Also, the final rule adds section 1405.8 instead of section 1405.7 as indicated in the proposed rule. Section 1405.7 was added by a final rule October 21, 2002 to implement requirements of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.
Acreage allotments, Agricultural commodities, Marketing quotas.
Loan programs—agricultural, Price support programs.
7 U.S.C. 1311
(a) Section 515(h) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (FCIA) provides that a person who willfully and intentionally provides any false or inaccurate information to the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) or to an approved insurance provider with respect to a policy or plan of FCIC insurance after notice and an opportunity for a hearing on the record, will be subject to one or more of the sanctions described in section 515(h)(3). In section 515(h)(3), the FCIA specifies that in the case of a violation committed by a producer, the producer may be disqualified for a period of up to 5 years from receiving any monetary or non-monetary benefit under a number of programs. The list includes, but is not limited to, benefits under:
(1) Title V of the FCIA.
(2) The Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7201
(3) The Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1421
(4) The Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714
(5) The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1281
(6) Title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3801
(7) Any law that provides assistance to a producer of an agricultural commodity affected by a crop loss or a decline in prices of agricultural commodities.
(b) Violation determinations are made by FCIC. However, upon notice from FCIC to FSA that a producer has been found to have committed a violation to which paragraph (a) of this section applies, that person shall be considered ineligible for payments under the programs specified in paragraph (a) of this section that are funded by FSA for the same period of time for which, as determined by FCIC, the producer will be ineligible for crop insurance benefits of the kind referred to in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. Appeals of the determination of ineligibility will be administered under the rules set by FCIC.
(c) Other sanctions may also apply.
7 U.S.C. 1515; 7 U.S.C. 7991(e); 15 U.S.C. 714b and 714c.
(a) Section 515(h) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (FCIA) provides that a person who willfully and intentionally provides any false or inaccurate information to the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) or to an approved insurance provider with respect to a policy or plan of FCIC insurance after notice and an opportunity for a hearing on the record, will be subject to one or more of the sanctions described in section 515(h)(3). In section 515(h)(3), the FCIA specifies that in the case of a violation committed by a producer, the producer may be disqualified for a period of up to 5 years from receiving any monetary or non-monetary benefit under a number of programs. The list includes, but is not limited to, benefits under:
(1) Title V of the FCIA.
(2) The Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7201
(3) The Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1421
(4) The Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714
(5) The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1281
(6) Title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3801
(7) Any law that provides assistance to a producer of an agricultural commodity affected by a crop loss or a decline in prices of agricultural commodities.
(b) Violation determinations are made by FCIC. However, upon notice from FCIC to CCC that a producer has been found to have committed a violation to which paragraph (a) of this section applies, that person shall be considered ineligible for payments under the programs specified in paragraph (a) of this section that are funded by CCC for the same period of time for which, as determined by FCIC, the producer will be ineligible for crop insurance benefits of the kind referred to in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. Appeals of the determination of ineligibility will be administered under the rules set by FCIC.
(c) Other sanctions may also apply.
Small Business Administration.
Final decision to waive the nonmanufacturer rule.
This document advises the public that the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) is establishing a waiver of the Nonmanufacturer Rule for Other Ordnances and Accessories Manufacturing. The basis for waivers is that no small business manufacturers are supplying these classes of products to the Federal government. The effect of a waiver would be to allow otherwise qualified regular dealers to supply the products of any domestic manufacturer on a Federal contract set aside for small businesses or awarded through the SBA 8(a) Program.
July 11, 2003.
Edith Butler, Program Analyst, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416, Tel: (202) 619-0422.
Edith Butler, Program Analyst, (202) 619-0422, FAX: (202) 205-7280.
Pub. L. 100-656, enacted on November 15, 1988, incorporated into the Small Business Act the previously existing regulation that recipients of Federal contracts set aside for small businesses or SBA's 8(a) Program must provide the product of a small business manufacturer or processor, if the recipient is other than the actual manufacturer or processor. This requirement is commonly referred to as the Nonmanufacturer Rule. The SBA regulations imposing this requirement are found at 13 CFR 121.406(b). Section 303(h) of the law provides for waiver of this requirement by SBA for any “class of products” for which there are no small business manufacturers or processors in the Federal market.
To be considered available to participate in the Federal market on
The U.S. Small Business Administration is currently processing a request to waive the Nonmanufacturer Rule for Other Ordnance and Accessories Manufacturing, NAICS 332995.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule; correction
This document makes a correction to Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2003-11-23 applicable to IAE V2522-A5, V2524-A5, V2527-A5, V2527E-A5, V2527M-A5, V2530-A5, and V2533-A5 turbofan engines that was published in the
Effective June 20, 2003.
Glorianne Niebuhr, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; telephone (781) 238-7132; fax (781) 238-7199.
A final rule AD, FR Doc, 03-14133 applicable to IAE V2522-A5, V2524-A5, V2527-A5, V2527E-A5, V2527M-A5, V2530-A5, and V2533-A5 turbofan engines, was published in the
On page 33621, in the third column, in the Heading Section, in the Airworthiness Directives title, “International Aero Engines AG (IAE) V2522-A5, V2524-A5, V2527-A5, V2527E-A5, V2527M-A5, and V2530-A5 Turbofan Engines “is corrected to read” International Aero Engines AG (IAE) V2522-A5, V2524-A5, V2527-A5, V2527E-A5, V2527M-A5, V2530-A5, and V2533-A5 Turbofan Engines”. In the same column, in the Summary section, in the fourth and fifth lines, “V2527E-A5, V2527M-A5, and V2530-A5 turbofan engines” is corrected to read “V2527E-A5, V2527M-A5, V2530-A5, and V2533-A5 turbofan engines”.
On page 33622, in the first column, in the Supplementary Information section, in third and fourth lines, change “V2527-A5, V2527E-A5, V2527M-A5, and V2530-A5” to “V2527-A5, V2527E-A5, V2527M-A5, V2530-A5, and V2533-A5”. In the same column, third paragraph, fourth and fifth lines, change “V2527-A5, V2527E-A5, V2527M-A5, and V2530-A5” to “V2527-A5, V2527E-A5, V2527M-A5, V2530-A5, and V2533-A5”.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
This document publishes in the
Effective July 17, 2003, to all persons except those persons to whom it was made immediately effective by Emergency AD 2003-08-51, issued on April 15, 2003, which contained the requirements of this amendment.
Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or before September 2, 2003.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2003-SW-17-AD, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. You may also send comments electronically to the Rules Docket at the following address:
Fred Guerin, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, Airframe Branch, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, California 90712, telephone (562) 627-5232, fax (562) 627-5210.
On April 15, 2003, the FAA issued Emergency AD 2003-08-51 for the specified model helicopters, which requires, before further flight, reducing the retirement life of certain tail rotor blades from 5,140, 5,200, or 10,000 hours time-in-service (TIS) to 400 hours TIS, performing a one-time visual inspection of each pitch horn for a crack or corrosion, and replacing unairworthy tail rotor blades with airworthy tail rotor blades. The Emergency AD also requires revising the Airworthiness Limitations section of the helicopter maintenance
Since the unsafe condition described is likely to exist or develop on other MD Helicopters, Inc. Model 369A, D, E, H, HE, HM, HS, F, and FF helicopters of the same type designs, the FAA issued Emergency AD 2003-08-51 to prevent a pitch horn from separating from the tail rotor blade, leading to an unbalanced condition, vibration, loss of tail rotor pitch control, and loss of directional control of the helicopter. The AD requires, before further flight, reducing the retirement life of certain tail rotor blades from 5,140, 5,200, or 10,000 hours TIS to 400 hours TIS, performing a one-time visual inspection of each pitch horn for a crack or corrosion, and replacing unairworthy tail rotor blades with airworthy tail rotor blades. The AD also requires revising the Airworthiness Limitations section of the helicopter maintenance manual to reflect the reduced retirement life, and reporting information to the FAA within 24 hours following the one-time inspection. The short compliance time involved is required because the previously described critical unsafe condition can adversely affect the structural integrity of the helicopter. Therefore, reducing the retirement life of certain tail rotor blades; performing a one-time visual inspection of each pitch horn; replacing unairworthy tail rotor blades; and revising the Airworthiness Limitations section of the helicopter maintenance manual to reflect the reduced retirement life are required before further flight, and this AD must be issued immediately.
Since it was found that immediate corrective action was required, notice and opportunity for prior public comment thereon were impracticable and contrary to the public interest, and good cause existed to make the AD effective immediately by individual letters issued on April 15, 2003, to all known U.S. owners and operators of MD Helicopters, Inc. Model 369A, D, E, H, HE, HM, HS, F, and FF helicopters. These conditions still exist, and the AD is hereby published in the
The Emergency AD contained two typographical errors that are corrected in this AD. Paragraph (c) of the Emergency AD stated “400 hours TIS” twice, and the “or” in the listing of part numbers should have been “and”.
On July 10, 2002, the FAA issued a new version of 14 CFR part 39 (67 FR 47997, July 22, 2002), which governs the FAA's AD system. The regulation now includes material that relates to altered products, special flight permits, and alternative methods of compliance. Because we have now included this material in part 39, we no longer need to include it in each individual AD.
The FAA estimates that this AD will affect 213 helicopters of U.S. registry, and replacing the tail rotor blades will take approximately 2 work hours per helicopter to accomplish at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $2,000 per helicopter. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators to be $2,120 per helicopter, or $451,560 to replace all the blades in the fleet.
Although this action is in the form of a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and, thus, was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment, comments are invited on this rule. Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the caption
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify the rule. All comments submitted will be available in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report that summarizes each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this AD will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their mailed comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. 2003-SW-17-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.
The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
The FAA has determined that this regulation is an emergency regulation that must be issued immediately to correct an unsafe condition in aircraft, and that it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. It has been determined further that this action involves an emergency regulation under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it is determined that this emergency regulation otherwise would be significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures, a final regulatory evaluation will be prepared and placed in the Rules Docket. A copy of it, if filed, may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
To prevent a tail rotor blade pitch horn (pitch horn) from separating from the tail rotor blade, leading to an unbalanced condition, vibration, loss of tail rotor pitch control, and loss of directional control of the helicopter, accomplish the following:
(a) This airworthiness directive (AD) establishes a new retirement life of 400 hours time-in-service (TIS) for the tail rotor blades listed in the Applicability section. For helicopters with an affected tail rotor blade installed that has 390 through 700 hours TIS, remove and replace the tail rotor blade with an airworthy tail rotor blade within 10 hours TIS.
(b) Before further flight, perform a one-time visual inspection of each pitch horn for a crack or corrosion in the area indicated by Note 2 in Figure 1 of this AD. Paint removal in accordance with Note 1 of Figure 1 of this AD is not required for the visual inspection.
(c) Revise the helicopter Airworthiness Limitations section of the maintenance manual by making pen-and-ink changes to indicate the new retirement life of 400 hours TIS for the tail rotor blades, P/N 369D21640-501, 369D21641-501, 369D21642-501, 369D21643-501, 500P3100-101, 500P3100-301, 500P3300-501, and 500P3500-70.
(d) For helicopters with a tail rotor blade installed that has more than 700 hours TIS, a one-time special flight permit to fly it to a repair facility may be issued only upon completion of an eddy current surface scan of each affected pitch horn (
(e) Within 24 hours after completing the requirements of this Emergency AD, report the information requested in Appendix A for all tail rotor blades listed in the Applicability section, including the tail rotor blades that were removed as a result of this AD. Report the information to: Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, ATTN: Fred Guerin, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, California 90712, telephone (562) 627-5232. Reports may also be faxed to (562) 627-5210 or emailed to
(f) Information collection requirements contained in this AD have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501
(g) To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Contact the Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, for information about previously approved alternative methods of compliance.
(h) This amendment becomes effective on July 17, 2003, to all persons except those persons to whom it was made immediately effective by Emergency AD 2003-08-51, issued April 15, 2003, which contained the requirements of this amendment.
Send within 24 hours to:
Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, ATTN: Fred Guerin, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, California 90712.
Fax: (562) 627-5210.
Email:
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Final regulations.
This document contains final regulations that provide guidance regarding the application of section 367(e)(2) to certain outbound liquidations. The regulations amend the anti-abuse rule by narrowing the scope of the rule to apply only to outbound transfers to a foreign corporation in a complete liquidation of a domestic corporation in which a principal purpose of the liquidation is the avoidance of U.S. tax. The regulations also clarify the application of the anti-abuse rule.
Effective Date: July 2, 2003.
Milton M. Cahn, (202) 622-3860 (not a toll-free number).
On August 9, 1999, the IRS and Treasury published final regulations (TD 8834 in the
The final regulations published in 1999 included an anti-abuse rule providing that the Commissioner may require a foreign or domestic liquidating corporation to recognize gain (or treat the liquidating corporation as if it had recognized a loss) on a liquidating distribution if a principal purpose of the liquidation is the avoidance of U.S. tax. § 1.367(e)-2(d). The notice of proposed rulemaking proposed amending the anti-abuse rule under § 1.367(e)-2(d) to limit the application of this rule to outbound liquidations of domestic corporations. The notice of proposed rulemaking also proposed clarifying what constitutes a principal purpose for purposes of the anti-abuse rules in § 1.367(e)-2(d) and § 1.367(e)-2(b)(2)(iii)(C)(
It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to this regulation, and because the regulation does not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply.
The principal author of these final regulations is Aaron A. Farmer of the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (International), IRS. However, other personnel from the Treasury and the IRS participated in their development.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
The revision reads as follows:
(d)
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Final and temporary regulations.
This document contains regulations that provide rules governing transfers of certain compensatory stock options (nonstatutory stock options). The regulations affect persons who have been granted nonstatutory stock options, as well as service recipients who may be entitled to deductions related to the options. The text of the temporary regulations also serves as the text of the proposed regulations on this subject in the Proposed Rules section in this issue of the
Stephen Tackney (202) 622-6030 (not a toll-free number).
These regulations amend 26 CFR part 1. Section 83 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) provides that if, in connection with the performance of services, property is transferred to any person other than the person for whom such services are performed, the excess of (1) the fair market value of the property (determined without regard to lapse restrictions) at the first time the rights of the person having the beneficial interest in such property are transferable or are not subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture, whichever occurs earlier, over (2) the amount (if any) paid for such property, is included in the gross income of the service provider in the first taxable year in which the rights of the person having the beneficial interest in such property are transferable or are not subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture.
Section 83(e)(4) provides that section 83 does not apply to the transfer of property pursuant to the exercise of an option with a readily ascertainable fair market value at the date of grant.
Section 83(e)(3) provides that section 83 does not apply to the transfer of an option without a readily ascertainable fair market value. Under § 1.83-7(a), section 83 generally applies to the transfer of the property subject to the option at the time of exercise.
Section 1.83-7(a) further provides that section 83 applies to the transfer of money or other property received upon the sale or disposition in an arm's length transaction of an option without a readily ascertainable fair market value at the time of grant.
Recent transactions promoted by certain parties have raised issues concerning when a transfer of an option to a related person, typically a family member or an entity a substantial interest in which is owned by the option holder or family members, is an arm's length transaction. See Notice 2003-47. The determination of whether a transfer to a related person is an arm's length transaction requires scrutiny of the facts and circumstances surrounding the transfer. Furthermore, if conducted under the terms promoted, Treasury and the IRS believe these transfers will rarely constitute an arm's length transaction.
The regulations provide that a sale or other disposition of a nonstatutory stock option to a related person will not be treated as a transaction that closes the application of section 83 with respect to the option. For these purposes, a person is related to the service provider if (I) the person and the service provider bear a relationship to each other that is specified in section 267(b) or 707(b)(1), subject to the modifications (i) that “20 percent” is used in place of “50 percent” each place it appears in section 267(b) and section 707(b)(1) and (ii) that section 267(c)(4) is applied as if the family of an individual includes the spouse of any member of the family, or (II) the service provider and such person are engaged in trades or businesses under common control (within the meaning of section 52(a) and (b)); provided that a person is not related to the service provider if the person is the service recipient with respect to the option or the grantor of the option. The regulations do not alter the treatment of the sale or disposition of an option in an arm's length transaction with an unrelated person. In those circumstances, section 83 applies to the transfer of money or other property received in the exchange.
It has been determined that these regulations are not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and because these regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, these regulations are being submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
The principal author of these temporary regulations is Stephen Tackney of the Office of Division Counsel/Associate Chief Counsel (Tax Exempt and Government Entities). However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in their development.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *.
(d)
(a)
(1) The person and the service provider bear a relationship to each other that is specified in section 267(b) or 707(b)(1), subject to the modifications that the language “20 percent” is used instead of “50 percent” each place it appears in sections 267(b) and 707(b)(1), and section 267(c)(4) is applied as if the family of an individual includes the spouse of any member of the family; or
(2) The person and the service provider are engaged in trades or businesses under common control (within the meaning of section 52(a) and (b)); provided that a person is not related to the service provider if the person is the service recipient with respect to the option or the grantor of the option.
(b) and (c) For further guidance,
(d)
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), Treasury.
Treasury decision, final rule.
The Treasury Department and its Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau are correcting an error in the wine labeling regulations regarding the amelioration of fruit (non-grape) and agricultural wines. The Bureau is also making a number of technical corrections to the wine labeling regulations.
Effective September 2, 2003.
Jennifer Berry, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Regulations and Procedures Division, PO Box 18152, Roanoke, Virginia 24014; telephone (540) 344-9333.
Effective January 24, 2003, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 divided the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) into two new agencies, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) in the Department of the Treasury and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in the Department of Justice. Regulation of wine labeling is the responsibility of the new TTB. References to ATF in this document relate to events that occurred prior to January 24, 2003, or to functions that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives continues to perform.
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau administers regulations published in chapter I of title 27 CFR. In a recent review of part 4 of this chapter, Labeling and Advertising of Wine, we noted an error at § 4.22(b)(5) regarding the amelioration of fruit (non-grape) and agricultural wines. We are correcting this error and making several other technical amendments to the wine labeling regulations in part 4.
The regulations at § 4.22(b)(5) state that fruit (non-grape) and agricultural wines may be treated with sugar or water in excess of the quantities prescribed for their standards of identity without TTB viewing such treatment as an alteration of class and type, if, among other conditions, “the content of natural acid is not less
We have identified a typographical error at § 4.21(h)(2), the standard of identity for imitation and substandard or other than standard wine. The phrase “other than standard wine” has been omitted from this section. The corrected regulation will read as follows:
(2) “Substandard wine” or “other than standard wine” shall bear as a part of its designation the words “substandard”
We have also identified two technical errors at § 4.30(a). Both the first and second sentences of this section use the word “article” to refer to regulatory subparts. “Article” was the term used for subparts when the wine labeling regulations were written in 1935. Later revisions replaced “article” with “subpart,” but these two instances were overlooked. We are correcting this oversight.
We are also removing three obsolete sections from part 4. All three have been replaced with newer sections, and their requirements have been obsolete for years.
• § 4.25, Appellation of origin, obsolete since January 1, 1983, has been replaced with § 4.25a.
• § 4.35, Name and address, obsolete since July 28, 1994, has been replaced with § 4.35a.
• § 4.72, Standards of fill, obsolete since January 1, 1979, has been replaced with § 4.73.
We are assigning the old numbers to the newer sections to improve the organization of part 4. We believe that removing these obsolete sections will make it much easier for readers to find current requirements.
ATF published Notice No. 953 on October 3, 2002, proposing to make the corrections and technical amendments described above. No comments were received. Accordingly, we are now finalizing the proposed amendments.
We propose no requirement to collect information. Therefore, the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, 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. We expect no negative impact on small entities. We are not imposing any new requirements. Accordingly, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis.
This is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866. Therefore, the order does not require a regulatory assessment.
The principal author of this document is Jennifer Berry, Regulations and Procedures Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau.
Advertising, Customs duties and inspection, Imports, Labeling, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Trade practices, Wine.
27 U.S.C. 205, unless otherwise noted.
(h) * * *
(2) “Substandard wine” or “other than standard wine” shall bear as a part of its designation the words “substandard” or “other than standard,” and shall include:
(b) * * *
(5) Treatment of any class or type of wine for which a standard of identity is prescribed in this subpart with sugar or water in excess of the quantities specifically authorized by such standards:
(i) Where such wine (other than grape wine) is derived from fruit or other agricultural products having a high normal acidity, if the total solids content is not more than 22 grams per 100 cubic centimeters and the content of natural acid is not less than 7.69 grams per liter, and
(ii) Where such wine is derived exclusively from fruit or other agricultural products the normal acidity of which is 20 parts or more per thousand, if the volume of the resulting product has been increased not more than 60 percent by the addition of sugar and water solution for the sole purpose of correcting natural deficiencies due to such acidity and (except in the case of such wine when produced from fruit or berries other than grapes) there is stated as part of the class and type designation the phrase “Made with over 35 percent sugar solution.”
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
This temporary final rule is effective from 7 p.m. until 11 p.m. on July 19, 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 docket [CGD09-03-230] and are available for inspection or copying at U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office Detroit, 110 Mt. Elliott Ave., Detroit, MI 48207, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Lieutenant Junior Grade Brandon Sullivan, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office Detroit, at telephone number (313) 568-9558.
We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
A temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and spectators from the hazards associated with fireworks displays. Based on accidents that have occurred in other Captain of the Port zones, and the explosive hazard of fireworks, the Captain of the Port Detroit has determined fireworks launches in close proximity to watercraft pose significant risks to public safety and property. The likely combination of large numbers of recreational vessels, congested waterways, darkness punctuated by bright flashes of light, alcohol use, and debris falling into the water could easily result in serious injuries or fatalities. Establishing a safety zone to control vessel movement around the location of the launch platform will help ensure the safety of persons and property at these events and help minimize the associated risks.
The safety zone will encompass all waters of Lake Huron surrounding the fireworks launch platform bounded by the arc of a circle with a 300-yard radius with its center in approximate position 43°51″00′ N, 082°38″15′ W. The geographic coordinates are based upon North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83). The size of this zone was determined using the National Fire Prevention Association guidelines and local knowledge concerning wind, waves, and currents.
All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated on-scene patrol representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated on-scene representative. The designated on-scene representative will be the Patrol Commander. The Patrol Commander may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
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 this rule 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 proposed 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 determination is based on the minimal time that vessels will be restricted from the safety zone.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Coast Guard considered whether this rule would have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of commercial vessels intending to transit or anchor in the activated safety zone.
This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This safety zone is only in effect from 7 p.m. until 11 p.m. on the day of the event and allows vessel traffic to pass outside of the safety zone. Before the effective period, the Coast Guard will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of Lake Huron by the Ninth Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners and Marine Information Broadcasts. Facsimile broadcasts may also be made.
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), the Coast Guard wants to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects and participate in the rulemaking process. If the rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Marine Safety Office Detroit (
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 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 rule under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and has determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism under that Order.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This 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 has 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.
The Coast Guard has considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g) of Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under
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.
The Coast Guard has 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.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record keeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191, 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; 49 CFR 1.46.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The EPA is approving, through direct final action, a revision to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted to show attainment of the Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) in the El Paso CO nonattainment area, but for emissions emanating from outside of the United States. The EPA is also approving the El Paso area's CO emissions budget, and a CO contingency measure requirement. The State submitted the revisions to satisfy sections 179B and other Part D requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA).
This rule is effective on September 2, 2003, without further notice, unless we receive adverse comment by August 1, 2003. If we receive such comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Written comments on this action should be addressed to Mr. Thomas H. Diggs, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), at the EPA Region 6 Office listed below. Copies of documents relevant to this action are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the following locations. Anyone wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the appropriate office at least two working days in advance.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, TX 75202-2377.
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, 12100 Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas 78753.
Joe Kordzi, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-7186.
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” means EPA.
El Paso, Texas, was designated nonattainment for CO and classified as moderate under sections 107(d)(4)(A) and 186(a) of the CAA. The El Paso CO nonattainment area is restricted to a narrow strip along the Rio Grande, adjacent to Ciudad Juarez, Mexico.
The CAA requires that CO nonattainment areas designated moderate and above demonstrate attainment through air quality modeling or any other analytical method determined by the Administrator to be at least as effective. Section 179B of the CAA contains special provisions for nonattainment areas that are affected by emissions emanating from outside the United States. Under section 179B, the EPA will approve a SIP if the area meets all other CAA requirements, and establishes that implementation of the plan would achieve attainment of the CO standard by the CAA statutory deadline “but for emissions emanating from outside the United States.” This is the type of demonstration that the State of Texas has made.
The Governor of the State of Texas submitted a revision to the Texas SIP for the El Paso CO moderate nonattainment area via a letter dated September 27, 1995, which was supplemented in February 1998. This included air quality modeling, under section 179B of the CAA, that demonstrates that El Paso would attain the CO NAAQS, but for emissions emanating from outside of the United States.
El Paso and Juarez, Mexico, share an air-shed. However, emission inventory data was not available for Juarez, so modeling of the entire air-shed was not possible. In such an instance, section 179B allows an area such as El Paso to perform modeling using only U.S. pollutant emission data in performing the attainment demonstration.
In its demonstration, Texas used two models, RAM, and CAL3QHC. RAM modeling was used to estimate background CO concentrations, and CAL3QHC was used to estimate hot-spot concentrations, or those areas that are the most likely to produce the highest concentrations of CO. Using RAM modeling, Texas identified the worst-case meteorological episode conducive for CO concentration. This was subsequently used in the CAL3QHC modeling to determine CO concentrations at six selected intersections. These concentrations were then combined with hourly variables in the 8-hour period with the highest RAM-determined background CO concentration. The modeling results for El Paso indicate that the area would attain the CO standard but for emissions emanating from outside the United States. Texas performed its CO modeling analyses for El Paso, according to EPA guidance, using conservative inputs to EPA guideline models.
The Governor of Texas submitted the 1996 CO motor vehicle emissions budget of 96.90 tons/day on September 27, 1995. The finding that the budget of the El Paso CO attainment plan was adequate was made in a letter on September 1, 1999.
Nonattainment areas must adopt contingency measures that are implemented in the event the area does not attain the standard by the attainment date. Under section 187(a)(4) of the CAA's CO requirements, El Paso must have at least a basic Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) program. However, El Paso was also bound to the CAA's ozone requirements for serious areas, which under section 182(c)(3), requires an enhanced program. These two programs yield different levels of CO reductions. The difference in emissions reductions could be called incremental credit. That is, incremental reductions in CO are reductions produced by a control program more stringent than required by CO provisions in the CAA.
The El Paso area is not subject to the section 187(a)(2)(A) Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) forecasts and the section 187(a)(3) contingency measures requirements, because its design value was below 12.7 ppm. It is, however, subject to the section 172(c)(9) contingency measures requirement. The CAA does not specify how many contingency measures are needed or the magnitude of the emission reductions (or VMT reductions) they must provide. In the EPA's General Preamble,
All CO nonattainment areas must adopt SIPs that contain the following core elements:
1. An inventory of all actual emissions of CO sources in the area (sections 187(a)(1) and 172(c)(3) of the CAA);
2. A revised inventory every three years (sections 187(a)(5) and 172(c)(3));
3. A permit program for the construction and operation of new and modified major stationary sources of CO (sections 172(c)(5)and 173);
4. Contingency measures that are to be implemented if the area fails to attain the standard by the deadline (section 172(c)(9));
5. An I/M program that meets applicable requirements (section 187(a)(4)); and
6. An oxygenated fuels program, if the design value was 9.5 ppm or above based on 1988 and 1989 data (section 211(m)); The EPA:
1. Approved an emissions inventory on September 12, 1994 (59 FR 46766);
2. Approved an oxygenated fuels program on September 12, 1994 (59 FR 46766);
3. Approved a permit program for new and modified major sources of CO on September 27, 1995 (60 FR 49781);
4. Received a periodic update of the CO inventory;
5. Approved the Texas Motorist Choice Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program (includes El Paso) on November 14, 2001 (66 FR 57261); and
6. Is approving a CO contingency measure in this action.
Data from the El Paso monitoring network from 1999 to the end of 2002 appear to indicate that the area is in attainment of the CO standard. The State has informed EPA that it may request redesignation in the near future.
The EPA is approving a revision to the Texas SIP, which was submitted to show attainment of the CO standard in the El Paso CO nonattainment area by the applicable attainment date, but for emissions from Mexico. The revision satisfies section 179B of the CAA.
The EPA believes that all section 179B approvals should be on a contingency basis. This modeling-based approval is valid only as long as the area's modeling continues to show that the El Paso CO area would be in attainment, but for emissions from outside the United States. If the EPA later determines by rulemaking that additional CO reductions are needed from sources in the United States, the EPA will require Texas to submit a new CO attainment SIP for El Paso.
The EPA is also approving El Paso's CO motor vehicle emissions budget, under section 176(c) of the CAA. Lastly, the EPA is approving the use of 46 tons per day in incremental CO reduction credits from the Texas low-enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance program, as fulfillment of the State's CO attainment contingency measure requirement for the El Paso nonattainment area under section 172(c)(9).
We are publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's
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 Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule 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 Clean Air Act. 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 Clean Air Act. 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 Clean Air Act. 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 Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 2, 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 (
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7402
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule; technical correction.
EPA issued a final rule in the
This document is effective on July 2, 2003.
Jim Tompkins, Registration Division 7505C, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 305-5697; e-mail address: tompkins.jim@epa.gov.
The Agency included in the final rule a list of those who may be potentially affected by this action. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents
EPA is correcting the amendatory language to the amendments to § 180.364. Inadvertently, the amendatory language indicated that “corn, field, forage” and “grain, aspirited fractions” were being added to the table in paragraph (a) of § 180.364. Actually, both “corn, filed, forage” and “grain, aspirited fractions” were already included in the table to paragraph (a). Since EPA merely intended to revise the entries to changes the tolerances levels, this document corrects the amendatory language to correctly express the changes that EPA is making.
Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that, when an Agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a final rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. EPA has determined that there is good cause for making today's technical correction final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment, because EPA is merely inserting language that was inadvertently omitted from the previously published final rule. EPA finds that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).
This final rule implements a technical correction to the CFR, and it does not otherwise impose or amend any requirements. As such, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that a technical correction is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by OMB under Executive Order 12866, entitled
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Pesticides and pest.
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346(a) and 371.
(a) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of famoxadone (3-anilino-5-methyl-5-(4-phenoxyphenyl)-1,3-oxazolidine-2,4-dione) in or on vegetables, fruiting, group 8 (except tomato) at 4.0 parts per million (ppm), tomato at 1.0 ppm; vegetables cucurbit, group 9 at 0.30 ppm; lettuce, head at 10.0 ppm; potato at 0.02 ppm; grape at 2.50 ppm; grape, raisin at 4.0 ppm; fat of cattle, horses, goats, sheep at 0.02 ppm; liver of cattle, horses, goats, sheep at 0.05 ppm; and milk fat (reflecting negligible residues in whole milk) at 0.060 ppm. E.I. Dupont Nemours and Company (Dupont) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). These reflect the first food tolerances for this fungicide in the United States.
This regulation is effective July 2, 2003. Objections and requests for hearings, identified by docket ID number OPP-2003-0130, must be received on or before September 2, 2003.
Written objections and hearing requests may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit VI. of the
Dennis M. McNeilly, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-6742; e-mail address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
• Crop production (NAICS 111)
• Animal production (NAICS 112
• Food manufacturing (NAICS 311)
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 32532)
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at
In the
In a second
The initial petitions requested that 40 CFR 180.587 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide famoxadone (3-anilino-5-methyl-5-(4-phenoxyphenyl)-1,3-oxazolidine-2,4-dione) in or on potatoes at 0.05 ppm; cucurbit vegetable crop group at 0.7 ppm; fruiting vegetable crop group at 1.0 ppm; head lettuce at 15 ppm; grapes at 2.0 ppm; and raisins at 4.0 ppm.
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will
EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. For further discussion of the regulatory requirements of section 408 of the FFDCA and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see the final rule on Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances (62 FR 62961, November 26, 1997) (FRL-5754-7).
Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of the FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure, consistent with section 408(b)(2) of the FFDCA, for tolerances for residues of famoxadone on vegetables, fruiting, group 8 (except tomato) at 4.0 ppm; tomato at 1.0 ppm; vegetables, cucurbit, group 9 at 0.30 ppm; lettuce, head at 10.0 ppm; potato at 0.02 ppm; grape at 2.50 ppm; grape, raisin at 4.0 ppm; fat of cattle, horses, goats, sheep at 0.02 ppm; liver of cattle, horses, goats, sheep at 0.05 ppm and milk, fat (reflecting negligible residues in whole milk) at 0.060 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with establishing the tolerance follows.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. The nature of the toxic effects caused by famoxadone are discussed in Table 1 of this unit as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies reviewed.
The dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) from the toxicology study identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment is used to estimate the toxicological level of concern (LOC). However, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL) is sometimes used for risk assessment if no NOAEL was achieved in the toxicology study selected. An uncertainty factor (UF) is applied to reflect uncertainties inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population as well as other unknowns. An UF of 100 is routinely used, 10X to account for interspecies differences and 10X for intraspecies differences.
For dietary risk assessment (other than cancer) the Agency uses the UF to calculate an acute or chronic reference dose (acute RfD or chronic RfD) where the RfD is equal to the NOAEL divided by the appropriate UF (RfD = NOAEL/UF). Where an additional safety factors (SF) is retained due to concerns unique to the FQPA, this additional factor is applied to the RfD by dividing the RfD by such additional factor. The acute or chronic Population Adjusted Dose (aPAD or cPAD) is a modification of the RfD to accommodate this type of FQPA SF.
For non-dietary risk assessments (other than cancer) the UF is used to determine the LOC. For example, when 100 is the appropriate UF (10X to account for interspecies differences and 10X for intraspecies differences) the LOC is 100. To estimate risk, a ratio of the NOAEL to exposures (margin of exposure (MOE) = NOAEL/exposure) is calculated and compared to the LOC.
The linear default risk methodology (Q*) is the primary method currently used by the Agency to quantify carcinogenic risk. The Q* approach assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of cancer risk. A Q* is calculated and used to estimate risk which represents a probability of occurrence of additional cancer cases (e.g., risk is expressed as 1 x 10
The comment received from WWF concerned a toxicity issue in particular: The potential for famoxadone to be an endocrine disruptor. WWF quoted the notice of filing which was written by Dupont. “Chronic, lifespan and multi-generational bioassays in mammals and acute and subchronic studies on aquatic organisms and wildlife did not reveal endocrine effects. Any endocrine related effects would have to have been detected in this definitive array of required tests. The probability of any such effects due to agricultural uses of famoxadone is negligible.” WWF stated that pursuant to FQPA, the Agency is establishing a new endocrine disruptor screening and testing program because existing toxicology protocols are not adequate to detect endocrine disruption. Therefore, Dupont's evaluation of the endocrine disruptor potential is incomplete and consequently misleading. WWF also urges the Agency to consider not only evidence of increasedsusceptibility, but also the significance of endocrine disruptor data gaps when determining the FQPA SF for famoxadone.
In response to the WWF the Agency notes that FQPA requires EPA to develop a screening program to determine whether certain substances (including all pesticide active and other ingredients) may have an effect in humans that is similar to an effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogen, or such other endocrine effect... EPA has been working with interested stakeholders to develop a screening and testing program as well as a priority-setting scheme. In the available toxicity studies on famoxadone, no evidence of endocrine-related effects was observed. However, famoxadone may be subjected to further screening and/or testing to better characterize potential effects related to endocrine disruption when additional appropriate screening and/or testing protocols have been developed by the Agency's Endocrine Disruptor and Testing Advisory Committee (EDSTAC).
1.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
Section 408(b)(2)(E) of the FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual levels of pesticide chemicals that have been measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must require that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels anticipated. Following the initial data submission, EPA is authorized to require similar data on a time frame it deems appropriate. No PCT information was used in the risk assessment. The Agency used 100% which would over estimate exposure.
2.
The Agency lacks monitoring exposure data to complete a comprehensive dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for famoxadone in drinking water because this is a new chemical. Because the Agency does not have comprehensive monitoring data, drinking water concentration estimates are made by reliance on simulation or modeling taking into account data on the physical characteristics of famoxadone.
The Agency uses the FQPA Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) or the Pesticide Root Zone/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) to estimate pesticide concentrations in surface water and SCI-GROW, which predicts pesticide concentrations in groundwater. In general, EPA will use FIRST (a tier 1 model) before using PRZM/EXAMS (a tier 2 model) for a screening-level assessment for surface water. The FIRST model is a subset or meta-model of the PRZM/EXAMS model that uses specific high-end runoff scenario for pesticides. FIRST incorporates an index reservoir environment and a percent crop area (PCA), while PRZM/EXAMS incorporate an index reservoir environment, PCA, all available information on the pesticide's fate and use pattern, and site-specific cropping information.
None of these models include consideration of the impact processing (mixing, dilution, or treatment) of raw water for distribution as drinking water would likely have on the removal of pesticides from the source water. The primary use of these models by the Agency at this stage is to provide a screen for sorting out pesticides for which it is highly unlikely that drinking water concentrations would exceed human health levels of concern.
Since the models used are considered to be screening tools in the risk assessment process, the Agency does not use estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) from these models to quantify drinking water exposure and risk as a %RfD or %PAD. Instead drinking water levels of comparison (DWLOCs) are calculated and used as a point of comparison against the model estimates of a pesticide's concentration in water. DWLOCs are theoretical upper limits on a pesticide's concentration in drinking water in light of total aggregate exposure to a pesticide in food, and from residential uses. Since DWLOCs address total aggregate exposure to famoxadone they are further discussed in the aggregate risk sections in Unit E.
Based on the PRZM/EXAMS and SCI-GROW models the EECs of famoxadone for chronic exposures are estimated to be 0.47 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 0.23 ppb for ground water.
3.
Famoxadone is not registered for use on any sites that would result in residential exposure.
4.
EPA does not have, at this time, available data to determine whether famoxadone has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances or how to include this pesticide in a cumulative risk assessment. Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, famoxadone does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that famoxadone has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see the final rule for Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances (62 FR 62961, November 26, 1997).
1.
2.
No quantitative or qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility, as compared to adults, of rat or rabbit fetuses to
In the rat developmental toxicity study, the NOAEL for maternal toxicity was 250 mg/kg/day and the LOAEL was 500 mg/kg/day, based on transient decreases in body weight gain and food consumption. At 1,000 mg/kg/day, no additional treatment-related effects were observed in the dams. No developmental toxicity was observed in the rat study. The NOAEL for developmental toxicity was 1,000 mg/kg/day, the highest dose tested.
In the rabbit developmental toxicity study, the maternal and developmental NOAELs and LOAELs were the same. The NOAEL for maternal toxicity and developmental toxicity was 350 mg/kg/day. The LOAEL for maternal toxicity was 1,000 mg/kg/day, based on abortions in 4 out of 17 does; markedly decreased body weight, reduced body weight gain and reduced food consumption in the same 4 does, and increased number of does with abnormal or little or no stools. The LOAEL for developmental toxicity was 1,000 mg/kg/day; based on abortions in 4 out of 17 does; and equivocal increases in percent post implantation loss and mean number of resorptions
In the 2-generation reproduction study in rats, the NOAEL for parental toxicity was 200 ppm (equal to 11.3/14.2 mg/kg/day, M/F) and the LOAEL was 800 ppm (44.7/53.3 mg/kg/day, M/F), based on decreased body weight, body weight gain, and food consumption; and heptotoxicity in the liver. Also, at 800 ppm, adaptive hepatocellular responses indicating enzyme induction were observed. No reproductive toxicity was observed in this study. The NOAEL for reproductive toxicity was 800 ppm (44.7/53.3 mg/kg/day, M/F), the highest dose tested. In this same study, the NOAEL for offspring toxicity was 200 ppm (equal to 11.3/14.2 mg/kg/day, M/F) and the LOAEL was 800 ppm (44.7/53.3 mg/kg/day, based on decreased body weights for F
3.
Although clinical signs of neurotoxicity were observed in dogs in the 13-week study at the highest dose tested (
4.
i. There is no quantitative or qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility of rat and rabbit fetuses to
ii. The chronic dietary food exposure assessment utilizes average field trial residue data and for all proposed uses, 100% crop treated is assumed. The chronic assessment is somewhat refined and based on reliable data derived from studies designed to produce worst-case residues and unlikely to underestimate exposure.
To estimate total aggregate exposure to a pesticide from food, drinking water, and residential uses, the Agency calculates DWLOCs which are used as a point of comparison against the model estimates of a pesticide's concentration in water. DWLOC values are not regulatory standards for drinking water. DWLOCs are theoretical upper limits on a pesticide's concentration in drinking water in light of total aggregate exposure to a pesticide in food and residential uses. In calculating a DWLOC, the Agency determines how much of the acceptable exposure (i.e., the PAD) is available for exposure through drinking water e.g., allowable chronic water exposure (mg/kg/day) = cPAD - (average food + residential exposure). This allowable exposure through drinking water is used to calculate a DWLOC.
A DWLOC will vary depending on the toxic endpoint, drinking water consumption, and body weights. Default body weights and consumption values as used by the USEPA Office of Water are used to calculate DWLOCs: 2 liter (L)/70 kg (adult male), 2L/60 kg (adult female), and 1L/10 kg (child). Default body weights and drinking water consumption values vary on an individual basis. This variation will be taken into account in more refined screening-level and quantitative drinking water exposure assessments. Different populations will have different DWLOCs. Generally, a DWLOC is calculated for each type of risk assessment used: Acute, short-term, intermediate-term, chronic, and cancer.
When EECs for surface water and groundwater are less than the calculated DWLOCs, OPP concludes with reasonable certainty that exposures to the pesticide in drinking water (when considered along with other sources of exposure for which OPP has reliable data) would not result in unacceptable levels of aggregate human health risk at this time. Because OPP considers the aggregate risk resulting from multiple exposure pathways associated with a pesticide's uses, levels of comparison in drinking water may vary as those uses change. If new uses are added in the future, OPP will reassess the potential impacts of residues of the pesticide in drinking water as a part of the aggregate risk assessment process.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Famoxadone was screened through multi-residue methods listed in the Pesticide Analytical Manual Volume I (PAM Vol. I), Third Edition (January 1994), using Protocols C to E. Protocols A and B were not used because famoxadone does not have an n-methyl carbamate structure (Protocol A), nor is it an acid or phenol (Protocol B). Protocol C showed good analytical response using the electron-capture detector (ECD) and nitrogen-phosphorus detector (NPD). Good recoveries were obtained for the analysis of wine, grapes, and tomatoes (92-138%) using Protocol D. Food commodities can be analyzed for famoxadone residues using the appropriate extraction method with the mixed ether elution system, resulting in recovery values of 92 to 108%.
The multi-residue methods testing appears to be scientifically acceptable and has been sent to the FDA for further evaluation. Preliminary analysis suggests that Protocol D may be appropriate for analysis of famoxadone in plant matrices and has the potential to be the primary enforcement method.
Adequate enforcement methodology is available to enforce the tolerance expression. The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; e-mail address:
No CODEX maximum residue limits currently exist for famoxadone: Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) have been established for potatoes in the Netherlands at 0.02 ppm and for grapes in Germany at 2.0 ppm.
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of famoxadone (3-anilino-5-methyl-5-(4-phenoxyphenyl)-1,3-oxazolidine-2,4-dione) in or on vegetables, fruiting, group 8 (except tomato) at 4.0 ppm; tomato at 1 ppm; vegetables cucurbit, group 9 at 0.30 ppm; lettuce, head at 10.0 ppm; potato at 0.02 ppm grape at 2.50 ppm (import only); raisin at 4.0 ppm (import only); fat of cattle, horses, goats, sheep at 0.02 ppm; liver of cattle, horses, goats, sheep at 0.05 ppm; and milk, fat (reflecting negligible residues in whole milk) at 0.060 ppm.
Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. Although the procedures in those regulations require some modification to reflect the amendments made to the FFDCA by the FQPA, EPA will continue to use those procedures, with appropriate adjustments, until the necessary modifications can be made. The new section 408(g) of the FFDCA provides essentially the same process for persons to “object” to a regulation for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance issued by EPA under new section 408(d) of FFDCA, as was provided in the old sections 408 and 409 of the FFDCA. However, the period for filing objections is now 60 days, rather than 30 days.
You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in this unit and in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number OPP-2003-0130 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before September 2, 2003.
1.
Mail your written request to: Office of the Hearing Clerk (1900C), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. You may also deliver your request to the Office of the Hearing Clerk in Rm.104, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. The Office of the Hearing Clerk is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
2.
EPA is authorized to waive any fee requirement “when in the judgement of the Administrator such a waiver or refund is equitable and not contrary to the purpose of this subsection.” For additional information regarding the waiver of these fees, you may contact James Tompkins by phone at (703) 305-5697, by e-mail at
If you would like to request a waiver of the tolerance objection fees, you must mail your request for such a waiver to: James Hollins, Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
3.
A request for a hearing will be granted if the Administrator determines that the material submitted shows the following: There is a genuine and substantial issue of fact; there is a reasonable possibility that available evidence identified by the requestor would, if established resolve one or more of such issues in favor of the requestor, taking into account uncontested claims or facts to the contrary; and resolution of the factual issues(s) in the manner sought by the requestor would be adequate to justify the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).
This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of the FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346(a) and 371.
(a)
(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]
(c) Tolerances with regional registrations. [Reserved]
(d) Indirect or inadvertant residues. [Reserved]
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule, correction.
This document corrects an error in the
Effective July 2, 2003.
Jonathan Secrest and Katherine Tofigh, Attorneys, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 418-7400.
This summary contains a correction to the dates section and the
In rule FR Doc. 03-14928 published June 20, 2003 (68 FR 36931) make the following corrections.
1. On page 36931, in the third column, in the
2. On page 36941, in the third column, in paragraph 89, seventh line, remove “§ 54.515(b)” and add “§ 54.514(b)” in its place.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation.
Final rule.
This final rule announces NHTSA's determination for model year (MY) 2004 high-theft vehicle lines that are subject to the parts-marking requirements of the Federal motor vehicle theft prevention standard, and high-theft MY 2004 lines that are exempted from the parts-marking requirements because the vehicles are equipped with antitheft devices determined to meet certain statutory criteria pursuant to the statute relating to motor vehicle theft prevention.
The amendment made by this final rule is effective July 2, 2003.
Ms. Rosalind Proctor, Consumer Standards Division, Office of Planning and Consumer Standards, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Proctor's telephone number is (202) 366-0846. Her fax number is (202) 493-2290.
The Anti Car Theft Act of 1992, Pub. L. 102-519, amended the law relating to the parts-marking of major component parts on designated high-theft vehicle lines and
The purpose of the theft prevention standard is to reduce the incidence of motor vehicle theft by facilitating the tracing and recovery of parts from stolen vehicles. The standard seeks to facilitate such tracing by requiring that vehicle identification numbers (VINs), VIN derivative numbers, or other symbols be placed on major component vehicle parts. The theft prevention standard requires motor vehicle manufacturers to inscribe or affix VINs onto covered original equipment major component parts, and to inscribe or affix a symbol identifying the manufacturer and a common symbol identifying the replacement component parts for those original equipment parts, on all vehicle lines selected as high-theft.
The Anti Car Theft Act also amended 49 U.S.C. 33103 to require NHTSA to promulgate a parts-marking standard applicable to major parts installed by manufacturers of “passenger motor vehicles (other than light duty trucks) is not to exceed one-half of the lines not designated under 49 U.S.C. 33104 as high-theft lines.” Section 33103(a) further directed NHTSA to select only lines not designated under § 33104 of this title as high theft lines. NHTSA lists each of these selected lines in appendix B to part 541. Since § 33103 did not specify marking of replacement parts for below-median lines, the agency does not require marking of replacement parts for these lines. NHTSA published a final rule amending 49 CFR part 541 to include the definitions of MPV and LDT, and major component parts. [
49 U.S.C. 33104(a)(3) specifies that NHTSA shall select high-theft vehicle lines, with the agreement of the manufacturer, if possible. Section 33104(d) provides that once a line has been designated as likely high-theft, it remains subject to the theft prevention standard unless that line is exempted under § 33106. Section 33106 provides that a manufacturer may petition to have a high-theft line exempted from the requirements of § 33104, if the line is equipped with an antitheft device as standard equipment. The exemption is granted if NHTSA determines that the antitheft device is likely to be as effective as compliance with the theft prevention standard in reducing and deterring motor vehicle thefts.
The agency annually publishes the names of the lines which were previously listed as high-theft, and the lines which are being listed for the first time and will be subject to the theft prevention standard beginning in a given model year. It also identifies those lines that are exempted from the theft prevention standard for a given model year under § 33104. Additionally, this listing identifies those lines (except light-duty trucks) in appendix B to part 541 that have theft rates below the 1990/1991 median theft rate but are subject to the requirements of this standard under § 33103.
On July 1, 2002, the final listing of high-theft lines for the MY 2003 vehicle lines was published in the
For MY 2004, the agency identified two new vehicle lines that are likely to be high-theft lines, in accordance with the procedures published in 49 CFR part 542. The new lines are the Toyota Scion xA and the Scion xB. In addition to these two vehicle lines, the list of high-theft vehicle lines includes all lines previously designated as high-theft and listed for prior model years. Accordingly, appendix A has also been amended to reflect these changes.
The vehicle lines listed as being subject to the parts-marking standard have previously been designated as high-theft lines in accordance with the procedures set forth in 49 CFR part 542. Under these procedures, manufacturers evaluate new vehicle lines to conclude whether those new lines are likely to be high theft. The manufacturer submits these evaluations and conclusions to the agency, which makes an independent evaluation; and, on a preliminary basis, determines whether the new line should be subject to the parts-marking requirements. NHTSA informs the manufacturer in writing of its evaluations and determinations, together with the factual information considered by the agency in making them. The manufacturer may request the agency to reconsider the preliminary determinations. Within 60 days of the receipt of these requests, the agency makes its final determination. NHTSA informs the manufacturer by letter of these determinations and its response to the request for reconsideration. If there is no request for reconsideration, the agency's determination becomes final 45 days after sending the letter with the preliminary determination. Each of the new lines on the high-theft list has been the subject of a final determination under either 49 U.S.C. 33103 or 33104.
The list of lines that have been exempted by the agency from the parts-marking requirements of part 541 includes high-theft lines newly exempted in full beginning with MY 2004. The two vehicle lines newly exempted in full are the DaimlerChrysler Jeep Grand Cherokee and the Nissan Infiniti M45. Additionally, the agency erroneously omitted the Ford Motor Company's (Ford) Lincoln Town Car from Appendix A-I of the MY 2003 final rule. The agency granted Ford's petition for an exemption of its Lincoln Town Car from the parts-marking requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard beginning with the 2003 model year (67 FR 35189, May 17, 2002). Accordingly, appendix A-I has been amended to reflect these changes. The vehicle lines listed as being exempt from the standard have previously been exempted in accordance with the procedures of 49 CFR part 543 and 49 U.S.C. 33106.
Similarly, the low-theft lines listed as being subject to the parts-marking standard have previously been designated in accordance with the procedures set forth in 49 U.S.C. 33103.
Therefore, NHTSA finds for good cause that notice and opportunity for comment on these listings are unnecessary. Further, public comment on the listing of selections and exemptions is not contemplated by 49 U.S.C. chapter 331.
For the same reasons, since this revised listing only informs the public of previous agency actions and does not impose additional obligations on any party, NHTSA finds for good cause that the amendment made by this notice should be effective as soon as it is published in the
NHTSA has analyzed this rule and determined that it is not “significant” within the meaning of the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. The agency has also considered this notice under Executive Order 12866. As already noted, the selections in this final rule have previously been made in accordance with the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 33104,
The agency has also considered the effects of this listing under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As noted above, the effect of this final rule is simply to inform the public of those lines that are already subject to the requirements of 49 CFR part 541 for MY 2004. The agency believes that the listing of this information will not have any economic impact on small entities.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the agency has considered the environmental impacts of this rule, and determined that it will not have any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined that this final rule does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
This final rule does not have a retroactive effect. In accordance with § 33118 when the Theft Prevention Standard is in effect, a State or political subdivision of a State may not have a different motor vehicle theft prevention standard for a motor vehicle or major replacement part. 49 U.S.C. 33117 provides that judicial review of this rule may be obtained pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 32909. Section 32909 does not require submission of a petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court.
Administrative practice and procedure, Labeling, Motor vehicles, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
49 U.S.C. 33102-33104 and 33106; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Foreign Agricultural Service.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule would implement Chapter 6 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended by Subtitle C of Title 1 of the Trade Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-210) to establish a new program, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers. Under this program, the Department of Agriculture would provide technical assistance and cash benefits to eligible producers of raw agricultural commodities when the Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) determines that increased imports have contributed importantly to a specific price decline over five preceding marketing years. The proposed rule would establish the procedure by which producers of raw agricultural commodities can petition for certification of eligibility and apply for technical assistance and adjustment payments.
Comments should be received on or before July 9, 2003, to be assured of consideration.
Comments should be mailed or delivered to Jean-Louis Pajot, Import Policies and Programs Division, Foreign Agricultural Service, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 1021, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250-1021. Comments may also be e-mailed to
Jean-Louis Pajot at the address above, or telephone at 202-720-2916, or e-mail at
The proposed rule has been determined to be significant under E.O. 12866 and has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act ensures that regulatory and information requirements are tailored to the size and nature of small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. This proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small farm operations. Participation in the program is voluntary. Direct and indirect costs are likely to be very small as a percentage of revenue and in terms of absolute costs. The minimal regulatory requirements impact large and small businesses equally, and the program's benefits should improve cash flow and liquidity for farmers participating in the program.
Summary: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Department intends to request approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) of an information collection required to support the proposed rule establishing an adjustment assistance program for farmers. Copies of the information collection may be obtained from Kimberly Chisley, the Agency Information Collection Coordinator, at (202) 720-2568 or e-mail at
To obtain program benefits, under this program, a group of raw agricultural commodity producers, or their duly authorized representative, must submit a petition to the Administrator for certification of eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance. The proposed rule contains an information collection that solicits data that is essential for the Administrator in making a determination on certification of eligibility for adjustment assistance. The information collection requires, to the maximum extent feasible, that a petition contain: a description of the raw agricultural product concerned; data on specific prices for the most recent marketing year; national average or regional prices for the commodity for the five preceding marketing years; data on increases in imports of a directly competing commodity; and an assessment of the impact of increased imports on domestic prices, including any supporting evidence that imports contributed importantly to a decline in domestic prices. Within 90 days after certification, a producer may submit an application for adjustment assistance benefits. The application contains an information collection that conforms to the requirements of section 296 regarding conditions that must be met to qualify for cash benefits. The application requires submission of: standard business information; the quantity of production in the year covered by the certification accompanied by supporting documentation; data on gross income and net farm income accompanied by supporting documentation; certification that an applicant has not received other cash benefits; and certification that an applicant has obtained information and technical assistance from the Extension Service to assist the applicant in adjusting to import competition.
Copies of the information collection can be obtained from Kimberly Chisley, the Agency Collection Coordinator, at (202) 720-2568.
FAS is committed to compliance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), which requires Government agencies, in general, to provide the public the option of submitting information or transacting business electronically to maximum extent possible. Electronic submission of the information collection will be implemented before October 2003 in compliance with the GPEA. The Department will request OMB approval of forms that are being developed for electronic submission of the information collection, and issue a
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988. The provisions of this proposed rule would not have preemptive effect with respect to any State or local laws, regulations, or policies which conflict with such provision or which otherwise impede their full implementation. The proposed rule would not have retroactive effect. Before any judicial action may be brought regarding this rule, all administrative remedies must be exhausted.
The Administrator has determined that this action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Therefore, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is necessary for this proposed rule.
These Executive Orders and Public Law 104-4 require consultation with State and local officials and Indian tribal governments. This proposed rule does not impose an unfunded mandate or any other requirement on State, local or tribal governments. Accordingly, these programs are not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, Executive Order 13083, and Executive Order 13084, or the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
This Order requires careful evaluation of governmental actions that interfere with constitutionally protected property rights. This proposed rule would not interfere with any property rights and, therefore, does not need to be evaluated on the basis of the criteria outlined in Executive Order 12630.
The Trade Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-210) amended the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2551,
Under this proposed rule, a group of agricultural commodity producers may petition the Administrator of the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) for trade adjustment assistance from mid-August through the end of January. FAS will first review the petition for appropriateness, completeness, and timeliness, before publishing a notice in the
Upon certification, producers have 90 days to contact the Farm Service Agency (FSA) to apply for assistance. As soon as they apply, they are eligible to receive at no cost a technical assistance package specifically tailored for their needs by the Extension Service. Depending on the commodity and the region, the Extension Service package may include technical publications in print or on-line, group seminars and presentations, and one-on-one meetings. Producers, who receive the technical assistance and also satisfy personal and farm income limits, are eligible for TAA payments. If the funding authorized by Congress is insufficient to pay 100 percent of all TAA claims during the fiscal year, payments will be prorated and issued after June 15, the last possible date for producers to file a TAA application.
Producers may petition for adjustment assistance in subsequent years. Petitions will be reviewed and approved if prices remain at or below the same 80 percent threshold as the initial year of adjustment assistance, and if imports have continued to increase and contributed importantly to the decline in prices.
The Department invites additional comments on all aspects of the proposed rule including: eligibility requirements, including the coverage of aquaculture; unintended market consequences of the program to producers, importers, buyers and consumers; timing and prorating of adjustment payments when funding may be insufficient; petitions on behalf of producers within regions of the United States; marketing periods of less than 12 months; and less restrictive alternatives to the proposed rule that would address the intent of the program.
Agricultural commodities imports; reporting and record keeping requirements; and trade adjustment assistance.
Accordingly, it is proposed to amend title 7 of the Code of Federal
19 U.S.C. 2401.
This part provides regulations for the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers program. Under these provisions, producers of agricultural commodities may petition the Department of Agriculture for eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance based on criteria set forth in the Trade Act of 1974, as amended by the Trade Act of 2002 (19 U.S.C. 2251,
As used in the part, the following terms mean:
(1) Great grandparent;
(2) Grandparent;
(3) Parent;
(4) Child, including legally adopted children;
(5) Great grandchildren;
(6) Sibling of the family member in the farming operation; and
(7) Spouse of a person listed in paragraphs (1) through (6) of this definition.
(a) A group of agricultural commodity producers in the United States or their authorized representative may file a petition for trade adjustment assistance.
(b) Filings may be written or electronic, as provided for by the Administrator, and submitted to FAS from August 17 through January 31. FAS shall not accept a petition received after January 31 but will return it to the sender. If January 31 falls on a weekend, the petition will be accepted the next business day.
(c) Petitions shall include the following information.
(1) Name, business address, phone number, and email address (if available) of each producer in the group, or their authorized representative. A petition filed by a group shall identify a contact person for the group.
(2) The agricultural commodity and its Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) number.
(3) The production area represented by the group or its authorized representative. The petitioners shall indicate if they are filing on behalf of all producers in the United States, or if they are filing solely on behalf of producers in a specifically identified impacted area. In the latter case, at least one member of the group must reside in each State within the impacted area, or the authorized representative must have members residing in each State within the impacted area.
(4) The beginning and ending dates for the marketing year during which domestic prices were affected by
(5) A justification statement explaining why the petitioners should be considered eligible for adjustment assistance.
(6) Price data supporting the petition.
(i) If the petition is filed on behalf of all producers of the agricultural commodity in the United States, the Administrator shall use national average prices compiled by the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), whenever possible. If NASS does not compile price data for the commodity, the petitioners shall provide national average prices for the marketing year under review and for the previous five marketing years, and identify the source of the price series.
(ii) If the petition is filed on behalf of producers in a specifically identified impacted area, the petitioners shall provide national average prices for the impacted area for the marketing year under review and for the previous five marketing years, and identify the source of the price series.
(iii) The Administrator may request petitioners to provide records to support their national average price data.
(d) Once the petition is filed, the Administrator shall determine if it meets the requirements of § 1580.201(c), and if so, publish notice in the
(a) If the petitioner, or any other person(s) found by the Administrator to have a substantial interest in the proceedings, submits not later than 10 days after the filing date a request for a hearing, the Administrator shall provide for a public hearing and afford such interested person an opportunity to be present, to produce evidence, and to be heard.
(b) If the petitioner, or any other person(s) having an interest in the proceedings takes issue with any of the information published in the
(c) A producer residing outside the impacted area identified in a petition may file to become a party to the petition by fulfilling the requirements of § 1580.201(c) within 10 days of the filing date. The Administrator may amend the original petition to expand the impacted area and include the additional filer, or consider it a separate filing.
(d) The Administrator shall publish in the
(a) As soon as practicable after the filing date, but in any event not later than 40 days after that date, the Administrator shall determine whether the petitioners satisfy the following conditions for adjustment assistance.
(1) The national average price for the agricultural commodity for the marketing year under review is equal to or less than 80 percent of the average of the national average prices for the 5 marketing years preceding the most recent marketing year, and
(2) Increases in imports of articles like or directly competitive with the agricultural commodity contributed importantly to the decline in price described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(b) If the Administrator determines that the above conditions have been satisfied, the producers covered by the petition shall be certified as eligible for adjustment assistance.
(c) Upon making a determination, whether affirmative or negative, the Administrator shall promptly publish in the
(d) In addition, the Administrator shall notify producers covered by a certification how to apply for adjustment assistance. Notification methods may include direct mailings to known producers, messages to directly affected producer groups and organizations, electronic communications, internet web site notices, and use of broadcast and print media.
(e) Whenever a group of agricultural producers is certified as eligible for assistance, the Administrator shall use the occasion to notify and inform other producers about the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program and how they may petition for adjustment assistance.
(a) Only producers covered by a certification of eligibility may apply for adjustment assistance. Producers may request advice from FSA regarding the preparation and submission of their applications.
(b) An eligible producer may submit an application for adjustment assistance at any time after the certification date but not later than 90 days after the certification date. If the 90-day application period ends on a weekend or legal holiday, the producer may apply the following business day.
(c) Applications shall include:
(1) The name and legal address of applicant.
(2) Contact information, i.e., mailing address, phone and email address.
(3) The producer's identification number or Federal Income Tax number.
(4) The amount of the agricultural commodity produced in the most recent marketing year supported by documentation acceptable to FSA.
(d) Upon submitting their application, producers shall be immediately eligible to request trade adjustment technical assistance from the Extension Service at no cost.
(e) Producers able to furnish their applications with all the following certifications shall be eligible for adjustment assistance payments:
(1) Certification that technical assistance from the Extension Service under § 1580.302 has been received.
(2) Certification that cash benefits have not been received under any of the provisions of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, other than those permitted under this part.
(3) Certification that adjustment assistance payments have not exceeded the $10,000 limitation for the Federal fiscal year.
(4) Certification that net farm income is less than that for the latest year in which no adjustment assistance payment was received.
(5) Certification that their average adjusted gross income, as determined in accordance with 7 CFR 1400.601, for the 3 preceding taxable years does not exceed $2,500,000.
(6) To comply with certifications in (e)(4) and (e)(5) of this section, an applicant shall provide either—
(i) Supporting documentation from a certified public accountant or attorney, or
(ii) Relevant documentation and other supporting financial data, such as financial statements, balance sheets, and
(f) Persons legally authorized to execute program documents for estates or trusts will be accepted only if such person furnishes evidence of the authority to execute such documents.
(a) Any producer of an agricultural commodity covered by a certification of eligibility may apply for and receive information and technical assistance from the Extension Service that will assist in adjusting to import competition and be at no cost to the producer.
(b) To qualify for technical assistance, producers shall apply under § 1580.301.
(c) Producers shall have an opportunity to meet at least once with an Extension Service employee within 180 days of petition certification to receive information regarding the feasibility and desirability of substituting one or more alternative commodities for the adversely affected agricultural commodity and to receive technical assistance to lower costs associated with producing and marketing the adversely affected agricultural commodity. The Extension Service shall provide to producers written confirmation of all technical assistance meetings. Producers shall also have access to technical information provided in writing and electronically.
(d) Producers shall also be provided information concerning procedures for applying for and receiving other Federal assistance and services available to workers facing economic distress.
(e) Producers shall be entitled to employment services and training benefits under trade adjustment assistance for workers managed by the U.S. Department of Labor.
(a) Applicants shall satisfy by September 30 all conditions of § 1580.301 to qualify for adjustment assistance payments.
(b) The FSA office shall issue a payment to a producer that is equal to the product of the amount of the agricultural commodity produced in the most recent marketing year multiplied by one-half the difference between—
(1) an amount equal to 80 percent of the average of the national average prices of the agricultural commodity covered by the petition for the 5 marketing years preceding the most recent marketing year, and
(2) the national average price of the agricultural commodity for the most recent marketing year.
(c) The maximum amount of payments under this part that a producer may receive in any 12-month period shall not exceed $10,000.
(d) The total amount of payments made to a producer may not exceed during any crop year the limitation on counter-cyclical payments set forth in section 1001(c) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308(c)).
(e) Any person who may be entitled to a payment may assign their rights to such payment in accordance with 7 CFR part 1404 or successor regulations as designated by the Department.
(f) In the case of death, incompetency, disappearance or dissolution of a person that is eligible to receive benefits in accordance with this part, such person or persons specified in 7 CFR part 707 may receive such benefits, as determined appropriate by FSA.
(g) If the Administrator, FAS, determines in September that program funds may be insufficient to meet the requirements for adjustment assistance payments under this part during the coming fiscal year, FSA may suspend adjustment payments until June 16 in order to prorate amounts owed producers.
(h) FSA will not make adjustment assistance payments to producers who have not satisfied the technical assistance requirement.
(a) Prior to the anniversary of a certification date,
(1) groups and authorized representatives that provided national average prices to justify their initial certifications shall provide the Administrator national average prices for the most recent marketing year, and
(2) the Administrator shall determine whether or not—
(i) the national average price for the agricultural commodity produced by the group for the most recent marketing year is equal to or less than 80 percent of the average of national average prices for the 5 marketing years used to make the first certification under § 1580.203(a)(1), and
(ii) further increases in imports are contributing importantly to the decline in price.
(b) The Administrator shall promptly publish in the
(c) In the case of a re-certification, FSA shall notify producers that they may be eligible to receive trade adjustment assistance for a subsequent qualifying year.
(d) To qualify for assistance in subsequent qualifying years, producers shall—
(1) submit an application pursuant to § 1580.301, and
(2) contact the Extension Service for technical adjustment assistance.
(e) The amount of an adjustment assistance payment during a qualifying year shall be determined in the same manner as in the originating year, except that the average national price shall be determined by using the 5-marketing-year period used to determine the amount of cash benefits for the first certification.
(f) An eligible producer who did not apply for adjustment assistance in the initial year may apply pursuant to § 1580.301.
(a) The application process will be administered under the general supervision of the Administrator, FSA, and shall be carried out in the field by State and county FSA committees.
(b) State and county FSA committees and representatives do not have the authority to modify or waive any of the provisions of this part.
(c) The State FSA committee shall take any action required by this part that has not been taken by a county FSA committee. The State FSA committee shall also:
(1) Correct or require a county FSA committee to correct any action taken by such county FSA committee that is not in accordance with this part; and
(2) Require a county FSA committee to withhold taking or reversing any action that is not in accordance with this part.
(d) No delegation in this part to a State or county FSA committee shall prevent the Deputy Administrator from determining any question arising under the program or from reversing or modifying any determination made by a State or county FSA committee.
(e) The Deputy Administrator may authorize the State and county committees to waive or modify non-statutory deadlines or other program requirements in cases where lateness or failure to meet such other requirements does not adversely affect the operation of the program.
(a) Persons making application for benefits under this program must maintain accurate records and accounts that will document that they meet all eligibility requirements specified
(b) At all times during regular business hours, authorized representatives of FSA, the United States Department of Agriculture, or the Comptroller General of the United States shall have access to the premises of the producer in order to inspect, examine, and make copies of the books, records, and accounts, and other written data as specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) Audits of certifications of average adjusted gross income may be conducted as necessary to determine compliance with the requirements of this subpart. As a part of this audit, income tax forms may be requested and if requested, must be supplied. If a producer has submitted information to FSA, including a certification from a certified public accountant or attorney, that relied upon information from a form previously filed with the Internal Revenue Service, such producer shall provide FSA a copy of any amended form filed with the Internal Revenue Service with 30 days of the filing.
(d) If requested in writing by FSA, the United States Department of Agriculture, or the Comptroller General of the United States, the producer shall provide all information and documentation the reviewing authority determines necessary to verify any information or certification provided under this subpart, including all documents referred to in § 1580.301(c), within 30 days. Acceptable production documentation may be submitted by facsimile, in person, or by mail and may include copies of receipts, ledgers, income statements, deposit slips, register tapes, invoices for custom harvesting, records to verify production costs, contemporaneous measurements, truck scale tickets, and contemporaneous diaries that are determined acceptable by the county committee. Failure to provide necessary and accurate information to verify compliance, or failure to comply with this subpart's requirements, will result in ineligibility for all program benefits subject to this subpart for the year or years subject to the request.
(e) All information provided to FSA for the purposes of determining compliance with this part will remain confidential and not be subject to any request submitted under the Freedom of Information Act.
The Government-wide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) regulations and Government Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Grants), 7 CFR part 3017—subparts A through E, apply to this part.
(a) If the Administrator, FSA or a court of competent jurisdiction, determines that any person has received any payment under this program to which the person was not entitled, such person will be liable to repay such amount to the Administrator, FSA. The Administrator, FSA may waive such repayment if it is determined that:
(1) The payment was made without fault on the part of the person; and
(2) Requiring such repayment would be contrary to equity and good conscience.
(b) Unless an overpayment is otherwise recovered, or waived under paragraph (a), the Administrator, FSA shall recover the overpayment by deductions from any sums payable to such person.
(c) If the Administrator, FSA, or a court of competent jurisdiction, determines that a person:
(1) Knowingly has made, or caused another to make, a false statement or representation of a material fact, or
(2) Knowingly has failed, or caused another to fail, to disclose a material fact, and, as a result of such false statement or representation, or of such nondisclosure, such person has received any payment under this program to which the person was not entitled, such person shall, in addition to any other penalty provided by law, be ineligible for any further payment under this program.
(d) Except for overpayments determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, no repayment may be required, and no deduction may be made, under this section until a determination and an opportunity for a fair hearing has been given to the person concerned, and the determination has become final.
(e) Whoever makes a false statement of a material fact knowing it to be false, or knowingly fails to disclose a material fact, for the purpose of obtaining or increasing for himself or for any other person any payments authorized to be furnished under this program shall be fined not more that $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both.
Any person may obtain reconsideration and review of determinations made with respect to applications for program benefits under this part in accordance with appeal regulations of the 7 CFR part 780.
Trade adjustment assistance is available for the most recent marketing year for which prices were available on February 3, 2003.
The information collection requirements contained in these regulations (7 CFR part 1580) have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under the provisions of 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35 and been assigned OMB control number xxxx-xxxx.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Boeing Model 747-100, -200B, and -200F series airplanes. This proposal would require initial and repetitive inspections to find discrepancies in the upper and lower skins of the fuselage lap joints, and repair if necessary. This action is necessary to find and fix such discrepancies, which could result in sudden fracture and failure of a lap joint and rapid in-flight decompression of the airplane fuselage. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Comments must be received by August 18, 2003.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2002-NM-
The service information referenced in this AD may be obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.
Rick Kawaguchi, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 917-6434; fax (425) 917-6590.
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments, specified above, will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this action may be changed in light of the comments received. Submit comments using the following format:
• Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a request to change the compliance time and a request to change the service bulletin reference as two separate issues.
• For each issue, state what specific change to the proposed AD is being requested.
• Include justification (
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this action must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2002-NM-149-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2002-NM-149-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
The FAA has received a report indicating rapid in-flight decompression of a Boeing Model 737 series airplane. Investigation revealed that the skin above the forward entry door was separated at the stringer S-4R lap joint, with a 28-inch tear running along the lap joint. The skin was bent back at the upper edge of the stringer at S-5R and formed a rectangular opening that progressed from body station (BS) 328 to BS 300. Further investigation revealed that numerous scratches on the skin of the lap joint had initiated fatigue cracks and subsequent tearing of the skin. We also have received reports of similar damage (corrosion and fatigue cracking) to certain lap joints on other Model 737 series airplanes. These discrepancies have been attributed to the manufacturing process, which includes a cold-bonded adhesive of the lap joint configuration. Such conditions, if not corrected, could result in sudden fracture and failure of a lap joint and rapid in-flight decompression of the airplane fuselage.
The subject area on certain Model 747-100, -200B, and -200F series airplanes is manufactured using a process similar to that used on the affected Model 737 series airplanes. Therefore, those Model 747-100, -200B, and -200F series airplanes may be subject to the same unsafe condition revealed on the Model 737 series airplanes.
This AD is related to AD 2000-17-04, amendment 39-11878, (65 FR 51750, August 25, 2000), applicable to certain Boeing Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes. That AD requires repetitive inspections to detect discrepancies in the upper and lower skins of the fuselage lap joint, and repair if necessary.
The FAA has reviewed and approved Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2463, including Appendices A, B, and C, and the Evaluation Form, dated March 7, 2002, which describes procedures for repetitive medium and low frequency eddy current inspections for discrepancies (cracking and/or corrosion), and repair of any discrepancies found. Accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin described previously, except as discussed below.
Although the alert service bulletin specifies that the manufacturer may be contacted for disposition of certain repair conditions or inspection procedures, this proposed AD requires the repair and inspection procedures be accomplished in accordance with a method approved by the FAA, or in accordance with data meeting the type certification basis of the airplane approved by a Boeing Company Designated Engineering Representative who has been authorized by the FAA to make such findings.
On July 10, 2002, the FAA issued a new version of 14 CFR part 39 (67 FR 47997, July 22, 2002), which governs the FAA's airworthiness directives system. The regulation now includes material that relates to altered products, special flight permits, and alternative methods of compliance. Because we have now included this material in part 39, we no longer need to include it in each individual AD; however, this AD identifies the office authorized to approve alternative methods of compliance.
There are approximately 86 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 55
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this proposed AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.
The regulations proposed herein 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. Therefore, it is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (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) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new airworthiness directive:
To find and fix discrepancies in the upper and lower skins of the fuselage lap joints, which could result in sudden fracture and failure of a lap joint and rapid in-flight decompression of the airplane fuselage, accomplish the following:
(a) Do the applicable (initial and repetitive) inspections as specified in Figures 2 through 8, as applicable, of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2463, including Appendices A, B, and C, dated March 7, 2002, to find discrepancies (cracking and corrosion) in the upper and lower skins of the fuselage lap joints. Do the inspections at the applicable times specified in Figure 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of the alert service bulletin, in accordance with the alert service bulletin; except that where Figure 1 specifies a compliance time of “after the release date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires a compliance time of “after the effective date of this AD.” Where Figure 1 specifies a compliance time of “flight cycles” this AD requires a compliance time of “total flight cycles.”
(b) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2463, including Appendices A, B, and C, dated March 7, 2002, specifies that the manufacturer may be contacted for certain inspection procedures, inspect per a method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA; or per data meeting the type certification basis of the airplane approved by a Boeing Company Designated Engineering Representative (DER) who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make such findings.
(c) For the purposes of calculating the compliance threshold and repetitive interval for the inspections required by paragraph (a) of this AD: Flight cycles in which cabin differential pressure is at 2.0 pounds per square inch (psi) or less need not be counted when determining the number of flight cycles that have occurred on the airplane, provided that flight cycles with momentary spikes in cabin differential pressure above 2.0 psi are included as full pressure flight cycles. For this provision to apply, all cabin pressure records must be maintained for each airplane. No fleet-averaging of cabin pressure is allowed.
(d) Before further flight, repair any discrepancy (cracking or corrosion) found during any inspection required by paragraph (a) of this AD, per the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2463, including Appendices A, B, and C, dated March 7, 2002. If any discrepancy is found and the alert service bulletin specifies that the manufacturer may be contacted for disposition of certain repairs, before further flight, repair per a method approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO; or per data meeting the type certification basis of the airplane approved by a Boeing Company DER who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make such findings.
(e) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the Manager, Seattle ACO, is authorized to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking; reopening of comment period.
This document revises an earlier proposed airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain Boeing Model 737 series airplanes, that would have required inspections of certain bonded skin panels to detect delamination of the skin doublers (tear straps) from the skin panels, and follow-on corrective actions if necessary. This new action revises the proposed rule by revising certain inspection methods and expanding the area of certain inspections. This new action also proposes to extend the compliance time for certain inspections. The actions specified by this new proposed AD are intended to prevent skin doublers from
Comments must be received by July 28, 2003.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 98-NM-11-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227-1232. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address:
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.
Duong Tran, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 917-6452; fax (425) 917-6590.
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments, specified above, will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this action may be changed in light of the comments received.
Submit comments using the following format:
• Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a request to change the compliance time and a request to change the service bulletin reference as two separate issues.
• For each issue, state what specific change to the proposed AD is being requested.
• Include justification (
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this action must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 98-NM-11-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 98-NM-11-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to add an airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain Boeing Model 737 series airplanes, was published as a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the
Since the issuance of the first supplemental NPRM, Boeing has issued Service Bulletin 737-53-1179, Revision 2, dated October 25, 2001. (The first supplemental NPRM refers to Revision 1 of that service bulletin, dated September 30, 1999, as the appropriate source of service information for the actions proposed in that first supplemental NPRM.) Revision 2 of the service bulletin does the following:
• Revises the inspection method from close visual to detailed visual for the one-time internal inspection for cracks or corrosion of bonded skin panels.
• Extends the compliance time for the one-time internal inspection to 50,000 total flight cycles (or 50,000 flight cycles after skin panel replacement, as applicable), or 20,000 flight cycles after service bulletin release, whichever is later.
• Expands the area of the external inspection from under stringer 17 to under all stringers.
• Expands the inspection area following a finding of delamination to include all fasteners common to the delamination area plus two fasteners on each side of the delamination area.
• Expands the effectivity to include certain airplanes not listed in the effectivity listing of Revision 1 of the service bulletin.
Accomplishment of the actions specified in Revision 2 of the service bulletin is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition.
We have revised the preamble and body of this second supplemental NPRM to identify affected airplane models more specifically.
We have changed all references to “detailed visual inspection” in the first supplemental NPRM to “detailed inspection” in this second supplemental NPRM. Also, for clarification, we have revised the definition of a “general visual inspection” in this second supplemental NPRM.
In addition, because the language in Note 6 of the first supplemental NPRM is regulatory in nature, that note has been redesignated as paragraph (g) of this second supplemental NPRM.
Due consideration has been given to the comments received in response to the first supplemental NPRM. While one commenter supports the proposal, certain comments have resulted in changes to the proposal that are reflected in this second supplemental NPRM. Certain other comments received in response to the original NPRM and first supplemental NPRM are no longer relevant to this proposal because of the changes in the proposal related to Revision 2 of the service
One commenter, the airplane manufacturer, requests that the FAA revise certain references to inspection methods and procedures in various places in the first supplemental NPRM:
• In paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (b)(2)(i) of the first supplemental NPRM, change the method for the inspection for cracks or corrosion of bonded “Zone A” skin panels from internal general visual to internal detailed visual. The procedures in the service bulletin describe a detailed visual inspection rather than a general visual inspection.
• In paragraphs (a)(2)(i), (a)(2)(ii), (b)(2)(i), and (b)(2)(ii) of the first supplemental NPRM, clarify the inspection requirements for “Zone A” and “Zone B” skin panels by referring to the figures in the service bulletin that define those inspections.
• In Note 6 of the first supplemental NPRM, clarify that the internal inspections described in that paragraph apply only to “Zone A” areas, and that accomplishment of those internal inspections is acceptable specifically for compliance with paragraph (a)(2)(i) of the proposed AD.
• For clarification, if the changes above are implemented, delete Note 7 of the first supplemental NPRM.
We concur with the commenter's requests and, accordingly, have made the following changes to this second supplemental NPRM:
• We have revised paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (b)(2)(i) of this second supplemental NPRM to specify a one-time internal detailed inspection to detect cracks or corrosion of “Zone A” skin panels.
• We have revised paragraphs (a)(2)(i), (a)(2)(ii), (b)(2)(i), and (b)(2)(ii) of this second supplemental NPRM to refer to the Accomplishment Instructions of Revision 2 of the service bulletin. (We find that referring to the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin meets the commenter's intent with regard to referring to the specific figures.)
• We have revised paragraph (g) of this second supplemental NPRM (which contains the provisions of Note 6 of the first supplemental NPRM) to state that internal detailed inspections of “Zone A” skin panels that are accomplished before the effective date of the AD per previous revisions of the service bulletin are acceptable for compliance with paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this AD.
• We have not included the contents of Note 7 of the first supplemental NPRM in this second supplemental NPRM.
One commenter to the first supplemental NPRM, as well as one commenter to the original NPRM, requests that we allow credit for visual inspections of areas subject to this proposal if they were previously accomplished per an FAA-approved Corrosion Prevention and Control Program (CPCP).
We concur with the commenters' requests. We have previously issued AD 90-25-01, amendment 39-6789 (55 FR 49263, November 27, 1990), to require the implementation of a CPCP on all Boeing Model 737 series airplanes. Inspections accomplished per that CPCP are an acceptable method of compliance for certain inspections that would be required by this proposed AD, provided that these inspections are accomplished within the compliance times specified in this proposed AD. Operators must note that this credit applies only for general visual inspections of “Zone A” skin panels. Accordingly, we have added a new paragraph (h) to this second supplemental NPRM to provide this credit.
Two commenters request that any subject area that has been repaired previously per the Boeing 737 Structural Repair Manual (SRM) be exempted from the inspection requirements of this proposal. One of the commenters notes that repair by installation of solid fasteners is defined in Chapter 51-00-01, Figure 225, of the SRM, which the commenter states is referenced in the proposal. The other commenter asks whether we intend to require an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) for each fuselage flush or external repair in the inspection area. That commenter specifically requests that all repairs per the SRM be approved as an AMOC to the proposed AD, and that we allow Boeing Designated Engineering Representatives to approve repairs.
We partially concur with the commenters' requests. We do not find it appropriate to give “blanket” approval of any repair per the SRM, and we note that neither the first supplemental NPRM nor the service bulletin refers to the specific section and figure of the SRM referred to by the commenter. However, we find that repairs accomplished according to specific sections of the SRM referred to in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1179, Revision 2, eliminate the need for the proposed inspections for the area of the repair only. All other repairs must be approved by the FAA or per data meeting the type certification basis of the airplane approved by a Boeing Company Designated Engineering Representative who has been authorized by the FAA to make such findings. Therefore, we have added a new paragraph (f) to this second supplemental NPRM (and reordered subsequent paragraphs accordingly) to specify that, where the service bulletin refers to specific sections of the SRM for repair instructions, repairs per those SRM sections eliminate the requirement to do the inspections required by this proposed AD for the repaired area only.
One commenter requests clarification on what method to use to determine the configuration of skin panels as “Zone A” or “Zone B,” as specified in Figure 2, Sheet 4 of 4, in the service bulletin.
We concur that some clarification may be necessary. As stated previously, we have revised paragraphs (a)(2)(i), (a)(2)(ii), (b)(2)(i), and (b)(2)(ii) of this second supplemental NPRM to refer to the Accomplishment Instructions and Figure 2 of the service bulletin as the appropriate reference for determining whether a skin panel is “Zone A” or “Zone B.” The criteria for determining the category of a skin panel are shown under paragraph 3.A. in the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin. We find that these criteria are adequate for determining the applicable inspection method for each skin panel. No further change to this second supplemental NPRM is necessary in this regard.
One commenter requests clarification that an operator is in compliance with the proposed AD if the terminating inspection has been done prior to the effective date of the AD.
We find that no change is necessary to meet the intent of the commenter's request. We give credit for actions accomplished before the effective date of an AD by means of the phrase “Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished previously,” which appears in every AD.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design, this second supplemental NPRM would require accomplishment of the actions specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1179, Revision 2, described previously, except as discussed below.
The applicability statement of this second supplemental NPRM includes Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes; having line numbers 1 through 2947 inclusive. As explained in the first supplemental NPRM, in determining the applicability of this proposed AD, we considered the possibility that any airplane delivered prior to October 1, 1997, might be equipped with an improperly processed skin panel. We have determined that line number 2947 corresponds to a delivery date of October 1, 1997.
Operators also should note that, although the service bulletin specifies that the manufacturer may be contacted for disposition of certain repair conditions, this second supplemental NPRM would require the repair of those conditions to be accomplished in accordance with a method approved by the FAA; or in accordance with data meeting the type certification basis of the airplane approved by a Boeing Company Designated Engineering Representative who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, to make such findings.
Additionally, the service bulletin specifies that certain inspections may be accomplished in accordance with “an equivalent” procedure. However, this second supplemental NPRM would require that those inspections be accomplished in accordance with the procedures specified in the chapter of the 737 Nondestructive Test Manual specified in the service bulletin. An “equivalent” procedure may be used only if approved as an alternative method of compliance in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (i) of this second supplemental NPRM.
Since certain changes expand the scope of the originally proposed rule, the FAA has determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for public comment.
There are approximately 2,083 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 863 airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD.
It would take approximately 10 work hours per airplane to accomplish the proposed external general visual and detailed inspections, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of these external inspections proposed by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $517,800, or $600 per airplane, per inspection cycle.
It would take approximately 360 work hours per airplane to accomplish the proposed internal detailed and ultrasonic inspections, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this inspection proposed by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $18,640,800, or $21,600 per airplane.
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this proposed AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.
The regulations proposed herein 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. Therefore, it is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation: (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) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new airworthiness directive:
This AD applies to each airplane 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 airplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (i) 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.
To prevent skin doublers (tear straps) from delaminating from their skin panels, which could result in fatigue cracks in the skin doublers and skin panels and consequent rapid decompression of the airplane, accomplish the following:
(a) For airplanes having L/N 611 through 2725 inclusive: Accomplish the actions required by paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this AD on any bonded skin panel assembly that has NOT been replaced with any new or serviceable bonded skin panel assembly, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1179, Revision 2, dated October 25, 2001.
For the purposes of this AD, bonded skin panels consist of skin doublers
If the skin panel is solid with no doublers (tear straps) bonded to it, the inspections required by this AD are not necessary for that skin panel.
(1) Prior to the accumulation of 20,000 total flight cycles, or within 5,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, accomplish paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (a)(1)(ii) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 5,000 flight cycles, until accomplishment of paragraph (a)(2) of this AD.
(i) Perform an external general visual inspection of all affected areas NOT specified in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this AD to detect cracks or corrosion of bonded skin panels.
(ii) Perform an external detailed inspection to detect cracks or corrosion of bonded skin panels at all stringers, window belts, lap joints, and butt splice joints.
For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection is defined as: “A visual examination of an interior or exterior area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within touching distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to enhance visual access to all exposed surfaces in the inspection area. This level of inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or droplight and may require removal or opening of access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain proximity to the area being checked.”
For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is defined as: “An intensive visual examination of a specific structural area, system, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface cleaning and elaborate access procedures may be required.”
(2) Prior to the accumulation of 50,000 total flight cycles, but after the accumulation of 4,500 total flight cycles; or within 20,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD; whichever occurs later; accomplish paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (a)(2)(ii) of this AD. Accomplishment of the requirements of paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (a)(2)(ii) of this AD constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirement of paragraph (a)(1) of this AD.
(i) For “Zone A” areas (as defined in the Accomplishment Instructions and Figure 2 of the service bulletin): Perform a one-time internal detailed inspection to detect cracks or corrosion of bonded skin panels, or delamination of the skin doublers from the bonded skin panels.
(ii) For “Zone B” areas (as defined in the Accomplishment Instructions and Figure 2 of the service bulletin): Perform an internal or external ultrasonic inspection to detect cracks or corrosion of bonded skin panels, or delamination of the skin doublers from the bonded skin panels.
(b) For airplanes having L/N 1 through 2947 inclusive, on which any bonded skin panel was replaced with a new or serviceable, Boeing-built, bonded skin panel prior to October 1, 1997: Accomplish the actions required by paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1179, Revision 2, dated October 25, 2001.
(1) Within 20,000 flight cycles after replacement of the bonded skin panel, or within 5,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, accomplish paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(ii) of this AD. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 5,000 flight cycles, until accomplishment of paragraph (b)(2) of this AD.
(i) Perform an external general visual inspection of all affected areas NOT specified in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) to detect cracks or corrosion of bonded skin panels.
(ii) Perform a detailed inspection to detect cracks or corrosion of bonded skin panels at all stringers, window belts, lap joints, and butt splice joints.
(2) Within 50,000 flight cycles after replacement of the bonded skin panel, but after the accumulation of 4,500 flight cycles after such replacement; or within 20,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD; whichever occurs later; accomplish paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (b)(2)(ii) of this AD. Accomplishment of the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (b)(2)(ii) of this AD constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirement of paragraph (b)(1) of this AD.
(i) For “Zone A” areas (as defined in the Accomplishment Instructions and Figure 2 of the service bulletin): Perform a one-time internal detailed inspection to detect cracks or corrosion of bonded skin panels or delamination of the skin doublers from the bonded skin panels.
(ii) For “Zone B” areas (as defined in the Accomplishment Instructions and Figure 2 of the service bulletin): Perform an internal or external ultrasonic inspection to detect cracks or corrosion of bonded skin panels, or delamination of the skin doublers from the bonded skin panels.
(c) If any crack, corrosion, or delamination is detected during any inspection required by paragraph (a) or (b) of this AD, prior to further flight, accomplish the actions required by either paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this AD.
(1) Replace the cracked, corroded, or delaminated skin panel with a new or serviceable skin panel manufactured by Boeing on or after April 1, 1997, in accordance with Figure 2 and the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1179, Revision 2, dated October 25, 2001.
(2) Accomplish corrective actions (including additional inspections and repairs) in accordance with Figure 2 and the “Delamination and Crack Repair” section of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1179, Revision 2, dated October 25, 2001, except as provided by paragraph (d) of this AD.
(d) Where Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1179, Revision 2, dated October 25, 2001, specifies that repair of a cracked, corroded, or delaminated skin panel is to be accomplished in accordance with instructions received from Boeing, this AD requires that the repair be accomplished in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA; or in accordance with data meeting the type certification basis of the airplane approved by a Boeing Company Designated Engineering Representative who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make such findings. For a repair method to be approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, as required by this paragraph, the approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
(e) Where Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1179, Revision 2, dated October 25, 2001, specifies that the inspections required by this AD may be accomplished in accordance with an “equivalent” procedure, the inspections must be accomplished in accordance with the chapter of the Boeing 737 Nondestructive Test Manual specified in the service bulletin.
(f) Where the service bulletin refers to specific sections of the Boeing 737 Structural Repair Manual (SRM) for repair instructions, repairs accomplished before the effective date of this AD per those SRM sections eliminate the requirement to do the inspections required by this proposed AD for the repaired area only.
(g) Internal detailed inspections of “Zone A” skin panels accomplished before the effective date of this AD in accordance with the original issue of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1179, dated June 22, 1995, or Revision 1, dated September 30, 1999, are acceptable for compliance with paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this AD, provided that they were accomplished after the accumulation of 4,500 total flight cycles.
(h) Inspections accomplished per the Corrosion Prevention and Control Program established by AD 90-25-01, amendment 39-6789, are acceptable for compliance with the external general visual inspections of “Zone A” skin panels required by paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(i) of this AD, provided that the inspections are accomplished within the applicable compliance times specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this AD.
(i) 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, Seattle ACO. Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Seattle ACO.
(j) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Peace Corps.
Proposed rule.
The Peace Corps is proposing to review its regulations on the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to implement the 1996 amendments to the FOIA regarding electronic records, time limits, and standards for processing requests for records. In addition, revisions are proposed to incorporate procedures for Office of Inspector General (OIG) records. Provisions are also added describing the availability of Peace Corps records in the
Comments must be received by August 1, 2003.
Comments should be submitted to Tyler S. Posey, General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, 8th Floor, 1111 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20526.
Suzanne B. Glasow, Associate General Counsel, 202-692-2150.
The purpose of this part is to provide rules and procedures for making Peace Corps records, including electronic records, available to the public under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552. The language of this section is revised to reflect the broader scope of the rule, which now includes provisions on electronic records and the availability of Peace Corps records in the
This section is revised by deleting outdated definitions and by including definitions located elsewhere in the current rule. The definitions of the terms related to the charging of fees are based, as required under the FOIA, on an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance.
This new section sets out the policy of the Peace Corps regarding its compliance with the FOIA.
This new section describes the Peace Corps' process for complying with Sec. 552(a)(1) of FOIA, which requires each agency to currently publish in the
This is a new section which sets out the process by which the Peace Corps implements Section 552(a)(2) of the FOIA which requires agencies to maintain a public reading room where certain Peace Corps records must be made available to the public for inspection and copying. Reading room records generally include final opinions and orders, statements of policy and interpretations adopted by the Peace Corps that are not published in the
The use of the term “will be made available” in paragraph (b) is intended to clarify that certain public reading room records will normally be maintained in the public reading room, while others will normally be kept in close proximity elsewhere in Peace Corps headquarters. In response to a request, any records kept in close proximity will be made available for inspection and copying in the public reading room.
Paragraph (c) describes the protections from public disclosure that may apply to certain reading room records and the process the Peace Corps will use to edit or delete protected information.
Paragraph (d) provides that reading room records created by the Peace Corps after November 1, 1996, and an index of such records, will be made available electronically. The Peace Corps is in the process of identifying such records and converting them to electronic form. As they are so identified and converted, they will be made available electronically in the public reading room.
Paragraph (e) provides that the Peace Corps will made most of its electronic public reading room records available on its public Web site.
This section describes the process by which a member of the public may inspect and copy public reading room records. Persons interested in using the public reading room shall make arrangements with the FOIA Office ahead of time to facilitate their access to the requested information.
The FOIA requires the Peace Corps to maintain and make available an index of reading room records. This section clarifies that the index the Peace Corps maintains will be made available in the public reading room and on Peace Corps' Web site.
The category of FOIA records that is most familiar to the public are records required to be made available by the Peace Corps upon request by a person, unless they are exempt from mandatory disclosure under any of the FOIA exemptions. Such records generally include information created, obtained and/or used by the Peace Corps in the performance of its statutory mission. This category of records does not include public reading room records or records published in the
This section sets out the process by which the Peace Corps makes such records available. For example, it sets out the time limits imposed by the FOIA, establishes standards and a process for providing expedited treatment for requests and includes provisions on OIG records, in recognition of the establishment of an OIG at the Peace Corps. It also clarifies that the Peace Corps is not required to create a document or perform research to satisfy a request.
This section delineates in paragraph (a) the exemptions that protect certain records from mandatory disclosure. All of the exemptions in this section are based on the FOIA, although not all FOIA exemptions are included in this rule, because certain exemptions are not currently and are unlikely to be applicable to the Peace Corps. Paragraph (b) explains the process by which the Peace Corps will redact protected information from information that must be made available to the requester. Under the 1996 amendments to the FOIA, the Peace Corps must indicate the amount and location of redacted material, if technically feasible, unless such action would harm the interest protected by the applicable exemption.
This section also includes provisions that implement Executive Order 12,600, which requires each agency to notify a person who has submitted records containing confidential business information to the Peace Corps when the agency receives a request for such records, and to provide the submitter an opportunity to object to disclosure.
This section identifies the officials within the Peace corps authorized to grant or deny requests for records and to decide appeals. It also establishes a process for dealing with law enforcement and classified information and records received by the Peace Corps from other agencies.
This section describes what constitutes a denial of records and the process for denying a request for records.
This section describes the process by which a person may appeal a denial. Appeals of denials made by the OIG are forwarded by the FOLIA Officer to the OIG for processing.
This section describes the authority of the Peace Corps to charge or waive fees for its costs in responding to FOIA requests. It includes the standards established under FOIA for determining whether a requester qualifies for a fee-waiver and sets out a schedule of fees applicable to the various types of requesters. It also provides the Peace Corps with discretion to charge interest to requesters who fail to pay their fees and to requesters is attempting to break a request into a series of requests for the purpose of evading the assessment of fees.
This section sets forth the procedures to be followed when a subpoena, order or other demand is issued in a proceeding in which the Peace Corps is not a party. Paragraph (a) of this section details the types of demands subject to these procedures. Paragraph (b) of this section explains that employees are not to disclose information without approval of the Office of General Counsel, and it is the General Counsel or designee, together with consultation from other Agency officials, including the Agency's FOIA Officer, who makes all determinations with respect to demands discussed herein. Paragraph (c)(1) identifies generally two of the factors that should be considered in deciding whether to make disclosures. These are, however, only a couple of the considerations, as the factors relevant to a particular demand may vary widely with the nature of the demand. Paragraph (c)(2) specifically identifies certain circumstances in which disclosure will not be made by the Peace Corps. These standards, in essence, identify several widely acknowledged areas of privilege that are most relevant to Peace Corps. They are intended to be compatible with the exemptions from mandatory disclosure provided by the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, and other relevant guidelines.
The OIG has independent subpoena authority under the IG Act of 1978, as amended. The OIG will follow these procedures and they will be implemented by appropriate OIG staff.
This regulation has been determined to be non-significant within the meaning of Executive Order 12866.
The Peace Corps Director, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, (5 U.S.C. 605), has reviewed this regulation and by approving it certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Under the Freedom of Information Act, agencies may recover only the direct costs of searching for, reviewing, and duplicating the records processed for requesters. Thus, fees assessed by the Peace corps are nominal. Further, the “small entities” that make FOIA requests, as compared with individual requesters and other requesters, are relatively few in number.
This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
Freedom of information.
For reasons set out in the preamble, the Peace Corps proposes to revise part 303 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552; 22 U.S.C. 2501,
This part sets out the rules and procedures the Peace Corps follows in making records available to the public under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
As used in this part—
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
The Peace Corps will make its records concerning its operations, activities, and business available to the public consistent with the requirements of the FOIA. Records exempt from disclosure under the FOIA may be made available at the discretion of the Peace Corps.
The Peace Corps publishes its notices and substantive regulations in the
(a) The Peace Corps will maintain a public reading room at its headquarters at 1111 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20526. This room will be supervised and will be open to the public during Peace Corps' regular business hours for inspecting and copying records described in paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) Subject to the limitation stated in paragraph (c) of this section, the following records will be made available in the public reading room:
(1) All final public opinions, including concurring and dissenting opinions; and orders issued in the adjudication of cases that involve the Peace Corps;
(2) Statements of policy and interpretations adopted by the Peace Corps that are not published in the
(3) Administrative staff manuals and instructions to the staff that affect the public;
(4) Copies of records, regardless of form or format, released to any person in response to a public request for records which the Peace Corps
(5) The index required by § 303.7 and
(6) Other records the Peace Corps has determined are of general interest to members of the public in understanding activities of the Peace Corps or in dealing with the Peace Corps in connection with those activities.
(c) Certain records otherwise required by FOIA to be available in the public reading room may be exempt from mandatory disclosure pursuant to Sec. 552(b) of the FOIA. Such records will not be made available in the public reading room. Other records maintained in the public reading room may be edited by the deletion of identifying details concerning individuals to prevent a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. In such cases, the record shall have attached to it an explanation of the deletion. The extent of the deletion shall be indicated, unless doing so would harm an interest protected by the exemption under which the deletion is made. If technically feasible, the extent of the deletion shall be indicated at the place in the record where the deletion was made.
(d)
(e) Most electronic public reading room records will also be made avaiable to the public on the Peace Corps Web site at
Any member of the public may inspect or copy records described in § 303.5(b) in the public reading room during regular business hours. Because it will sometimes be impossible to produce records or copies of records on short notice, a person who wishes to inspect or copy records shall arrange a time in advance, by telephone or letter request made to the Peace Corps FOIA Officer. Persons submitting requests by telephone will be notified whether a written request would be advisable to aid in the identification and expeditious processing of the records sought. Written requests should identify the records sought in the manner described in § 303.8(b) and should request a specific date for inspecting the records. The requester will be advised as promptly as possible if, for any reason, it may not be possible to make the records sought available on the date requested.
The Peace Corps will maintain a current index identifying any matter within the scope of § 303.4 or § 303.5(b)(1) through (5). The index will be maintained and made available for public inspection and copying at the Peace Corps' headquarters in Washington, DC. The cost of a copy of the index will not exceed the standard charge for duplication set out in § 303.13(e). The Peace Corps will also make the index available on its Public Web site.
(a) Except for records required by the FOIA to be published in the
(b)
(c) A request must reasonably describe the records requested so that employees of the Peace Corps who are familiar with the subject area of the request are able, with a reasonable amount of effort, to determine which particular records are within the scope of the request. If it is determined that a request does not reasonably describe the records sought, the requester shall be so informed and provided an opportunity to confer with Peace Corps personnel in order to attempt to reformulate the request in a manner that will meet the needs of the requester and the requirements of this paragraph. If the Agency cannot identify the requested records after a 2 hour search, it can determine that the records were not adequately described and ask the requester to provide a more specific request.
(d) To facilitate the location of records by the Peace Corps, a requester should try to provide the following kinds of information, if known:
(1) The specific event or action to which the records refers;
(2) The unit or program of the Peace Corps which may be responsible for or may have produced the record;
(3) The date of the record or the date or period to which it refers or relates;
(4) The type of record, such as an application, particular form, a contract, or a report;
(5) Personnel of the Peace Corps who may have prepared or have knowledge of the record; of
(6) Citations to newspapers or publications which have referred to the record.
(e) The Peace Corps is not required to create a record or to perform research to satisfy a request.
(f) Any request for a waiver or reduction of fees should be included in the FOIA request, and any such request should indicate the grounds for a waiver or reduction of fees, as set out in § 303.13(f). The Peace Corps shall respond to such request as promptly as possible.
(g)
(h)
(2) If the FOIA Officer determines that a request or portion thereof is for OIG records, the FOIA Officer shall promptly refer the request or portion thereof to the OIG and send notice of such referral to the requester. In such case, the OIG FOIA Officer shall make an initial
(3)
(i) The need to search for and collect the requested records from components or locations that are separate from the office processing the request;
(ii) The need to search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records which are demanded in a single request; or
(iii) The need for consultation, which shall be conducted with all practicable speed, with another agency or organization having a substantial interest in the determination of the request or among two or more components of the Peace Corps having a substantial subject matter interest therein.
(j) If a request is particularly broad or complex so that it cannot be completed within the time periods stated in paragraph (h) of this section, the Peace Corps may ask the requester to narrow the request or agree to an additional delay.
(k) When no determination can be dispatched within the applicable time limit, the FOIA Officer or the OIG FOIA Officer shall inform the requester of the reason for the delay, the date on which a determination may be expected to be dispatched, and the requester's right to treat the delay as a denial and to appeal to the Associate Director for the Office of Management or the Inspector General, in accordance with § 303.12. If no determination has been dispatched by the end of the 20-day period, or the last extension thereof, the requester may deem the request denied, and exercise a right of appeal in accordance with § 303.12. The FOIA Officer or the OIG FOIA Officer may ask the requester to forego an appeal until a determination is made.
(1) After it has been determined that a request will be granted, the responsible official will act with due diligence in providing a prompt response.
(m)
(i) Circumstances in which the lack of expedited treatment could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual;
(ii) An urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged Peace Corps or Federal government activity and the request is made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information;
(iii) The loss of substantial due process rights; or
(iv) A matter of widespread and exceptional media interest in which there exist possible questions about the Peace Corps' or the Federal government's integrity which affect public confidence.
(2) A request for expedited processing may be made at the time of the initial request for records or at any later time. For a prompt determination, a request for expedited processing must be properly addressed and marked and received by the Peace Corps pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section.
(3) A requester who seeks expedited processing must submit a statement demonstrating a compelling need that is certified by the requester to be true and correct to the best of that person's knowledge and belief, explaining in detail the basis for requesting expedited processing.
(4) Within ten business days of its receipt of a request for expedited processing, the FOIA Officer or the OIG FOIA Officer shall decide whether to grant the request and shall notify the requester of the decision. If a request for expedited treatment is granted, the request shall be given priority and shall be processed as soon as practicable. If a request for expedited processing is denied, any appeal of that decision shall be acted on expeditiously by the Peace Corps.
(5) Appeals shall be made to the Associate Director for the Office of Management, who shall respond within 10 business days of receipt of the appeal.
(a) The Peace Corps may withhold a requested record from public disclosure only if the record fits within one or more of the following FOIA exemptions:
(1) Matter specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive Order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and is in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive Order;
(2) Matter which is related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of the Peace Corps;
(3) Matter which is specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than exemptions under FOIA at 5 U.S.C. 552(b)), provided that such statute requires that the matter be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or establishes particular criteria for withholding, or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld;
(4) Trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential;
(5) Inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than the agency in litigation with the Peace Corps;
(6) Personnel and medical files and similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
(7) Records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes including enforcing the Peace Corps Act or any other law, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information:
(i) Could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforement proceedings;
(ii) Would deprive a person or a recipient of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication;
(iii) Could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
(iv) Could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis; and, in the case of a record or information compiled by criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation, information furnished by a confidential source;
(v) Would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law; or
(vi) Could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual.
(b) In the event that one or more of the above exemptions in paragraph (a) of this section apply, any reasonable segregable portion of a record shall be provided to the requester after deletion of the portions that are exempt. The amount of information deleted shall be indicated on the released portion of the record, unless doing so would harm the interest protected by the exemption under which the deletion is made. If technically feasible, the amount of information deleted shall be indicated at the place in the record where the deletion is made. At the discretion of the Peace Corps officials authorized to grant or deny a request for records, it may be possible to provide a requester with:
(1) A summary of information in the exempt portion of a record; or
(2) An oral description of the exempt portion of a record.
(c) No requester shall have a right to insist that any or all of the techniques in paragraph (b) of this section should be employed in order to satisfy a request.
(d) Records that may be exempt from disclosure pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section may be made available at the discretion of the Peace Corps.
(e)
(2) It is also the policy of the Peace Corps to give submitters of arguably proprietary information an adequate opportunity to provide information to the Peace Corps to establish that the information constitutes protected proprietary information.
(3) A person submitting arguably proprietary information to the Peace Corps will be notified in writing by the Peace Corps if there is a FOIA request for the information, unless:
(i) The Peace Corps has already decided that the information should be withheld;
(ii) The information has been lawfully published or has been officially made available to the public; or
(iii) Disclosure of the information is required by law. The notice shall afford the submitted at least ten business days in which to object to the disclosure of any requested information. Whenever the Peace Corps provides such notice to the submitter, it shall also notify the requester that notice and an opportunity to comment are being provided to the submitter.
(4) A submitter's request for protection for information under paragraph (a)(4) of this section shall:
(i) Specifically identify the exact material claimed to be confidential proprietary information;
(ii) State whether the information identified has ever been released to a person who is not in a confidential relationship with the submitter;
(iii) State the basis for the submitter's belief that the information is not commonly known or readily ascertainable by outside persons; and
(iv) State how release of the information would cause harm to the submitter's competitive position.
(5) The Peace Corps shall consider the submitter's objections and specific grounds for non-disclosure when deciding whether to disclose the information. If the Peace Corps decides to disclose the information, it shall, to the extent permitted by law, provide the submitter at least ten business days notice of its decision before the information is disclosed and a statement of its reasons for not sustaining the objection to disclosure. Whenever the Peace Corps notifies the submitter of its final decision, it shall also notify the requester.
(6) Whenever a FOIA requester brings suit seeking to compel disclosure of proprietary information, the Peace Corps shall promptly notify the submitter.
(a)
(b)
(c)(1)
(i) Consult with the other agency before responding to the request; or
(ii) Refer the responsibility for responding to the request for the record to the other agency (but only if the agency is subject to FOIA). Ordinarily, the agency that originated a record will be presumed to be best able to determine whether to disclose it.
(2)
(i) Whenever the Peace Corps receives a request for a record containing information that relates to an investigation of a possible violation of law that was originated by another agency, the Peace Corps will either consult with the other agency before responding or refer the responsibility for responding to the request to the other agency; and
(ii) Whenever a request is made for a record containing information that has been classified by another agency or may be appropriate for classification under Executive Order 12958 or any other executive order concerning the classification of records, the Peace Corps shall refer the responsibility for responding to the request regarding that information to the agency that classified the information, should consider the information for classification, or has the primary interest in the information, as appropriate.
(3)
(4)
(5)
(a) A denial of a written request for a record that complies with the requirements of § 303.8 shall be in writing and shall include, as applicable:
(1) A reference to the applicable exemption or exemptions in § 303.9(a) upon which the denial is based;
(2) An explanation of how the exemption applies to the requested records;
(3) A statement explaining why it is deemed unreasonable to provide segregable portions of the record after deleting the exempt portions;
(4) An estimate of the volume of requested matter denied unless providing such estimate would harm the interest protected by the exemption under which the denial is made, if other than the FOIA Officer;
(5) The name and title of the person or persons responsible for denying the request, if other than the FOIA Officer; and
(6) an explanation of the right to appeal the denial and the procedures for submitting an appeal, including the address of the official to whom appeals should be submitted.
(b) A partial deletion of a record made available to a requester shall be deemed a denial of a record for purposes of paragraph (a) of this section. All denials shall be treated as final opinions under § 303.5(b).
(a) Any person whose written request has been denied is entitled to appeal the denial within 20 business days by writing to the Associate Director of the Office of Management or, in the case of a denial of a request for OIG Records, the Inspector General, at the address given in § 303.5(a). The envelope and letter should be clearly marked “Freedom of Information Act Appeal.” An appeal need not be in any particular form, but should adequately identify the denial, if possible, by describing the requested record, identifying the official who issued the denial, and providing the date on which the denial was issued.
(b) The decision of the Associate Director for the Office of Management or the Inspector General on an appeal shall be in writing and, in the event the denial is in whole or in part upheld, shall contain an explanation responsive to the arguments advanced by the requester, the matters described in § 303.11(a)(1) through (4), and the provisions for judicial review of such decision under section 552(a)(4) of the FOIA. The decision shall be dispatched to the requester within 20 business days after receipt of the appeal, unless an additional period is justified pursuant to § 303.8(i) and such period taken together with any earlier extension does not exceed 10 business days. The decision by the Associate Director for the Office of Management or the Inspector General shall constitute the final action of the Peace Corps. All such decisions shall be treated as final opinions under § 303.5(b).
(a) For information routinely provided by the Peace Corps to the public in the normal course of doing business, such as informational or recruiting brochures, no fees will be charged.
(b) For each a commercial use request, fees will be limited to reasonable standard charges for document search, review, and duplication.
(c) For each request for records sought by a representative of the news media or by an educational or non-commercial scientific institution, fees shall be limited to reasonable standard charges for document duplication after the first 100 pages.
(d) For all other requests, fees shall be limited to reasonable standard charges for search time after the first 2 hours and duplication after the first 100 pages.
(e) The schedule of reasonable standard charges for services regarding the production or disclosure of the Peace Corps records is as follows:
(1) Manual search and review of records: Salary rate of employee[s] performing the search and review plus 16%. Charges for search and review time less than a full hour will be billed by quarter-hour segments;
(2) Computer time: Actual costs as incurred;
(3) Duplication by paper copy: 10 cents per page;
(4) Duplication by other methods: Actual costs as incurred;
(5) Certification of true copies: $1.00 each;
(6) Packing and mailing records: Actual costs as incurred; and
(7) Special delivery or express mail: Actual charges as incurred.
(f)
(1) In order to determine whether disclosure of the information is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the Federal government, the Peace Corps shall consider the following four criteria:
(i) The subject of the request: Whether the subject of the requested records concerns the operations or activities of the Peace Corps or Federal government;
(ii) The informative value of the information to be disclosed: Whether the disclosure is “likely to contribute” to an understanding of Peace Corps or Federal government operations or activities;
(iii) The contribution to an understanding of the subject by the general public likely to result from disclosure: Whether disclosure of the requested information will contribute to “public understanding;” and
(iv) The significance of the contribution to public understanding: Whether the disclosure is likely to contribute “significantly” to public understanding of Peace Corps or Federal government operations or activities.
(2) In order to determine whether disclosure of the information is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester, the Peace Corps shall consider the following two factors:
(i) The existence and magnitude of a commercial interest: Whether the requester has a commercial interest that would be furthered by the requested disclosure; and if so,
(ii) The primary interest in disclosure: Whether the magnitude of the identified commercial interest of the requester is sufficiently large, in comparison with the public interest in disclosure, that disclosure is “primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.”
(3) These fee waiver/reduction provisions will be subject to appeal in the same manner as appeals from denial under § 303.12
(g) No fee will be charged under this section unless the cost of routine collection and processing of the fee payment is likely to exceed the average cost of processing a payment.
(h) Requesters must agree to pay all fees charged for services associated with their requests. The Peace Corps will assume that requesters agree to pay all charges for services associated with their requests up to $25 unless otherwise indicated by the requester.
(i) No requester will be required to make an advance payment of any fee unless:
(1) The requester has previously failed to pay a required fee to another federal agency or to Peace Corps within 30 days of the date of billing, in which case an advance deposit of the full amount of the anticipated fee together with the fee then due plus interest accrued may be required. (The request will not be
(2) The Peace Corps determines that an estimated fee will exceed $250, in which case the requester shall be notified of the amount of the anticipated fee or such portion thereof as can readily be estimated. Such notification shall be transmitted as soon as possible, but in any event within 5 business days of receipt of the request by the Peace Corps. The notification shall offer the requester the opportunity to confer with appropriate representatives of the Peace Corps for the purpose of reformulating the request so as to meet the needs of the requester at a reduced cost. The request will not be deemed to have been received by the Peace Corps for purposes of the initial 20-day response period until the requester makes a deposit on the fee in an amount determined by the Peace Corps.
(j) Interest may be charged to those requesters who fail to pay the fees charged. Interest will be assessed on the amount billed, starting on the 31st day following the day on which the billing was sent. The rate charged will be as prescribed in 31 U.S.C. 3717.
(k) The Agency is not required to process a request for a requester who has not paid FOIA fees owed to another Federal agency.
(l) If the Peace Corps reasonably believes that a requester or group of requesters is attempting to break a request into a series of requests for the purpose of evading the assessment of fees, the Peace Corps shall aggregate such requests and charge accordingly. Likewise, the Peace Corps will aggregate multiple requests for documents received from the same requester within 45 business days.
(m) The Peace Corps reserves the right to limit the number of copies of any document that will provided to any one requester or to require that special arrangements for duplication be made in the case of bound volumes or other records representing unusual problems of handling or reproduction.
(a)
(i) The production or disclosure of any material contained in the files of the Agency;
(ii) The production or disclosure of any information relating to material contained in the files of the Agency;
(iii) The production or disclosure of any information or material acquired by any person while such person was an employee of the Agency as a part of the performance of his official duties or because of his official status, or
(iv) The production of an employee of the Agency for the deposition or an appearance as a witness in a legal action or proceeding.
(2) For purposes of this part, the term “employee of the Agency” includes all officers and employees of the Agency appointed by, or subject to the supervision, jurisdiction or control of, the Director of the Agency, including personal services contractors. Also for purposes of this part, records of the Agency do not include records of the Office of Inspector General.
(3) This part is intended to provide instructions regarding the internal operations of the Agency, and is not intended, and does not and may not be relied upon, to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against the Agency.
(4) This part applies to:
(i) State and local court, administrative and legislative proceedings; and
(ii) Federal court and administrative proceedings;
(5) This part does not apply to:
(i) Congressional requests or subpoenas for testimony or documents;
(ii) Employees or former employees making appearances solely in their private capacity in legal or administrative proceedings that do not relate to the Agency (such as cases arising out of traffic accidents or domestic relations); Any question whether the appearance relates solely to the employee's or former employee's private capacity should be referred to the Office of General Counsel.
(6) Nothing in this part otherwise permits disclosure of information by the Agency except as is provided by statue or other applicable law.
(b)
(2) Whenever an employee or former employee of the Peace Corps receives a demand for the production of material or the disclosure of information described in § 303.14(a) he shall immediately notify and provide a copy of the demand to the General Counsel or designee. The General counsel, or designee, shall be furnished by the party causing the demand to be issued or served a written summary of the information sought, its relevance to the proceeding in connection with which it was served and why the information sought is unavailable by any other means or from any other sources.
(3) The General Counsel, or designee, in consultation with appropriate Agency officials, including the Agency's FOIA Officer, or designee, and in light of the considerations listed in § 303.14(d), will determine whether the person on whom the demand was served should respond to the demand was served should respond to the demand.
(4) To the extent he deems it necessary or appropriate, the General Counsel or designee, may also require from the party causing such demand to be issued or served a plan of all reasonably foreseeable demands, including but not limited to names of all employees and former employees from whom discovery will be sought, areas of inquiry, length of time of proceedings requiring oral testimony and identification of documents to be used or whose production is sought.
(c)
(i) Whether such disclosure is appropriate under the rules of procedure governing the case or matter in which the demand arose; and
(ii) Whether disclosure is appropriate under the relevant substantive law concerning privilege.
(2) Among the demands in response to which disclosure will not be made are those demands with respect to which any of the following factors exist:
(i) Disclosure would violate a statute or a rule of procedure;
(ii) Disclosure would violate the privacy rights of an individual;
(iii) Disclosure would violate a specific regulation;
(iv) Disclosure would reveal classified information, unless appropriately declassified by the originating agency;
(v) Disclosure would reveal trade secrets or proprietary information without the owner's consent;
(vi) Disclosure would otherwise adversely affect the interests of the United States or the Peace Corps; or
(vii) Disclosure would impair an ongoing Inspector General or Department of Justice investigation.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations.
In the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the
Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by September 30, 2003.
Send submissions to: CC:PA:RU (REG-116914-03), room 5226, Internal Revenue Service, POB 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC, 20044. Submissions may be hand delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to: CC:PA:RU (REG-116914-03), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. Alternatively, taxpayers may submit electronic comments directly to the IRS Internet site at
Concerning the temporary regulations, Stephen Tackney (202) 622-6030; concerning submissions of comments and/or requests for a hearing, Guy Traynor, (202) 622-7180 (not toll-free numbers).
Temporary regulations in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the
It has been determined that these temporary regulations are not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 533(b) of the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and because these regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, these regulations are being submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small business.
Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any written comments (a signed original and eight (8) copies) or electronic comments that are submitted timely to the IRS. The IRS and Treasury Department request comments on the clarity of the proposed rules and how they can be made easier to understand. The IRS and Treasury Department specifically request comments on the clarity and efficacy of the proposed definition of a related person. All comments will be available for public inspection and copying. A public hearing may be scheduled if requested by any person that timely submits written comments. If a public hearing is scheduled, notice of the date, time, and place for the public hearing will be published in the
The principal author of these proposed regulations is Stephen Tackney of the Office of Division Counsel/Associate Chief Counsel (Tax Exempt and Government Entities). However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in their development.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
2. Section 1.83-7 is amended as follows:
1. Paragraph (a) is amended by adding a sentence at the end.
2. Paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) are added.
3. Paragraph (d) is added.
The additions read as follows:
(a) [The text of proposed § 1.83-7(a) is the same as the text of § 1.83-7T(a) published elsewhere in this issue of the
(d)
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
This document contains proposed regulations relating to the capital account maintenance rules under section 704 of the Internal Revenue Code. These regulations expand the rules regarding a partnership's right to adjust capital accounts to reflect unrealized appreciation and depreciation in the value of partnership assets.
Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by September 30, 2003.
Send submissions to: CC:PA:RU (REG-139796-02), room 5226, Internal Revenue Service, POB 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. to: CC:PA:RU (REG-139796-02), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
Alternatively, taxpayers may submit comments electronically via the Internet by submitting comments directly to the IRS Internet site at
Craig Gerson at (202) 622-3050; concerning submissions, the hearing, and/or placement on the building access list to attend the hearing, Sonya Cruse, (202) 622-7180 (not toll-free numbers).
Section 704(b) of the Internal Revenue Code provides that a partner's distributive share of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit is determined in accordance with the partner's interest in the partnership if the partnership agreement does not provide as to the partner's distributive shares of these items, or the allocation to a partner of these items under the agreement does not have substantial economic effect. Regulations under section 704 provide extensive rules for determining whether allocations under an agreement have substantial economic effect. One requirement for finding substantial economic effect is that the partnership maintains partners' capital accounts in accordance with certain rules. Compliance with these capital account maintenance rules, and other related rules, provides taxpayers a safe harbor under which the IRS will respect a partnership agreement's allocations.
Under the capital account maintenance rules of § 1.704-1(b)(2)(iv), partnership property is generally reflected on the partnership's books at historic cost, rather than at fair market value. However, newly contributed property is reflected in the capital accounts of the partners at fair market value, rather than the contributing partner's cost; that is, the contributed property is essentially revalued at the time of contribution. § 1.704-1(b)(2)(iv)(
Commentators have suggested that there are additional situations beyond those described in § 1.704-1(b)(2)(iv)(
The proposed regulations expand the circumstances under which a partnership is specifically permitted to increase or decrease the capital accounts of the partners to reflect a revaluation of partnership property on the partnership's books. Specifically, the proposed regulations allow revaluations in connection with the grant of an interest in the partnership (other than a
The IRS and the Treasury Department are considering further increasing the number of situations in which revaluations of partnership property are permitted. One approach under consideration would allow revaluations any time there is more than a
The IRS recently issued proposed regulations on the taxation of noncompensatory partnership options and is currently studying the taxation of compensatory partnership options. This notice of proposed rulemaking concerning revaluations is not intended to provide guidance regarding when a partnership interest is considered to be granted.
The regulations are proposed to apply to the grant of an interest in a partnership (other than a
It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and because the regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, this notice of proposed rulemaking will be submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small businesses.
Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any written comments (a signed original and eight (8) copies) that are timely submitted to the IRS. The IRS and the Treasury Department request comments on the proper scope of the rule allowing revaluations. All comments will be available for public inspection and copying. A public hearing will be scheduled if requested in writing by any person that timely submits written comments. If a public hearing is scheduled, notice of the date, time, and place for the public hearing will be published in the
The principal author of these regulations is Craig Gerson, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special Industries), IRS. However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in their development.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended in part as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read in part as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805. * * *
2. Section 1.704-1 is amended as follows:
1. Paragraph (b)(2)(iv)(
2. New paragraph (b)(2)(iv)(
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) * * *
(
(
(
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) requests comments on two proposed amendments to the regulations relating to the production of dried fruit and honey wines. The first amendment will allow the production of dried fruit wines with an alcohol by volume content of more than 14 percent. The second will lower the minimum starting Brix of 22 degrees to 13 degrees in the production of honey wines. These proposals are the result of two petitions submitted by producers of raisin and honey wines. We also correct a technical error in the wine labeling regulations by raising the maximum limit on alcohol content derived from fermentation from 13 to 14 percent for ameliorated agricultural wines.
Submit written comments on or before September 2, 2003.
You may view copies of the proposed regulations, related documents, and any comments received on this notice by appointment at the ATF Reference Library, Room 6480, 650 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20226.
You may send comments to any of the following addresses—
• Chief, Regulations and Procedures Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, PO Box 50221, Washington, DC 20091-0221 (Attn: Notice No. 13);
• (202) 927-8525 (facsimile);
•
•
Jennifer Berry, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Regulations and Procedures Division, PO Box 18152, Roanoke, VA 24014; or telephone (540) 344-9333.
Effective January 24, 2003, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 divided the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) into two new agencies, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) in the Department of the Treasury and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives in the Department of Justice. Regulation of wine production is the responsibility of the new TTB. References to ATF and TTB in this document reflect the timeframe, before or after January 24, 2003, of the rulemaking process.
The Internal Revenue Code (IRC) of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 5387) states that wines made from agricultural products other than the juice of fruit must be made “in accordance with good commercial practice,” as prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury through regulations. We define wines made according to these regulations, including those made from dried fruit and honey, as “standard agricultural wines.” The IRC specifies these production limitations:
• You may not add wine spirits to agricultural wines;
• You may not add coloring or flavoring materials to agricultural wines, with the exception of hops to honey wine; and
• You may not blend wines from different agricultural commodities.
Title 27 CFR part 24, Wine, Subpart I—Production of Agricultural Wine, contains regulations under the jurisdiction of TTB that implement these statutory requirements.
Subpart I contains provisions for the production of agricultural wines, including some derived from the IRC's “good commercial practice” provision. Sections 24.202 and 24.203 contain provisions specific to dried fruit wine and honey wine, respectively. Section 24.204 contains requirements for all agricultural wines other than dried fruit and honey wines. Among other requirements, all three of these sections prohibit the production of any agricultural wine with an alcohol content of more than 14 percent by volume after complete fermentation or complete fermentation and sweetening. The IRC does not specify this limitation,
In addition to the provisions on alcohol content, §§ 24.202, 24.203, and 24.204 also contain limits on starting Brix for agricultural wines. The regulations define Brix as the quantity of dissolved solids in a wine, expressed as grams of sucrose in 100 grams of solution at 60 degrees Fahrenheit,
Bruno and George Wines, Inc., in Beaumont, Texas, petitioned us to propose that the regulations at § 24.202, Dried fruit, be amended to allow for the production of a standard dried fruit wine that contains more than 14 percent alcohol by volume. Because of the current prohibition in § 24.202 against dried fruit wines with a higher alcohol content, we now classify such a wine as an “other than standard” wine. Mr. Shawn Bruno, the president of Bruno and George, Inc., states that he wishes to produce and market a raisin wine made according to his grandfather's traditional Sicilian recipe. The resulting wine would have an alcohol content greater than 14 percent alcohol by volume. Mr. Bruno points out that, if we lift this prohibition, his wine could be classified as a dessert raisin wine. In fact, the wine labeling regulations at § 4.21(f)(3) allow for agricultural wines with an alcohol content greater than 14 percent but less than 24 percent to be designated as agricultural dessert wines. Mr. Bruno comments that he sees no logical reason for exclusion of his raisin wine from this category.
Redstone Meadery in Boulder, Colorado, petitioned us to propose that we amend the regulations at § 24.203, Honey wine, to allow for the production of a standard honey wine with a starting Brix below 22 degrees. As discussed above, § 24.203 currently states that water may be added in the production of honey wine to facilitate fermentation, as long as the density of the honey and water mixture is not reduced below 22 degrees Brix. We currently classify honey wines with a lower starting Brix as “other than standard” wines. Mr. David Myers of Redstone Meadery states that he wishes to make a lower alcohol honey wine that will require that the starting Brix be below 22 degrees. Mr. Myers argues that, because such a wine would still have honey as its primary fermentable ingredient, we should classify it as honey wine. Mr. Myers suggests the creation of a new category for low-alcohol honey wines, if the minimum starting Brix cannot be lowered. He proposes the names “light honey wine” or “honey wine varietal” for this new category, which would encompass honey wines with a starting Brix of between 22 degrees and 13.3 degrees, or roughly 7 percent alcohol by volume.
Our research into the history of the requirements for agricultural wines reveals that both section 5387 of the IRC and its implementing regulations in §§ 24.202, 24.203, and 24.204 date from 1954. Section 5387 includes the following explanation:
These wines are not specifically referred to in existing law. This addition to the law enables the setting up by regulations of standards of agricultural wines after experience has shown to what extent provisions of law relating to natural wines should be considered applicable. Uniform limitations cannot be prescribed for all agricultural wines. Limitations consistent with good commercial practices in respect to the production of rice wines could not be prescribed for other wines, such as honey wine, rhubarb wine, etc. (H. Rept. 1337, 83rd Cong., 2nd Sess. (1954), reprinted at 1954 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 3, 4518.)
This explanation shows that the law recognizes that agricultural wines are unique, with production standards that may vary significantly from one type of wine to another. While these standards may be guided by those for natural wine, defined in the law as wines made from sound, ripe grapes or other sound, ripe fruit, they may also vary significantly from natural wine standards. Thus, in 1954, the Internal Revenue Service established regulations that were based on standards of good commercial practice at that time. Because these standards can change over time as a result of technical developments and consumer preferences, we feel it is reasonable to reexamine these regulations in light of current industry practice and consumer understanding of these products.
During our research into these requirements, we were unable to determine the rationale for the alcohol content limit of 14 percent for agricultural wines. The initial implementing regulations in 1954 do not explain why the limitation of 14 percent alcohol content was determined to be a good commercial practice for agricultural wines.
Also, as noted by the petitioner, § 4.21(f)(3) permits a dessert wine classification for agricultural wines that are 14 to 24 percent alcohol by volume. Currently, only producers of imported agricultural wines can legally call their products “dessert agricultural wine.” Some dessert raisin wines are imported into the United States. Because domestic raisin wine producers must comply with the production provisions in part 24, they cannot take advantage of § 4.21(f)(3) and also label their wines as dessert wines. Changing § 24.202 will put domestic dried fruit wines on an equal footing with imported products. In addition, the importation of these dessert dried fruit wines evidences that the higher alcohol content is a good commercial practice that produces wines that meet consumer preferences. For these reasons, we propose to amend the regulations to allow for the production of dried fruit wines that are greater than 14 percent alcohol by volume.
We were also unable to document a reason for the 22 degrees Brix limitation, but we believe it derives from the limitations placed on grape and fruit wines. Section 5382(b)(1) of the IRC states that the juice or must of grape and fruit wines may not be reduced with water to less than 22 degrees. We believe it may be inappropriate to apply this same standard to all agricultural wines, since source products such as honey, raisins, and dandelions, etc., often contain far less natural water than do grapes and other fruits. Because they do, vintners must add water in order to achieve fermentation. Also, our research into the production of honey wines unearthed references to a category of low-alcohol honey wine called “hydromel.” The fact that a recognized category already exists for a lower alcohol honey wine
For these reasons, we propose to lower the minimum Brix from 22 degrees to 13 degrees in 27 CFR 24.203, Honey wine. We also propose to amend this section to make it clear that sugar may be added only after fermentation for the purpose of sweetening. This restriction will ensure that the alcohol in honey wine is derived from honey and not added sugar.
We are not proposing the creation of a separate category for low-alcohol honey wines, as suggested by Redstone Meadery. No separate category exists for grape or fruit wines that are, for example, 7 percent alcohol by volume. We, therefore, see no need to have one for agricultural wines.
Also, the terms proposed by Mr. Myers, “light honey wine” and “honey wine varietal,” have other connotations when used in labeling wine that could cause consumer confusion. Title 27 CFR 4.21(a)(2) currently allows use of the term “light” on labels of grape wines that are less than 14 percent alcohol by volume. This authorization encompasses wines that are not usually considered low-alcohol. Creating a different meaning for “light” honey wines could confuse consumers.
In addition, we feel that the consumer associates the word “varietal” with grape varieties, not with agricultural products. We will, however, reconsider the creation of a separate category if we receive sufficient comments that favor such a change over the lowering of the minimum Brix.
As noted earlier, we were unable to determine the original reason for the regulatory limits on alcohol content and starting Brix. However, the intent may have been to restrict the quantity of sugar and water additions that would result in alcohol through fermentation. In other words, the regulation writers intended that the alcohol result primarily from the sugar in the agricultural winemaking material, rather than from both sugar and water. This intent would be consistent with the same restriction on natural wines from grapes and from berries. Accordingly, we are particularly interested in comments on whether this increased allowance for sugar and water additions to dried fruit and honey wines is consistent with good commercial practice.
While reviewing the regulations relating to agricultural wines, we noted a technical error in § 4.21(f)(1)(i), which states that ameliorated agricultural wines may not have an alcohol content derived from fermentation of more than 13 percent by volume. This 13 percent limit is inconsistent with the IRC's treatment of other types of ameliorated wines. While the IRC does not contain a limit on alcohol content for ameliorated agricultural wines, it gives a 14 percent limit for ameliorated fruit and berry wines. Until corrected by T.D. ATF-458, § 4.21(d)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(i), the standards of identity for citrus and fruit wines, respectively, also contained an incorrect limit of 13 percent. In order to establish consistency for all classes of wine, we propose to amend § 4.21(f)(1)(i) to raise the alcohol content limit on ameliorated agricultural wines to 14 percent. Note that § 4.21(f)(1)(i) addresses only
We request comments on these two proposals. We specifically request comments from producers and consumers of dried fruit and honey wines on whether these two proposals conflict with current standards of good commercial practice, and of what constitutes a raisin wine or honey wine. We also request comments regarding the increases of sugar in dried fruit wines and water in honey wines that will be allowed as a result of these revisions.
All comments must include your name and mailing address, reference this notice number, and be legible and written in language generally acceptable for public disclosure.
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 we can. We regard all comments as originals.
To be considered a comment, your submission must relate specifically to this proposed rule. For example, you might be for or against all or part of this proposed rule, or you might express neutrality. We find comments that use reasoning, logic, and, if applicable, good science to explain your position most persuasive in the formation of a final rule.
You may submit comments in any of four ways.
•
•
(1) Be on 8.5- by 11-inch paper;
(2) Contain a legible, written signature; and
(3) 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 e-mail address; and
(2) Be legible when printed on 8.5- by 11-inch paper.
•
You may also write to the Administrator to ask for a public hearing. The Administrator reserves the right to determine, in light of all circumstances, whether a public hearing will be held.
You may see copies of the proposed regulations, related information, and any comments on this notice by appointment at the ATF Reference Library, Room 6480, 650 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20226. You may also get copies at 20 cents per page. Telephone the ATF librarian at (202) 927-7890 if you want to schedule an appointment or request copies of comments.
For your convenience, we will post comments received in response to this notice on the TTB 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 Reference Library. To access online copies of the comments on this rulemaking, visit
We cannot recognize any material in comments as confidential. We will disclose all information on comments and commenters. In addition, we will summarize and discuss pertinent
We propose no requirement to collect information. Therefore, the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, do not apply.
As required by the RFA, we certify that implementation of this proposed regulation would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities. We expect no negative impact on small entities and propose no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirements. Accordingly, the RFA does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis.
This proposed rule fits none of the criteria of significant regulatory actions, as defined by Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735. Therefore, it requires no regulatory assessment.
The principal author of this document is Jennifer Berry, Regulations and Procedures Division (Roanoke), Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau.
Advertising, Customs duties and inspection, Imports, Labeling, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Trade practices, Wines.
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Electronic fund transfers, Excise taxes, Exports, Food additives, Fruit juices, Labeling, Liquors, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research, Scientific equipment, Spices and flavoring, Surety bonds, Vinegar, Warehouses, Wine.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB proposes to amend 27 CFR part 4 as follows:
1. The authority citation for 27 CFR part 4 continues to read as follows:
27 U.S.C. 205, unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 4.21 is amended by removing the phrase “13 percent” where it appears in the proviso in paragraph (f)(1)(i) and adding in its place the phrase “14 percent”.
3. The authority citation for part 24 continues to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552(a); 26 U.S.C. 5001, 5008, 5041, 5042, 5044, 5061, 5062, 5081, 5111-5113, 5121, 5122, 5142, 5143, 5173, 5206, 5214, 5215, 5351, 5353, 5354, 5356, 5357, 5361, 5362, 5364-5373, 5381-5388, 5391, 5392, 5511, 5551, 5552, 5661, 5662, 5684, 6065, 6091, 6109, 6301, 6302, 6311, 6651, 6676, 7011, 7302, 7342, 7502, 7503, 7606, 7805, 7851; 31 U.S.C. 9301, 9303, 9304, 9306.
4. Section 24.202 is amended by revising the last sentence to read as follows:
5. Section 24.203 is revised to read as follows:
In the production of wine from honey, the winemaker may add water to facilitate fermentation, provided the density of the honey and water mixture is not reduced below 13 degrees Brix; hops in quantities not to exceed one pound for each 1,000 pounds of honey; pure, dry sugar or honey for sweetening; and sugar only after fermentation is completed. After complete fermentation or complete fermentation and sweetening, the wine may not have an alcohol content of more than 14 percent by volume or a total solids content exceeding 35 degrees Brix. (26 U.S.C. 5387)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to amend the geographic coordinates and modify the regulated use of the anchorages in Baltimore Harbor, MD. This amendment is necessary to ensure changes in depth as resulting from an Army Corps of Engineers anchorage-deepwater project and that the dimensions for the Baltimore Harbor anchorages are reflected in the Federal regulations and on NOAA charts. This proposed regulated uses modification will accommodate changes to ships' drafts and lengths since the last revision of this regulation in 1968 and will harmonize the anchorage regulation throughout the Fifth Coast Guard District.
Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before September 2, 2003.
You may mail comments and related material to Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District (oan), 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA, 23704-5004. The Aids to Navigation and Waterways Management Branch (oan) maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at the Aids to Navigation and Waterways Management Branch office between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
LTjg Anne Grabins, Fifth Coast Guard District Aids to Navigation and Waterways Management Branch, (757) 398-6559.
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 (CGD05-02-040), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to the Aids to Navigation and Waterways Management Branch at the address under
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers received Congressional authorization for the Baltimore Harbor Anchorage project in September 2001. The objective of this project is to increase the project depths of Anchorage No. 3 and No. 4 to 42 ft and 35 ft respectively. The original Federal anchorage project for Baltimore Harbor was designed to accommodate cargo ships with maximum drafts of 33 ft and lengths of 550 ft. The dimensions of the anchorages are changing to accommodate the larger ships that call on the Port that routinely approach 1000 ft LOA with drafts of 36 to 38 feet or more. The new coordinates established for Anchorage Nos. 2, 3, and 4, will also accommodate the widening of the Dundalk West Channel, a north/south Federal navigation project located between Anchorage No. 3 and Anchorage No. 4 and widening of the Duldalk East Channel bordering Anchorage No. 4.
Dredging for the Baltimore Harbor Anchorage project commenced in March 2002 and is scheduled for completion in May 2003.
This proposed rule would amend the Federal regulations to reflect the changes made to Baltimore Harbor as a result of the Army Corps of Engineers' Baltimore Harbor anchorage improvement project currently in progress and scheduled for completion in May 2003. As a result of this improvement project, the dimensions for the anchorages will change. Analyzing the existing anchorage areas and naturally occurring depths, the Army Corps of Engineers identified areas best suited to meet the needs of the vessels that most frequently call on the Port of Baltimore. Upon completion, Anchorage No. 3 will be divided into two sections: Anchorage 3 Lower (2200′ x 2200′ x 42 ft mean lower low water (MLLW)) and Anchorage 3 Upper (1800′ x 1800′ x 42ft MLLW). Anchorage No. 4 will also be modified (1850′ x 1800′ x 35ft MLLW).
The changes made to Upper 3, Lower 3 and Anchorage No. 4 will change the dimensions of Anchorage No. 2, bordering Anchorage No. 3 to the west and north. Anchorage No. 2 will also be expanded to include the area between Lower 3 and the Seagirt Marine Terminal Entrance Channel. Anchorage No. 2 is an unimproved anchorage, and its depths are not maintained by periodic dredging.
This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
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 DHS is unnecessary. The deepening of anchorage 3 and anchorage 4 within the Port of Baltimore will better accommodate deep draft vessels waiting for an open berth. The Coast Guard does not expect that these new accommodations will adversely impact maritime commerce.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels used for chartering, taxi, ferry services, or any other marine traffic that transit this area of Fort McHenry Channel in Baltimore Harbor. Changes to Anchorage No. 3 and Anchorage No. 4 may change the vessel routing through this area of the harbor. Deepening the anchorages and changing the coordinates for the anchorages would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. Vessel traffic could pass safely around the new anchorage areas. The new coordinates for the anchorages are a change in dimension, the size of which will remain proportional to its current size, and their location will not interfere with commercial traffic.
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 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 contact LTjg Anne Grabins at the address listed (
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for Federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for Federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a
This proposed 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 proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
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 analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2. of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(f), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This proposed rule would change the size of Anchorage No. 2, Anchorage No. 3 and Anchorage No. 4.
A draft “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a draft “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under
Anchorage regulations.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as follows:
33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2030, 2035, 2071; 49 CFR 1.46 and 33 CFR 1.05-1(g).
2. In § 110.158, revise paragraphs (a) and (b) and add paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) to read as follows:
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(c)
(2) Except in cases where unforeseen circumstances create conditions of imminent peril, or with the permission of the Captain of the Port, no vessel shall be anchored in Baltimore Harbor and Patapsco River outside of the anchorage areas established in this section for more than 24 hours. No vessel shall anchor within a tunnel, cable or pipeline area shown on a government chart. No vessel shall be moored, anchored, or tied up to any pier, wharf, or other vessel in such manner as to extend into established channel limits. No vessel shall be positioned so as to obstruct or endanger the passage of any other vessel.
(3) Except in an emergency, a vessel that is likely to sink or otherwise become a menace or obstruction to navigation or the anchoring of other vessels may not occupy an anchorage, unless the vessel obtains a permit from the Captain of the Port.
(4) The Captain of the Port may grant a revocable permit to a vessel for a habitual use of an anchorage. Only the vessel that holds the revocable permit may use the anchorage during the period that the permit is in effect.
(5) Upon notification by the Captain of the Port to shift its position, a vessel at anchor shall get underway and shall move to its new designated position within 2 hours after notification.
(6) The Captain of the Port may prescribe specific conditions for vessels anchoring within the anchorages described in this section, including, but not limited to, the number and location of anchors, scope of chain, readiness of engineering plant and equipment, usage of tugs, and requirements for maintaining communication guards on selected radio frequencies.
(7) No vessel at anchor or at a mooring within an anchorage may transfer oil to or from another vessel unless the vessel has given the Captain of the Port the four hours advance notice required by § 156.118 of this title.
(8) No vessel may anchor in a “dead ship” status (propulsion or control unavailable for normal operations) without prior approval of the Captain of the Port.
(d)
(2) The Captain of the Port may require every person having business aboard a vessel handling or carrying dangerous cargoes or Class 1 (explosive) materials while in an anchorage, other than a member of the crew, to hold either a pass issued by the Captain of the Port or another form of identification prescribed by the Captain of the Port.
(3) Each person having business aboard a vessel handling or carrying dangerous cargoes or Class 1 (explosive) materials while in an anchorage, other than a member of the crew, shall present the pass or other form of identification prescribed by paragraph (d)(2) of this section to any Coast Guard Boarding Officer who requests it.
(4) The Captain of the Port may revoke at any time a pass issued under the authority of paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
(5) Each non-self-propelled vessel handling or carrying dangerous cargoes or Class 1 (explosive) materials must have a tug in attendance at all times while at anchor.
(6) Each vessel handling or carrying dangerous cargoes or Class 1 (explosive) materials while at anchor must display by day a bravo flag in a prominent location and by night a fixed red light.
(e)
(2)
(3)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The EPA is approving, through direct final action, a revision to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted to show attainment of the Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) in the El Paso CO nonattainment area, but for emissions emanating from outside of the United States. The EPA is also approving the El Paso area's CO emissions budget, and a CO contingency measure requirement. The State submitted the revisions to satisfy sections 179B and other part D requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA).
Written comments on proposed rule are due on or before August 1, 2003.
Written comments should be addressed to Mr. Thomas H. Diggs, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), at the EPA Region 6 Office listed below. Copies of documents relevant to this action are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the following locations. Anyone wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the appropriate office at least two working days in advance.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, TX 75202-2377.
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, 12100 Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas 78753.
Joe Kordzi of the EPA Region 6 Air Planning Section, at (214) 665-7186 and at the Region 6 address above.
In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
For additional information, see the direct final rule located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
42 U.S.C. 7401
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule; 6-month extension of final decision and re-opening of comment period.
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 6-month extension for a final decision and re-opening of the comment period on the proposed rule to list beluga sturgeon (
Comments and information may be submitted through September 2, 2003. A final decision on the proposal will be made by January 31, 2004.
Comments, information, and questions should be submitted to the Chief, Division of Scientific Authority; by mail, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 750; Arlington, Virginia 22203; by fax, 703-358-2276; or by e-mail,
Robert R. Gabel, Chief, Division of Scientific Authority, at the above address (telephone, 703-358-1708).
On December 18, 2000, we received a petition to list the beluga sturgeon (
On March 11, 2003, we received a new document that may have major relevance to this decision: “Report on Results of Complex Interstate All-Caspian Sea Expedition on the Assess[ment] of Sturgeon Species Stocks” from the Secretariat of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The report summarizes the 2002 sturgeon stock-assessment survey for the Caspian Sea. The Secretariat's report contains substantial information that must be considered in our deliberations and should be made available to the public.
In an effort to address Caspian Sea sturgeon conservation issues, the so-called “Paris agreement” was developed during the 45th meeting of the CITES Standing Committee (Paris, June 2001). An important provision of the agreement was implementation of annual Caspian Sea sturgeon stock-assessment surveys that were to include mandatory reports. The report submitted by the CITES Secretariat contains the results of the 2002 sturgeon stock-assessment survey. All Caspian Sea range nations (except the Islamic Republic of Iran) participated in the 2002 sturgeon stock-assessment survey. Our review of the 2002 survey report indicates that survey parameters have been substantially broadened and the scope of data collection efforts has improved considerably since completion of the initial survey mandated by the Paris agreement in 2001. The current report provides new information regarding changes in beluga sturgeon feeding habits, expanded toxicological studies, and increased stock abundance estimates that were extrapolated from the most recent raw data.
To consider this new information, and any comments thereon, the Service has decided to extend the publication of a final rule from July 31, 2003, to January 31, 2004. We will also re-open the comment period until [the date specified above in
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Colville Resource Advisory Committee will meet on Thursday, July 17, 2003 at the Spokane Community College, Colville Campus, Monumental Room, 985 South Elm Street, Colville, Washington. The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. and conclude at 4 p.m. Agenda items include: (1) RAC review and recommendations of projects for Fiscal Year 2004 Title II Projects to Designated Federal Official and (2) public forum.
Direct questions regarding this meeting to Alan Quan, Designated Federal Official or to Cynthia Reichelt, Public Affairs Officer, Colville National Forest, 765 S. Main, Colville, Washington 99114, (509) 684-7000.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a conference call of the Arizona State Advisory Committee in the Western Region will convene at 12 p.m. (PDT) and adjourn at 1 p.m., Wednesday, July 9, 2003. The purpose of the conference call is to discuss a resolution concerning the Patriot Act.
This conference call is available to the public through the following call-in number: 1-800-659-8304, access code number 17582212. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls not initiated using the provided call-in number or over wireless lines and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls using the call-in number over land-line connections. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and access code.
To ensure that the Commission secures an appropriate number of lines for the public, persons are asked to register by contacting Philip Montez of the Western Regional Office, (213) 894-3437, by 3 p.m. on Tuesday, July 8, 2003.
The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a conference call of the Colorado State Advisory Committee will convene at 9 a.m. (MDT) and adjourn at 10 a.m. (MDT), Tuesday, July 22, 2003. The purpose of the conference call is to discuss the status of projects and follow-up activities for the committee's report, The Grand Junction Report: Issues of Equality in the Mesa Valley.
This conference call is available to the public through the following call-in number: 1-800-659-1081; access code: 17582292. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls not initiated using the supplied call-in number or over wireless lines and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls using the call-in number over land-line connections. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and access code.
To ensure that the Commission secures an appropriate number of lines for the public, persons are asked to register by contacting Malee Craft, Rocky Mountain Regional Office, (303) 866-1040 (TDD 303-866-1049), by 3 p.m. (MDT) on Friday, July 18, 2003.
The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission.
The Department of Commerce has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10202, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
The Department of Commerce has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10202, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Department of Commerce.
Notice.
This notice announces the availability of the Department of Commerce's (DoC) alternative fuel vehicle (AFV) report for FY 2002 as required by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct).
Interested persons can obtain copies of the AFV reports from Mauryce Johnson at U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 or on the internet at
Mauryce Johnson, 202-482-8246.
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) requires that AFV reports for FY 1999 and beyond be made public, placing them on a publicly available Web site and publishing notice of their availability, including the Web site address, in the
Earthjustice, on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity, the Bluewater Network, and the Sierra Club, brought suit against eighteen Federal agencies, including DoC, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging noncompliance with EPAct's provisions regarding Federal fleets. On July 26, 2002, the court ordered that the named Federal agencies prepare and submit overdue reports to Congress outlining their AFV acquisitions for FY 1999, FY 2000, and FY 2001.
The court ordered each of the eighteen Federal agencies to post their reports on their website and individually publish the availability of their reports in the
On April 24, 2003, the Center for Biological Diversity filed a motion for contempt alleging that the named agencies including DoC had not complied with all EPAct requirements. Negotiations between the plaintiffs and defendants resulted in a joint stipulation withdrawing their motion for contempt if the named Federal agencies post their AFV Compliance Reports for Fiscal Year 2002 on their respective websites and publish the availability of the report in the
Pub. L. 102-486, Title III, Sec. 310, Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 2874.
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by Suffolk County, New York, grantee of FTZ 52, requesting special-purpose subzone status for the pneumatic industrial automation components manufacturing facilities of Festo Corporation (Festo) (a subsidiary of Festo AG, of Germany), located in Hauppauge, New York. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR
The proposed subzone would include Festo's two manufacturing facilities located in Suffolk County, Long Island:
FTZ procedures would exempt Festo from Customs duty payments on the foreign component inputs used in export production. On its domestic sales and exports to NAFTA markets, the company would be able to choose the duty rate that applies to finished industrial automation components (free—2.7%) for the foreign-sourced inputs noted above. Festo would be able to defer Customs duty payments on the foreign-origin finished industrial automation components that would be admitted to the proposed subzone for U.S. distribution. Duties would be deferred or reduced on foreign production equipment admitted to the proposed subzone until which time it becomes operational. The application indicates that subzone status would help improve the facilities' international competitiveness.
In accordance with the Board's regulations, a member of the FTZ Staff has been designated examiner to investigate the application and report to the Board.
Public comment on the application is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and three copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the following addresses:
1.
2.
The closing period for their receipt is September 2, 2003. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period (to September 15, 2003).
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Foreign-Trade Zones Board's Executive Secretary at address No.1 listed above and at the U.S. Department of Commerce Export Assistance Center, 40th Floor, 20 Exchange Place, New York, NY 10005.
Notice is hereby given of the withdrawal of the applications requesting special-purpose subzone status for the ten Flint Ink North America Corporation plants. The applications were filed on October 7, 2002 (66 FR 64088-64096, 10/17/02).
The withdrawal was requested because of changed circumstances, and the cases have been closed without prejudice.
The Materials Technical Advisory Committee will meet on July 17, 2003, 10:30 a.m., Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3407, 14th Street between Constitution & Pennsylvania Avenues, NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Industry and Security with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to materials and related technology.
1. Opening remarks and introductions.
2. Presentation of papers and comments by the public.
3. Review and discussion of proposals for addition of the following precursor chemicals to the control list:
• Methylphosphonic acid CAS #993-13-5.
• Diethyl methylphosphonate CAS #683-08-9.
• N, N-Dimethylamino phosphoryldichloride DAS #677-43-0.
• Tri-isopropylphosphite CAS #116-17-6.
• Ethyldiethanolamine CAS #139-87-7.
• O,O-Diethyl phosphorodithioate CAS #2465-65-8.
• Sodium hexafluorosilicate CAS #16893-85-9.
• Potassium hexafluorosilicate CAS #16871-90-2.
4. Presentation and discussion of a proposed liberalization of export controls applicable to pharmaceutical preparations of controlled toxins.
5. Review and discussion of proposals to add CWC Schedule 2A and Schedule 3A chemicals to the AG common control lists. The Schedule 2A chemicals are amiton (CAS #78-53-5), PFIB (CAS #382-21-8), and BZ (CAS #6581-06-2). The Schedule 3A chemicals are phosgene (CAS #75-44-5), cyanogen chloride (CAS #506-77-4), hydrogen cyanide (CAS #74-90-8), and chloropicrin (CAS #76-06-2).
6. Discussion of matters properly classified under Executive Order 12958, dealing with U.S. export control programs and strategic criteria related thereto.
A limited number of seats will be available during the public session of the meeting. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. Written statements may be submitted at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the materials should be forwarded prior to the meeting to the address below: Ms. Lee Ann Carpenter, OSIES/EA/BIS MS: 3876, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14 St. & Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on February 6, 2002, pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, that the series of meetings or portions of meetings of the Committee and of any Subcommittee thereof dealing with the classified materials listed in 5 U.S.C. 552(c)(1) shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in section 10(a)(1) and (a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The remaining series of meetings or portions thereof will be open to the public. For more information, call Lee Ann Carpenter at (202) 482-2583.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506 (2) (A)).
Written comments must be submitted on or before September 2, 2003.
Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Request for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Stephen Madden, International Trade Administration, Advocacy Center, (202) 482-3896 or
The International Trade Administration's Advocacy Center marshals federal resources to assist U.S. firms competing for foreign government procurements worldwide. The Advocacy Center is under the umbrella of the Trade Promotion Coordination Committee (TPCC), which is chaired by the Secretary of Commerce and includes 19 federal agencies involved in export promotion. The mission of the Advocacy Center is to promote U.S. exports and create U.S. jobs and coordinate U.S. Government (USG) advocacy among the TPCC. The purpose of the questionnaire is to collect the necessary information to make an evaluation as to whether a firm qualifies for senior-level USG support, in the form of attendance at an event including witnessing a commercial agreement signing. The event could be a company sponsored activity or a foreign or USG sponsored event to highlight a commercial trade success for more than one firm. Without this information we will be unable to determine if a U.S. firm is eligible for USG support for the firm's role in the event.
Form ITA-4136P is sent to U.S. firms that request USG advocacy assistance.
Comments are invited on (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of opportunity to request administrative review of antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation.
Each year during the anniversary month of the publication of an antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspension of investigation, an interested party, as defined in section 771(9) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, may request, in accordance with section 351.213 (2002) of the Department of Commerce (the Department) Regulations, that the Department conduct an administrative review of that antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation.
In accordance with section 351.213(b) of the regulations, an interested party as defined by section 771(9) of the Act may request in writing that the Secretary conduct an administrative review. For both antidumping and countervailing duty reviews, the interested party must specify the individual producers or exporters covered by an antidumping finding or an antidumping or countervailing duty order or suspension agreement for which it is requesting a review, and the requesting party must state why it desires the Secretary to review those particular producers or exporters. If the interested party intends for the Secretary to review sales of merchandise by an exporter (or a producer if that producer also exports merchandise from other suppliers) which were produced in more than one country of origin and each country of origin is subject to a separate order, then the interested party must state specifically, on an order-by-order basis, which exporter(s) the request is intended to cover.
As explained in
Six copies of the request should be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. The Department also asks parties to serve a copy of their requests to the Office of Antidumping/ Countervailing Enforcement, Attention: Sheila Forbes, in room 3065 of the main Commerce Building. Further, in accordance with section 351.303(f)(l)(i) of the regulations, a copy of each request must be served on every party on the Department's service list.
The Department will publish in the
This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation.
July 2, 2003.
Katherine Johnson at (202) 482-4929 or Rebecca Trainor at (202) 482-4007, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.
On June 5, 2003, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) received a petition filed in proper form by Apollo Colors Inc., General Press Colors, Ltd., Magruder Color Company, Inc., and Sun Chemical Corporation (collectively, “the petitioners”). The Department received petition supplements on June 16, 18 and 20, 2003.
In accordance with section 732(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), as amended, the petitioners allege that imports of certain colored synthetic organic oleoresinous pigment dispersions (“colored pigment dispersions”) from India are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that imports from India are materially injuring, or are threatening to materially injure, an industry in the United States.
The Department finds that the petitioners filed this petition on behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and they have demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the antidumping investigation that they are requesting the Department to initiate. See infra, “Determination of Industry Support for the Petition.”
The products covered by this investigation are colored synthetic organic pigment dispersions containing pigments classified in either the Azo or Phthalocyanine chemical classes that have been dispersed in an oleoresinous varnish comprised of various combinations of solvents, oils and resins. The subject pigment dispersions are commonly known as “flush” or “flushed color,” but the base form of the subject pigment dispersions is also included in the scope of this investigation. The subject pigment dispersions are a thick putty or paste that contain by weight typically 20 percent or more pigment dispersed in the varnish, and are used primarily for the manufacture of letterpress and lithographic printing inks. The presence of additives, such as surfactants, antioxidants, wetting agents, and driers, in the subject pigment dispersions does not exclude them from the scope of this investigation.
Excluded from the scope of this investigation are dry powder pigments and pigment press cakes, as well as water and flammable solvent based colored pigment dispersions, which typically are used in manufacturing liquid or fluid inks. Also excluded is Yellow 75, which is typically used to make the yellow paint to line roads.
The merchandise subject to this investigation is classifiable under subheadings 3204.17.6020 (Pigment Blue 15:4), 3204.17.6085 (Pigments Red 48:1, Red 48:2, Red 48:3, and Yellow 174), 3204.17.9005 (Pigment Blue 15:3), 3204.17.9010 (Pigment Green 7), 3204.17.9015 (Pigment Green 36), 3204.17.9020 (Pigment Red 57:1), 3204.17.9045 (Pigment Yellow 12), 3204.17.9050 (Pigment Yellow 13), 3204.17.9055 (Pigment Yellow 74), and 3204.17.9086
As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations (
The anticipated period of investigation is April 1, 2002, through March 31, 2003.
Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that the Department's industry support determination, which is to be made before the initiation of the investigation, be based on whether a minimum percentage of the relevant industry supports the petition. A petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (1) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (2) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A), or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method.
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (“ITC”), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product (section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to the law.
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation,”
With regard to the definition of domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation. Based on our analysis of the information presented by the petitioners, we have determined that there is a single domestic like product, colored pigment dispersions, which is defined in the “Scope of Investigation” section above, and we have analyzed industry support in terms of this domestic like product.
In their initial petition and subsequent submissions, the petitioners state that they comprise over 50 percent of U.S. colored pigment dispersions production. The petition identifies nine additional U.S. companies engaged in the production of colored pigment dispersions, none of which have taken a position on (either for or against) the petition. Through data provided by the petitioners and our own independent research, we have determined that the colored pigment dispersions production of these nine companies is not high enough to place the petitioners' industry support in jeopardy. Based on all available information, we agree that the petitioners comprise over 50 percent of all domestic colored pigment dispersions production.
Our review of the data provided in the petition and other information readily available to the Department indicates that the petitioners have established industry support representing over 50 percent of total production of the domestic like product, requiring no further action by the Department pursuant to section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act. In addition, the Department received no opposition to the petition from domestic producers of the like product. Therefore, the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, and the requirements of section 732(c)(4)(A)(I) of the Act are met. Furthermore, the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for or opposition to the petition. Thus, the requirements of section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act also are met. Accordingly, the Department determines that the petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act. For more information on our analysis and the data upon which we relied, see Import Administration AD/CVD Enforcement Initiation Checklist (“Initiation Checklist”), Industry Support section and Attachment II, dated June 25, 2003, on file in the Central Records Unit of the main Department of Commerce building.
The following are descriptions of the allegations of sales at less than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to initiate this investigation. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price, constructed value (“CV”), and factors of production are discussed in greater detail in the Initiation Checklist. Should the need arise to use any of this information as facts available under section 776 of the Act in our preliminary or final determination, we may re-examine the information and revise the margin calculations, if appropriate.
The petitioners alleged that the subject colored pigment dispersions produced in India by Hindustan Inks and Resins Ltd. (“Hindustan”) (
The petitioners alleged that neither India nor any third country constitutes a viable market on which to base normal value (“NV”). Therefore, the petitioners based NV on CV, using the factors of production of one of the petitioners, but incorporating values derived largely from publicly available Indian data. Specifically, the petitioners used the U.S. producer's own consumption rates for raw materials, direct labor, electricity, natural gas and water, and applied either publicly available Indian prices or the U.S. producer's own costs. For certain raw materials and electricity, natural gas and water, the petitioners relied upon average market prices obtained from publically available sources. To adjust the U.S. producer's costs associated with direct labor, the petitioners relied upon the Indian labor rate found on the Import Administration website. To calculate overhead, selling, general and administrative expense, and financial expense, the petitioners relied upon amounts reported in the fiscal year 2002 financial statements of Hindustan. The petitioners included in CV an amount for profit which was based on the profit from Hindustan's fiscal year 2002 financial statements. The petitioners converted NV into U.S. dollars using the exchange rates posted on the Department's website.
The estimated dumping margins in the petition for flush form based on a comparison between CEP and CV range from 138 percent to 677 percent.
Based on the data provided by the petitioners, there is reason to believe that imports of certain colored synthetic organic oleoresinous pigment dispersions from India are being, or are likely to be, sold at less than fair value.
The petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of imports from India of the subject merchandise sold at less than NV.
The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is evident in the declining trends in net operating profits, net sales volumes, profit-to-sales ratios, and production employment. The allegations of injury and causation are supported by relevant evidence including U.S. import data, lost sales, and pricing information. We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation. See the Initiation Checklist.
Based upon our examination of the petition on certain colored synthetic organic oleoresinous pigment dispersions from India, we have found that it meets the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating an antidumping duty investigation to determine whether imports of certain colored synthetic organic oleoresinous pigment dispersions from India are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Unless this deadline is extended pursuant to section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we will make our preliminary determination no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation.
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the public version of the petition has been provided to the representatives of the Government of India. We will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the petition to each exporter named in the petition, as provided for under 19 CFR 351.203(C)(2).
We have notified the ITC of our initiation as required by section 732(d) of the Act.
The ITC will preliminarily determine no later than July 21, 2003, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of Certain Colored Synthetic Organic Oleoresinous Pigment Dispersions from India are causing material injury, or threatening to cause material injury, to a U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being terminated, otherwise, this investigation will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On March 7, 2003, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on mechanical transfer presses (MTPs) from Japan (68 FR 11039). This review covers shipments of this merchandise to the United States during the period of February 1, 2001 through January 31, 2002.
We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on our preliminary results. We received a letter from the respondent stating that it had no comments. We received no other comments.
July 2, 2003.
Jacqueline Arrowsmith or Doug Campau, Office of Antidumping/Countervailing Duty Enforcement VII, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-5255 or (202) 482-1395, respectively.
On March 7, 2003, the Department published the preliminary results of its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on MTPs from Japan.
Imports covered by this antidumping duty order include mechanical transfer presses, currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers 8462.10.0035, 8466.94.6540 and 8466.94.8540 and formerly classifiable as 8462.99.8035, 8462.21.8085, and 8466.94.5040. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. The term “mechanical transfer presses” refers to automatic metal-forming machine tools with multiple die stations in which the work piece is moved from station to station by a transfer mechanism designed as an integral part of the press and synchronized with the press action, whether imported as machines or parts suitable for use solely or principally with these machines. These presses may be imported assembled or unassembled.
The Department published in the
Since the Department received no comments on the
The following deposit requirements shall be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of MTPs from Japan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) since the weighted-average margin for HZC/H&F is zero, the Department shall require no deposit of estimated antidumping duties for subject merchandise exported by HZC/H&F; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate established for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair value investigation (LTFV), but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and, (4) for all other producers and/or exporters of this merchandise, the cash deposit rate shall be the “all-others” rate established in the LTFV investigation, which is 14.51 percent.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under section 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO as explained in the administrative order itself. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of Final Results and Partial Recision of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review.
On May 6, 2003, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results and preliminary partial recision of antidumping administrative review on oil country tubular goods, other than drill pipe, from Argentina. The review covers two manufacturer/exporters, Siderca S.A.I.C. (Siderca) and Acindar Industria Argentina de Aceros S.A. (Acindar). The period of review is August 1, 2001, through July 31, 2002. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on our preliminary results. We received no comments. Furthermore, the Department made no changes in its analysis following publication of the preliminary results. Therefore, the final results of review are unchanged from those presented in the preliminary results of review.
July 2, 2003.
Fred Baker or Robert James, Enforcement Group III, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-2924 and (202) 482-0649, respectively.
On May 6, 2003, the Department published its preliminary results and
The period of review (POR) is August 1, 2001, through July 31, 2002.
Oil country tubular goods (OCTG) are hollow steel products of circular cross-section, including oil well casing and tubing of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon and alloy), whether seamless or welded, whether or not conforming to American Petroleum Institute (API) or non-API specifications, whether finished or unfinished (including green tubes and limited service OCTG products).
This scope does not cover casing or tubing pipe containing 10.5 percent or more of chromium. Drill pipe was excluded from this order beginning August 11, 2001.
The OCTG subject to this order are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7304.29.10.10, 7304.29.10.20, 7304.29.10.30, 7304.29.10.40, 7304.29.10.50, 7304.29.10.60, 7304.29.10.80, 7304.29.20.10, 7304.29.20.20, 7304.29.20.30, 7304.29.20.40, 7304.29.20.50, 7304.29.20.60, 7304.29.20.80, 7304.29.30.10, 7304.29.30.20, 7304.29.30.30, 7304.29.30.40, 7304.29.30.50, 7304.29.30.60, 7304.29.30.80, 7304.29.40.10, 7304.29.40.20, 7304.29.40.30, 7304.29.40.40, 7304.29.40.50, 7304.29.40.60, 7304.29.40.80, 7304.29.50.15, 7304.29.50.30, 7304.29.50.45, 7304.29.50.60, 7304.29.50.75, 7304.29.60.15, 7304.29.60.30, 7304.29.60.45, 7304.29.60.60, 7304.29.60.75, 7305.20.20.00, 7305.20.40.00, 7305.20.60.00, 7305.20.80.00, 7306.20.10.30, 7306.20.10.90, 7306.20.20.00, 7306.20.30.00, 7306.20.40.00, 7306.20.60.10, 7306.20.60.50, 7306.20.80.10, and 7306.20.80.50.
The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. Our written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.
On September 25, 2002, we initiated an administrative review of sales made by Siderca and Acindar.
We find, in accordance with section 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) and 776(b), that the application of adverse facts available is warranted since Acindar did not respond to our questionnaire, and therefore has not cooperated to the best of its ability. Section 776(a)(2) of the Tariff Act provides that “if an interested party or any other person (A) withholds information that has been requested by the administering authority; (B) fails to provide such information by the deadlines for the submission of the information or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this title; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i), the administering authority and the Commission shall, subject to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination under this title.”
On September 25, 2002, the Department issued its standard antidumping questionnaire to Acindar. Acindar made no written response to the questionnaire. Therefore, we determine that the use of facts available is warranted pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Tariff Act because Acindar withheld information requested by the Department by not responding to the Department's questionnaire, thereby significantly impeding this proceeding.
Section 776(b) of the Tariff Act provides that, if the Department finds that an interested party “has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information,” the Department may use information that is adverse to the interests of the party as facts otherwise available. Adverse inferences are appropriate “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.”
The Department finds that in not responding to the September 25, 2002, questionnaire, Acindar failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for information. The Department requires that respondents provide answers to the questionnaire because the Department uses the information to determine accurate dumping margins for the company. Since the information is within the sole control of Acindar, when the company fails to provide such information we cannot otherwise obtain the information necessary to calculate a dumping margin. Further, at no time did Acindar indicate during the POR that it was having difficulty in complying with the Department's request for information. Consequently, Acindar should not be allowed to benefit by its non-cooperation. Therefore, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Tariff Act, we may, in making our determination, use an
Information from prior segments of the proceeding constitutes secondary information, and section 776(c) of the Tariff Act provides that the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate secondary information from independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) provides that “corroborate” means simply that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value.
To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information to be used. However, unlike other types of information, such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent sources for calculated dumping margins. Thus, in an administrative review, if the Department chooses as adverse facts available a calculated dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not necessary to question the reliability of the margin for that time period. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that would render a margin inappropriate. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin.
As discussed above, it is not necessary to question the reliability of a calculated margin from a prior segment of the proceeding. Further, there are no circumstances indicating that this margin is inappropriate as facts available. In fact, this margin is Acindar's own margin from the 2000-2001 administrative review of OCTG.
As a result of our determination that it is appropriate to apply adverse facts available to Acindar, we determine that a the weighted-average dumping margin of 60.73 percent exists for Acindar for the period August 1, 2001, through July 31, 2002.
The Department will determine, and the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (Customs) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to Customs within 15 days of publication of these final results of review. We will direct Customs to assess the resulting assessment rate against the entered customs values for the subject merchandise on each entry during the review period.
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the rate shown above; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be that established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this review, any previous reviews, or the LTFV investigation, the cash deposit rate will be 1.36 percent, the “all others” rate established in the LTFV investigation.
These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
This notice also serves as a reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties or countervailing duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(I)(1) of the Tariff Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of antidumping duty order.
Pursuant to section 736(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, the Department of Commerce is issuing an
July 2, 2003.
Michael Strollo, AD/CVD Enforcement Group I, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0629.
The merchandise covered by this investigation is polyvinyl alcohol (PVA). This product consists of all PVA hydrolyzed in excess of 80 percent, whether or not mixed or diluted with commercial levels of defoamer or boric acid, except as noted below.
The following products are specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation:
(1) PVA in fiber form.
(2) PVA with hydrolysis less than 83 mole percent and certified not for use in the production of textiles.
(3) PVA with hydrolysis greater than 85 percent and viscosity greater than or equal to 90 cps.
(4) PVA with a hydrolysis greater than 85 percent, viscosity greater than or equal to 80 cps but less than 90 cps, certified for use in an ink jet application.
(5) PVA for use in the manufacture of an excipient or as an excipient in the manufacture of film coating systems which are components of a drug or dietary supplement, and accompanied by an end-use certification.
(6) PVA covalently bonded with cationic monomer uniformly present on all polymer chains in a concentration equal to or greater than one mole percent.
(7) PVA covalently bonded with carboxylic acid uniformly present on all polymer chains in a concentration equal to or greater than two mole percent, certified for use in a paper application.
(8) PVA covalently bonded with thiol uniformly present on all polymer chains, certified for use in emulsion polymerization of non-vinyl acetic material.
(9) PVA covalently bonded with paraffin uniformly present on all polymer chains in a concentration equal to or greater than one mole percent.
(10) PVA covalently bonded with silan uniformly present on all polymer chains certified for use in paper coating applications.
(11) PVA covalently bonded with sulfonic acid uniformly present on all polymer chains in a concentration level equal to or greater than one mole percent.
(12) PVA covalently bonded with acetoacetylate uniformly present on all polymer chains in a concentration level equal to or greater than one mole percent.
(13) PVA covalently bonded with polyethylene oxide uniformly present on all polymer chains in a concentration level equal to or greater than one mole percent.
(14) PVA covalently bonded with quaternary amine uniformly present on all polymer chains in a concentration level equal to or greater than one mole percent.
(15) PVA covalently bonded with diacetoneacrylamide uniformly present on all polymer chains in a concentration level greater than three mole percent, certified for use in a paper application.
The merchandise under investigation is currently classifiable under subheading 3905.30.00 of the
On June 18, 2003, pursuant to section 735(b)(1)(A)(ii) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the International Trade Commission (the ITC) notified the Department of Commerce (the Department) of its final determination that the industry in the United States producing PVA is threatened with material injury by reason of import of the subject merchandise from Japan. In accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, the Department will direct the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (Customs) to assess, upon further advice by the administering authority, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the U.S. price of the merchandise for all relevant entries of PVA from Japan. In accordance with section 736(b)(2) of the Act, duties shall be assessed on subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the ITC's notice of final determination if that determination is based on the threat of material injury and is not accompanied by a finding that injury would have resulted but for the imposition of suspension of liquidation of entries since the Department's preliminary determination. In addition, section 736(b)(2) of the Act requires Customs to refund any cash deposits or bonds of estimated antidumping duties posted since the Department's preliminary antidumping determination if the ITC's final determination is based on a threat of material injury.
Because the ITC's final determination in this case is based on the threat of material injury and is not accompanied by a finding that injury would have resulted but for the imposition of suspension of liquidation of entries since the Department's preliminary determination, section 736(b)(2) of the Act is applicable to this order. Therefore, the Department will direct Customs to assess, upon further advice, antidumping duties on all unliquidated entries of PVA from Japan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the ITC's notice of final determination of threat of material injury in the
On or after the date of publication of the ITC's notice of final determination in the
This notice constitutes the antidumping duty order with respect to PVA from Japan, pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties may contact the Department's Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the Main Commerce Building, for copies of an updated list of antidumping duty orders currently in effect.
This order is published in accordance with section 736(a) of Act and 19 CFR 351.211.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of final results of antidumping duty new shipper review.
On April 4, 2003, the Department of Commerce published the preliminary results of the new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from Indonesia. The review covers two manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the United States: PT Karya Kompos Bagas, and PT Eka Timur Raya. The period of review is February 1, 2002, through July 31, 2002.
No interested party submitted comments on the preliminary results. We have made no changes to the margin calculation. Therefore, the final results do not differ from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping margins for the two manufacturers/exporters are listed below in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice.
July 2, 2003.
Rebecca Trainor or Sophie Castro, AD/CVD Enforcement Group I, Office 2, Import Administration-Room B099, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4007, or 482-0588, respectively.
The new shipper review covers two manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the United States: PT Karya Kompos Bagas (KKB), and PT Eka Timur Raya (Etira).
On April 4, 2003, the Department of Commerce published in the
We invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary results of the review, however no party submitted comments. The Department has conducted this new shipper review in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”).
The products covered by this order are certain preserved mushrooms, whether imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. The preserved mushrooms covered under this order are the species
Excluded from the scope of this order are the following: (1) All other species of mushroom, including straw mushrooms; (2) all fresh and chilled mushrooms, including “refrigerated” or “quick blanched mushrooms'; (3) dried mushrooms; (4) frozen mushrooms; and (5) “marinated,” “acidified” or “pickled” mushrooms, which are prepared or preserved by means of vinegar or acetic acid, but may contain oil or other additives.
The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable under subheadings 2003.10.0127, 2003.10.0131, 2003.10.0137, 2003.10.0143, 2003.10.0147, 2003.10.0153, and 0711.51.0000 of the
As a result of our new shipper review, we determine that the following weighted-average margin percentages apply for the period February 1, 2002, though July 31, 2002:
The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (“BCBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We will issue assessment instructions directly to BCBP within 15 days of publication of these final results of review. For assessment purposes, we do not have the actual entered values for all sales made by Etira. Accordingly, we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates by aggregating any dumping margins calculated for all of Etira's U.S. sales examined and dividing the respective amount by the total quantity of the sales examined. To determine whether the duty assessment rates are
Bonding will no longer be permitted to fulfill security requirements for shipments from certain preserved mushrooms from Indonesia entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of the new shipper review. Furthermore, the following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these final results of review, as provided by section 751(2)(1) and 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act: (1) For subject merchandise produced and exported by Etira or by KKB, no cash deposit will be required; (2) for subject merchandise exported by Etira or KKB but not produced by them, the cash deposit rate will be 11.26 percent, the “All Others” rate made effective by the less-than-fair-value investigation. These requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to the administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO material or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulation and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This new shipper review and notice are published in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative review and final determination to revoke the order in part.
SUMMARY: On March 7, 2003, the Department of Commerce published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from Indonesia and its intent to revoke the order in part. The review covers two manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the United States: PT Indo Evergreen Agro Business Corp., and PT Zeta Agro Corporation.
No interested party submitted comments on the preliminary results. We have made no changes to the margin calculation. Therefore, the final results do not differ from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping margins for the two manufacturers/exporters are listed below in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice.
July 2, 2003.
Rebecca Trainor or Sophie Castro, AD/CVD Enforcement Group I, Office 2, Import Administration-Room B099, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4007, or 482-0588, respectively.
The review covers two manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the United States: PT Indo Evergreen Agro Business Corp. (Indo Evergreen), and PT Zeta Agro Corporation (Zeta).
On March 7, 2003, the Department of Commerce published in the
We invited parties to comment on the preliminary results of the review. No interested party submitted comments. The Department has conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.
The products covered by this order are certain preserved mushrooms, whether imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. The preserved mushrooms covered under this order are the species
Excluded from the scope of this order are the following: (1) All other species of mushroom, including straw mushrooms; (2) all fresh and chilled mushrooms, including “refrigerated” or “quick blanched mushrooms”; (3) dried mushrooms; (4) frozen mushrooms; and (5) “marinated,” “acidified” or “pickled” mushrooms, which are prepared or preserved by means of vinegar or acetic acid, but may contain oil or other additives.
The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable under subheadings 2003.10.0027, 2003.10.0031, 2003.10.0037, 2003.10.0043, 2003.10.0047, 2003.10.0053, and 0711.90.4000 of the
In accordance with section 351.222(b)(2) of the Department's regulations, we have determined to revoke the antidumping duty order with respect to Zeta, effective as of February 1, 2002. Zeta has sold subject merchandise in commercial quantities at prices not below its normal value for three consecutive annual reviews (
As a result of our review, we determined that the following weighted-average margin percentages apply for the period February 1, 2001, though January 31, 2002:
The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (“BCBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We will issue assessment instructions directly to BCBP within 15 days of publication of these final results of review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), we will instruct BCBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above
With regard to Zeta, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(f)(3), we will instruct BCBP to proceed with liquidation, without regard to antidumping duties, of all unliquidated entries of certain preserved mushrooms from Indonesia entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 1, 2002. We will further instruct BCBP to refund with interest any estimated duties collected with respect to unliquidated entries of certain preserved mushrooms exported by Zeta.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for Indo Evergreen (Zeta is exempt due to revocation) is less than 0.50 percent, and therefore,
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to the administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO material or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulation and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This administrative review and notice are published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 751(d)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221 and 19 CFR 351.222.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Publication of quarterly update to annual listing of foreign government subsidies on articles of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty.
The Department of Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, has prepared its quarterly update to the annual list of foreign government subsidies on articles of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty during the period January 1, 2003 through March 31, 2003. We are publishing the current listing of those subsidies that we have determined exist.
July 2, 2003.
Alicia Kinsey, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement VI, Group II, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-2786.
Section 702 of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (as amended) (“the Act”) requires the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) to determine, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, whether any foreign government is providing a subsidy with respect to any article of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty, as defined in section 702(h) of the Act, and to publish an annual list and quarterly updates of the type and amount of those subsidies. We hereby provide the Department's quarterly update of subsidies on articles of cheese that were imported during the period January 1, 2003 through March 31, 2003.
The Department has developed, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, information on subsidies (as defined in section 702(h) of the Act) being provided either directly or indirectly by foreign governments on articles of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty. The appendix to this notice lists the country, the subsidy program or programs, and the gross and net amounts of each subsidy for which information is currently available.
The Department will incorporate additional programs which are found to constitute subsidies, and additional information on the subsidy programs listed, as the information is developed.
The Department encourages any person having information on foreign government subsidy programs which benefit articles of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty to submit such information in writing to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
This determination and notice are in accordance with section 702(a) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation.
July 2, 2003.
Geoffrey Craig at (202) 482-5256 or Stephen Cho at (202) 482-3798, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On June 5, 2003, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) received a petition filed in proper form by Apollo Colors Inc., General Press Colors, Ltd., Magruder Color Company, Inc., and Sun Chemical Corporation (collectively, “the petitioners”). The Department received petition supplements on June 16, June 18, and June 20, 2003.
In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), as amended, the petitioners allege that manufacturers, producers, or exporters of certain colored synthetic organic oleoresinous pigment dispersions (“colored pigment dispersions”) from India receive countervailable subsidies within the meaning of section 701 of the Act, and that such imports from India are materially injuring, or are threatening to materially injure, an industry in the United States.
The Department finds that the petitioners filed this petition on behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and they have demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the countervailing investigation that they are requesting the Department to initiate.
The products covered by this investigation are colored synthetic organic pigment dispersions containing pigments classified in either the Azo or Phthalocyanine chemical classes that have been dispersed in an oleoresinous varnish comprised of various combinations of solvents, oils and resins. The subject pigment dispersions are commonly known as “flush” or “flushed color,” but the base form of the subject pigment dispersions is also included in the scope of this investigation. The subject pigment dispersions are a thick putty or paste that contain by weight typically 20 percent or more pigment dispersed in the varnish, and are used primarily for the manufacture of letterpress and lithographic printing inks. The presence of additives, such as surfactants, antioxidants, wetting agents, and driers, in the subject pigment dispersions does not exclude them from the scope of this investigation.
Excluded from the scope of this investigation are dry powder pigments and pigment press cakes, as well as water and flammable solvent based colored pigment dispersions, which typically are used in manufacturing liquid or fluid inks. Also excluded is Yellow 75, which is typically used to make the yellow paint to line roads.
The merchandise subject to this investigation is classifiable under subheadings 3204.17.6020 (Pigment Blue 15:4), 3204.17.6085 (Pigments Red 48:1, Red 48:2, Red 48:3, and Yellow 174), 3204.17.9005 (Pigment Blue 15:3), 3204.17.9010 (Pigment Green 7), 3204.17.9015 (Pigment Green 36), 3204.17.9020 (Pigment Red 57:1), 3204.17.9045 (Pigment Yellow 12), 3204.17.9050 (Pigment Yellow 13), 3204.17.9055 (Pigment Yellow 74), and 3204.17.9086
As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations (
Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department invited representatives of the Government of India (“GOI”) for consultations with respect to the petition filed in this proceeding. However, the GOI declined our invitation, and therefore consultations were not held.
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act require that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act provide that the Department's industry support determination, which is to be made before the initiation of the investigation, be based on whether a minimum percentage of the relevant industry supports the petition. A petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (1) at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (2) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provide that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A), or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method.
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (“ITC”), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product (section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to the law.
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation,”
With regard to the definition of domestic like product, the petitioners do not offer a definition of domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation. Based on our analysis of the information presented by the petitioners, we have determined that there is a single domestic like product, colored pigment dispersions, which is defined in the “Scope of Investigation” section above, and we have analyzed industry support in terms of this domestic like product.
In their initial petition and subsequent submissions, the petitioners state that they comprise over 50 percent of U.S. colored pigment dispersions production. The petition identifies nine additional U.S. companies engaged in the production of colored pigment dispersions, none of which have taken a position on (either for or against) the petition. Through data provided by the petitioners and our own independent research, we have determined that the colored pigment dispersions production of these nine companies is not high enough to place the petitioners' industry support in jeopardy. Based on all available information, we agree that the petitioners comprise over 50 percent of all domestic colored pigment dispersions production.
Our review of the data provided in the petition and other information readily available to the Department indicates that the petitioners have established industry support representing over 50 percent of total production of the domestic like product, requiring no further action by the Department pursuant to section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act. In addition, the Department received no opposition to the petition from domestic producers of the like product. Therefore, the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, and the requirements of section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act are met. Furthermore, the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for or opposition to the petition. Thus, the requirements of section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act also are met. Accordingly, the Department determines that the petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. For more information on our analysis and the data upon which we relied, see Import Administration AD/CVD Enforcement Initiation Checklist (“Initiation Checklist”), Industry Support section and Attachment II, dated June 25, 2003, on file in the Central Records Unit of the main Department of Commerce building.
Because India is a “Subsidies Agreement Country” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) applies to these investigations. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from India materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.
The petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of the subject merchandise.
The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is evident in the declining trends in net operating profits, net sales volumes, profit-to-sales ratios, and production employment. The allegations of injury and causation are supported by relevant evidence including U.S. import data, lost sales, and pricing information. We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet statutory requirements for initiation. See the Initiation Checklist.
The Department has examined the countervailing duty petition on colored pigment dispersions from India and found that it complies with the requirements of section 702(b) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 702(b) of the Act, we are initiating countervailing duty investigation to determine whether manufacturers, producers, or exporters of colored pigment dispersions receive countervailable subsidies. We will make our preliminary determination no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation, unless this deadline is extended pursuant to section 703(b)(1) of the Act.
We are including in our investigation the following programs alleged in the petition to have provided a countervailable subsidy to manufacturers, producers, or exporters of colored pigment dispersions:
A discussion of evidence supporting our initiation determination on these programs is contained in the
At this time, we are not including in our investigation of colored pigment dispersions the following programs alleged to benefit producers and exporters of the subject merchandise in India.
According to the petitioners, the State of Gujarat infrastructure provides assistance to industrial units located in special economic zones under its Special Economic Zones scheme. Under the program, industrial units located in SEZs in Gujarat will receive incentives including exemption from electrical duty for ten years and exemption from payment of sales and other levies. Petitioners claim that this program results in revenue forgone by the State of Gujarat and is specific to companies located within a designated geographic region of Gujarat.
In
According to the petitioners, the State of Gujarat provides infrastructure assistance to registered industrial units under its Financial Assistance for Upgradation of Quality in SSI/Medium & Large Scale Section. This alleged program applies to “all industrial units which have been registered as a SSI/SSEB with respective DICs or/and industries registered under Industries (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951 as amended * * *.” Under this alleged program, eligible industrial units are eligible for government reimbursements of up to 50 percent for expenditures such as consultant fees and equipment for research and development, and testing equipment. Petitioners claim that this alleged program results in a direct transfer of funds from the State of Gujarat that benefit the recipients in the amount of the infrastructure expenses paid.
The petitioners have provided no information indicating that the benefits provided under this program are specific. In particular, there is no information that the eligible companies comprise a specific group of industries within the meaning of section 771(5A) of the Act and section 351.502 of the Department's regulations.
According to the petitioners, the Indian Ministry of Finance extends loan guarantees to selected Indian companies on an
The petitioners have provided no information to support their supposition that manufacturers and exporters of the subject merchandise received loans, loan guarantees, or debt forgiveness.
In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i)) of the Act, a copy of the public version of the petition has been provided to the representatives of the Government of India. We will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the petition to each exporter named in the petition, as provided for under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
We have notified the ITC of our initiation as required by section 702(d) of the Act.
The ITC will preliminarily determine no later than July 21, 2003, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of Certain Colored Synthetic Organic Oleoresinous Pigment Dispersions from India are causing material injury, or threatening to cause material injury, to a U.S. industry. A
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act.
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Request for nominations of members to serve on the Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology.
NIST invites and requests nomination of individuals for appointment to the Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology (VCAT). The terms of some of the members of the VCAT will soon expire. NIST will consider nominations received in response to this notice for appointment to the Committee, in addition to nominations already received.
Please submit nominations on or before July 17, 2003.
Please submit nominations to Nancy Miles, Administrative Coordinator, Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1000, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1000. Nominations may also be submitted via FAX to (301) 869-8972.
Additional information regarding the Committee, including its charter, current membership list, and executive summary may be found on its electronic Home page at:
Nancy Miles, Administrative Coordinator, Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1000, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1000, telephone (301) 975-2300, fax (301) 869-8972; or via e-mail at
The VCAT was established in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 278 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
1. The Committee shall review and make recommendations regarding general policy for NIST, its organization, its budget, and its programs, within the framework of applicable national policies as set forth by the President and the Congress.
2. The Committee functions solely as an advisory body, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
3. The Committee shall report to the Director of NIST.
4. The Committee shall provide a written annual report, through the Director of NIST, to the Secretary of Commerce for submission to the Congress on or before January 31 each year. Such report shall deal essentially, though not necessarily exclusively, with policy issues or matters which affect the Institute, or with which the Committee in its official role as the private sector policy adviser of the Institute is concerned. Each such report shall identify areas of research and research techniques of the Institute of potential importance to the long-term competitiveness of United States industry, which could be used to assist United States enterprises and United States industrial joint research and development ventures. The Committee shall submit to the Secretary and the Congress such additional reports on specific policy matters as it deems appropriate.
1. The Committee is composed of fifteen members that provide representation of a cross-section of traditional and emerging United States industries. Members shall be selected solely on the basis of established records of distinguished service and shall be eminent in one or more fields such as business, research, new product development, engineering, labor, education, management consulting, environment, and international relations. No employee of the Federal Government shall serve as a member of the Committee.
2. The Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology shall appoint the members of the Committee, and they will be selected on a clear, standardized basis, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidance.
1. Members of the VCAT are not paid for their service, but will, upon request, be allowed travel expenses in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 5701
2. Meetings of the VCAT take place in the Washington, DC metropolitan area, usually at the NIST headquarters in Gaithersburg, Maryland, and once each year at the NIST headquarters in Boulder, Colorado. Meetings are one or two days in duration and are held quarterly.
3. Committee meetings are open to the public except for approximately one hour, usually at the beginning of the meeting, a closed session is held in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6), because divulging information discussed in those portions of the meetings is likely to reveal information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. All other portions of the meetings are open to the public.
1. Nominations are sought from all fields described above.
2. Nominees should have established records of distinguished service and shall be eminent in fields such as business, research, new product development, engineering, labor, education, management consulting, environment and international relations. The category (field of eminence) for which the candidate is qualified should be specified in the nomination letter. Nominations for a particular category should come from organizations or individuals within that category. A summary of the candidate's qualifications should be included with the nomination, including (where applicable) current or former service on federal advisory boards and federal employment. In addition, each nomination letter should state that the person agrees to the nomination, acknowledge the responsibilities of serving on the VCAT, and will actively participate in good faith in the tasks of the VCAT. Besides participation at meetings, it is desired that members be able to devote the equivalent of two days between meetings to either developing or researching topics of potential interest, and so forth in furtherance of their Committee duties.
3. The Department of Commerce is committed to equal opportunity in the
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Request for nominations of members to serve on the Advanced Technology Program Advisory Committee.
NIST invites and requests nomination of individuals for appointment to the Advanced Technology Program Advisory Committee. NIST will consider nominations received in response to this notice for appointment to the Committee, in additional to nominations already received.
Please submit nominations on or before July 17, 2003.
Please submit nominations to Mr. Marc Stanley, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 4700, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-4700. Nominations may also be submitted via FAX to 301-869-1150.
Additional information regarding the Committee, including its charter and current membership list may be found on its electronic Home page at:
Mr. Marc Stanley, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 4700, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-4700; telephone 301-975-4644, fax 301-301-869-1150; or via e-mail at
The Committee will advise the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on ATP programs, plans, and policies.
The Committee will consist of not fewer than six nor more than twelve members appointed by the Director of NIST and its membership will be balanced to reflect the wide diversity of technical disciplines and industrial sectors represented in ATP projects.
The Committee will function solely as an advisory body, in compliance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
Federal Advisory Committee Act: 5 U.S.C. App.2 and General Services Administration Rule: 41 CFR subpart 101-6.10.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Commerce.
Request for nominations of members to serve on the Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board.
NIST invites and requests nominations of individuals for appointment to the Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board (ISPAB). NIST will consider nominations received in response to this notice for appointment to the Board, in addition to nominations already received.
The nomination period is open-ended.
Please submit nominations to Joan Hash, ISPAB Secretary, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, M.S. 8930, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8930. Nominations may also be submitted via fax to 301-948-2733, Attn: ISPAB Nominations.
Additional information regarding the Board, including its charter and current membership list, may be found on its electronic Home page at:
Joan Hash, ISPAB Designated Federal Official, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, M.S. 8930, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8930; telephone 301-975-3357; telefax: 301-926-2733; or via e-mail at
The ISPAB was originally chartered as the Computer System Security and Privacy Advisory Board (CSSPAB) by the Department of Commerce pursuant to the Computer Security Act of 1987 (Pub. L. 100-235). As a result of the E-Government Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-347), Title III, the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002, Section 21 of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278g-4, the Board's charter was amended. This amendment included the name change of the Board.
The objectives and duties of the ISPAB are:
1.To identify emerging managerial, technical, administrative, and physical safeguard issues relative to information security and privacy.
2. To advise the NIST, the Secretary of Commerce and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget on information security and privacy issues pertaining to Federal Government information systems, including thorough review of proposed standards and guidelines developed by NIST.
3. To annually report its findings to the Secretary of Commerce, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Director of the National Security Agency, and the appropriate committees of the Congress.
4. To function solely as an advisory body, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
The ISPAB is comprised of twelve members, in addition to the Chairperson. The membership of the Board includes:
(1) Four members from outside the Federal Government eminent in the information technology industry, at least one of whom is representative of small or medium sized companies in such industries;
(2) Four members from outside the Federal Government who are eminent in the fields of information technology, or related disciplines, but who are not employed by or representative of a producer of information technology equipment; and,
(3) Four members from the Federal Government who have information system management experience, including experience in information security and privacy, at least one of these members shall be from the National Security Agency.
Members of the ISPAB are not paid for their service, but will, upon request, be allowed travel expenses in accordance with Subchapter I of Chapter 57 of Title 5, United States Code, while otherwise performing duties at the request of the Board
Meetings of the Board are two to three days in duration and are held quarterly. The meetings primarily take place in the Washington, DC metropolitan area but may be held at such locations and at such time and place as determined by the majority of the Board.
Board meetings are open to the public and members of the press usually attend. Members do not have access to classified or proprietary information in connection with their Board duties.
Nominations are being accepted in all three categories described above.
Nominees should have specific experience related to information security or electronic privacy issues, particularly as they pertain to Federal information technology. Letters of nominations should include the category of membership for which the candidate is applying and a summary of the candidate's qualifications for that specific category. Also include (where applicable) current or former service on Federal advisory boards and any Federal employment. Each nomination letter should state that the person agrees to the nomination, acknowledges the responsibilities of serving on the ISPAB, and that they will actively participate in good faith in the tasks of the ISPAB.
Besides participation at meetings, it is desired that members be able to devote a minimum of two days between meetings to developing draft issue papers, researching topics of potential interest, and so forth in furtherance of their Board duties.
Selection of ISPAB members will not be limited to individuals who are nominated. Nominations that are received and meet the requirements will be kept on file to be reviewed as Board vacancies occur.
Nominees must be U.S. citizens.
The Department of Commerce is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks a broad-based and diverse ISPAB membership.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Department of Commerce.
Request for nominations of members to serve on the Judges Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award.
NIST invites and requests nomination of individuals for appointment to the Judges Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (Judges Panel). The terms of some of the members of the Judges Panel will soon expire. NIST will consider nominations received in response to this notice for appointment to the Committee, in addition to nominations already received.
Please submit nominations on or before July 17, 2003.
Please submit nominations to Harry Hertz, Director, National Quality Program, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1020, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1020. Nominations may also be submitted via FAX to (301) 948-3716. Additional information regarding the Committee, including its charter, current membership list, and executive summary may be found on its electronic Home page at:
Harry Hertz, Director, National Quality Program and Designated Federal Official, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1020, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1020; telephone (301) 975-2361; FAX (301) 948-3716; or via e-mail at
The Judges Panel was established in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 3711a(d)(1), the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2), The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Improvement Act of 1987 (Pub. L. 101-107).
1. The Judges Panel will ensure the integrity of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award selection process by reviewing the results of examiners' scoring of written applications, and then voting on which applicants merit site visits by examiners to verify the accuracy of quality improvements claimed by applicants.
2. The Judges Panel will ensure that individuals on site visit teams for the Award finalists have no conflict of interest with respect to the finalists. The Panel will also review recommendations from site visits, and recommend Award recipients.
3. The Judges Panel will function solely as an advisory body, and will comply with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
4. The Panel will report to the Director of NIST.
1. The Judges Panel is composed of at least nine, and not more than twelve, members selected on a clear, standardized basis, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidance. There will be a balanced representation from U.S. service and manufacturing industries, education, and health care and will include members familiar with quality improvement in their area of business. No employee of the Federal Government shall serve as a member of the Judges Panel.
2. The Judges Panel will be appointed by the Secretary of Commerce and will serve at the discretion of the Secretary. The term of office of each Panel member shall be three years. All terms will commence on March 1 and end on February 28 of the appropriate year.
1. Members of the Judges Panel shall serve without compensation, but may, upon request, be reimbursed travel expenses, including per diem, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5701
2. The Judges Panel will meet four times per year. Additional meetings may be called as deemed necessary by the NIST Director or by the Chairperson. Meetings are one to four days in duration. In addition, each Judge must attend an annual three-day Examiner training course.
3. Committee meetings are closed to the public pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2, as amended by section 5(c) of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, and in accordance with section 552b(c)(4) of title 5, United States Code. Since the members of the Judges Panel examine records and discuss Award applicant data, the meeting is likely to disclose trade secrets; and commercial or financial information obtained from a person may be privileged or confidential.
1. Nominations are sought from all U.S. service and manufacturing
2. Nominees should have established records of distinguished service and shall be familiar with the quality improvement operations of manufacturing companies, service companies, small businesses, education and health care organizations. The category (field of eminence) for which the candidate is qualified should be specified in the nomination letter. Nominations for a particular category should come from organizations or individuals within that category. A summary of the candidate's qualifications should be included with the nomination, including (where applicable) current or former service on federal advisory boards and federal employment. In addition, each nomination letter should state that the person agrees to the nomination, acknowledge the responsibilities of serving on the Judges Panel, and will actively participate in good faith in the tasks of the Judges Panel. Besides participation at meetings, it is desired that members be able to devote the equivalent of seventeen days between meetings to either developing or researching topics of potential interest, reading Baldrige applications, and so forth, in furtherance of their Committee duties.
3. The Department of Commerce is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks a broad-based and diverse Judges Panel membership.
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Request for nominations of members to serve on the Board of Overseers of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award.
NIST invites and requests nomination of individuals for appointment to Board of Overseers of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (Board). The terms of some of the members of the Board will soon expire. NIST will consider nominations received in response to this notice for appointment to the Committee, in addition to nominations already received.
Please submit nominations on or before July 17, 2003.
Please submit nominations to Harry Hertz, Director, National Quality Program, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1020, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1020. Nominations may also be submitted via FAX to 301-948-3716. Additional information regarding the Committee, including its charter, current membership list, and executive summary may be found on its electronic Home page at:
Harry Hertz, Director, National Quality Program and Designated Federal Official, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1020, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1020; telephone 301-975-2361; FAX—301-948-3716; or via e-mail at
The Board was established in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 3711a(d)(2)(B), pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app.2).
1. The Board shall review the work of the private sector contractor(s), which assists the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in administering the Award. The Board will make such suggestions for the improvement of the Award process as it deems necessary.
2. The Board shall provide a written annual report on the results of Award activities to the Secretary of Commerce, along with its recommendations for the improvement of the Award process.
3. The Board will function solely as an advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
4. The Board will report to the Director of NIST and the Secretary of Commerce.
1. The Board will consist of approximately eleven members selected on a clear, standardized basis, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidance, and for their preeminence in the field of quality management. There will be a balanced representation from U.S. service and manufacturing industries, education and health care. The Board will include members familiar with the quality improvement operations of manufacturing companies, service companies, small businesses, education, and health care. No employee of the Federal Government shall serve as a member of the Board of Overseers.
2. The Board will be appointed by the Secretary of Commerce and will serve at the discretion of the Secretary. The term of office of each Board member shall be three years. All terms will commence on March 1 and end on February 28 of the appropriate year.
1. Members of the Board shall serve without compensation, but may, upon request, be reimbursed travel expenses, including per diem, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5701
2. The Board will meet twice annually, except that additional meetings may be called as deemed necessary by the NIST Director or by the Chairperson. Meetings are one day in duration.
3. Board meetings are open to the public. Board members do not have access to classified or proprietary information in connection with their Board duties.
1. Nominations are sought from the private sector as described above.
2. Nominees should have established records of distinguished service and shall be familiar with the quality improvement operations of manufacturing companies, service companies, small businesses, education, and health care. The category (field of eminence) for which the candidate is qualified should be specified in the nomination letter. Nominations for a particular category should come from organizations or individuals within that category. A summary of the candidate's qualifications should be included with the nomination, including (where applicable) current or former service on federal advisory boards and federal employment. In addition, each nomination letter should state that the person agrees to the nomination, acknowledges the responsibilities of serving on the Board, and will actively participate in good faith in the tasks of the Board. Besides participation at meetings, it is desired that members be able to devote the equivalent of seven days between meetings to either developing or researching topics of potential interest, and so forth, in furtherance of their Board duties.
3. The Department of Commerce is committed to equal opportunity in the
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Request for nominations of members to serve on the Manufacturing Extension Partnership National Advisory Board.
NIST invites and requests nomination of individuals for appointment to the Manufacturing Extension Partnership National Advisory Board. NIST will consider nominations received in response to this notice for appointment to the Board, in addition to nominations already received.
Please submit nominations on or before July 17, 2003.
Please submit nominations to Ms. Carrie Hines, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 4800, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-4800. Nominations may also be submitted via FAX to 301-963-6556.
Additional information regarding the Board, including its charter and current membership list may be found on its electronic Home page at
Ms. Carrie Hines, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 4800, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-4800; telephone 301-975-3360, fax 301-963-6556; or via e-mail at
The Board will advise the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) o MEP programs, plans, and policies.
The Board will consist of nine individuals appointed by the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) under the advisement of the Director of MEP. Membership on the Board shall be balanced to represent the views and needs of customers, providers, and others involved in industrial extension throughout the United States.
The Board will function solely as an advisory body, in compliance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
Federal Advisory Committee Act: 5 U.S.C. App. 2 and General Services Administration Rule: 41 CFR subpart 101-6.10.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
Written comments must be submitted on or before September 2, 2003.
Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Peter Christopher, 978-281-9288, or at
Sea scallop fishermen wishing to fish in exemption areas are subject to certain vessel monitoring system (VMS) and communications requirements. The information requirements are: (1) VMS purchase and installation, (2) documentation and verification of VMS installation, (3) automated position reports from the VMS twice per hour, (4) daily reporting of catch and related information, (5) notification of intent to participate in the fishery 15 days prior to the opening of the exemption area, and (6) notification at least 5 days prior to leaving on a fishing trip to allow for observer assignment.
Verification of VMS installation is made by submission of a paper document. Other reporting is done electronically via the VMS unit's e-mail messaging system.
Comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
Written comments must be submitted on or before September 2, 2003.
Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Robert Sadler, 727-570-5326, or
The individual transferable quota system in the wreckfish fishery is based on percentage shares. Persons holding shares may sell or otherwise transfer them to others, but information about the proposed transfer must first be provided to NOAA. The information is needed to manage the quota system, and information about the sales price is used in economic analyses.
The information is submitted in paper form.
IV. Request for Comments
Comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, NOAA, Commerce.
Notice of open meeting.
The Science Advisory Board (SAB) was established by a Decision Memorandum dated September 25, 1997, and is the only Federal Advisory Committee with responsibility to advise the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere on long- and short-range strategies for research, education, and application of science to resource management. SAB activities and advice provide necessary input to ensure that National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) science programs are of the highest quality and provide optimal support to resource management.
Dr. Michael Uhart, Executive Director, Science Advisory Board, NOAA, Rm. 11142, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910. (Phone: 301-713-9121, Fax: 301-713-0163, e-mail:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice to U.S. vessel owners of need for break-bulk refrigerated cargo vessels.
NMFS provides notice to U.S. vessel owners of the need for break-bulk refrigerated cargo vessels to support approved foreign fishing operations in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
Additional information on this action may be obtained from NMFS, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, International Fisheries Division, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
Robert A. Dickinson, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, (301) 713-2276.
Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801
Potential joint venture (JV) partners have reported that they will need to have a number of break-bulk refrigerated cargo vessels permitted under section 204(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to support approved foreign fishing operations in the EEZ. The JV partners have reported that arrangements for such support vessels must generally be made on short notice immediately prior to the need for transport services. The JV partners have also reported that they are not aware of the availability of any U.S.-flag break-bulk refrigerated cargo vessels and that it will therefore be necessary for them to employ foreign break-bulk refrigerated cargo vessels to support their operations.
In the interest of expediting the issuance of required permits and in accordance with section 204(d)(3) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the JV partners have requested and received from the New England Fishery Management Council and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, a recommendation that any break-bulk refrigerated cargo vessels required to support approved foreign fishing operations in the EEZ be permitted under section 204(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
In accordance with section 204(d)(3)(D) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is notifying interested parties of the need of the JV partners for break-bulk refrigerated cargo vessels to transship processed fishery products at-sea and transport the products to points outside the United States. Further information about the requirements of the JV partners is available from NMFS (see
In consideration of the Councils' recommendation, the apparent lack of available U.S.-flag break-bulk refrigerated cargo vessels (as reported by the JV partners), and the requirement to process and issue on short notice permits requested in accordance with section 204(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, until an owner or operator of a vessel of the United States having adequate capacity to perform the required transportation at fair and reasonable rates is identified, NMFS intends to approve as expeditiously as possible all complete applications for 204(d) transshipment permits submitted by U.S. JV partners in support of approved foreign fishing operations in the EEZ.
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice of funding availability.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (hereinafter the ‘Corporation’) announces the availability of approximately $3,000,000 in fiscal year 2003 funds to award AmeriCorps*VISTA program grants to eligible nonprofit and public organizations. The Corporation anticipates making between 5 and 15 AmeriCorps*VISTA program grants under this announcement. Each grant budget will support a minimum of 15 and a maximum of 50 AmeriCorps*VISTA members on a full-time basis for one year of service. The Corporation will make awards covering a period not to exceed one year with a potential for an additional two years of funding, contingent upon satisfactory performance, the availability of funds, and other criteria established in the award agreement. These estimates are projections for the guidance of potential applicants. The Corporation is not bound by any estimate in this notice. Publication of this announcement does not obligate the Corporation to award any specific number of grants or to obligate the entire amount of funds available, or any part thereof, for grants under the AmeriCorps*VISTA program. Applicable regulations include the uniform administrative requirements for grants and agreements with institutions of higher education, hospitals, and other nonprofit organizations, 45 CFR part 2543 or the uniform administrative requirements for grants and cooperative agreements to State and local governments, 45 CFR part 2541.
AmeriCorps*VISTA assigns individuals 18 years and older, on a full-time, year-long basis, to public and private nonprofit organizations whose goals are in accord with AmeriCorps*VISTA's legislative mission. (42 U.S.C. 4951) The purpose of these program grants is to create and expand opportunities for low income individuals in one of the following broad areas: (1) Children and youth; (2) welfare to work; (3) financial asset development; (4) seniors in poverty, and (5) homeland security. AmeriCorps*VISTA Projects in these initiatives will focus on (1) local or state organizations working alone or in conjunction with local affiliates that share a vision and common goal of
Eligible applicants for AmeriCorps*VISTA program grants supporting these initiatives must be private non-profit or public organizations. AmeriCorps*VISTA sponsoring organizations may apply without affecting the status of their current projects. However, applicants must differentiate between this grant's proposed activities and those of the currently-funded program or pending application. Eligible nonprofit and public organizations, including those that have not applied for federal assistance from the Corporation in the past, as well as interested community-based organizations (secular and faith-based), are encouraged to apply.
This notice is not a complete description of the activities to be funded or of the application requirements. For supplementary information and application guidelines go to the Corporation's Web site at
Applications must be received at the Corporation by 5 p.m. on August 15, 2003. We anticipate announcing selections under this Notice no later than September 12, 2003.
Submit your application to the following address: Corporation for National and Community Service, 1201 New York Avenue NW., Stop 9100, Washington, DC 20525. Due to delays in delivery of regular mail to government offices, there is no guarantee that an application sent by regular mail will arrive in time to be considered. We therefore suggest that you use U.S.P.S. priority mail or a commercial overnight delivery service to make sure that you meet the deadline. We will not accept an application that is submitted via facsimile. Applications for AmeriCorps*VISTA will not be accepted via eGrants at this time.
Kelly Daly at (202) 606-5000 ext. 378, or by e-mail at
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice of funding availability.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (hereinafter the “Corporation”) announces the availability of approximately $1,200,000 in fiscal year 2003 funds to award AmeriCorps*VISTA program grants to eligible nonprofit and public organizations providing services in the Corporation's Southwest cluster (AR, AZ, CO, KS, LA, MO, NM, OK, TX). ). Applicant organizations are not required to be geographically-based in the nine-state southwest cluster, so long as the proposed grant activities will provide services within one or more of those nine states. The Corporation anticipates making between 5 and 8 AmeriCorps*VISTA program grants under this announcement. Each grant budget will support a minimum of 15 and a maximum of 40 AmeriCorps*VISTA members on a full-time basis for one year of service. The Corporation will make awards covering a period not to exceed one year with a potential for an additional two years of funding, contingent upon satisfactory performance, the availability of funds, and other criteria established in the award agreement. These estimates are projections for the guidance of potential applicants. The Corporation is not bound by any estimate in this notice. Publication of this announcement does not obligate the Corporation to award any specific number of grants or to obligate the entire amount of funds available, or any part thereof, for grants under the AmeriCorps*VISTA program. Applicable regulations include the uniform administrative requirements for grants and agreements with institutions of higher education, hospitals, and other nonprofit organizations, 45 CFR part 2543 or the uniform administrative requirements for grants and cooperative agreements to State and local governments, 45 CFR Part 2541.
AmeriCorps*VISTA assigns individuals 18 years and older, on a full-time, year-long basis, to public and private nonprofit organizations whose goals are in accord with AmeriCorps*VISTA's legislative mission. (42 U.S.C. 4951) The purpose of these program grants is to create and expand opportunities for individuals in one of the following two areas: (1) homeland security and (2) seniors in poverty.
Preference will be given to AmeriCorps*VISTA Projects serving as “umbrella sponsorships” where the applicant provides fiscal and programmatic capacity on behalf of small, community-based (secular and faith based) organizations, and/or local sites of the sponsoring organization. Applicants should be local, state or national organizations working alone or in conjunction with local affiliates that share a vision and common goal of working with low-income communities to achieve long-lasting antipoverty objectives. Proposed projects should focus on:
(1) Promotion of partnerships and collaboration between the public and private sectors including businesses, community-based organizations (secular and faith-based) and other service programs;
(2) Recruitment, training, and coordination of local volunteers;
(3) Mobilization of resources needed to support the project; and
(4) Development of a sustainable capacity in local communities.
While there is no specific match requirement, the level of matching contributions will also be considered in the final application selection.
Eligible applicants for AmeriCorps*VISTA program grants supporting these initiatives must be private non-profit or public organizations. AmeriCorps*VISTA sponsoring organizations may apply without affecting the status of their current projects. However, applicants must differentiate between this grant's proposed activities and those of the currently-funded program or pending application. Projects should be state-based (one legal applicant with site(s) in one or more of the nine states in the Southwest region—AR, AZ, CO, KS, LA, MO, NM, OK, TX) to be considered.
This notice is not a complete description of the activities to be funded or of the application requirements. For supplementary information and application guidelines go to the Corporation's Web site at
Applications must be received at the Corporation by 5 p.m. on August 4, 2003. We anticipate announcing selections under this Notice no later than September 8, 2003.
Submit your application to the following address: Corporation for National and Community Service, 120 South Federal Place, #315, Santa Fe, NM 87501. Due to delays in delivery of regular mail to government offices, there is no guarantee that an application sent by regular mail will arrive in time to be considered. We therefore suggest that you use U.S.P.S. priority mail or a commercial overnight delivery service to make sure that you meet the deadline. We will not accept an application that is submitted via facsimile. Applications for AmeriCorps*VISTA will not be accepted via eGrants at this time.
Kathie Ferguson at (303) 312-7959. or
Department of the Navy, DOD.
Notice of closed meeting.
The Naval Research Advisory Committee (NRAC) Panel on Electromagnetic (EM) Gun Technology Assessment will meet to provide a technical assessment of the status of EM Gun technology and the potential for achieving the revolutionary performance associated with this concept for Naval applications. From these discussions the NRAC Panel will review and document the performance capabilities considered necessary to achieve a militarily effective EM Gun system; review and assess the currently demonstrated and projected performance of those technologies necessary to field a durable EM gun with predictable, repeatable performance; evaluate the production feasibility of a projectile that will withstand all launch environmental transients and effectively perform at the target; project rough order of magnitude cost estimates for the non-recurring general projectile development program and the subsequent recurring projectile costs. All sessions of the meeting will be closed to the public.
The meetings will be held on Monday, July 7, 2003, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.; Tuesday, July 8, 2003, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and Wednesday, July 9, 2003, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The meetings will be held at the Office of Naval Research, 800 North Quincy Street, Arlington, VA 22217-5660.
Dennis Ryan, Program Director, Naval Research Advisory Committee, 800 North Quincy Street, Arlington, VA 22217-5660, (703) 696-6769.
This notice of meeting is provided in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2). All sessions of the meeting will be devoted to discussions basic and advanced research and associated science and technology opportunities with respect to concepts and science and technology (S&T) initiatives required to produce a militarily effective Naval EM Gun system. These discussions will contain classified information that is specifically authorized under criteria established by Executive Order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense and are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive Order. The classified and non-classified matters to be discussed are so inextricably intertwined as to preclude opening any portion of the meeting. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. App. 2, section 10(d), the Secretary of the Navy has determined in writing that the public interest requires that all sessions of the meeting be closed to the public because they will be concerned with matters listed in 5 U.S.C. section 552b(c)(1). Due to unavoidable delay in administrative processing, the normal 15 days notice could not be provided.
Department of the Navy, DOD.
Notice of closed meeting.
The Naval Research Advisory Committee (NRAC) Panel on Technology for FORCEnet will meet to define the concepts and science and technology (S&T) initiatives, including those in the space, atmospheric, surface and subsurface environments, required to achieve the visions of FORCEnet and Sea Power 21. From these discussions the NRAC Panel will recommend appropriate near and far term naval science and technology investments to enhance FORCEnet. All sessions of the meeting will be closed to the public.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, July 8, 2003, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.; Wednesday, July 9, 2003, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.; and Thursday, July 10, 2003, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The meetings will be held at the Office of Naval Research, 800 North Quincy Street, Arlington, VA 22217-5660.
Dennis Ryan, Program Director, Naval Research Advisory Committee, 800 North Quincy Street, Arlington, VA 22217-5660, (703) 696-6769.
This notice of meeting is provided in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2). All sessions of the meeting will be devoted to discussions basic and advanced research and associated science and technology opportunities with respect to concepts and science and technology (S&T) initiatives, including those in the space, atmospheric, surface and subsurface environments, required to achieve the visions of FORCEnet and Sea Power 21. These discussions will contain classified information that is specifically authorized under criteria
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
Tuesday, July 15, 2003, 8 a.m.-6 p.m., and Wednesday, July 16, 2003, 8 a.m.-5 p.m.
Public participation sessions will be held on: Tuesday, July 15, 2003, 12:15-12:30 p.m., 5:45-6 p.m., and Wednesday, July 16, 2003, 11:45-12 noon, 4-4:15 p.m.
These times are subject to change as the meeting progresses. Please check with the meeting facilitator to confirm these times.
Red Lion Hotel (formerly the West Coast Hotel), 475 River Parkway, Idaho Falls, ID 83402.
Ms. Wendy Green Lowe, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) Citizens' Advisory Board (CAB) Facilitator, Jason Associates Corporation, 545 Shoup Avenue, Suite 335B, Idaho Falls, ID 83402, Phone (208) 522-1662, X3012 or visit the Board's Internet Home page at
Objectives include:
• To meet with the new DOE's Idaho Operations Office (DOE-ID) Site Manager.
• To receive a status report addressing the Environmental Management Program, implementation of the Performance Management Plan for Accelerating Cleanup at the INEEL, and compliance with the Idaho Settlement Agreement.
• To receive informational presentations, participate in facilitated discussions, and/or provide recommendations addressing the end state for the INEEL, including discussion of:
—The Comprehensive Facilities and Land Use Plan and other land use planning documents addressing the INEEL.
—A review of the entire site (by Waste Area Group) describing those end states that have already been determined and identification of those that have not been determined.
—Discussion of how the public will be involved in all pending end state decisions.
• To receive a presentation addressing DOE's contracting strategy for the INEEL.
• To discuss the Long-Term Stewardship Implementation Plan.
• To discuss the Community Relations Plan for the INEEL.
• To receive a presentation addressing the selection of a small business contractor for the INEEL CERCLA Disposal Facility.
The following filings have been made with the Commission. The filings are listed in ascending order within each docket classification.
Take notice that on June 19, 2003, the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (Midwest ISO) submitted for filing proposed revisions to Schedule 10 (ISO Cost Recovery Adder) of the Midwest ISO Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT), FERC Electric Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, pursuant to Order of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Midwest Independent Transmission
Midwest ISO states that pursuant to the Settlement reached in these proceedings, the Midwest ISO requests an effective date of March 1, 2003.
The Midwest ISO has requested waiver of the service requirements set forth in 18 CFR 385.2010. The Midwest ISO states that it has electronically served a copy of this filing, with attachments, upon all Midwest ISO Members, Member representatives of Transmission Owners and Non-Transmission Owners, the Midwest ISO Advisory Committee participants, Policy Subcommittee participants, as well as all state commissions within the region. In addition, the filing has been electronically posted on the Midwest ISO's Web site at www.midwestiso.org under the heading “Filings to FERC” for other interested parties in this matter.
Take notice that on June 20, 2003, the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (the Midwest ISO) tendered for filing its Revised Process for the Use of Network Resources Outside of the Midwest ISO and Resolving Competing Requests for Transmission Service Among Network Customers and between Point-to-Point and Network Customers as Attachment “U” to its Open Access Transmission Tariff in compliance with the Commission's May 21, 2003, Order issued in Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc., 103 FERC • 61,212.
The Midwest ISO has requested waiver of the requirements set forth in 18 CFR 385.2010. The Midwest ISO states that it has electronically served a copy of this filing, with attachments, upon all Midwest ISO Members, Member representatives of Transmission Owners and Non-Transmission Owners, the Midwest ISO Advisory Committee participants, Policy Subcommittee participants, as well as all state commissions within the region. In addition, the filing has been electronically posted on the Midwest ISO's Web site at www.midwestiso.org under the heading Filings to FERC” for other interested parties in this matter.
Take notice that on June 20, 2003, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.(Midwest ISO), FPL Energy Hancock County Wind, LLC, and Interstate Power and Light Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Alliant Energy Corporation (collectively, the Parties) submitted for filing an Amended Interconnection and Operating Agreement.
Midwest ISO states that copies of this filing were served to FPL Energy and Alliant Energy.
Take notice that on June 19, 2003, the New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO) tendered for filing a compliance filing in accordance with the Commission's May 20, 2003 Order accepting for filing tariff revisions in Docket No. ER03-647-000. The NYISO has requested an effective date of June 19, 2003.
The NYISO states it has served a copy of this filing upon all parties that have executed service agreements under the NYISO's Open Access Transmission Tariff or the Services Tariff and upon the New York State Public Service Commission and to the electric utility regulatory agencies in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
Take notice that on June 19, 2003, the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (Midwest ISO) and Minnesota Power, Inc. (Minnesota Power) filed a revised Network Integration Transmission Service Agreement (NITS Agreement) entered into between Minnesota Power and Great River Energy in compliance with Order No. 614, FERC • 31,096, and as directed by the Commission's May 21, 2003 Letter Order in this proceeding.
The Midwest ISO and Minnesota Power state that all parties on the service list maintained by the Secretary in this proceeding have been served a copy of this filing via United States mail.
Take notice that on June 20, 2003, Susquehanna Energy Products, LLC (Susquehanna Energy) tendered for filing a revised FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume Number 1, to permit the resale of transmission capacity and Firm Transmission Rights or their equivalents to become effective June 23, 2003. Susquehanna Energy Requests a waiver of the 60-day prior notice requirement and a shortened 10-day public comment period. Susquehanna Energy further requests expedited treatment and a Commission order by July 3, 2003.
Take notice that on June 19, 2003, Ameren Services Company (ASC) tendered for filing an executed Service Agreement for Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Services between ASC and Wisconsin Electric Power Co. ASC asserts that the purpose of the Agreement is to permit ASC to provide transmission service to Wisconsin Electric Power Co., pursuant to Ameren's Open Access Transmission Tariff.
Take notice that on June 19, 2003, Ameren Services Company (ASC) tendered for filing an executed Service Agreement for Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Services between ASC and Constellation Power Source, Inc. ASC asserts that the purpose of the Agreement is to permit ASC to provide transmission service to Constellation Power Source, Inc. pursuant to Ameren's Open Access Transmission Tariff.
Take notice that on June 19, 2003, Ameren Services Company (ASC) tendered for filing an executed for Network Integration Transmission Agreement and Network Operating Agreement between ASC and Central Illinois Light Company, d/b/a AmerenCILCO. ASC asserts that the purpose of the Agreement is to permit ASC to provide transmission service to Central Illinois Light Company, d/b/a AmerenCILCO pursuant to Ameren's Open Access Transmission Tariff.
Take notice that on June 19, 2003, Public Service Company of Colorado (PS Colorado) tendered for filing, to be effective August 18, 2003, proposed (1) changes in rates applicable to the following customers: Grand Valley Rural Power Lines, Inc.; Holy Cross
PS Colorado states that copies have been served on each of the affected customers, Colorado Public Utilities Commission, the Colorado Office of Consumers Counsel, the Wyoming Public Service Commission and the Wyoming Office of Consumer Advocate. PS Colorado states that copies of the filing are available for public inspection in the offices of PS Colorado in Denver, Colorado.
Take notice that on June 19, 2003, the Mid-Continent Area Power Pool (MAPP), on behalf of its members that are subject to Commission jurisdiction as public utilities under Section 201(e) of the Federal Power Act, filed an amendment to Schedule F (FERC Electric Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1) that would amend Section 2 to eliminate the exclusive use requirement of Schedule F.
MAPP states that a copy of this filing has been served on all MAPP members and the state commissions in the MAPP region.
Take notice that on June 20, 2003, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) tendered for filing an agreement entitled Special Facilities Agreement for the Interconnection of Silicon Valley Power's Single Circuit 230kV Line into Los Esteros Substation (SFA) between PG&E and Silicon Valley Power (SVP).
PG&E states that the SFA states that it permits PG&E to recover its costs for installing, owning, operating and maintaining Special Facilities necessary for the interconnection of SVP's single circuit 230kV line with PG&E's transmission system. PG&E has requested certain waivers.
PG&E states that copies of this filing were served upon SVP, the California Independent System Operator, and the California Public Utilities Commission.
Take notice that on June 20, 2003, Avista Corporation, tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission pursuant to section 35.12 of the Commission's Regulations at 8 CFR 35.12, an executed Mutual Monthly Netting and Close-Out Netting Agreement, Rate Schedule No. 301, with Mirant Americas Energy Marketing, LP, effective May 1, 2003.
Avista states that notice of the filing has been served to Mirant Americas Energy Marketing, LP.
Take notice that on June 20, 2003, American Electric Power Service Corporation (AEPSC) as agent for Southwestern Electric Power Company (SWEPCO) tendered for filing pursuant to § 35.15 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations, 18 CFR 35.15, a Notice of Cancellation of service agreements between SWEPCO and various entities under SWEPCO FERC Electric Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 5 (Power Sales Tariff) and Notice of Cancellation of a power supply agreement between SWEPCO and the City of Minden, Louisiana under SWEPCO FERC Rate Schedule No. 116 (Minden Power Supply Agreement). The Power Sales Tariff was accepted for filing by the Commission, effective January 1, 1997 in Docket No.
ER96-2342-000 and the Minden Power Supply Agreement was accepted for filing by the Commission, effective May 1, 1995 in Docket ER95-927-000.
AEPSC requests an effective date of June 1, 2003 for the cancellations that are part of its filing. AEPSC states that it has served copies of the filing upon the parties listed in Exhibit 1 and the affected state regulatory commissions.
Take notice that on June 20, 2003, Ameren Services Company (ASC) tendered for filing an executed Service Agreement for Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service between ASC and Columbia, MO Water & Light. ASC asserts that the purpose of the Agreement is to permit ASC to provide transmission service to Columbia, MO Water & Light pursuant to Ameren's Open Access Transmission Tariff.
Take notice that on June 20, 2003, Ameren Services Company (ASC) tendered for filing an executed Service Agreement for Firm Point-to-Point Service between ASC and Westar Energy, Inc. ASC asserts that the purpose of the Agreement is to permit ASC to provide transmission service to Westar Energy, Inc. pursuant to Ameren's Open Access Transmission Tariff.
Take notice that on June 20, 2002, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP), tendered for filing an executed interconnection agreement (IA) between SPP, Blue Canyon Windpower, LLC (Blue Canyon) and Western Farmers Electric Cooperative (WFEC) under the SPP Open Access Transmission Tariff. SPP requests an effective date of May 22, 2003 for this IA.
SPP states that a copy of the filing was served on representatives of Blue Canyon and WFEC.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. All such motions or protests should be filed on or before the comment date, and, to the extent applicable, must be served on the applicant and on any other person designated on the official service list. This filing is available for review at the Commission or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before August 1, 2003.
Follow the detailed instructions in
Robert D. Sachs, Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation, Mail Code 1808T, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-566-2884; fax number: 202-566-0966; email address
EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On January 27, 2003, 68 FR 3879, EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no relevant comments.
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OA-2003-0001, which is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Office of Environmental Information Docket is (202) 566-1752. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at
Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to OMB and EPA within 30 days of this notice, and according to the following detailed instructions: (1) Mail your comments to OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503 and (2) Submit your comments to EPA online using EDOCKET (our preferred method), by email to
EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket,
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before August 1, 2003.
Follow the detailed instructions in
Carl Scarbro, Assessment and Standards Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, AATC, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 734-214-4209; fax number: 734-214-4939; e-mail address:
EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On Friday, January 24, 2003 68 FR 3524, EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received a single request for information concerning the ICR. EPA forwarded the requested information to the requestor.
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0006, which is available for public viewing at the Office of Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Office of Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at
Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice, and according to the following detailed instructions: (1) Submit your comments to EPA online using EDOCKET (our preferred method), by e-mail to
EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket,
1. Postal cards are sent to a random selection of vehicle owners using State motor vehicle registration lists; and
2. A random selection of motor vehicle owners, who arrive at State inspection stations on an annual or biennial schedule, are solicited.
The legislative basis for the Emission Factors Program is section 103(a)(1)(2)(3) of the Clean Air Act, which requires the Administrator to “conduct * * * research, investigations, experiments, demonstrations, surveys, and studies relating to the causes, effects, extent, prevention, and control of air pollution” and “conduct investigations and research and make surveys concerning any specific problem of air pollution in cooperation with any air pollution control agency * * *”
EPA uses the data from the EFP to verify predictions of the computer
Furthermore, the EFP data collected under this ICR will be used to construct a new model to replace MOBILE, the “Multi-scale Motor Vehicle & Equipment Emission System” (MOVES). MOVES will be based on field sample data as opposed to laboratory simulations. This change is due to recommendations made to EPA by the National Research Council, the Office of Management and Budget and is enabled by the availability of suitable technology for the collection of emission and activity data while the vehicles are being used by their owners/operators.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before August 1, 2003.
Follow the detailed instructions under
Learia Williams, Compliance Assessment and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, (Mail Code 2223A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-4113; fax number: (202) 564-0050; e-mail address:
EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On September 26, 2002 (67 FR 60672), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments.
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number OECA-2003-0040, which is available for public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center is: (202) 566-1514. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at
Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice, and according to the following detailed instructions: (1) Submit your comments to EPA online using EDOCKET (our preferred method), by e-mail to
EPA's policy is that public comment, whether submitted electronically or on paper, will be available for public viewing in EDOCKET, as EPA receives them without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide petition proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities.
Comments, identified by docket ID number OPP-2003-0212, must be received on or before August 1, 2003.
Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the
Rita Kumar, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-8291; e-mail address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
• Crop production (NAICS 111)
• Animal production (NAICS 112)
• Food manufacturing (NAICS 311)
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 32532)
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at
Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although, not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket.
For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.
You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I.D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e-mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute.
1.
i.
ii.
iii.
2.
3.
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be
In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice.
7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
EPA has received a pesticide petition as follows proposing the establishment and/or amendment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a. EPA has determined that this petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.
Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives, Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The petitioner's summary of the pesticide petition is printed below as required by FFDCA section 408(d)(3). The summary of the petition was prepared by E. I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company, Du Pont Crop Protection, and represents the view of the petitioner. The petition summary announces the availability of a description of the analytical methods available to EPA for the detection and measurement of the pesticide chemical residues or an explanation of why no such method is needed.
EPA has received a pesticide petition (PP 3F6576) from E. I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company, Du Pont Crop Protection, Wilmington, Delaware, proposing pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180, by establishing a tolerance for combined residues of Indoxacarb, [(S)-methyl 7-chloro-2,5-dihydro-2-[(methoxycarbonyl)[4-(trifluoromethoxy)phenyl] amino]carbonyl]indeno[1,2e] [1,3,4]oxadiazine-4a(3H)- carboxylate] and its R-enantiomer [(R)-methyl 7-chloro-2,5-dihydro-2-[[(methoxycarbonyl)[4-(trifluoromethoxy) phenyl] amino]carbonyl]indeno [1,2-e] [1,3,4] oxadiazine-4a(3H)- carboxylate] in a 75:25 mixture (DPX MP062), respectively, in or on the raw agricultural commodity as follows: grape, 2 ppm and raisin, 6 ppm. An analytical enforcement method (LC-UV) is available for determining plant residues. EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.
The active ingredient in the end-use formulation, AvauntÒ, is a 75:25 mixture of two isomers, indoxacarb (DPX-KN128) and IN-KN127. Only one of the isomers, indoxacarb (DPX-KN128), has insecticidal activity. Since the insecticidal efficacy is based on the concentration of indoxacarb (DPX-KN128), the application rates have been normalized on an indoxacarb (DPX-KN128) basis. The proposed tolerance expression includes both indoxacarb (DPX-KN128) and IN-KN127 and the residue method does not distinguish between the enantiomers, therefore, residues are reported as the sum of indoxacarb (DPX-KN128) combined with IN-KN127. Residues of indoxacarb (DPX-KN128) combined with IN-KN127 will be referred to as “KN128/KN127”.
1.
2.
3.
b.
1.
Formulated products are slightly less acutely toxic than indoxacarb.
In an acute neurotoxicity study, indoxacarb exhibited decreased forelimb grip strength, decreased foot splay, and some evidence of slightly reduced motor activity, but only at the highest doses tested. The no adverse effects level (NOAEL) was 100 mg/kg for males and 12.5 mg/kg for females based on body weight effects in females
2.
i. Ames—Negative
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
3.
4.
In a subchronic neurotoxicity study in rats, there was no evidence of neurotoxicity at 11.9 and 6.09 mg/kg/day, the highest dose tested for males and females, respectively. The subchronic NOAEL in dogs (5.0 mg/kg/day, M/F) was based on hemolytic anemia. Erythrocyte values for most dogs were within a range that would be considered normal for dogs in a clinical setting. Mice were less sensitive to indoxacarb than the rats or dogs. NOAELs (23 mg/kg/day, males, 16 mg/kg/day, females) were based on mortality (males only); increased reticulocytes and Heinz bodies and decreased body weight, weight gain, food consumption, food efficiency; and increased clinical signs (leaning to one side and/or with abnormal gait or mobility) (females only). In a 28-day repeated dose dermal study, the NOAEL was 50 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weights, body weight gains, food consumption, and food efficiency in females, and changes in hematology parameters, the spleen and clinical signs of toxicity in both sexes in rats.
5.
6.
ii
iii.
iv.
7.
8.
Tolerances for indoxacarb are proposed to support agricultural use on grapes. There are residential uses of indoxacarb pending (fire ant bait), however, the risk from that use has been found to be negligible.
1.
i.
ii.
iii.
2.
EPA's consideration of a common mechanism of toxicity is not necessary at this time because there is no indication that toxic effects of indoxacarb would be cumulative with those of any other chemical compounds. Oxadiazine chemistry is new, and indoxacarb has a novel mode of action compared to currently registered active ingredients.
1.
2.
To date, no international tolerances exist for indoxacarb.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide petition proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities.
Comments, identified by docket ID number OPP-2003-0211, must be received on or before August 1, 2003.
Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the
Rita Kumar, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-8291; e-mail address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
• Crop production (NAICS 111)
• Animal production (NAICS 112)
• Food manufacturing (NAICS 311)
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 32532)
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at
Certain types of information will not be placed in EPA's Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket.
For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.
You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I.D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e-mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute.
1.
i.
ii.
iii.
2.
3.
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice.
7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
EPA has received pesticide petitions as follows proposing the establishment and/or amendment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a. EPA has determined that these petitions contain data or information regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petitions. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petitions.
Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives, Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The petitioner's summary of the pesticide petitions is printed below as required by FFDCA section 408(d)(3). The summary of the petitions was prepared by the petitioner and represents the view of the petitioner. The petitions summary announces the availability of a description of the analytical methods available to EPA for the detection and measurement of the pesticide chemical residues or an explanation of why no such method is needed.
EPA has received pesticide petitions (2F6427 and 3F6566) from Mitsui Chemicals, Inc., Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan, proposing pursuant to section 408(d) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing tolerances for residues of dinotefuran, (
1.
2.
The HPLC method was validated for the determination of dinotefuran and 1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furylmethyl)-urea in or on cotton (undelinted seed, gin trash, meal, hulls, refined oil), and leafy vegetables. After extraction with a water/acetonitrile mixture and clean up dinotefuran, 1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furylmethyl)guanidine, and 1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furylmethyl)-urea were quantified after HPLC separation by MS/MS detection. For undelinted seed, gin trash, meal, and hulls, a LOQ of 0.05 milligram/kilogram (mg/kg) and a working range from 0.05 to 0.50 mg/kg were successfully validated for dinotefuran, 1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furylmethyl)guanidine, and 1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furylmethyl)-urea. For refined oil, a LOQ of 0.01 mg/kg and a working range from 0.01 to 0.10 mg/kg were successfully validated for dinotefuran, 1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furylmethyl)guanidine, and 1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furylmethyl)-urea. An HPLC method was validated for the determination of dinotefuran, 1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furylmethyl)guanidine, and 1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furylmethyl)-urea, in lettuce. After extraction with water/acetonitrile mixture and clean-up, dinotefuran was quantified after HPLC separation by ultraviolet ray (UV) detection, 1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furylmethyl)guanidine, and 1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furylmethyl)-urea by MSD. A LOQ 0.010 mg/kg and a working range from 0.01 to 5.00 mg/kg were successfully validated from dinotefuran, 1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furylmethyl)guanidine, and 1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furylmethyl)-urea. All of the above methods have been independently validated.
3.
For cucurbit vegetables (crop group 9), residue trials were conducted for each of the three representative crops, cucumbers, melons, and squash. The proposed tolerance in or on cucurbit vegetables for combined residues of dinotefuran, 1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furylmethyl)guanidine, and 1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furylmethyl)-urea, is 0.5 ppm. The maximum combined residue found for the representative cucurbit vegetable crops was 0.44 ppm for a melon sample.
For leafy vegetables (crop group 4), residue trials were conducted for each of the four representative crops, celery, leaf lettuce, head lettuce, and spinach, at six locations. The proposed tolerance in or on leafy vegetables for combined residues of dinotefuran, 1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furylmethyl)guanidine, and 1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furylmethyl)-urea, is 5.0 ppm. The maximum combined residue found for the representative leafy vegetable crops was 4.36 ppm for a spinach sample.
Residue trials for cotton were conducted at 13 locations and undelinted cotton seed samples were collected and analyzed. Cotton gin byproducts (gin trash) samples were obtained for 7 of the locations. Processing studies with analyses of cotton seed meal, hulls, and oil were performed with cotton seed harvested at two locations that were both treated with 5X the maximum label rate. The proposed tolerance for combined residues of dinotefuran, 1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furylmethyl)guanidine, and 1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furylmethyl)-urea, in or on cotton seed undelinted is 0.2 ppm. All cotton seed residue samples had combined residues of less than 0.2 ppm. The proposed tolerance for cotton gin byproducts is 7.0 ppm for combined residues of dinotefuran and its two major metabolites. The maximum combined residues for cotton gin byproducts in these trials was 6.4 ppm. Processing studies established that residues of dinotefuran and its metabolites, 1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furylmethyl)guanidine, and 1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furylmethyl)-urea, did not concentrate in cotton seed meal, oil, or hulls. Therefore, tolerances are not proposed for these processing fractions.
Residue trials for grapes were conducted at 13 locations and 2 grape juice and raisin processing studies were performed with grapes from exaggerated treatment rate applications. The proposed tolerance for combined residues of dinotefuran, 1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furylmethyl)guanidine, and 1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furylmethyl)-urea, in or on grapes is 0.8 ppm. The maximum combined residue for an individual grape residue sample was 0.73 ppm and the highest average field trial (HAFT) for grapes had
For potatoes, residue trials were performed at 17 locations and 2 studies processing potatoes into chips, granules, and wet peel were performed with potatoes that were treated with exaggerated application rates. The proposed tolerance for combined residues of dinotefuran and its metabolites 1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furylmethyl)guanidine, and 1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furylmethyl)-urea, on potatoes is 0.05 ppm. The maximum combined residues found on potatoes were less than 0.05 ppm with maximum residues of dinotefuran less than 0.03 ppm. The HAFT result was 0.04 ppm of combined residues. The average concentration factors for processing potatoes into chips, granules, and wet peel were 2.2, 3.65, and less than 1 respectively. No separate tolerance is proposed for wet peel. Based on the average concentration factors and the HAFT, tolerances for combined residues of dinotefuran, 1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furylmethyl)guanidine, and 1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furylmethyl)-urea, are proposed for potato chips at 0.1 ppm and for potato granules at 0.15 ppm.
For fruiting vegetables (crop group 8) residue trials were conducted for the three representative commodities, tomatoes, bell pepper, and non-bell pepper. The proposed tolerance for combined residues of dinotefuran, 1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furylmethyl)guanidine, and 1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furylmethyl)-urea, in or on fruiting vegetables is 0.7 ppm. The maximum combined residue for the representative fruiting vegetables was 0.58 ppm on peppers. The HAFT result for combined residues on tomatoes was 0.20 ppm. Three studies for processing tomatoes into tomato puree and tomato paste were performed with tomatoes that were treated at exaggerated application rates. The average concentration factors determined in these studies were 1.8 for processing tomatoes into puree and 4.8 for processing tomatoes into paste. Since the product of the average concentration factor for puree and the HAFT for tomatoes is less than the proposed tolerance for fruiting vegetables, no separate tolerance is proposed for tomato puree. A combined tolerance of 1.0 ppm is proposed for tomato paste, based on the average concentration factor for processing of 4.8 and the HAFT of 0.20 ppm for tomatoes.
For vegetables, brassica head, and stem crop subgroup (crop subgroup 5-A), residue trials were conducted with three representative crops, broccoli, cauliflower, and cabbage. The proposed tolerance for combined residues of dinotefuran, 1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furylmethyl)guanidine, and 1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furylmethyl)-urea, 1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furylmethyl)guanidine, and 1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furylmethyl)-urea, on stem and head brassica vegetables is 1.4 ppm. The maximum combined residue in field trials was 1.25 ppm on broccoli.
Metabolism studies in livestock and poultry (nature of residue studies with goats and hens), established that dinotefuran was rapidly metabolized and excreted and that there was very little transmittal of residues of dinotefuran and its metabolites to meat, milk, or eggs. For goats fed 10 ppm of radiolabeled dinotefuran, the total radioactive residues (TRR) in meat and milk were less than 0.05 ppm.
The maximum livestock dietary burden from feeding cotton commodities and potatoes (which all contain residues at the proposed tolerance levels) was 1.9 ppm for beef cattle and 1.9 ppm for dairy cattle. To provide for the possible transmittal of the residues of dinotefuran and its metabolites, 1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furylmethyl)guanidine, and 1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furylmethyl)-urea, in cattle and other livestock, tolerances are proposed for combined residues of dinotefuran, 1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furylmethyl)guanidine, and 1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furylmethyl)-urea, in milk at 0.05 ppm, in meat (from cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep) at 0.05 ppm and in meat byproducts, including fat, liver, and kidney, (from cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep) at 0.05 ppm. These proposed tolerances are based on the results of a cow feeding study where dairy cows received dosages of combined residues of dinotefuran and its metabolites and 1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furylmethyl)-urea, representing 5ppm (1X), 15 ppm (3X), and 50 ppm (10X) in the daily diet. The dosages contained dinotefuran, 1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furylmethyl)guanidine, and 1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furylmethyl)-urea, in a 3:1:1 ratio, thus, the 5 ppm level contained 3 ppm of dinotefuran, 1 ppm of 1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furylmethyl)guanidine, and 1 ppm of 1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furylmethyl)-urea. The dosing period was 29 to 30 days, whole milk, skim milk, and cream were analyzed through the collection period and meat, fat, and edible tissues were analyzed at conclusion of the dosing period.
There were only low levels of residues transmitted to milk, meat, fat, and edible tissues in the study. No dinotefuran residues (
The maximum theoretical poultry dietary burden from feeding cotton commodities containing residues of dinotefuran and its metabolites at the proposed tolerance levels was calculated to be 0.09 ppm. Since the TRR in meat and eggs from hens fed 10 ppm of radiolabeled dinotefuran in the poultry metabolism study was less than 0.05 ppm it can be concluded that there is no reasonable expectation of transmittal of finite residues of dinotefuran and its metabolites to meat and eggs, for poultry fed cotton commodities treated with dinotefuran. Therefore no tolerances are proposed for combined residues of dinotefuran and its metabolites in poultry or eggs.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
1.
There are no acute toxicity concerns with dinotefuran as there is no toxicological endpoint attributable to a
2.
Applicator and post-application exposures can result from dermal and inhalation routes for both adults and toddlers. Additionally, toddlers can be exposed through the post-application incidental ingestion route via hand-to-mouth behavior. Based on the label instructions and typical use patterns of these product types, only short-term and intermediate-term exposure scenarios should be considered for dinotefuran products. However, since there are no toxicological endpoints attributable to a single or possible multiple exposures in a very short duration, as in a short-term scenario, only the intermediate-term exposure scenario has been evaluated for this document.
Dermal exposures for applicator and post-application activities were not assessed because the very high dermal NOAEL (
These non-dietary assessments were conducted using equations and default parameters from EPA's Residential Standard Operation Procedures (SOPs) (EPA, 1997 and 2001) and maximum application rates. Although these exposures are based on the intermediate-term time frame, the residue on the day of application was used in the SOP equations in order to maintain an extra level of conservatism. This assumption implies that the toddlers are exposed to residue levels, which are equivalent to levels resulting on the day of application, every day over an intermediate-term time frame. The resulting oral and aggregate exposures were compared to the NOAEL
3.
An estimate of the drinking water environmental concentration (DWEC) in ground water and surface water for dinotefuran has been made for this notice of filing. The DWEC of dinotefuran in ground water was estimated to be 0.94 part per billion (ppb) using screening concentration in ground water (SCI-GROW) (the screening model for ground water), and the DWEC for surface water was estimated to be 6.24 ppb (for chronic and intermediate-term aggregate assessments) using FQPA Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST).
To calculate the DWLOC for chronic aggregate exposure relative to a chronic toxicity endpoint, the chronic dietary food exposure from EXPedite
The estimated average concentration of dinotefuran in surface water is 6.24 ppb. This value is less than the lowest DWLOC for dinotefuran as a contribution to chronic aggregate exposure (12,666 ppb for non-nursing infants, the most highly exposed population group for the chronic scenario). Therefore, taking into account the proposed uses, it can be concluded with reasonable certainty that residues of dinotefuran in food and drinking water will not result in unacceptable levels of human health risk.
To calculate the DWLOC for the intermediate-term aggregate exposure relative to a sub-chronic toxicity endpoint, the chronic dietary food exposure from EXPedite
The estimated average concentration of dinotefuran in surface water is 6.24 ppb. This value is less than the DWLOC for dinotefuran as a contribution to intermediate-term aggregate exposure (42,785 ppb). Therefore, taking into account the proposed uses, it can be concluded with reasonable certainty that residues of dinotefuran in residential environments and in food and drinking water will not result in unacceptable levels of human health risk.
The potential for cumulative effects of dinotefuran and other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity has also been considered. Dinotefuran belongs to a pesticide chemical class known as the neonicotinoids and subclass nitroguanadines. There is no reliable information to indicate that toxic effects produced by dinotefuran would be cumulative with those of any other chemical including another pesticide. Therefore, Mitsui believes it is appropriate to consider only the potential risks of dinotefuran in an aggregate risk assessment.
1.
2.
Using the chronic exposure assumptions and the proposed RfD described above, the dietary exposure to dinotefuran for infants and children (1 to 6 years) was calculated to be 0.57% of the reference dose of 1.27 mg/kg bwt/day. The resulting DWLOC for non-nursing infants, 12,666 ppb, is much greater than the estimated average concentration of dinotefuran in surface water, 6.24 ppb.
Using the intermediate-term exposure assumptions and the proposed NOAEL described above, the intermediate-term aggregate exposure to dinotefuran for the toddlers (1 to 3 years) resulted in an MOE of 1,410. The resulting DWLOC, 42,785 ppb, is much greater than the estimated average concentration of dinotefuran in surface water, 6.24 ppb. Therefore, taking into account the proposed uses, it can be concluded with reasonable certainty that residues of dinotefuran in residential environments and in food and drinking water will not result in unacceptable levels of human health risk.
No codex maximum residue levels have been established for residues of dinotefuran on any crops at this time.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide petition proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities.
Comments, identified by docket ID number OPP-2003-0226, must be received on or before August 1, 2003.
Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the
Kathryn Boyle, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 305-6304; e-mail address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111)
• Animal production (NAICS code 112)
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311)
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532)
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at
Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket.
For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.
You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I.D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e-mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute.
1.
i.
ii.
iii.
2.
3.
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice.
7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
EPA has received a pesticide petition as follows proposing the establishment and/or amendment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a. EPA has determined that this petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.
Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives, Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The petitioner's summary of the pesticide petition is printed below as required by FFDCA section 408(d)(3). The summary of the petition was prepared by the petitioner and represents the view of the petitioner. The summary may have been edited by EPA if the terminology used was unclear, the summary contained extraneous material, or the summary unintentionally made the reader conclude that the findings reflected EPA's position and not the position of the petitioner.
EPA has received a pesticide petition (PP 2E6471) from Syngenta Crop Protection, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, North Carolina, 27419-8300 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for copper (II) hydroxide in or on raw agricultural commodities. EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.
1.
2.
3.
Copper hydroxide is a versatile and safe material which is used almost everywhere where copper is needed in chemistry. Copper hydroxide is used directly in the planting and ceramics industry, and in agriculture as a fungicide and bactericide. It is widely used as a manufacturing intermediate in numerous applications, for example to make copper compounds, for the production of pigments containing copper, in the manufacture of copper fibers, in galvanizing, metallurgy, pyrotechnics, and electronics, to name just a few applications. Copper ions are released from copper hydroxide by solubilization in the presence of moisture. Copper is ubiquitous in nature and is a necessary nutritional element for both animals (including humans), and plants. Copper is found naturally in the food we eat, in soils, in the water we drink, in the air we breathe and in our bodies. It is one of 26 elements found essential to life. The copper ion is present in the adult human body at levels of 70-150 milligrams (mg).
Due to its being used in small percentages in the proposed formulations, oral ingestion of quantifiable amounts of copper will not result from use of copper hydroxide as an inert. Copper compounds are irritating to the gastric mucosa. Ingestion of large amounts of copper results in prompt emesis. This protective reflex reduces the amount of copper ion available for absorption into the human body. Additionally, at high levels humans are also sensitive to the taste of copper. Because of this organoleptic property, oral ingestion would also serve to limit high doses. Only a small percentage of ingested copper is absorbed, and most of the absorbed copper is excreted. The copper ion occurs naturally in many foods and the metabolism of copper is well understood. There are several factors unique to copper which indicate that additional studies are not needed to regulate copper hydroxide as an inert in pesticide formulations. One of the foremost of these is the fact that copper is a required nutritional element for both plants and animals. It appears that more evidence is available to define the adverse effects of a deficiency in the diet than to show the toxic effects of an excess intake. In fact, no account has been found in the literature reviewed which describes a toxic effect to normal humans from ingestion of common foodstuffs containing copper. Because copper toxicity to man through the diet has been shown in normal persons, little is known about the minimum levels of dietary copper necessary to cause evidence of adverse effects. This situation is likely due, to an effective homoeostatic mechanism that is involved in the dietary intake of copper and that protects man from excess body copper. This complex mechanism integrates absorption, retention, and excretion to stabilize the copper body burden. Given that copper is ubiquitous and is routinely consumed as part of the daily diet, it is unlikely that with current exposure patterns there would be any long-term adverse effects. The hydroxide ion is also ubiquitous in plants, animals including humans, and the environment. The use of copper hydroxide as an inert will not result in any increased burden on the environment or living organisms.
1.
i.
ii.
2.
Exposure to copper occurs over a lifetime from numerous sources and does not result in any known toxicity. Use of copper hydroxide as an inert will not result in quantifiable increase in cumulative exposure to copper.
1.
2.
There does not appear to be any international tolerances for copper or copper hydroxide, and no CODEX maximum residue levels has been established for any food crops at this time.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice of tentative approval and solicitation of request for a public hearing for Public Water Supply Supervision Program Revision for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
Notice is hereby given that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined to approve an application by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to revise its Public Water Supply Supervision Primacy Program to incorporate regulations no less stringent than the EPA's National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) for the following: Lead and Copper Rule Technical Correction; Final Rule, promulgated by EPA on June 30, 1994 (59 FR 33860), Synthetic Organic Chemicals and Inorganic Chemicals; Final Rule, promulgated by EPA on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34320), Analytical Methods Technical Corrections; Final Rule, promulgated by EPA on December 5, 1994 (59 FR 62456), Analytical Methods Technical Corrections; Final Rule, promulgated by EPA on June 29, 1995 (60 FR 34083), Analytical Methods for Radionuclides Technical Corrections, promulgated by EPA on
This determination to approve the Commonwealth's primacy program revision application is made pursuant to 40 CFR 142.12(d)(3). It shall become final and effective August 1, 2003 unless (1) a timely and appropriate request for a public hearing is received or (2) the Regional Administrator elects to hold a public hearing on her own motion. Any interested person, other than Federal Agencies, may request a public hearing. A request for a public hearing must be submitted to the Regional Administrator at the address shown below by August 1, 2003. If a substantial request for a public hearing is made within the requested thirty day time frame, a public hearing will be held and a notice will be given in the
Any request for a public hearing shall include the following information: (1) Name, address and telephone number of the individual organization or other entity requesting a hearing; (2) a brief statement of the requesting person's interest in the Regional Administrator's determination and a brief statement on information that the requesting person intends to submit at such hearing; (3) the signature of the individual making the request or, if the request is made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the signature of a responsible official of the organization or other entity.
Requests for Public Hearing shall be addressed to:
Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866.
All documents relating to this determination are available for inspection between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, at the following offices: Puerto Rico Department of Health, Public Water Supply Supervision Program, 9th Floor, Suite 903, Nacional Plaza Building, 431 Ponce De Leon Avenue, Hato Rey, Puerto Rico, 00917.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 24th Floor, Drinking Water Section, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866.
Michael J. Lowy, Drinking Water Section, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, (212) 637-3830.
(Section 1413 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended, 40 U.S.C. 300g-2, and 40 CFR 142.10, 142.12(d) and 142.13)
The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Written comments should be submitted on or before August 1, 2003. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all comments to Kim A. Johnson, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10236 NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, (202) 395-3562 or via Internet at
For additional information or copies of the
The Commission has requested emergency OMB review of this collection with an approval by June 30, 2003.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice; solicitation of comments.
In this document, the Wireline Competition Bureau seeks comment on the NPCR, Inc. d/b/a/ Nextel Partners (Nextel Partners) petition. Nextel Partners is seeking designation as an eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) to receive federal universal service support for service offered in those portions of Nextel Partners' licensed service area located in rural and non-rural areas in Virginia.
Comments are due on or before July 14, 2003. Reply comments are due on or before July 21, 2003.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Andy Firth, Attorney, Wireline Competition Bureau, Telecommunications Access Policy Division (202) 418-2694, TTY (202) 418-0484.
This is a summary of the Commission's Public Notice, CC Docket No. 96-45, released June 16, 2003. On April 23, 2003, NPCR, Inc. d/b/a/ Nextel Partners (Nextel Partners) filed with the Commission a petition under section 214(e)(6) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, seeking designation as an eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) to receive federal universal service support for service offered in those portions of Nextel Partners' licensed service area located in rural and non-rural areas in Virginia. Nextel Partners contends that the Virginia State Corporation Commission (Virginia Commission) lacks jurisdiction to consider Nextel Partners' petition because wireless carriers are not subject to state jurisdiction in Virginia. Hence, according to Nextel Partners, the Commission has jurisdiction under section 214(e)(6) to consider and grant its petition. Nextel Partners also maintains that it satisfies all the statutory and regulatory prerequisites for ETC designation.
The petitioner must provide copies of its petition to the Virginia Commission. The Commission will also send a copy of this Public Notice to the Virginia Commission by overnight express mail to ensure that the Virginia Commission is notified of the notice and comment period.
Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments as follows: Comments are due on or before July 14, 2003, and reply comments are due on or before July 21, 2003. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. See
Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to
Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears the caption of this proceeding, commenters must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking 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.a to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of
Parties also must send three paper copies of their filing to Sheryl Todd, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Room 5-B540, Washington, DC 20554. 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 20054.
Pursuant to § 1.1206 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1206, this proceeding will be conducted as a permit-but-disclose proceeding in which ex parte communications are permitted subject to disclosure.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
In the document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) grants the section 271 application of Qwest Communications International, Inc. for authorization to provide in-region, interLATA services in Minnesota. The Commission grants Qwest's application based on its conclusion that Qwest has satisfied all of the statutory requirements for entry, and fully opened its local exchange markets to competition.
Effective July 7, 2003.
Gail Cohen, Senior Economist, Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-0939 or via the Internet at
This is a summary of the Commission's Memorandum Opinion and Order in WC Docket No. 03-90, FCC 03-142, adopted June 25, 2003 and released June 26, 2003. The full text of this order may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202-863-2893, facsimile 202-863-2898, or via e-mail
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
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
Synopsis: The subject agreement modification would expand the geographic scope to include the westbound trade from ports in Continental Europe to ports on the East and Gulf Coasts of the United States.
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
Notice is given that on June 26, 2003, the Federal Maritime Commission served an Order of Investigation and Hearing on FSL International, Inc. (“FSL International”), Hiu-Leung Yeung, Full Service Logistics, Inc. (“Full Service Logistics”), and Mei Fung Tsang. From May 1, 1999 through February 18, 2003, FSL International, a California corporation, was a tariffed and bonded
It appears that, on and after July 4, 2001, FSL International knowingly and willfully obtained transportation of property at less than the applicable rates and charges set forth in service contracts published by Mitsui OSK Lines and Hyundai Merchant Marine Co. With respect to numerous shipments for which FSL International issued its own NVOCC bill of lading, it appears that FSL International provided service at rates and charges other than those set forth in its published tariff. After receiving a Notice and Demand Letter from the Commission for civil penalties stemming from its alleged violations, FSL International's principal John Yeung proposed, as an alterative, to discontinue business operation no later than February 9, 2003, and to surrender the OTI license for revocation. The license of FSL International was revoked on February 19, 2003. On or about April 23, 2003, the Commission's Los Angeles Area Representative determined that FSL International continued to conduct business. It appears that FSL International continued to serve as a shipper with respect to numerous export shipments while operating from the offices and utilizing the personnel and resources of Full Service Logistics. It appears that Full Service Logistics may have facilitated access by FSL International to its service contracts. It also appears that, Full Service Logistics may have known of or permitted John Yeung to hold himself out as an authorized employee or officer of Full Service Logistics and to perform NVOCC services under its name and license.
This proceeding therefore seeks to determine: (1) Whether FSL International and Full Service Logistics and their principals, John Yeung and Mei Fung Tsang, violated section 10(a)(l) of the Shipping Act of 1984 (“1984 Act”) by directly or indirectly obtaining transportation at less than the service contract rates and charges otherwise applicable; (2) whether FSL International and Full Service Logistic, in their capacity as common carriers, violated section 10(b)(2) of the 1984 Act by charging, demanding, collecting or receiving different compensation than the rates and charges in their NVOCC tariffs; (3) whether FSL International and John Yeung provided OTI services after revocation of its license, in violation of section 19(a) and (b) of the 1984 Act and 46 CFR part 515; (4) whether Full Service Logistics and Mei Fung Tsang provided OTI services to FSL International after revocation of the latter's OTI license, in violation of section 10(b)(11) of the 1984 Act and 46 CFR part 515; (5) whether, in the event violation of sections 10(a)(1), 10(b)(2), 10(b)(11) and 19(a), (b) of the 1984 Act and CFR part 515 are found, civil penalties should be assessed and, if so, the amount; (6) whether the tariff of Full Service Logistics should be suspended; (7) whether the OTI license of Full Service Logistics should be suspended or revoked, and (8) whether, in the event violations are found, an appropriate cease and desist order should be issued.
The full text of the Order may be viewed on the Commission's Home page at:
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:
Date Revoked: May 29, 2003.
Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have filed with the Federal Maritime Commission an application for license as a Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder—Ocean Transportation Intermediary pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 as amended (46 U.S.C. app. 1718 and 46 CFR part 515).
Persons knowing of any reason why the following applicants should not receive a license are requested to contact the Office of Transportation Intermediaries, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573.
Draft Cargoways India Private Limited, 274 Marlin Street, Dix Hills, NY 11746, Officers: Prasad Prabhakar Gokhale, CEO (Qualifying Individual), D. R. Shete, Managing Director.
One World Logistics LLC, 381 Blair Road, Avenel, NJ 07001, Officers: Freddie Amin (Rasik Amin), Import/Export Traffic Manager (Qualifying Individual), Jitendra S. Patel, President.
South Texas Shipping, Inc., 28250 F.M. 2978, Suite 111, Magnolia, TX 77354, Officer: Lynn Patrick Stewart, President (Qualifying Individual).
WSA International, Inc., 1713 Coral Ridge Drive, Coral Springs, FL 33071, Officer: Vanessa Aristud, President (Qualifying Individual).
Global Tassili Transport Services, Inc. dba GTTS, 8206 Fairbanks, No. Houston, Houston, TX 77064, Officers: Beverly S. Sellentin, Vice President (Qualifying Individual), Benali Belkagemi, President.
Corrigan's Express Freight Corporation, 8900 Bellanca Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90045, Officers: Warren L. Barnes, CEO (Qualifying Individual), Julian Keeling, President.
American Global Marketing Inc. dba American Global Corp., 1144
Nankai Transport International (USA), Inc., 8820 Bellanca Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90045, Officers: Matsuyoshi Jouchi, Vice President (Qualifying Individual), Tsuneharu Tanaka, President/Director.
Notice is hereby given that the following Ocean Transportation Intermediary license has 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 pertaining to the licensing of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, 46 CFR part 515.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than July 17, 2003.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 26, 2003.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than July 28, 2003.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 26, 2003.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
11:30 a.m., Monday, July 7, 2003.
Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551.
Closed.
1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve System employees.
2. Any items carried forward from a previously announced meeting.
Michelle A. Smith, Assistant to the Board; (202) 452-2955.
You may call (202) 452-3206 beginning at approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed consent agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of Federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices or unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint that accompanies the consent agreement and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before July 25, 2003.
Comments filed in paper form should be directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary, Room 159-H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580. Comments filed in electronic form should be directed to:
Michael Cowie or Catharine Moscatelli, FTC, Bureau of Competition, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-2214 or 326-2749.
Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and Section 2.34 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for June 25, 2003), on the World Wide Web, at
Public comments are invited, and may be filed with the Commission in either paper or electronic form. Comments filed in paper form should be directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary, Room 159-H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580. If a comment contains nonpublic information, it must be filed in paper form, and the first page of the document must be clearly labeled “confidential.” Comments that do not contain any nonpublic information may instead be filed in electronic form (in ASCII format, WordPerfect, or Microsoft Word) as part of or as an attachment to email messages directed to the following email box:
The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) has accepted for public comment from Nestlé Holdings, Inc. (“Nestlé”), Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream Holdings, Inc., and Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream, Inc. (“Dreyer's”) (collectively, “Proposed Respondents”), an Agreement Containing Consent Order (“Proposed Consent Agreement”) including the Decision and Order (“Proposed Order”) and the Order to Maintain Assets. The Proposed
Nestlé S.A., the world's largest food company, is headquartered in Switzerland. Nestlé Holdings, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Nestlé S.A., manufactures, distributes, and sells the Häagen-Dazs brand of superpremium ice cream, as well as such frozen novelty products as Drumstick, Bon Bons, IceScreamers, Dole Fruit Bars, Butterfinger ice cream bars, and the Nestlé Crunch Bar. Sales in 2001 of all Nestlé ice cream products totaled approximately $800 million.
Dreyer's manufactures, distributes, and sells the Dreamery brand of superpremium ice cream, as well as the Godiva brand of superpremium ice cream under a long-term license with Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., and the Starbucks brand of superpremium ice cream products under a joint venture with Starbucks Corporation. Dreyer's also manufactures, distributes and sells such other products as the Dreyer's brand of premium ice cream in thirteen western states and Texas, the Edy's brand of premium ice cream throughout the remaining regions of the United States, and the Whole Fruit line of sorbet. Dreyer's total sales in 2001 were approximately $1.4 billion. As a result of the transaction, Respondent Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream Holdings, Inc., will be the parent of Respondent Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream, Inc.
On June 16, 2002, Nestlé and Dreyer's signed an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Contribution whereby Nestlé and Dreyer's would combine their ice cream businesses. The transaction will increase Nestlé's interest in Dreyer's from 23 percent to approximately 67 percent. At the time Nestlé and Dreyer's announced the merger, the transaction was valued at approximately $2.8 billion.
The complaint alleges that the relevant line of commerce (
The complaint alleges that the relevant geographic market in which there are competitive problems related to the acquisition is the United States. The superpremium ice cream market is highly concentrated when measured by the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (commonly referred to as the “HHI”).
The complaint further alleges that entry would not be likely or sufficient to prevent anticompetitive effects in the United States. It would be very difficult for an entrant with a new or unknown brand to successfully take a sufficient amount of sales from superpremium ice cream incumbents to remain profitable. Furthermore, a superpremium ice cream entrant would face great difficulty developing a nationwide Direct Store Delivery (“DSD”) distribution network comparable to either of the merging parties.
The complaint also alleges that Nestlé's acquisition of Dreyer's, if consummated, may substantially lessen competition in the relevant line of commerce in the relevant market in violation of section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 45, by eliminating direct competition between Nestlé and Dreyer's; by eliminating Dreyer's as an important competitive constraint in the relevant market; by increasing the likelihood that the combined Nestlé/Dreyer's will unilaterally exercise market power; and by increasing the likelihood of, or facilitation of, collusion or coordinated interaction in the United States.
The Proposed Consent Agreement will remedy the Commission's competitive concerns about the proposed acquisition. Proposed Consent Agreement Paragraph II.A. requires that Proposed Respondents divest: (1) All assets, businesses, and goodwill related to the manufacture, marketing, or sale of the Dreamery, Godiva and Whole Fruit brands, and (2) all assets related to Nestlé's distribution of frozen dessert products. These assets, collectively referred to as the “assets to be divested,” will be divested to CoolBrands International, Inc. (“CoolBrands”) no later than ten (10) days after Nestlé acquires Dreyer's. Proposed Respondents are not obligated to divest those Nestlé distribution assets that CoolBrands elects not to acquire. Proposed Respondents may license back from CoolBrands the rights to use the “Whole Fruit” name for fruit bars for a period not to exceed one (1) year.
The Proposed Consent Agreement requires Proposed Respondents to divest Nestlé's distribution assets to CoolBrands because virtually all superpremium ice cream currently is sold through DSD. This means that the distributor physically places the product on retailers' shelves, and the retailer does not purchase the product until after it is actually delivered to the store.
Paragraph II.B. provides that if the Commission determines that CoolBrands is not an acceptable purchaser of the assets to be divested, or if the divestiture is not accomplished in an acceptable manner, Proposed Respondents shall immediately rescind the sale of the assets to be divested to CoolBrands and divest those assets at no minimum price to another purchaser that receives the prior approval of the Commission within 120 days of the date the Order becomes final.
Paragraph II.C. of the Proposed Consent Agreement requires that, prior to divesting, Proposed Respondents obtain the consent of Godiva Chocolatier, Inc. (“Godiva Chocolatier”), to the assignment of the license agreement between Godiva Chocolatier and Dreyer's for the manufacture, distribution and sale of Godiva ice cream to the acquirer.
Paragraph II.D. of the Proposed Consent Agreement requires Proposed Respondents to maintain the viability and marketability of the assets to be divested. The proposed respondents are also required to maintain the assets pursuant to the Order to Maintain Assets. Paragraph II.E. requires that for a period not to exceed one (1) year from the date that CoolBrands obtains the assets to be divested, Proposed Respondents will supply CoolBrands with the types and quantities of Dreamery, Godiva, and Whole Fruit products that CoolBrands requests at a price no greater than Proposed Respondents' production costs.
Paragraph II.I. requires that, for a period not to exceed five (5) years, Proposed Respondents will supply sufficient volumes of additional ice cream products (
Paragraph II.J. requires that Proposed Respondents modify the joint venture agreement between Dreyer's and Starbucks to allow Starbucks to manufacture, distribute, and sell the Starbucks brand of ice cream and other ice cream products themselves or in collaboration with other third-parties. Under the existing joint venture agreement between Dreyer's and Starbucks, Dreyer's is the sole manufacturer, distributor and salesman for the Starbucks brand of superpremium ice cream.
Paragraph III limits the ways in which Proposed Respondents may utilize an information it acquires with respect to CoolBrands.
Paragraph IV of the Proposed Consent Agreement allows the Commission to appoint an Interim Monitor to monitor compliance with the terms of this Proposed Order. The Proposed Consent Agreement provides the Monitor Trustee with the power and authority to monitor the Proposed Respondents' compliance with the terms of the Proposed Consent Agreement, and full and complete access to personnel, books, records, documents, and facilities of the Proposed Respondents to fulfill that responsibility. In addition, the Interim Monitor may request any other relevant information that relates to the Proposed Respondents' obligations under the Proposed Consent Agreement. The Proposed Consent Agreement precludes Proposed Respondents from taking any action to interfere with or impede the Interim Monitor's ability to perform his or her responsibilities or to monitor compliance with the Proposed Consent Agreement.
The Interim Monitor may hire such consultants, accountants, attorneys, and other assistants as are reasonably necessary to carry out the Interim Monitor's duties and responsibilities. The Proposed Consent Agreement requires the Proposed Respondents to bear the cost and expense of hiring these assistants.
Paragraph V.A. of the Proposed Consent Agreement authorizes the Commission to appoint a divestiture trustee in the event Nestlé fails to divest the assets as required by the Proposed Consent Agreement.
Paragraph VI. of the Proposed Consent Agreement provides that Proposed Respondents allow, Mars, Incorporated (“Mars”), to terminate its agreements and joint ventures with Dreyer's. Mars’ agreements with Dreyer's involved Dreyer's manufacturing and distributing ice cream products for Mars. Mars planned to have Dreyer's manufacture and distribute a new superpremium ice cream for Mars. Mars will now be free to enter this market on their own or as part of a new joint venture, or other arrangement, with a third party.
Paragraph VII. of the Proposed Consent Agreement requires Proposed Respondents to permit Unilever's Ben & Jerry's subsidiary to terminate its distribution agreement with Dreyer's by December 31, 2003. The existing distribution agreement between Dreyer's & Ben & Jerry's required Ben & Jerry's to give Dreyer's approximately nine (9) months notice prior to terminating distribution. This provision will reduce the notice period that Ben & Jerry's must provide.
Paragraph VIII. through XII. detail certain general provisions. Paragraph VIII. prohibits Proposed Respondents from acquiring, without providing the Commission with prior notice, any ownership or other interest in Dreamery, Godiva, or Starbucks superpremium ice cream brands or in any of the Nestlé distribution assets that CoolBrands is acquiring, or other DSD distribution assets. These are the assets that Proposed Respondents are divesting. The provisions regarding prior notice are consistent with the terms used in prior orders. The Proposed Consent Agreement does not restrict the Proposed Respondents from developing any new superpremium brands.
Paragraph IX. requires the Proposed Respondents to file compliance reports with the Commission, the first of which is due within thirty (30) days of the date on which the Proposed Consent Agreement becomes final, and every sixty (60) days thereafter until the divestitures are completed. Paragraph X. provides for notification to the Commission in the event of any changes in the corporate Proposed Respondents. Paragraph XI. requires Proposed Respondents to grant access to any authorized Commission representative for the purpose of determining or securing compliance with the Proposed Consent Agreement. Paragraph XII. terminates the Proposed Consent Agreement after ten (10) years from the date the Proposed Order becomes final.
The Proposed Consent Agreement has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the Proposed Consent Agreement and the comments received and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement or make the Proposed Consent Agreement final.
By accepting the Proposed Consent Agreement subject to final approval, the Commission anticipates that the competitive problems alleged in the complaint will be resolved. The purpose of this analysis is to invite public comment on the Proposed Consent Agreement, including the proposed sale of assets to CoolBrands, in order to aid the Commission in its determination of whether to make the Proposed Consent Agreement final. This analysis is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the Proposed Consent Agreement nor is it intended to modify the terms of the Proposed Consent Agreement in any way.
By direction of the Commission.
The Federal Trade Commission has voted to accept a proposed consent agreement designed to remedy the likely anticompetitive effects arising from the merger of Nestlé and Dreyer's. While I concur in the Commission's decision, I
As explained in greater detail in the Analysis to Aid Public Comment, to remedy overlaps in the “superpremium” ice cream businesses of Nestlé and Dreyer's, the parties will be required to divest a package of assets—including Dreyer's Dreamery ice cream and Whole Fruit sorbet brands, Dreyer's license to the Godiva brand,
CoolBrands is a qualified buyer whose management team has significant experience in the ice cream business. With respect to the acquisition of the three product brands, CoolBrands has existing manufacturing capacity and expertise, which should facilitate a smooth transition on the manufacturing side. With respect to the acquisition of Nestlé's DSD distribution assets, CoolBrands already has some DSD assets and business of its own, and appears to understand how to operate a DSD network. This is particularly important, because DSD is the method currently used to sell virtually all superpremium ice cream in the United States. In sum, CoolBrands seems well-positioned to make the most of the product and distribution assets it will acquire.
However, the “mix-and-match” nature of the divestiture package is far from ideal, especially when compared with the assets to be retained by the combined Nestlé/Dreyer's. Post-merger, Nestlé/Dreyer's will own Nestlé's dominant Häagen-Dazs superpremium ice cream brand as well as Dreyer's superior DSD distribution system. CoolBrands, on the other hand, will end up with one company's less-popular brands and the other company's weaker DSD distribution system.
As Commission staff recently has acknowledged, and as I have maintained throughout my tenure as Commissioner, the divestiture of a complete, autonomous, ongoing business unit minimizes the risks of anticompetitive harm because “such a remedy requires the Commission and the Bureau to make the fewest assumptions and to draw the fewest conclusions about the market and its participants and about the viability and competitiveness of the proposed package of assets.”
Moreover, there is no guarantee that the CoolBrands DSD distribution system will, in fact, be profitable once the volume commitments terminate. In the meantime, all of the risk of failure is borne by CoolBrands and, ultimately, consumers—not by the parties. Five years from now, Nestlé/Dreyer's almost certainly will retain its leading Häagen-Dazs brand, an excellent DSD distribution system, and plenty of volume to drive through that system. In contrast, if CoolBrands finds itself unable to attract additional DSD product volume from third parties, the company may suffer from decreased profitability. Depending upon the strategic choices CoolBrands might be forced to make, consumers could be faced with fewer, higher-priced superpremium offerings on supermarket shelves.
Every settlement has elements of uncertainty and risk. Our job is to determine whether the risk is small enough to be acceptable. I have voted to accept the proposed settlement based upon staff's extensive investigation of the ice cream industry, as well as CoolBrands' track record. CoolBrands appears capable of attracting enough independent distribution business to fill its excess DSD capacity over time. In addition, CoolBrands always has the option of scaling down its DSD system to more closely match available volume and maintain profitability. Therefore, based upon the evidence available to me at this time, I am reasonably comfortable that things will work out as intended, and that the competitive
General Accounting Office.
Notice of document availability.
David M. Walker, Comptroller General of the United States and head of the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), on Wednesday, June 25, 2003, announced the release of a new edition of “Government Auditing Standards” commonly referred to as the Yellow Book. GAO's publication of “Government Auditing Standards” provides a framework for ensuring the competence, integrity, objectivity, and independence of government audits at a time of urgent need for integrity in the auditing profession and for transparency and accountability in the management of limited government resources. This fourth revision since the standards were first published in 1972 will guide audits of financial and program management not only in Federal agencies, but also State and local governments, and nonprofit organizations that receive Federal funds. Bringing the 1994 edition up to date after an extensive process of consultation with auditors and stakeholders, the standards incorporate amendments on computer-based information systems, auditor communication, and auditor independence. The revision strengthens audit requirements for identifying fraud, illegal acts, and noncompliance; redefines the types of audits and services covered; provides consistency of requirements across types of audits; and gives clear guidance to auditors as they work toward a government that is efficient, effective, and accountable to the people.
New standards are applicable for financial audits and attestation engagements of periods ending on or after January 1, 2004, and for performance audits beginning on or after January 1, 2004. Early applications is permissible and encouraged.
“Government Auditing Standards” is available on the GAO Web site at
Marcia Buchanan, Assistant Director, Government Auditing Standards, 202-512-9321.
General Services Administration (GSA), California Department of Transportation (CalTrans), and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the upgrade and expansion of the existing San Ysidro Border Station.
The action to be evaluated by this EIS is the upgrade and expansion of the existing San Ysidro Border Station, located in San Ysidro, California, to relieve the substantial increase of traffic congestion at the southern terminus of I-5; to implement new mandated border entry/exit programs, in accordance with the legislative requirements of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996; to further the reorganization of the Federal Inspection Services into an agency of Homeland Security; and, to maintain control over ever present illegal activities at the border.
Four build alternatives for the proposed project are currently under consideration and will be analyzed in the EIS for potential environmental impacts. In addition, as required be NEPA, the “No Build” alternative will be analyzed. In an effort to provide effective border control services to both Mexico and the United States (U.S.), and to streamline traffic along I-5 between Mexico and the U.S., several potential developments outside of the scope of this project are being taken into consideration during the planning stages of the proposed project. One of these potential developments involves the Mexican Federal Government's plan to develop a new non-commercial port of entry at El Chaparral, located directly south of the decommissioned U.S. Virginia Avenue Commercial Vehicle Inspection facility. The San Ysidro Border Station would need to align with, or connect to, the El Chaparral facility. A second local area project which would affect the development of the proposed project is the San Ysidro Intermodal Transportation Center, which will improve the trolley terminus to the east of the existing San Ysidro Border Station. The proposed transportation center also includes general hardscape and landscape improvements, as well as upgrades to existing parking lots and roadways. This development would establish the area east of the existing San Ysidro Border Station as the main hub for the local population and any individuals wishing to cross the U.S./Mexico border.
The views and comments of the public are necessary in determining the scope and content of the environmental analysis in connection with the proposed project. A scoping meeting for the proposed project will be held on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. at the San Ysidro Multi-Cultural Center, located at 4345 Otay Mesa Road in San Ysidro, CA. Interested parties may attend to present questions and concerns that they believe should be addressed in the EIS. Release of the Draft EIS for public comment and the public meeting will be announced in the local news media as these dates are established.
General Services Administration, Pacific Rim Region, Ramo
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, call the CDC Reports Clearance Officer on (404) 498-1210.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments to Seleda Perryman, CDC Assistant Reports Clearance Officer, 1600 Clifton Road, MS-D24, Atlanta, GA 30333. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.
Diagnosis of a hemostatic disorder through measurement of coagulation factors or genetic testing is not always predictive of clinical disease, yet
The primary objective of this study is to identify risk factors related to intra-familial differences in manifestations of hemostatic diseases, including bleeding disorders, such as von Willebrand disease and platelet storage pool disease, and thrombotic disorders, such as protein C deficiency and protein S deficiency.
This is a descriptive study of families with bleeding or thrombotic disorders. The goal is to identify families with 5-10 members affected with a bleeding or thrombotic disorder. Family members who have the same abnormal gene will be compared as to their clinical symptoms or lack thereof and differences in physiologic and genetic markers which may be related to the disorder under study. Data will be collected for at least five years for descriptive and hypothesis generating purposes.
Ten families a year will qualify for this study; up to 100 members will be enrolled. Participants will be asked to be interviewed by a trained interviewer with questions on demographics, medical history, behavioral and lifestyle factors, and family history; have 35 milliliters (about 2.5 tablespoons) of blood drawn from a vein in the arm. The blood will undergo testing of appropriate coagulation parameters and physiologic variables such as blood groups. The tests chosen will depend upon the disorder present in the family. Participants will also be asked to give study staff access to previous laboratory results collected at other institutions or at CDC, provide contact information for family members thought to have symptoms of bleeding or clotting, and allow his or her diagnosis to be disclosed to family members. There is no cost to the respondents.
A notice announcing the availability of fiscal year (FY) 2003 funds for cooperative agreements for “Addressing Asthma From a Public Health Perspective” published in the
On page 31707, third column, at the end of the first paragraph, insert the following, “If the applicant is not the State health department, but is another department responsible for the State asthma program, or a
This program is authorized under section 301 of the Public Health Service Act, [42 U.S.C. section 241], as amended. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number is 93.283.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the availability of fiscal year (FY) 2003 funds for a cooperative agreement program for Expanding Existing Surveillance Systems to Include Pfiesteria, Other Harmful Algal Blooms, and Marine Toxins. This program addresses the “Healthy People 2010” focus area Environmental Health.
The purpose of the program is to assist state and local public health departments with expanding surveillance activities for adverse human health outcomes and exposure to waters contaminated with not only Pfiesteria, but also other harmful algae, their toxins, or other marine toxins.
Measurable outcomes of the program will be in alignment with the following performance goal for the National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH): Increase the capacity of state and local health departments to deliver environmental health services in their communities.
Applications may be submitted by: state and local governments or their bona fide agents (this includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianna Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the
To be eligible, applicants must:
1. Provide evidence of an existing surveillance system(s) for Pfiesteria or other harmful algae, their toxins, or other marine toxins. This may be demonstrated through a letter from your organization's leadership and a copy of a recent surveillance report print out.
2. Demonstrate your organization has capacity and experience providing surveillance activities for adverse human health outcomes and exposure to waters contaminated with Pfiesteria, other harmful algae, their toxins, or other marine toxins. This may be demonstrated through letters of support.
This information should be placed directly behind the face page (first page) of your application. Applications that fail to submit evidence requested above will be considered non-responsive and returned without review.
Title 2 of the United States Code section 1611 states that an organization described in section 501(c)(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 $3,000,000 is available in FY 2003 to fund approximately six to eight awards. It is expected that the average award will be $500,000, ranging from $250,000 to $750,000. It is expected that the awards will begin on or about September 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.
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.
No matching funds are required for this program.
In conducting activities to achieve the purpose of this program, the recipient will be responsible for the activities listed in 1. Recipient Activities, and CDC will be responsible for the activities listed in 2. CDC Activities.
All proposed activities should be planned and conducted in collaboration and coordination with CDC by state/local health departments, and where appropriate, in consultation with:
• Appropriate state and local professional associations.
• Health care providers and institutions serving, diagnosing, or providing treatment and care for persons having symptoms related to exposure to Pfiesteria, harmful algal blooms, or marine toxins, including laboratories conducting testing.
• Relevant community groups and organizations.
• Universities and health research agencies.
Surveillance activities should:
a. Target individuals with high risk of exposure to waters containing harmful algae, including Pfiesteria piscicida.
b. Conduct investigations of all cases of Pfiesteria-related illnesses meeting the set of exposure conditions and clinical signs and symptoms previously agreed upon by State and Federal partners to determine risk factors for illness, and to consider banking clinical materials for future laboratory confirmation of exposure.
c. Conduct investigations of illnesses associated with harmful algae to determine risk factors for illness and to consider banking clinical materials for future laboratory confirmation of exposure.
d. Develop and conduct surveillance activities to identify potential sources of exposure to harmful algae, including P. piscicida and Pfiesteria-like organisms, and bank clinical samples for future analysis.
e. Regularly report information collected using the pre-existing PEAS (Possible Estuary Associated Syndrome) surveillance software to the aggregate database that is housed at CDC.
f. Assess clinical data on people with illnesses related to exposure to harmful algae.
g. Develop and implement appropriate preventive strategies and develop information materials for use by health professionals and the public to aid in prevention and control of illnesses associated with P. piscicida and other harmful algae.
Applicants may include several research activity projects within their proposal. If applying for the research funding, suggested examples of the specific areas of research activities may include:
a. Laboratory studies to further define the biological impacts associated with the presence of P. piscicida, other harmful algae, and the toxins they produce.
b. Further characterization of the environmental impact on estuarine waters associated with the presence of P. piscicida, other harmful algae, and the toxins they produce.
c. Exploring the impact of anthropogenic nutrient sources on the composition of phytoplankton communities in drinking water sources and recreational waters.
d. Examining the potential for human health effects from chronic low-level exposures to toxins produced by similar organisms.
a. Provide consultation and scientific and technical assistance and training, surveillance, epidemiologic research, laboratory and prevention activities.
b. As needed, assist in refining the format for reporting surveillance data including case report forms, database, and maintaining the reporting system.
c. Participate with states to reach mutually agreed upon standardized study protocols and, where appropriate, data collection instruments for projects or studies.
d. Assist in preparing standard data collection forms, questionnaires, etc., as needed in surveillance activities and special epidemiologic investigations.
e. Assist in the evaluation of the overall effectiveness of program operations, including the impact of surveillance data on the development of public policy, and on targeting and evaluating prevention activities.
f. Participate in the analysis of information and data gathered from program activities and facilitate the transfer of information and technology among all states and communities.
g. Assist in the development of a research protocol for Institutional Review Board (IRB) review by all cooperating institutions participating in the research project. The CDC IRB will review and approve the protocol initially and on at least an annual basis until the research project is completed.
A LOI is required for this program. The Program Announcement title and number must appear in the LOI. The narrative should be no more than 5 pages, double-spaced, printed on one side, with one-inch margins, and unreduced 12-point font. Your letter of intent will be used to enable CDC to determine the level of interest in the announcement, and should include the following information:
a. Organization name and address.
b. Project Director and telephone number.
c. An abstract briefly summarizing the surveillance program for which funds are requested, including the activities to be undertaken and an estimated budget.
d. If also applying for funding for research activities, a brief description of the activities to be undertaken for each research project/activity and an estimated budget for each.
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 25 pages, double-spaced, printed on one side, with one-inch margins, and unreduced 12-point font.
The narrative should consist of a description of the planned first year activities, and clearly lay out future year objectives and activities to be conducted over the entire three-year project period. The criteria listed in the Evaluation Criteria section will serve as the basis for evaluating the application; therefore, the narrative of the application should address the following:
a. Applicant's understanding of the problem.
b. Applicant's ability to carry out the project.
c. Technical and program personnel capability.
d. Budget justification.
e. Human Subjects review.
The LOI must be received by 4 p.m. Eastern Time, July 16, 2003. Submit the LOI to the Grants Management Specialist identified in the “Where To Obtain Additional Information” section of this announcement. The LOI may not be submitted electronically.
If applying for surveillance funding, submit the signed original and two copies of PHS 5161-1 (OMB Number 0920-0428). If applying for research funding, submit the signed original and two copies of PHS 398 should be utilized. 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.
The application must be received by 4 p.m. Eastern Time, August 1, 2003. Submit the application to: Technical Information Management-PA#03102, CDC Procurement and Grants Office, 2920 Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA 30341-4146.
Applications may not be submitted electronically.
A postcard will be mailed by PGO-TIM, notifying you that CDC has received your application.
Letters of intent and 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 the 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 goals 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:
a. Understanding of the Problem (25 Points):
The extent to which the applicant understands the purpose and requirements of the program. This includes the extent of the applicant's identification and description of the problem, the realistic presentation of objectives to maintain effective surveillance systems and prevention programs, and evaluation criteria established to assess surveillance, epidemiologic research, and prevention activities.
b. Ability to Carry Out the Project (25 Points):
Degree to which the applicant provides evidence of the ability to carry out the proposed project and the extent to which the applicant documents demonstrated capability to achieve the objectives of the proposed program. This may include plans, approaches, methods, and evaluations to be used in conducting and evaluating surveillance, epidemiologic research, and prevention programs, and may include collaborating with universities or other health research agencies.
c. Technical Approach (20 Points):
Degree to which proposed objectives are clearly stated, realistic, measurable, time-phased, and related to the stated purpose of this project. Also, the adequacy of the proposed surveillance, epidemiologic research, and prevention plans to achieve the objectives. The degree to which the applicant has met the CDC Policy requirements regarding the inclusion of women, ethnic, and racial groups in the proposed project. 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; and (d) A statement as to whether the plans for recruitment and outreach for study participants include the process of establishing partnerships with communities and recognition of mutual benefits will be documented.
d. Personnel (20 Points):
Extent to which professional personnel involved in this project are qualified, including evidence of experience similar to this project.
e. Plans for Administration (10 Points):
Adequacy of the plans submitted for administering the project.
f. Budget Justification (Reviewed, but Not Scored):
Itemized budget for conducting the project, along with justification, is provided and is reasonable. The applicant should include the costs for one person to travel in Atlanta, GA, to attend the 6th National Environmental Health Conference December 3-5, 2003. Review the CDC/NCEH web site for
g. Human Subjects (Reviewed, but Not Scored)
The extent to which the applicant complies with the Department of Health and Human Services Regulations (45 CFR Part 46) regarding the protection of human subjects. Not scored, however, an application can be disapproved if the research risks are sufficiently serious and protection against risks is so inadequate as to make the entire application unacceptable.
Provide CDC with original plus two copies of:
1. An interim progress report, no less than 90 days before the end of the budget period. The progress report will serve as your non-competing continuation application, and must contain the following elements:
a. Current Budget Period Activities Objectives.
b. Current Budget Period Financial Progress.
c. New Budget Period Program Proposed Activity Objectives.
d. Detailed Line-Item Budget and Justification.
e. Additional Requested Information.
2. Financial status report, no more than 90 days after the end of the budget period.
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.
Projects that involve the collection of information from 10 or more individuals and funded by cooperative agreement will be subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
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.
This and other CDC announcements, the necessary applications, and associated forms can be found on the CDC web site, Internet address:
For general questions about this announcement, contact: Technical Information Management, CDC Procurement and Grants Office, 2920 Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA 30341-4146, Telephone: 770-488-2700.
For business management and budget assistance, contact: Sharron Orum, Grants Management Specialist, Procurement and Grants Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2920 Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA 30341-4146, Telephone: 770-488-2716, E-mail address:
For program technical assistance, contact: Dennis Christianson, Project Officer, Health Studies Branch, Division of Environmental Hazards and Health Effects, National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Mailstop: E23, Atlanta, GA 30333, Telephone: 404-498-1340, E-mail address:
This program is authorized under sections 301 and 317(k)(2) of the Public Health Service Act, [42 U.S.C. 241 and 247b(k)(2)], as amended. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number is 93.993.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the availability of fiscal year (FY) 2003 funds for a grant to assess the role of accreditation in enhancing the protection of participants in public health research. This program addresses the “Healthy People 2010” focus area 23 Public Health Infrastructure.
The purpose of the program is to assess the role of accreditation of human research protection programs to enhance protections afforded to persons involved in the full range of public health research programs,
This project will result in the development of pilot measures that can be used to assess the improvement of the ability of the public health infrastructure (such as state and local public health departments, schools of public health, and other public health research partners) to assess and monitor research involving human subjects. In year two, the pilot measures will be implemented in several locations, such as state or local health departments, schools of public health, or community-based organizations that engage in public health research, and will be evaluated for utility and feasibility in the public health setting. In year three, the measures will be refined and made available to public health research partners to document and evaluate the impact of accreditation as a process to improve protection of human subjects in public health research.
Measurable outcomes of the program will be in alignment with the performance goals for the CDC Office of Science Policy and Technology Transfer.
Assistance will be provided only to a public, private, for-profit, or non-profit organization that is currently actively engaged in the process of accrediting human research protection programs that represent the full range of activities,
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 $100,000 is available in FY 2003 to fund one award. It is expected that the award will begin on or about August 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.
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.
Matching funds are not required for this program.
Public comments on the proposed Funding Priority are not being solicited due to insufficient time prior to the funding date.
In conducting activities to achieve the purpose of this program, the recipient will be responsible for the following activities:
Phase 1—Develop measures for key indicators of accreditation's effectiveness and seek agreement from stakeholders on the measures' appropriateness with particular emphasis on their use in the public health setting. The public health setting here would include state and local health departments, schools of public health, and other public health research partners, including community-based organizations or other non-traditional research partners. Methods might include such strategies as:
1. Prepare a summary of the relevant literature on accreditation and quality improvement, bioethics, and biomedical, social science, and public health research to identify potential measures of effectiveness.
2. Convene a steering committee consisting of persons with appropriate expertise in human subject research protections, public health research, and state or local health department activities. This group could also contain liaison representatives from other government agencies or departments with interest or expertise in the role of accreditation in improving human research protection programs.
Phase 2—Develop evaluation methods and data collection instruments to examine the impact of the accreditation process in public health settings. Phase 2 activities will be largely dependent upon the measures generated in Phase 1. Evaluation methods should include plan for a longitudinal activity in which organizations that seek accreditation are evaluated over time as well as a comparison of accredited and non-accredited organizations.
Phase 3—Pilot test the evaluation methods and validate the proposed set of outcome measures in a small number of settings. These settings should be generally representative of the types of public health settings noted above.
Phase 4—Refine the initial set of outcome measures and evaluation methods and make them accessible to a range of interested parties for potential implementation.
Phases 1 and 2 should be undertaken in Year one, with a general outline of Phases 3 and 4 provided for Year two and three.
A LOI is not required for this program.
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 ten pages, double-spaced, printed on one side, with one-inch margins, and unreduced 12-point font.
The narrative should consist of a plan to achieve the full purpose of project for the three-year project period, a description of the qualifications and background of key personnel, a defined set of measurable objectives for year one activities, the proposed methods for achieving the objectives, a projected timeline to monitor progress, a plan for evaluation of project activities, and a proposed budget.
Submit the signed original and two copies of PHS form 398. (OMB Number 0925-0001); adhere to the instructions on the Errata Instruction Sheet for PHS 398. 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.
The application must be received by 4 p.m. Eastern Time August 1, 2003. Submit the application to: Technical Information Management—PA#03157, CDC Procurement and Grants Office, 2920 Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA 30341-4146.
Applications may not be submitted electronically.
A postcard will be mailed 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 the submission requirements.
Applicants are required to provide measures of effectiveness that will demonstrate the accomplishment of the various identified objectives of the grant. Measures of effectiveness must relate to the performance goals 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:
1. Plan to achieve the purpose of the program: 25 points.
2. Background and qualifications of staff: 20 points.
3. Measurable objectives: 15 points.
4. Adequacy of methods to achieve objectives: 15 points.
5. Evaluation plan: 15 points.
6. Timeline: 10 points.
7. Budget (reviewed, but not scored).
Provide CDC with original plus two copies of:
1. Interim progress report, no less than 90 days before the end of the budget period. The progress report will serve as your non-competing continuation application, and must contain the following elements:
a. Current Budget Period Activities Objectives.
b. Current Budget Period Financial Progress.
c. New Budget Period Program Proposed Activity Objectives.
d. Detailed Line-Item Budget and Justification.
e. Additional Requested Information.
2. Financial status report, no more than 90 days after the end of the budget period.
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 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.
This and other CDC announcements, the necessary applications, and associated forms can be found on the CDC Web site, Internet address:
For general questions about this announcement, contact: Technical Information Management, CDC Procurement and Grants Office, 2920 Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA 30341-4146, Telephone: 770-488-2700.
For business management and budget assistance, contact: James Masone, Contracts Specialist, Procurement and Grants Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2920 Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA 30341-4146, Telephone: 770-488-2736, E-mail address:
For program technical assistance, contact: John R. Livengood, M.D. M. Phil., Deputy Associate Director for Science, Office of Science Policy and Technology Transfer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, MS D-50, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Atlanta, GA 30333, Telephone: 404-639-7260, E-mail address:
Special Emphasis Panel: Collaborative Program for the Identification and Prevention of Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders, Request for Applications: OH-03-006.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting:
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following committee meeting.
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “The Evaluation of Long-Term Antibiotic Drug Therapy for Persons Involved in Anthrax Remediation Activities” 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 Management Programs (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 “Aluminum In Large and Small Volume Parenterals Used in Total Parenteral Nutrition” 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 Management Programs (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 the withdrawal, without prejudice to a future filing, of 12 food additive petitions (FAPs) proposing that the food additive regulations be amended to provide for the safe use of certain new food additives. The petitioners subsequently requested that their petitions be converted to food contact notifications for review under the agency's new food contact notification (FCN) program for food contact substances. The requested uses are now the subjects of effective notifications.
Sylvia Dodson, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-275), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 202-418-3087.
In notices published in the
Food and Drug Administration; HHS.
Notice of public meeting; correction.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice that appeared in the
Joyce A. Strong, Chief, Regulations Editorial Section (HF-27), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-7010.
In FR Doc. 03-13591, appearing on page 35679 in the
1. On page 32529, in the third column, the Docket No. “02N-0201” should be corrected to read “2003N-0201”.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), HHS.
Notice of availability of funds.
The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) announces that applications are being accepted for grants to help small rural hospitals do any or all of the following: (1) Pay for costs related to the implementation of prospective payment systems (PPS), (2) comply with
It is anticipated that all eligible hospitals (approximately 1,500) will apply for this grant program, which would result in awards of about $10,000 per hospital. It is expected that most of these grant funds will be used to purchase technical assistance, services, training and information technology. To help maximize purchasing power through economies of scale, eligible grantees are very strongly encouraged to organize themselves into consortiums and pool their grant funds for the purchase of these services. SORHs may help their eligible hospitals form consortiums and also purchase the goods and services they need.
Annual funding will be available for up to a three-year project period, with funding contingent upon: (a) Availability of Federal funds, and (b) satisfactory performance by the grantee. The SORH may charge up to five percent to the grants to cover its administrative costs.
Please note that HRSA anticipates accepting grant applications online in the last quarter of the Fiscal Year (July through September). Please refer to the HRSA grants schedule at
This program is not subject to the Public Health Systems Reporting Requirements.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute of Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel, June 19, 2003, 11 a.m. to June 19, 2003, 12 p.m. National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD, 20852, which was published in the
The meeting will be held on July 9, 2003 and the meeting time and place remain the same. the meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, June 26, 2003, 8:30 a.m. to June 27, 2003, 3 p.m., Holiday Inn Select Bethesda, 8120 Wisconsin Ave, Bethesda, MD, 20814 which was published in the
The meeting will be held on July 24-25, 2003. The time and location remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Periodically, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish a summary of information collection requests under OMB review, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these documents, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (301) 443-7978.
This project will monitor the implementation and effectiveness of the Initiative. A national assessment of client outcomes is needed to assure a high level of accountability and to identify which models work best for which people, using the same methods for all sites. To this end, this project will provide a site-by-site description of program implementation, as well as descriptive information on clients served; services received; housing quality, stability, and satisfaction; and, client outcomes in health and functional domains. The VA Northeast Program Evaluation Center (NEPEC), based at the VA Connecticut Healthcare System in West Haven, Connecticut, will be responsible for conducting this project.
Data collection will be conducted over a 36-month period. At each site, a series of measures will be used to assess (1) program implementation (
Client outcomes will be measured using a series of structured instruments administered by evaluation personnel employed and funded by the local VA medical center or outpatient clinic involved at each Initiative site who will work closely with central NEPEC staff. Assessments will be conducted through face-to-face interviews and, when needed, telephone interviews. Interviews (approximately one hour in length) will be conducted at baseline, defined as the date of entry into the clinical treatment program leading to placement into permanent housing, and quarterly (every 3 months) thereafter for up to three years. Discharge data will be collected from program staff at the time of official discharge from the program, or when the client has not had any clinical contact from members of the program staff for at least 6 months. In addition to client interviews, key informant interviews with program managers at each site will be conducted annually.
At most Initiative sites, it is expected that more people will be screened and or evaluated for participation in the program than receive the full range of core housing and treatment services. Entry into the Initiative is conceptualized as a two-phase process involving an Outreach/Screening/Assessment Phase (Phase I), and an Active Housing Placement/Treatment Phase (Phase II) that is expected to lead to exit from homelessness; in some programs these two phases may be described as the Outreach and Case Management Phases. It will be important to have at least some minimal information on all clients so as to be able to compare those who enter Housing/Treatment with those who do not.
Client-level data at the time of first contact with the program (
Initiative sites will be responsible for screening potential participants, assessing homeless and disabling
The estimated response burden to collect this information is as follows:
Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of this notice to: Allison Herron Eydt, Human Resources and Housing Branch, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503; due to potential delays in OMB's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, respondents are encouraged to submit comments by fax to: 202-395-6974.
Periodically, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish a summary of information collection requests under OMB review, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these documents, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (301) 443-7978.
The project consists of (1) providing technical assistance to develop and implement intensive case management services, and (2) an evaluation of the effectiveness of the intensive case management services in increasing the number of people eligible to have their records sealed. The study is confined to jurisdictions with statutes permitting records to be sealed. Two counties in Ohio involving an urban setting (Cuyahoga county which includes the city of Cleveland) and a rural setting (Clermont county adjacent to Kentucky) were selected based on responses to an RFA. Subjects in each county will be drawn from referrals by parole and probation to Treatment Accountability for Safer Communities (TASC) case management programs in the two counties.
The target population consists of individuals entering parole or probation who are first time nonviolent felons with a history of substance abuse and are eligible to have their records sealed. Technical assistance to participating counties will be provided to (1) develop, an intensive case management treatment model designed to increase the proportion of offenders eligible to have records sealed, and (2) involve the various stake holders, such as case managers, parole officers, district attorney's office, public defender, and judges in the implementation of the case management model. A formative evaluation will provide feedback on the implementation of the program. A systems evaluation will examine the number of services offered to the felons, and changes in attitudes towards sealing records on the part of critical
The experimental study in Cuyahoga County consists of two groups of randomly assigned subjects. An
The evaluation will involve 900 projected participants over a five-year period. Evaluation interviews will take place at baseline, 6 months, 12 months, and 42-months. Each interview will last 1
Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of this notice to: Allison Herron Eydt, Human Resources and Housing Branch, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503; due to potential delays in OMB's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, respondents are encouraged to submit comments by fax to: 202-395-6974.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, HHS.
Notice of funding availability for SAMHSA Cooperative Agreements to Expand the National Child Traumatic Stress Initiative Intervention Development and Evaluation Centers.
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) announces the availability of FY 2003 funds for the cooperative agreement described below. A synopsis of this funding opportunity, as well as many other Federal Government funding opportunities, is also available at the Internet site:
This notice is not a complete description of the cooperative agreement; potential applicants must obtain a copy of the Request for Applications (RFA), including Part I, Cooperative Agreements to Expand the National Child Traumatic Stress Initiative Intervention Development and Evaluation Centers, Part II, General Policies and Procedures Applicable to all SAMHSA applications for Discretionary Grants and Cooperative Agreements, and the PHS 5161-1 (Rev. 7/00) application form before preparing and submitting an application.
Section: 582 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended and subject to the availability of funds.
The purpose of the NCTSI is to improve treatment and services for all children and adolescents in the United States who have experienced traumatic events or witnessed such events. A network of centers, the NCTSN, has been established to promote the development and use of effective treatment and services, to develop resources on trauma for professionals, consumers, and the public, and to develop trauma-focused public education and professional training and other field development activities.
This announcement solicits for three specific types of child and adolescent traumatic stress Intervention Development and Evaluation (IDE) Centers that will facilitate the NCTSI achievement of its overall goals of improving access to and quality of services for child and adolescent traumatic stress: Rural/Tribal/Frontier Intervention Development and Evaluation Center; Service Systems Models Intervention Development and Evaluation Center; and Traumatic Stress and Substance Abuse Intervention Development and Evaluation Center.
Applicant organizations may apply for the Intervention Development and Evaluation Centers (this announcement) and/or the Community Treatment and Services Centers (RFA SM-03-012). A separate, complete application is required for each category. An organization that is selected for funding in both programs will receive funding only for its proposed Intervention Development and Evaluation Center.
Organizations that are currently grantees of the NCTSI are not eligible to apply as the applicant organization under this announcement.
Applicant organizations must apply for one of the specific IDE centers—Rural/Tribal/Frontier; Service Systems Models; or Traumatic Stress and Substance Abuse—and address the requirements for that specific center in the application. Applicant organizations may submit separate applications for more than one of the specific IDE centers.
When requesting an application kit, the applicant must specify the funding opportunity title and number for which detailed information is desired. All information necessary to apply, including where to submit applications and application deadline instructions, are included in the application kit.
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
Joseph McCloskey, Director, Office of Single Family Asset Management, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-1672 (this is not a toll free number) for copies of the proposed forms and other available information.
The Department is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork
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.
Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary.
Notice of meeting.
This notice announces an upcoming meeting of the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Commission. Notice of this meeting is required under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463).
Friday, July 11, 2003, time 2 p.m. to 4 p.m.
The Greater Wilkes-Barre Chamber, Two Public Square, Wilkes-Barre PA 18710.
The agenda for the meeting will focus on implementation of the Management Action Plan for the Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor and State Heritage Park. The Commission was established to assist the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and its political subdivisions in planning and implementing an integrated strategy for protecting and promoting cultural, historic and natural resources. The Commission reports to the Secretary of the Interior and to Congress.
The Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Commission was established by Public Law 100-692, November 18, 1988, and extended through Public Law 105-355, November 13, 1998.
C. Allen Sachse, Executive Director, Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Commission, 1 South Third Street, 8th Floor, Easton PA 18042. (610) 923-3548.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of permit applications.
The following applicants have applied for a scientific research permit to conduct certain activities with endangered species pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Comments on these permit applications must be received on or before August 1, 2003 to receive our consideration.
Written data or comments should be submitted to the Chief, Endangered Species, Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 911 NE. 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-4181 (fax: 503-231-6243). Please refer to the respective permit number for each application when submitting comments. All comments received, including names and addresses, will become part of the official administrative record and may be made available to the public.
Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice to the address above (telephone: 503-231-2063). Please refer to the respective permit number for each application when requesting copies of documents.
The permittee requests an amendment to take (harass through captive propagation, collect biological samples, and mark) the Columbia Basin distinct population segment of the pygmy rabbit (
The applicant requests a permit to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, and release) the California tiger salamander Sonoma County distinct population segment (
The applicant requests a permit to remove/reduce to possession
The applicant requests a permit to take (collect blood) captive Hawaiian geese (
We solicit public review and comment on each of these recovery permit applications.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of applications.
The following applicants have applied for scientific research permits to conduct certain activities with endangered species pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
To ensure consideration, written comments must be received on or before August 1, 2003.
Written comments should be submitted to the Chief, Endangered Species Division, Ecological Services, P.O. Box 1306, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103. Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act. Documents will be available for public inspection, by appointment only, during normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 500 Gold Avenue SW., Room 4102, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Please refer to the respective permit number for each application when submitting comments. All comments received, including names and addresses, will become part of the official administrative record and may be made available to the public.
Chief, Endangered Species Division, (505) 248-6920.
Permit No. TE-057946
Applicant requests an amendment to an existing permit to allow presence/absence surveys for black-footed ferret (
Applicant requests a new permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys for the following species within Arizona and New Mexico: black-footed ferret (
Applicant requests an amendment to an existing permit to allow surveys and collection of the scaleshell mussel (
Applicant requests an amendment to an existing permit to allow presence/absence surveys for the following species within New Mexico: black-footed ferret (
Applicant requests a new permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys, nest monitoring, radio tracking, trapping, and removal of radio transmitters for cactus ferruginous pygmy owl (
Applicant requests a permit for research and recovery purposes to receive fountain darters (
16 U.S.C. 1531,
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of 90-day petition finding and initiation of status review.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 90-day finding for a petition to delist the Mexican bobcat (
The finding announced in this document was made on June 11, 2003. To be considered in the 12-month finding for this petition, comments and information should be submitted to us by September 30, 2003.
Submit information, comments, or questions concerning this petition finding to the Chief, Division of Scientific Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Rm 750, Arlington, VA 22203 (facsimile number 703-358-2276; E-mail address:
Karen L. Anderson, Division of Scientific Authority (
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)), requires us to make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. This finding is to be based on all information available to us at the time the finding is made. To the maximum extent practicable, this finding is to be made within 90 days of the date the petition was received, and a notice of the finding is to be published promptly in the
On July 8, 1996, we received a petition dated June 30, 1996, from the National Trappers Association, Inc., Bloomington, Illinois. The petition and cover letter clearly identified itself as such and contained the name, address, and signature of the petitioning organization's representative. Information relating to the taxonomy, the present population status and trends, and threats were included in the petition. The petition requested that we delist the Mexican bobcat under the Act, and noted that downlisting to threatened status would not be an appropriate alternative. In a letter dated November 4, 1996, we acknowledged receipt of the petition (Service,
The Mexican bobcat belongs to the mammalian family Felidae and has been reported to be a subspecies of
The majority of bobcats are found in the United States, where they range through a wide variety of habitats, including boreal coniferous and mixed forests in the north, bottomland hardwood forest and coastal swamp in the southeast, and desert and scrubland in the southwest. Even within a local area, individual bobcats usually use a variety of habitats (Wilson and Ruff 1999). Only large, intensively cultivated areas appear to be unsuitable habitat. Southern Canada represents the northern limit of bobcat range, with deep snow a significant limiting factor. With the clearing of mature coniferous forests for agriculture, the bobcat has expanded its range northward over the past century (Rollings 1945, Banfield 1974). In Mexico, bobcats are found in dry scrubland and forest of pine (
No population estimates are available for
Little information is available on utilization of the species in Mexico, but local hunting and trapping for subsistence is possible. There is no indication of illegal trade and no reported potential trade threats (Govt. of U.S. 1992; Service,
We listed the Mexican bobcat as an endangered species on June 14, 1976 (41 FR 24064). This subspecies was listed under the Act due to its inclusion in Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). By July 1, 1975, the Convention was ratified by enough nations to enter into force and at that time the countries participating in CITES agreed that the Mexican bobcat met the criteria for inclusion in Appendix I. Appendix I includes all species threatened with extinction and that are or may be affected by international trade. In 1992, during the 10-year review of species included in the CITES Appendices, we, with support from Mexico and other countries, proposed to transfer the Mexican bobcat to Appendix II, based on the bobcat's widespread and stable status in Mexico and questionable taxonomy. Our proposal was accepted and the transfer went into effect on November 6, 1992. It is not clear at this time why the Mexican bobcat was originally included in Appendix I.
We must consider any species for listing under the Act if available information indicates such action may be warranted. “Species” is defined by the Act as including any subspecies of fish and wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of vertebrate fish or wildlife that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532 (16)). We, along with the National Marine Fisheries Service (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-Fisheries), developed the Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments (DPS Policy) (61 FR 4722) to help us in determining what constitutes a distinct population segment (DPS). Under this policy, we use three elements to assess
The DPS analysis is a stepwise analysis; significance is considered only when discreteness of the population has been determined, and the conservation status is considered only when both discreteness and significance of the population have been established. Discreteness refers to the isolation of a population from other members of the species and is based on two criteria: (1) Marked separation from other populations of the same taxon resulting from physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors, including genetic discontinuity; or (2) populations delimited by international boundaries. If the population is determined to be discrete, we determine significance by assessing the distinct population segment's importance and/or contribution to the species throughout its range. Measures of significance may include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) Persistence of the discrete population segment in an ecological setting unusual or unique for the taxon; (2) evidence that loss of the discrete population segment would result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon; (3) evidence that the discrete population segment represents the only surviving natural occurrence of the taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historic range; and (4) evidence the discrete population segment differs markedly from other populations of the taxon in its genetic characteristics.
If we determine that a population meets the discreteness and significance criteria for a distinct population segment, we evaluate the threats to determine if endangered or threatened status based on the Act's standards is warranted. Endangered means the species is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Threatened means the species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
In reviewing the taxonomic information on Mexican bobcat, it is unclear whether this subspecies is valid. If the subspecies designation is not valid, then we must evaluate the status of the listed entity in its range within Mexico and determine whether the listed entity meets the DPS policy, and if so, whether this population of bobcat should remain listed. Although the petition did not address this issue, we will consider this question during our status review.
We have reviewed the petition, the literature cited in the petition, and other literature and information available in our files. On the basis of the best scientific and commercial information, we find that the petition presents substantial information to indicate that the Mexican bobcat may warrant being delisted.
With the publication of this notice, we are initiating a status review of the Mexican bobcat to determine whether delisting is warranted based on its status and taxonomy. If this subspecies is not taxonomically valid, we will also evaluate if the population of the listed entity in Mexico constitutes a DPS, and if so, whether or not we should retain the listing of this entity. If this population does not meet the DPS criteria, we will then evaluate whether or not the population of the listed entity is endangered or threatened in a significant portion of the species' (
When we make a finding that sufficient information exists to indicate that delisting of a species may be warranted, we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species. To ensure that the status review is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we are soliciting information on the Mexican bobcat (
We request any additional information, comments, and suggestions from the public, governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties concerning the status of this subspecies of the bobcat throughout its range in Mexico. We are seeking information regarding taxonomy, historic and current distribution, habitat use and habitat conditions, biology and ecology, ongoing conservation measures for the subspecies and its habitat, and threats to the subspecies and its habitat. We are particularly interested in recent information on the taxonomy of the bobcat, and specifically whether escuinapae is a valid subspecies or whether it should be considered part of other subspecies. We also request any additional information that will support the DPS analysis of the discreteness and significance, as defined in our DPS policy (see Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment section above), of this Mexican population relative to the species as a whole.
If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials concerning this finding to the Chief, Division of Scientific Authority (see
Allen, J.A. 1903. A New Deer and a New Lynx From the State of Sinaloa, Mexico. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. Bull., 19:613-615.
Banfield, A.W. 1974. The Mammals of Canada. Univ. Toronto Press, Toronto.
Hall, E. R., and K. R. Kelson 1959. The Mammals of North America. The Ronald Press Company, New York.
Government of the United States. 1992. Proposal to Transfer
Gonzalez, C.B., and C.G. Leal. 1984. [Forest Mammals of the Mexican Basin.] Programme on Man and the Biosphere (UNESCO) and Editorial Limusa. Mexico City (in Spanish).
McCord, C.M., and J.E. Cardoza. 1982. Bobcat and Lynx. Pp 728-766 in J.A. Chapman and G.A. Feldhamer, eds. Wild Mammals of North America: Biology, Management and Economics. Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore.
Nowell, K., and P. Jackson. eds. 1996. Wild Cats: Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. IUCN/SSC Cat Specialist Group, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Rollings, C.T. 1945. Habits, Food and Parasites of the Bobcat in Minnesota. J. Wildl. Manage. 9:131-145.
Samson, F.B. 1979. Multivariate Analysis of Cranial Characteristics Among Bobcats with a Preliminary Discussion of the Number of Subspecies. Bobcat Res. Conf. Natl. Wildl. Fed. Sci. Tech. Ser. 6:80-86.
Wilson, D.E., and S. Ruff. eds. 1999. The Smithsonian Book of North American Mammals. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC.
Woloszyn, D., and B.W. Woloszyn. 1982. [The Mammals of Sierra de La Laguna Baja California Sur.] Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Technologia, Mexico (in Spanish).
The primary author of this document is Karen L. Anderson of the Division of Scientific Authority (
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability.
This notice advises the public that a Draft Environmental Assessment on the Management of Mute Swans in the Atlantic Flyway is available for public review. Comments and suggestions are requested.
You must submit comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment by July 16, 2003.
Copies of the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) can be obtained by writing to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Mail Stop MBSP-4107, Arlington, VA 22203. The DEA may also be viewed on the Fish and Wildlife Service home page at
John L. Trapp, (703) 358-1965.
The purpose of the DEA is to determine how to respond to applications for permits to take mute swans (
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Task Force Mississippi River Basin Panel. The meeting topics are identified in the
The Mississippi River Basin Regional Panel will meet from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Thursday, July 10, 2003, and 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. on Friday, July 11, 2003, and a field trip from 2:30 p.m. to 6 p.m. on Friday, July 11, 2003.
The Mississippi River Basin Regional Panel meeting will be held at the Hilton Minneapolis/St. Paul Airport, 3800 East 80th Street, Bloomington, MN 55425. Phone 952-854-2100.
Jay Rendall, Mississippi River Basin Panel Chair and Exotic Species Program Coordinator, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources at 651-297-1464 or Sharon Gross, Executive Secretary, Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force at 703-358-2308.
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. I), this notice announces meetings of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force Mississippi River Basin Regional Panel. The Task Force was established by the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990. The Mississippi River Basin Regional Panel was established by the ANS Task Force in 2002. The purpose of the Panel is to advise and make recommendations to the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force on issues relating to the Mississippi River Basin region of the United States that includes thirty-two Mississippi River Basin States: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. The Mississippi River Basin Regional Panel will discuss several topics at this meeting including: aquatic invasive species (Asian carp, New Zealand mudsnail, round goby, water fleas, purple loosestrife, and Eurasian watermilfoil) in the Mississippi River Basin and their management; a discussion on pathways of invasive species spread and prevention methods used for the aquatic plant trade, recreational activities, and effective boater education programs; a discussion on prevention initiatives taken for the dispersal barrier and the summit in Chicago, 100th Meridian initiative, public awareness campaign, Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers, NAISA, and National Invasive Species Council's rapid response efforts; a discussion on Panel organization and operation and establishment of new Panel Committees for education, policy, control, research, and outreach efforts; and status and discussion of national legislation regarding aquatic invasive species.
Minutes of the meeting will be maintained by the Executive Secretary, Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, Suite 810, 4401 North Fairfax Drive,
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Task Force Great Lakes Panel. The Great Lakes Panel meeting will be held in conjunction with a workshop entitled “Rapid Response Plan for Great Lakes Aquatic Invasions”. The meeting topics are identified in the
The Great Lakes Panel will meet from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Tuesday, July 22, 2003, and from 8 a.m. to noon on Wednesday, July 23, 2003. The Rapid Response workshop will be held from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. on Wednesday, July 23, 2003, and from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Thursday, July 24, 2003.
The Great Lakes Panel meeting and Rapid Response workshop will be held at the Courtyard Marriott of Ann Arbor, 3205 Boardwalk, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108. Phone (734) 995-5900.
Kathe Glassner-Shwayder, Project Manager, Great Lakes Commission, at 734-971-9135 or Sharon Gross, Executive Secretary, Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force at 703-358-2308 or by e-mail at:
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. I), this notice announces a meeting of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force Great Lakes Panel. The Task Force was established by the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990.
The Great Lakes Panel, comprised of representatives from federal, State, and local agencies and from private environmental and commercial interests, performs the following activities:
(a) Identifies priorities for the Great Lakes Region with respect to aquatic nuisance species;
(b) Makes recommendations to the Task Force regarding programs to carry out zebra mussel programs;
(c) Assists the Task Force in coordinating Federal aquatic nuisance species program activities in the Great Lakes region;
(d) Coordinates, where possible, aquatic nuisance species program activities in the Great Lakes region that are not conducted pursuant to the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (as amended, 1996);
(e) Provides advice to public and private individuals and entities concerning methods of controlling aquatic nuisance species; and
(f) Submits an annual report describing activities within the Great Lakes region related to aquatic nuisance species prevention, research, and control.
Topics to be addressed at the panel meeting include: An update on panel products and activities; updates on national issues such as the ANS Task Force, the National Invasive Species Council, and the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act; an update on the development of ballast water standards; an update on the dispersal barrier project and related concerns on nonindigenous fish invasions; a discussion on the expansion of Ruffe into Lake Michigan; a discussion on the Panel priorities in areas of information, education, research coordination, and policy and legislation; and updates from the Information/Education Committee, the Research Coordination Committee, and the Policy and Legislation Committee. The agenda for the Rapid Response Workshop includes; an overview of the need for early warning and rapid response to new invasive species in the United States; an overview of ANS Task Force and Federal perspectives on ANS Rapid response; an overview of the multi-jurisdictional experience in coordinating responses to chemical spills as a model for ANS rapid response; an overview on the role of monitoring for early detection; discussions during breakout sessions on communication, public outreach, detection and monitoring, decision support and scientific assessment, management options, implementation, and adaptive management as components of a rapid response plan; and an overview of the operational challenges associated with developing and implementing a rapid response plan.
Minutes of the meeting will be maintained by the Executive Secretary, Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, Suite 810, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22203-1622, and will be available for public inspection during regular business hours, Monday through Friday.
International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has issued a limited exclusion order and terminated the above-captioned investigation.
Andrea Casson, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3105. Copies of the ALJ's ID and all other nonconfidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
The Commission instituted this investigation on October 22, 2002, based on a complaint filed by DuBois Limited of the United Kingdom (“DuBois”) against eight respondents, including Wah-De Electron Co., Ltd of Taiwan (“Wah-De”)
On March 26, 2003, DuBois filed a declaration pursuant to section 337(g)(1) and Commission rule 210.16(c)(1) seeking immediate entry of a limited exclusion order against Wah-De and Dragon Star. On April 22, 2003, the Commission issued a
Section 337(g)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930 provides that the Commission shall presume the facts alleged in a complaint to be true, and upon request, issue a limited exclusion order if: (1) A complaint is filed against a person under section 337, (2) the complaint and a notice of investigation are served on the person, (3) the person fails to respond to the complaint and notice or otherwise fails to appear to answer the complaint and notice, (4) the person fails to show good cause why it should not be found in default, and (5) the complainant seeks relief limited to that person. Such an exclusion from entry shall be issued unless, after considering the effect of such exclusion or order in light of the statutory public interest factors, the Commission finds that the exclusion order should not be issued.
The Commission found that each of the statutory requirements for the issuance of a limited exclusion order was met with respect to defaulting respondents Wah-De and Dragon Star. The Commission further determined that the public interest factors enumerated in section 337(g)(1) did not preclude the issuance of such relief. Finally, the Commission determined that bond under the limited exclusion order during the Presidential review period shall be in the amount of 100 percent of entered value.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and § 210.16 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.16.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
July 9, 2003 at 11 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
1. Agenda for future meetings: none.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Inv. Nos. AA1921-143 and 731-TA-343 (Review) (Remand) (Tapered Roller Bearings from Japan)—briefing and vote. (The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its views on remand to the United States Court of International Trade on or before July 23, 2003.)
5. Outstanding action jackets: none.
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that on June 17, 2003, a proposed Stipulated Amendment to Consent Decree in
The original consent decree, entered on November 19, 1999, resolved the liability of the City of Baltimore, Maryland (“Baltimore”) arising out of, and with respect to, the claims for relief asserted in the United States' Complaint and Amended Complaints, and the State of Maryland's Complaint in Intervention and Amended Complaints, in this action. The United States and Maryland alleged that Baltimore violated the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251
As part of the settlement embodied in the Consent Decree, Baltimore agreed to perform three Supplemental Environmental Projects (“SEPs”) pursuant to the work plans and schedules attached to the consent decree as Appendix C and incorporated into the consent decree by reference. As set forth in the proposed Stipulated Amendment, the parties have agreed upon an extension of the schedules for these projects, to be enforceable by specific per diem penalties for delay in performance.
The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Stipulated Amendment. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to
The Stipulated Amendment to Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney, District of Maryland, United States Courthouse, 101 West Lombard Street, Baltimore, MD 21201, and at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site,
In accordance with Departmental policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that a proposed Amendment to Consent Decree entered on January 17, 2001 in
The Consent Decree involved the settlement of claims brought by the United States and State pursuant the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6901
More specifically, the substitute SEP is a reverse osmosis treatment process for drinking water systems in Moss Point, Mississippi that is designed to improve the taste, color and odor of drinking water. The substitute SEP will provide substantial benefits to the community. Given the credit earned for the no longer viable SEP, Morton is obligated to spend $9,434,537.00. If the reverse osmosis system costs less than $9,434,537.00, Morton will pay the difference to the United States and State, unless the parties agree on an additional SEP to be funded with all or a portion of the balance.
The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the proposed Amendment to Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611. Each communication should refer on its face to
The proposed Amendment to Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney, Southern District of Mississippi, 808 Vieux Marche, 2nd Floor, Biloxi, Mississippi 39530, and at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 Office, 61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. During the public comment period, the proposed Amendment may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site,
A copy of the proposed Amendment to Consent Decree may be obtained by (1) mail from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611; or by (2) faxing or emailing the request to Tonia Fleetwood (
Notice is hereby given, in accordance with that on June 18, 2003, the United States lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, United States v. Northern States Power Co., a Wisconsin corporation, doing business, as Xcel Energy, Case No. 03-C-0330-C (W.D. Wis.), under the Clean Air Act (“CAA”). The proposed consent Decree resolves specific allegations and claims of the United States Against Northern States Power Co. (“NSP”), arising out of the company's operation of an electricity generating facility in La Crosse, Wisconsin. The French Island Plant is located on the Mississippi River at 200 South Bainbridge Street, La Crosse, La Crosse County, Wisconsin, which is within the Western District of Wisconsin.
The consent Decree requires NSP to install and operate pollution control equipment on each municipal waste combustor (“MWC”) necessary to come into compliance with emission limits for large MWC's, with the exception the carbon monoxide (“CO”) emission limitation. NSP has already installed a dry lime injection scrubber and pulse jet baghouse on each MWC, and installed a Selective Noncatalytic Reduction process to control nitrous oxide (“NO
In addition, NSP will complete all training requirements no later than 6 months from the lodging date of the Consent Decree, and will comply with applicable recordkeeping and recording requirements. It has also agreed to implement a plan to minimize CO emissions during the pendency of the Decree.
NSP is currently unable to meet the large MWC CO emission limitation of 100 ppmv consistently. On July 8, 2002, NSP submitted a Petition to EPA's Administrator to modify the CO emission limitation in the large MWC regulations. The Consent Decree requires that, during the pendency of the petition, NSP undertake significant steps to minimize the potential for CO exceedences. NSP is also required to
Under the terms of the proposed settlement, NSP will pay a civil penalty of $500,000 to the United States.
The Department of Justice will accept written comments relating to the proposed Consent Decree for 30 days after publication of this Notice. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice, P.O. Box 7611, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to United States v. NSP, Case Number 03-C-0330-C (W.D. Wis.), DJ Ref. #90-5-2-1-07638. The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney for the Western District of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, and at the Regional 5 Office of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. During the Public comment period, the Consent Decree may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site,
60-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review; Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired; Cost Recovery Regulations, Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 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 September 2, 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 Porter Dunn, (703) 814-4902, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice, TCAU, 14800 Conference Center Drive, Suite 300 Chantilly, VA 20151.
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 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 collection:
(1)
(2)
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: None. Federal Bureau of Investigation, United States Department of Justice.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Business or other for-profit. Other: None. This collection is facilitated by the procedures whereby telecommunications carriers can recover the costs associated with complying with the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, which went into effect on October 25, 1994.
(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond/reply: The average time burden of the approximately 3,000 respondents to provide the information requested is approximately four hours per telecommunications switch.
(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total annual hour burden, to provide the information necessary to file a claim under the Cost Recovery Regulation, is approximately 46,000 annual burden hours.
If additional information is required contact: Brenda E. Dyer, Deputy Clearance Officer, Information Management and Security Staff, Justice Management Division, United States Department of Justice, Suite 1600, 601 D Street NW., Washington, DC 20530.
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
Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 ((202) 395-7316/this is not a toll-free number), within 30 days from the date of this publication in the
• 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,
Paragraph 1910.132(d)(1) requires employers to perform a hazard assessment of the workplace to determine if personal protective equipment (PPE) is necessary. Paragraph (d)(2) requires employers to certify that a hazard assessment has been performed. The signed certification must include the date the hazard assessment was conducted and the identification of the workplace evaluated (area or location).
Paragraph 1910.132 (f)(4) requires employers to certify that employees have received and understood PPE training. The training certification must include the name of the employee(s) trained, the date of training, and the subject of the certification (
The Department of Labor (DOL) has submitted the following public information collection requests (ICRs) 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 Darrin King on 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or E-Mail:
Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 (202-395-7316 this is not a toll-
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,
30 CFR 57.22229 and 57.22230 require that the mine atmosphere be tested for methane by a competent person or atmospheric monitoring system at least once every seven days, or a combination of both. Standards 57.22229(d) and 57.22230(c) require that the person performing the tests certify by signature and date that the tests have been conducted. Certifications of examinations shall be kept for at least one year and made available at the mine for MSHA inspectors. Where examinations disclose hazardous conditions, affected miners must be informed.
National Communications System (NCS).
Notice of meeting.
A meeting of the President's National Security Telecommunications
Telephone Ms. Marilyn Witcher, (703) 607-6214, or write the Manager, National Communications System, 701 South Court House Roads, Arlington, Virginia 22204-2198.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
Notice of pending NRC action to submit an information collection request to OMB and solicitation of public comment.
The NRC is preparing a submittal to OMB for review of continued approval of information collections under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Submit, by (September 2, 2003), comments that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility?
2. Is the burden estimate accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
A copy of the draft supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide Web site:
Comments and questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the NRC Clearance Officer, Brenda Jo. Shelton, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, T-5 C3, Washington, DC 20555-0001, by telephone at (301) 415-7233, or by Internet electronic mail to
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of workshop.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is holding a workshop on issues related to the Industry Initiating Events Performance Indicator (IIEPI) for the NRC's Industry Trends Program (ITP). The public workshop is being held to discuss the technical approach and characteristics of the IIEPI.
Thomas H. Boyce, Inspection Program Branch, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Mr. Boyce may be reached at (301) 415-1130 or by e-mail at
The workshop will be held on July 30, 2003, from 8:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
The workshop will be held in Room O-7B4 at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the One White Flint North Building, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The workshop will focus on the technical approach and characteristics discussed in the draft report “Development of an Integrated Industry Initiating Events Indicator.” The draft report is available for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Public File Area O1 F21, Rockville, Maryland, or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), (ADAMS # ML031750752). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at
Those who are unable to attend in person may send written comments on the draft report to: Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, Mail Stop T6-D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Comments may be hand-delivered to the NRC at 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. Comments may be submitted by Email at
The IIEPI is being developed as part of the NRC's Industry Trends Program (ITP) to provide a more risk-informed indicator of the industry safety performance of operating power reactors for initiating events. The indicators in the ITP are used by the NRC to report to Congress on industry safety performance as part of NRC's annual Performance and Accountability Report. Information on the ITP may be found in
The draft technical report describes the technical approach and characteristics of the IIEPI, as well as an approach to establishing thresholds for the indicator. The following topics in the draft report will be discussed during the workshop:
• Industry Trends Program and Framework for IIEPI
• Technical Approach to IIEPI
• IIEPI Characteristics
• Technical Discussion
• Implementation Discussion
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rules 340, Disapproval of Employees, and 341, Approval of Registered Employees and Officers, and to adopt new Exchange Rule 359, Application and Termination Forms (Forms U-4 and U-5), to provide for the processing of the Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer (“Form U-4”) and the Uniform Termination Notice for Securities Industry Registration (“Form U-5”) by the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.”s (“NASD's”) Web Central Registration Depository (“Web CRD”) system for all individuals required to be registered with or approved by the Exchange.
.01 Any employee or prospective employee of a member or member organization who is to be admitted to the trading floor must be registered and approved by the Exchange's. To become registered, such employee or prospective employee must
.02 through .04. No change.
.01 Natural Persons Required to be Registered or Approved—Although the employment of each employee of a member or member organization is subject to disapproval by the Exchange, only (i) registered representatives, (ii) securities lending representatives, (iii) securities traders or (iv) a direct supervisor of (i), (ii) or (iii) above (
Any person who prior to June 1, 1970, was an allied member of the Exchange, in good standing, and who as of June 1, 1970, ceases to meet the definition of an allied member shall automatically cease his status as an allied member and may upon execution of such agreements as may be required by the Exchange qualify as a registered representative, supervisory person or officer. Any person who was an allied member in good standing prior to June 1, 1970, but does not meet the definition of allied member as of June 1, 1970, may
A “securities lending representative” is defined as any person who has discretion to commit a member or member organization with which he is associated, as an employee or otherwise, to any contract or agreement (written or oral) involving securities lending or borrowing activities with any other person.
A “securities trader” is defined as any person engaged in the purchase or sale of securities or other similar instruments for the account of a member or member organization with which he is associated, as an employee or otherwise, and who does not transact any business with the public.
.02 How to Register Employees or Obtain Approval of Officers.—To register an employee or obtain the approval of an officer, the employer must
If the employer is a member of the New York Stock Exchange, Inc., and application for the registration of an employee or the approval of an officer is made to that exchange, the American Stock Exchange LLC [, Inc.,] application [form] should be submitted concurrently with the submission of an application to the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. and prompt notice should be furnished to the
.03 through .08—No change.
.09 Termination of Employment.—Members and member organizations must immediately inform the [Membership Services Division of the] Exchange of any termination of employment of a
.10
(1) Application forms.
(2) Study Guide for Registered Representative Examination.
(3) Study Guide for Branch Office Manager Examination.
(4) Notice of Termination of Employment of Registered Employee—Form U-5].
.11 Filing With
In its filing with the Commission, the Amex included statements concerning the purpose of, and the basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Amex has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Amex Rule 340 currently requires Amex members and member organizations to submit Forms U-4 and U-5 for their employees with access to the trading floor (
The Exchange now is proposing to require all its members, member organizations and seat owners to use NASD's Web CRD as the mechanism for submitting required Forms U-4 and U-5 filings to the Exchange. As a result of this change, all persons that currently would submit paper Forms U-4s and U-5s to the Exchange would be required to submit these forms electronically through Web CRD. The CRD is a Web-based system that provides broker-dealers and their associated persons with “one-stop filing” with the SEC, NASD, and other self-regulatory organizations and regulators. The CRD is operated by NASD and is used by participating regulators in connection with registering and licensing broker-dealers and their associated persons.
The Exchange anticipates that, during the period between September 3 and September 19, 2003, Amex members and member organizations will submit an updated Form U-4 to Web CRD for all individuals who work on the trading floor who have not previously submitted a Form U-4 to Web CRD.
The proposed amendments to Exchange Rules 340 and 341 and the adoption of Exchange Rule 359 are intended to facilitate the transfer of all required Forms U-4 and U-5 filings to Web CRD. The changes provide that the filing of Forms U-4 and U-5 with a duly authorized designee of the Exchange (
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) 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. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-Amex-2003-48 and should be submitted by July 23, 2003.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
On March 24, 2003, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (“CHX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission believes that eliminating the requirement that a CHX specialist fill resting limit orders at the block price following a block trade trade-through in the primary market will permit specialists to handle block orders more quickly and efficiently. Based on representations by the Exchange, the Commission believes that this obligation was one the CHX assumed voluntarily in order to make its market more attractive to sources of order flow. The Commission believes that the business decision to potentially forego order flow by no longer requiring specialist to provide such protection to block orders is a judgment the Act allows the CHX to make.
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
On February 28, 2003, the International Securities Exchange, Inc. (“ISE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Commission has reviewed carefully the proposed rule change and finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission considers that in most circumstances trades that are executed between parties should be honored. On rare occasions, the price of the executed trade indicates an “obvious error” may exist, suggesting that it is unrealistic to expect that the parties to the trade had come to a meeting of the minds regarding the terms of the transaction. In addition, in the Commission's view, the determination of whether such an “obvious error” has occurred should be based on specific and objective criteria and subject to specific and objective procedures. The Commission believes that the Exchange's proposed revisions to ISE Rule 720 establish specific and objective criteria for determining when a trade is an “obvious error.” The Commission also believes that the proposed amendments establish specific and objective procedures governing the adjustment or nullification of such trade.
The Commission finds good cause for approving Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of notice thereof in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the Amendment No. 2, including whether Amendment No. 2 is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to Amendment No. 2 that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to Amendment No. 2 between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying at the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the ISE. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-ISE-2003-10 and should be submitted by July 23, 2003.
For the reasons discussed above, the Commission finds that the proposal, as amended, is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder. It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Nasdaq is seeking to add a post-trade anonymity feature to its SuperMontage trading system.
The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new text is
In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. Nasdaq has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Nasdaq proposes to add a post-trade anonymity feature to SuperMontage in response to demand from members. Today, systems that provide automatic executions of orders for Nasdaq stocks are commonplace and often it is the additional features offered by a system that determines whether market participants send orders to that system or a competing system. One such feature valued by market participants today is the ability to trade anonymously. When a member seeks to trade anonymously, it wants to prevent its contra party from knowing its identity.
Anonymity is important to market participants because sometimes the identity of a party can reveal important “market intelligence” and complicate a member's ability to execute its customer orders. For example, if members see a pattern in which a particular member is actively buying a security, and it is commonly known that this member handles the orders of several very large institutional customers, such as pension funds or mutual funds, the other members can adjust their trading strategy for that security in anticipation of the strong demand that should develop as the member attempts to fill the order of one or more of its large institutional customers. In such a scenario, the natural result is that the price of the security increases and it becomes more expensive to fill the order. This result commonly is referred
Presently, SuperMontage only offers a pre-trade anonymity feature for certain trades, which means market participants do not know the identities of the members entering orders, but their identities are revealed to each other once a trade is executed.
Nasdaq's current pre-trade anonymity feature allows market makers, ECNs and Order Entry Firms to submit anonymous orders to SuperMontage for display under the “SIZE” market participant identifier (“MPID”).
The new full anonymity feature Nasdaq is proposing builds upon the pre-trade anonymity feature available today using the Non-Attributable Quote/Order feature and extends the anonymity beyond the time of execution by masking the identities of the members executing the trade. As discussed above, currently a member's identity is revealed immediately when a Non-Attributable Quote/Order is executed. SuperMontage produces an execution report that is sent to the parties to the trade and also creates a report in Nasdaq's Automated Confirmation Transaction Service (“ACT”). These reports contain the MPIDs for the members that executed the trade. Under the new proposal, when a member uses the Non-Attributable Quote/Order feature, instead of revealing the members' MPIDs, SuperMontage will substitute a four-letter identifier that indicates the trade is anonymous (
The ACT reports that the NSCC receives from Nasdaq for anonymous trades will contain the identities of the parties to the trade. This measure will enable the NSCC to continue its normal risk management functions and settle anonymous trades just the same as those that are executed without the anonymity feature, with one exception. The ACT report sent to the NSCC will contain an indicator noting that the trade is anonymous. The effect of this indicator is that, on the contract sheets the NSCC issues to its participants, the NSCC will substitute SIZE for the MPID of the contra party, in effect masking from members the identities of their contra parties.
Nasdaq also proposes to offer additional risk management tools to members to assist them in monitoring their exposure to members they have traded with on an anonymous basis. Nasdaq has discussed its proposed full anonymity feature with several clearing firms in an attempt to balance members' competing desires to trade anonymously and monitor their exposure to other members. An execution system that reveals a contra party's identity immediately when a trade is executed provides the maximum amount of information for risk management, but, of course, such a system does not provide the degree of anonymity desired to lessen market impact. On the other hand, a system that does not provide any information with respect to the identity of contra parties, which is desirable for minimizing market impact, withholds useful risk management information. Ultimately, the information that provides market intelligence and creates market impact is one and the same as the information used in risk
Nasdaq is proposing to add four new measures that should help members monitor their exposure to other members and take action quickly if a contra party ceases operation. Nasdaq believes that the first and second measures will assist members directly in their efforts to assess the risk associated with their anonymous trading, whereas the third and fourth measures involve closer coordination between Nasdaq and the NSCC, which indirectly should benefit members trading anonymously.
First, Nasdaq will provide members with an intra-day concentration report that will disclose a member's aggregate dollar value of purchases and sales with other members with whom it has traded anonymously. This information will help members quantify their “worst case scenario,” which would occur if one or all of their contra parties failed to settle all trades executed anonymously. With this information, members can determine whether any risk-limiting actions should be taken.
Second, Nasdaq will reveal after 4 p.m. Eastern Time the identities of the members listed on the intra-day concentration report.
Third, Nasdaq will begin providing trade information to the NSCC in real time as trades are executed in SuperMontage. In comparison, today Nasdaq collects trade information and sends it to the NSCC at five pre-determined intervals throughout the day. With real time submission, the NSCC will possess trade information within seconds after a trade is executed and it can incorporate this information into its risk analysis of its participants. Ultimately, this could result in the NSCC reaching a decision earlier to cease to act for a participant, which would prevent other members from executing any additional trades with the firm or a firm that clears through that participant. Once the NSCC ceases to act for a participant, that firm, and any other firm that clears through the participant, will not be able to continue trading.
Fourth, once the NSCC has ceased to act for a participant and determined not to guarantee the settlement of the participant's trades, Nasdaq will coordinate with the NSCC and promptly disclose to members each trade executed anonymously with the firm the NSCC ceased to act for and any firms that cleared through that the NSCC participant.
The second scenario in which Nasdaq will reveal contra party identities on a trade-by-trade basis is when a member whose Quote/Order is decremented (
To preserve some degree of anonymity, while also accommodating the unique rights and needs of these ECNs, Nasdaq is proposing a rule that would prohibit fee-charging Order-Delivery ECNs from disclosing the identity of the member that submitted the Non-Attributable Quote/Order that decremented their Quote/Order.
Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the provisions of section 15A(b)(6) of the Act.
Nasdaq also believes that the proposal balances the need to provide an anonymity feature in SuperMontage and the unique needs of Order-Delivery ECNs that charge quote access fees. The proposal will continue to provide fee-charging Order-Delivery ECNs with the identities of their contra parties so that they have the information necessary to decide whether to trade with an individual member or reject an order because of a dispute regarding the payment of fees. However, to limit the effect of the special processing on the anonymity provided by SuperMontage, Nasdaq is proposing to prohibit these ECNs from disclosing the identities of their contra parties for anonymous trades, which Nasdaq understands is consistent with existing practices. Fee-charging Order-Delivery ECNs would be permitted to disclose this information if
Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change, as amended, will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) by order approve the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the NASD. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NASD-2003-85 and should be submitted by July 23, 2003.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
NASD proposes to adopt NASD Rule 2370 to govern lending arrangements between registered persons and customers. The text of the proposed rule change appears below. New text is in italics.
In its filing with the Commission, NASD included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. NASD has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to prohibit registered persons from borrowing money from or lending money to a customer unless the member has written procedures allowing such lending arrangements consistent with the rule, the loan falls within one of five permissible types of lending arrangements, and the member pre-approves the loan in writing. The five types of permissible lending arrangements are: The customer is a member of the registered person's immediate family (as defined in the proposed rule); the customer is in the business of lending money; the
NASD believes that the solicitation of loans from customers by registered persons is an area of legitimate NASD interest because of the potential for misconduct. NASD has brought disciplinary action against registered persons who have violated just and equitable principles of trade by taking unfair advantage of their customers by inducing them to lend money in disregard of the customers' best interests, or by borrowing funds from, but not repaying, customers. The potential for misconduct also exists when a registered person lends money to a customer.
The proposed rule change establishes a regulatory framework that would give members greater control over, and more specific supervisory responsibilities for, lending arrangements between registered persons and their customers. Members could choose to permit their registered persons to borrow from or lend to customers consistent with the requirements of the rule or prohibit the practice in whole or in part. If members choose to permit their registered persons to engage in lending arrangements with customers, the proposed rule change would require members to have written procedures in place to monitor such lending arrangements. The notice and approval requirements of the proposed change would enhance members' ability to supervise the activities of registered personnel. Members would be able to evaluate, before granting approval, whether the lending arrangement falls within one of the five types of permissible arrangements. Members would be permitted to approve loans only if the loan falls within one of the five types of permissible lending arrangements. In addition, the notice requirement would place an affirmative obligation on registered persons that could be separately charged in a disciplinary action if not followed.
The proposed rule change also would enhance NASD's ability to monitor loans between registered persons and their customers. Currently, under controlling Commission decisions, to bring a disciplinary action against a registered person who has entered into an unethical lending arrangement with a customer, NASD generally must prove that the arrangement is inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade under NASD Rule 2110 because the registered person has acted in bad faith or unethically. This can be difficult to prove in cases in which the customer is unable or unavailable to testify, or refuses to testify because he or she is relying on the registered person for financial advice. The proposed rule change would better enable NASD to monitor such loans, since members would be required to maintain written records of the loans as evidence of compliance. NASD also believes that the proposed rule change would be an effective deterrent to potential misconduct because members would require their registered persons to give prior notice of the loan and get approval from the member before engaging in the transaction, and the lending arrangement must fall within one of the five types of permissible arrangements. Members that do not wish to engage in this review and approval process could prohibit the practice altogether.
It is important to note that this proposal does not change the application of Regulation T
NASD believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,
NASD does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received for this rule proposal. Previously, in NASD Notice to Members 94-93 (December 1994), NASD requested comment on a more limited proposal regarding the adoption of a rule that would require registered persons to provide prior notification to, and obtain prior approval from, their employing member firm when personally borrowing funds or securities from customers. NASD has not included a discussion of the comments received on that proposal because the current rule proposal differs significantly in that it specifies the permissible types of lending arrangements and requires members to have written procedures that permit only those lending arrangements consistent with the rule.
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve such proposed rule change; or
(B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Small Business Administration.
Notice of reporting requirements submitted for OMB review.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), agencies are required to submit proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to publish a notice in the
Submit comments on or before July 17, 2003. If you intend to comment but cannot prepare comments promptly, please advise the OMB Reviewer and the Agency Clearance Officer before the deadline.
Copies: Request for clearance (OMB 83-1), supporting statement, and other documents submitted to OMB for review may be obtained from the Agency Clearance Officer.
Address all comments concerning this notice to: Agency Clearance Officer, Jacqueline White, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20416; and OMB Reviewer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Jacqueline White, Agency Clearance Officer, (202) 205-7044.
As a result of the President's major disaster declaration for Public Assistance on June 6, 2003, and subsequent amendments closing the incident period effective June 10 and adding Individual Assistance on June 20, 2003, I find that the following counties in the State of Arkansas constitute a disaster area due to damages caused by severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding that occurred on May 2, 2003 and continuing through June 10, 2003: Benton, Chicot, Cleburne, Columbia, Conway, Craighead, Cross, Crittenden, Faulkner, Fulton, Jackson, Lonoke, Nevada, Perry, Phillips, Poinsett, St. Francis, White, and Woodruff. Applications for loans for physical damage as a result of this disaster may be filed until the close of business on August 19, 2003 and for economic injury until the close of business on March 22, 2004 at the address listed below or other locally announced locations: Small Business Administration, Disaster Area 3 Office, 4400 Amon Carter Blvd., Suite 102, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
In addition, applications for economic injury loans from small businesses located in the following contiguous counties may be filed until the specified date at the above location: Arkansas, Ashley, Baxter, Carroll, Clark, Desha, Drew, Garland, Greene, Hempstead, Independence, Izard, Jefferson, Lafayette, Lawrence, Lee, Madison, Mississippi, Monroe, Ouachita, Pike, Pope, Prairie, Pulaski, Saline, Sharp, Stone, Union, Van Buren, Washington, and Yell in the State of Arkansas; Claiborne, East Carroll, Morehouse, Webster, and West Carroll in the State of Louisiana; Bolivar, Coahoma, De Soto, Issaquena, Tunica, and Washington in the State of Mississippi; Barry, Dunklin, Howell, McDonald, Oregon, and Ozark in the State of Missouri; Adair and Delaware in the State of Oklahoma; and Shelby and Tipton in the State of Tennessee.
The interest rates are:
Homeowners with credit available elsewhere—
Homeowners without credit available elsewhere—
Businesses with credit available elsewhere—
Businesses and non-profit organizations without credit available elsewhere—
Others (including non-profit organizations) with credit available elsewhere—
Businesses and small agricultural cooperatives without credit available elsewhere—
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 351611. For economic injury, the numbers are 9W0600 for Arkansas, 9W0700 for Louisiana, 9W0800 for Mississippi, 9W0900 for Missouri, 9W1000 for Oklahoma, and 9W1100 for Tennessee.
In accordance with the notice received from the Department of Homeland Security—Federal Emergency Management Agency, effective June 21, 2003, the above numbered declaration is hereby amended to include Cabell, Mingo, and McDowell Counties in the State of West Virginia as a disaster area due to damages caused by severe storms, flooding, and landslides that occurred June 11, 2003 and continuing.
In addition, applications for economic injury loans from small businesses located in the contiguous counties of Pike in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and Buchanan, Mercer, and Tazewell counties in the Commonwealth of Virginia may be filed until the specified date at the previously designated location. All other counties contiguous to the above named primary counties have been previously declared.
The number for economic injury for the Commonwealth of Virginia is 9W13.
All other information remains the same,
Social Security Administration.
Notice of Social Security ruling.
In accordance with 20 CFR 402.35(b)(1), the Commissioner of Social Security gives notice of Social Security Ruling, SSR 03-1p. This Ruling clarifies the policies of the Social Security Administration for developing and evaluating title II and title XVI claims for disability on the basis of postpolio sequelae. Postpolio sequelae refer to the documented residuals of acute polio infection, as well as other disorders that have an etiological link to either the acute polio infection or to the chronic deficits that resulted from the infection. These disorders typically manifest late in the lives of polio survivors, and include such things as postpolio syndrome (also known as the late effects of poliomyelitis), the early presence of advanced degenerative arthritis, sleep disorders, respiratory insufficiency, and various mental disorders.
July 2, 2003.
Carolyn Kiefer, Office of Medical Policy, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, (410) 965-9104 or TTY (410) 966-5609. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213 or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our Internet Web site,
Although we are not required to do so pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1) and (a)(2), we are publishing this Social Security Ruling in accordance with 20 CFR 402.35(b)(1).
Social Security Rulings make available to the public precedential decisions relating to the Federal old-age, survivors, disability, supplemental security income, and black lung benefits programs. Social Security Rulings may be based on case decisions made at all administrative levels of adjudication, Federal court decisions, Commissioner's decisions, opinions of the Office of the General Counsel, and policy interpretations of the law and regulations.
Although Social Security Rulings do not have the same force and effect as the statute or regulations, they are binding on all components of the Social Security Administration, in accordance with 20 CFR 402.35(b)(1), and are relied upon as precedents in adjudicating cases.
If this Social Security Ruling is later superseded, modified, or rescinded, we will publish a notice in the
Sections 216(i), 223(d), 223(f), 1614(a)(3) and 1614(a)(4) of the Social Security Act, as amended; Regulations No. 4, subpart P, sections 404.1502, 404.1505, 404.1508, 404.1509, 404.1511-404.1513, 404.1520, 404.1520a, 404.1521, 404.1523, 404.1525,404.1526, 404.1528, 404.1529, 404.1530, 404.1545, 404.1546, 404.1560-404.1569a; and 404.1593-404.1594 and Regulations No. 16, subpart I, sections 416.902, 416.905, 416.906, 416.908, 416.909, 416.911, 416.913, 416.920, 416.920a, 416.921, 416.923, 416.924, 416.924a-416.924c, 416.925, 416.926, 416.926a, 416.928, 416.929, 416.930, 416.945, 416.946, 416.960-416.969a, 416.987, and 416.993-416.994a.
The Act and our implementing regulations require that an individual establish disability based on the existence of a medically determinable impairment;
This Ruling explains that postpolio sequelae, when accompanied by appropriate symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings, is a medically determinable impairment that can be the basis for a finding of “disability.” It also provides guidance for the evaluation of claims involving postpolio sequelae.
Sections 216(i) and 1614(a)(3) of the Social Security Act (the Act) define “disability”
For purposes of disability claims adjudication, postpolio sequelae refer to multiple physical and mental disorders that may be manifested by polio survivors many years following acute polio infection. Any one or a combination of these disorders appropriately documented by signs, symptoms, and laboratory findings will constitute the presence of postpolio sequelae. The term “postpolio sequelae” includes the documented residuals of acute infection as well as all other documented clinical conditions that have an etiological link to either the acute infection or to its residual deficits.
Motor weakness is the most common residual of acute polio infection and is usually manifested by observable weakness, muscle atrophy, and reduced peripheral reflexes. These obvious clinical findings are used to document the history of poliomyelitis.
Electromyographic studies may be used by clinicians in clarifying the cause and extent of neuromuscular impairment, but should not be needed for purposes of disability decisionmaking. Nonetheless, when electromyography (EMG) results are available for review, these data should be considered in decisionmaking. Typically, we will not order or purchase EMG studies.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, and as long as the medical findings support a reasonable medical link between the prior polio infection and the present manifestation of any one or combination of the disorders discussed in the ruling, we will find that the individual has postpolio sequelae. For example, an individual with a history of polio affecting the left lower extremity who, on examination, has weakness and atrophy of the left thigh musculature with an observable limp now complains of chronic left lower extremity pain and is found to have lumbar stenosis documented by medically acceptable imaging. As discussed below, due to the chronic postural imbalance related to the effects of polio, a reasonable medical link exists between this individual's current medical condition (degenerative lumbar spine disease) and his/her prior polio residuals. Accordingly, we would make a finding of postpolio sequelae. On the other hand, an individual with a history of polio (for example, stating “I was in an iron lung”) who, on examination, has normal motor findings, including normal posture and gait, now complains of pain clinically consistent with chronic radiculopathy, and has medically acceptable imaging demonstrating degenerative arthritis in the lumbar spine. This individual's current medical condition does not demonstrate a reasonable medical connection with the prior polio; instead, the degenerative arthritis should be adjudicated as a musculoskeletal disorder unrelated to the prior polio infection.
Postpolio sequelae include such disorders as postpolio syndrome (also know as the late effects of poliomyelitis), early advanced degenerative arthritis, sleep disorders, respiratory insufficiency, and various mental disorders. These disorders and documentation issues concerning them are discussed in detail below.
According to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), postpolio syndrome is a condition that affects polio survivors anywhere from 10 to 40 years after recovery from an initial paralytic attack of the poliomyelitis virus. The NINDS states that postpolio syndrome is characterized by a further weakening of muscles that were previously affected by the polio infection. The signs and symptoms include fatigue, slowly progressive muscle weakness, and, at times, muscular atrophy. The NINDS states that joint pain and increasing skeletal deformities such as scoliosis are common. Not all polio survivors experience these clinical problems, and the extent to which polio survivors are affected by postpolio syndrome varies. The onset of new or worsening signs and symptoms is associated with a further reduction of the individual's capacity to independently carry out activities of daily living.
Polio survivors often manifest motor residuals in a single extremity and thus function day-to-day with chronic postural imbalance. Clinicians have described degenerative musculoskeletal disorders etiologically linked to long-standing postural imbalance. Abnormal weight-bearing in polio survivors produces exaggerated wear and tear on the bones and joints of the spine or limbs that are overused to compensate for limbs weakened by polio. Early onset of advanced degenerative arthritis can be found in a compensatory extremity or spine. Where such an etiological relationship is clear, clinically documented early advanced degenerative arthritis in a compensating limb or spine is considered one of the postpolio sequelae.
Documentation of early advanced degenerative arthritis may include medically appropriate imaging or abnormal physical findings of advanced arthritis on clinical examination.
Chronic pain disorders related to early degenerative osteoarthritis should be evaluated based on the impact of the pain and its treatment on the individual's physical and mental functioning.
Some polio survivors report the occurrence of sleep disorders that are determined by clinical evaluation to be related to respiratory insufficiency during sleep. The poliovirus has demonstrated a propensity to attack the motor neurons responsible for respiratory function, and, during the acute infection, some individuals require ventilatory assistance. For example, years ago patients with acute polio infection were placed in an “iron lung” for ventilatory assistance. Some patients who required such assistance recovered and may have returned to normal lives without obvious signs of respiratory insufficiency. Some polio
Respiratory insufficiency should be documented by abnormal pulmonary function studies. The presence of a sleep disorder related to respiratory insufficiency requires documentation by longitudinal treatment records, including such things as abnormal polysomnography or other appropriate evidence. Note, however, that we
Some polio survivors report the onset of problems with attention, concentration, cognition, or behavior. Some researchers have suggested that certain cognitive and behavioral deficits are the result of the prior polio infection that involved the brain, although others do not agree with that concept. Other researchers have suggested that the traumatic psychological experiences associated with acute polio infection are revived when polio survivors recognize the onset of further weakness and functional loss.
Many polio survivors endured a life-threatening infection as young children. They may have spent extended periods away from their homes and families while hospitalized with paralysis or respiratory dysfunction, or while undergoing multiple orthopedic surgeries. Often they endured many months, or sometimes years, of hospitalization and rehabilitation. The psychological effect of perceiving the onset of further weakness, fatigue, respiratory dysfunction or joint pain, many years following the acute infection, can be significant. Signs and symptoms of anxiety and depression may produce further deterioration in function.
Any mental impairment that could have an etiological link to the acute polio infection or its chronic residuals may be considered a manifestation of postpolio sequelae. Deficits in attention, cognition, or behavior may be demonstrated by reduced concentration capacity, inability to persist in tasks, or memory problems. Also, behavioral abnormalities may be demonstrated by mood changes, social withdrawal, or other behaviors inappropriate for the individual. Mood disorders characterized by anxiety and depression may also be seen and clinically documented in these individuals.
Individuals experiencing postpolio sequelae may complain of the new onset of reduced physical and mental functional ability. Complaints of fatigue, weakness, intolerance to cold, joint and muscle pain, shortness of breath and sleep problems, mood changes, or decreased attention and concentration capacity may hallmark the onset of postpolio sequelae. Weakness, fatigue, or muscle and joint pain may cause increasing problems in activities such as lifting, bending, prolonged standing, walking, climbing stairs, using a wheelchair, transferring from a wheelchair (
Many polio survivors who had been in a stable condition may begin to require new or additional assistive devices, such as braces, canes, crutches, walkers, wheelchairs, or pulmonary support. The reduced ability to sustain customary activities, including work, may result. A previously stable functional capacity may be further diminished.
Many individuals with medically severe polio residuals have worked despite their limitations. The new onset of further physical or mental impairments (even though they may appear to be relatively minor) in polio survivors may result in further functional problems that can limit or prevent their ability to continue work activity. Postpolio sequelae may effectively alter the ability of these individuals to continue functioning at the same level they maintained for years following their initial polio infection.
We generally will rely on documentation provided by the individual's treating physicians and psychologists (including a report of the medical history, physical examination, and available laboratory findings) to establish the presence of postpolio sequelae as a medically determinable impairment. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we will make a finding that a medically determinable impairment is established if any of the disorders discussed above have been documented by acceptable clinical signs, symptoms, and laboratory findings.
However, if evidence indicates that the diagnosis is questionable, we will contact the treating source for clarification, in accordance with 20 CFR 404.1512(e) and 416.912(e). Of course, if a favorable disability determination or decision can be made based on the available evidence of record, whether or not a link to the prior polio infection is evident, no further development need be undertaken.
The careful development of postpolio sequelae should include descriptions of the past acute illness (old records are not required), as well as a report of the current findings on physical examination. The examination report should also include the severity of any residual weakness, as well as the onset, pattern, and severity of any new physical or mental deficits. A description of current functional limitations and restrictions on physical and mental activity should be obtained from the examiner.
When possible, detailed longitudinal treatment records from the treating source should be obtained. In cases where severity of the impairment is unclear, an examination by a physician or psychologist who is knowledgeable about polio and postpolio sequelae is appropriate, if such a specialist is available.
Evidence from employers and other third party sources may be valuable in documenting a loss of a previous level of functioning and should be sought when there is a discrepancy or a question of credibility in the evidence of record and a fully favorable
Once postpolio sequelae has been documented as a medically determinable impairment, the impact of any of the symptoms of postpolio sequelae, including fatigue, weakness, pain, intolerance to cold, etc., must be considered both in determining the severity of the impairment and in assessing the individual's RFC. The adjudicator must make a comprehensive assessment of the cumulative and interactive effects of all of the individual's impairments and related symptoms, including the effects of postpolio sequelae. Evaluate all symptoms and their effects in accordance with 20 CFR 404.1529 and 416.929, and SSR 96-7p, “Titles II and XVI: Evaluation of Symptoms in Disability Claims: Assessing the Credibility of an Individual's Statements.”
Most postpolio sequelae are stable or very slowly progressive disorders. The medical evidence should readily support an expected duration of at least 12 or more months.
The listing criteria under our current listing 11.11, Anterior poliomyelitis, may be applied both to cases of static polio (where there has been no reported worsening after initial recovery) and to cases presenting with postpolio sequelae. All documented postpolio sequelae must be considered either alone or in combination to determine whether the medical criteria of listing 11.11, or any other listing, have been met or equaled. If the impairment is not found to meet or equal a listed impairment, we consider the impact of the impairment and any related symptoms in determining an individual's RFC and we proceed to evaluate the individual's impairment under our sequential evaluation procedures in accordance with 20 CFR 404.1545 and 416.945. It is essential that the cumulative and interactive effects of all of the individual's impairments, including symptoms, be carefully assessed in determining the individual's RFC in these cases.
A disability onset date in cases involving postpolio sequelae is set based on the individual's allegations, his or her work history, and the medical and other evidence concerning impairment severity. Generally, the new problems associated with postpolio sequelae are gradual and non-traumatic, but acute injuries or events, such as herniated discs, or broken bones from falls, may be markers for establishing a disability onset date. For additional discussion concerning the determination of onset date, refer to SSR 83-20, “Titles II and XVI: Onset of Disability.”
Department of State.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Orde F. Kittrie, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State, (telephone: 202/401-4779). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Request for comments.
The interagency Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) seeks public comment on the treatment of duty drawback and deferral regimes in free trade agreement (FTA) negotiations currently underway with Central
Public comments should be received no later than Noon, July 30, 2003.
For procedural questions concerning public comments, contact Gloria Blue, Executive Secretary, Trade Policy Staff Committee, Office of the United States Trade Representative at (202) 395-3475. For substantive questions pertaining to this request for public comment, contact Sarah Sipkins, Director for Market Access, Office of the USTR, at (202) 395-5656.
The U.S. Government is seeking public comment on appropriate disciplines regarding the use of domestic duty drawback and deferral programs for shipments between parties to the free trade agreements it is negotiating. Duty drawback and deferral regimes rebate, defer or reduce duties paid on material inputs contingent upon exportation of the processed or finished goods. In the context of an FTA, where inputs are dutiable in the United States and in the FTA partner country, duty drawback programs can distort investment decisions by creating an incentive for investors to locate in the FTA partner country in order to benefit from duty drawback when exporting processed goods for sale in the U.S. market. These programs also can create “export platforms” for materials produced in third countries since they de facto provide duty free treatment negotiated under the FTA to inputs from third countries when the processed goods are exported to the territory of the FTA partner. For industries in FTA partner countries, the gains from tariff reduction under an FTAs on average far exceed any tariff refunds foregone under these programs.
Thus, restrictions on the use of these programs are a standard feature of most FTAs around the globe. The NAFTA restricts duty deferral and drawback to the lesser of duties paid on the imported input or duties paid on the processed good exported to a NAFTA trading partner. The United States-Chile FTA provides for a gradual phase out of the use of these programs for shipments between the Parties. U.S. proposals in ongoing FTA negotiations are modeled on the U.S.-Chile provision.
All interested parties are invited to provide their written views and recommendations on this matter. Persons submitting comments should specify whether the comments apply to all or only some of the FTA negotiations currently underway.
Consideration will be given to any written comments that are timely submitted to USTR. Each person submitting a comment should include his or her name and address, give reasons for any recommendation and indicate whether those recommendations apply to all of the above-referenced negotiations.
In order to facilitate prompt consideration of submissions, USTR strongly urges and prefers electronic e-mail submissions in response to this notice. The e-mail address is
Written comments will be placed in a file open to public inspection pursuant to 15 CFR 2003.5, except confidential business information exempt from public inspection in accordance with 15 CFR 2003.6. Confidential business information submitted in accordance with 15 CFR 2003.6 must be clearly marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” at the top of each page, including any cover letter or cover page, and must be accompanied by a nonconfidential summary of the confidential information. All public documents and nonconfidential summaries shall be available for public inspection in the USTR Reading Room. The USTR Reading Room is open to the public, by appointment only, from 10 a.m. to 12 noon and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. An appointment to review the file may be made by calling (202) 395-6186.
The following Agreements were filed with the Department of Transportation under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. Sections 412 and 414. Answers may be filed within 21 days after the filing of the application.
The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of issuance of advisory circular.
This notice announces the issuance of Advisory Circular (AC) 20-146, Methodology for Dynamic Seat Certification by Analysis for Use in parts 23, 25, 27, and 29 Airplanes and Rotorcraft. The AC sets forth an acceptable means, but not the only means, for demonstrating compliance to certain sections of the regulations and the technical standard order associated with those regulations. The AC provides guidance on how to validate the computer model and under what conditions the model may be used in support of certification or TSO approval/authorization.
Advisory Circular 20-146 was issued by the Acting Manager of the Aircraft Engineering Division on May 19, 2003.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before August 1, 2003. A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.
Judy Street on (202) 267-9895.
Send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention FAA Desk Officer.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petition for amendment to exemption received.
Pursuant to FAA's rulemaking provisions governing the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for exemption, part 11 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), this notice contains a summary of a certain petition seeking relief from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of any petition or its final disposition.
Comments on petitions received must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before July 22, 2003.
Send comments on the petition 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 number FAA-2002-12918 at the beginning of your comments. If you wish to receive confirmation that the FAA received your comments, include a self-addressed, stamped postcard.
You may also submit comments through the Internet to
Annette Kovite (425-227-1262), Transport Airplane Directorate (ANM-113), Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Ave., SW., Renton, WA 98055-4056; or Vanessa Wilkins (202-267-8029), Office of Rulemaking (ARM-1), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85 and 11.91.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petitions for exemption received and of dispositions of prior petitions.
Pursuant to FAA's rulemaking provisions governing the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for exemption part 11 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), this notice contains a summary of certain petitions seeking relief from specified requirements of 14 CFR, dispositions of certain petitions previously received, and corrections. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of any petition or its final disposition.
Comments on petitions received must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before July 22, 2003.
You may submit comments [identified by DOT DMS Docket Number FAA-200X-XXXXX] by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Tim Adams (202) 267-8033, Sandy Buchanan-Sumter (202) 267-7271, or Denise Emrick (202) 267-5174, Office of Rulemaking (ARM-1), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85 and 11.91.
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 invites public comment on the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC at Wichita Mid-Continent Airport under the provisions of the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L. 101-508) and part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158).
Comments must be received on or before August 1, 2003.
Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered in triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, Central Region, Airports Division, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106.
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Mr. Bailis F. Bell, Director of Airports, at the following address: Wichita Airport Authority, 2173 Air Cargo Road, Wichita, Kansas 67209.
Air carriers and foreign air carriers may submit copies of written comments previously provided to the Wichita Airport Authority, under § 158.23 of Part 158.
Lorna Sandridge, PFC Program Manager, FAA, Central Region, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106, (816) 329-2641. 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 the Wichita Mid-Continent Airport under the provisions of the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L. 101-508) and part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158).
On June 20, 2003, the FAA determined that the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC submitted by the Wichita Airport Authority, was substantially complete within the requirements of § 158.25 of part 158. The FAA will approve or disapprove the application, in whole or in part, no later than September 18, 2003.
The following is a brief overview of the application.
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 Wichita Mid-Continent Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of availability and requests for public comment.
This notice announces the availability of and requests comments on a proposed Technical Standard Order (TSO)-C165, Electronic Map Display Equipment for Graphical Depiction of Aircraft Position. This proposed TSO tells persons seeking a TSO authorization or letter of design approval what minimum performance standards (MPS) their Electronic Map Displays must first meet in order to obtain approval and be identified with the applicable TSO marking.
Comments must identify the TSO file number and be received on or before August 5, 2003.
Send all comments on the proposed technical standard order to: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Aircraft Certification Service, Aircraft Engineering Division, Avionics Systems Branch, AIR-130, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591. ATTN: Mr. Brad Miller. You may deliver comments to: Federal Aviation Administration, Room 815, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.
Mr. Brad Miller, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Aircraft Certification Service, Aircraft Engineering Division, Avionic Systems Branch, AIR-130, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591. Telephone: (202) 385-4628, FAX: (202) 385-4651.
Interested persons are invited to comment on the proposed TSO listed in this notice by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they desire to the above specified address. Comments received on the proposed TSO may be examined, before and after the comment closing date, in Room 815,
The FAA has developed a new Technical Standard Order, TSO-C165, Electronic Map Display Equipment for Graphical Depiction of Aircraft Position. This proposed TSO prescribes the MPS for moving map equipment set forth in section 2 of RTCA Document No. (RTCA/DO)-257A, “Minimum Operational Performance Standards for the Depiction of Navigational Information on Electronic Maps,” dated June 25, 2003. The standards of this TSO apply to equipment intended to provide graphical depiction of navigation information on electronic moving map displays for use as an aid to other approved means of navigation. For portable devices, this TSO may be used in combination with Advisory Circular (AC) 120-76A, “Guidelines for the Certification, Airworthiness, and Operational Approval of Electronic Flight Bag Computing Devices,” to obtain a TSO authorization or letter of design approval for an Electronic Map Display for use on the airport surface.
You may get a copy of the proposed TSO from the internet at:
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of intent.
The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that an environmental impact statement (EIS) will be prepared for proposed highway improvements in the U.S. Route 460 corridor from I-295 near Petersburg to the City of Suffolk in Virginia.
Kenneth R. Myers, Planning & Environmental Program Manager, Federal Highway Administration, PO Box 10249, Richmond, Virginia 23240-0249. Telephone: (804)775-3353.
The FHWA, in cooperation with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), will prepare an environmental impact statement on the proposed transportation improvements to the Route 460 corridor from the intersection of Routes 460 and I-295 in Prince George County near Petersburg to the interchange of Routes 460 and 58 along the Suffolk Bypass. The study area for the proposed corridor improvements would be approximately 10 miles in width and 50 miles in length. Alternatives under consideration include: (1) Taking no action (no-build); (2) transportation system management alternative, which would provide, to the extent possible, safety upgrades to the existing alignment, signalization improvements, intersection improvements, intelligent transportation system (ITS) technologies, and access management techniques; (3) a mass transit alternative which, to the extent feasible, will evaluate commuter rail, light rail, express bus and bus rapid transit options and, (4) alternative corridor alignment build alternatives which will include new location freeway alternatives, and one alternative along existing 460 with the option for bypasses around several towns along the route.
The FHWA and VDOT are seeking input as a part of the scoping process to assist in determining and clarifying issues relative to this project. Letters describing the proposed action and soliciting comments will be sent by the VDOT to appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, and to private organizations and other interested parties as part of the scoping effort. Scoping meetings are being planned and will be announced by VDOT when schedules have been confirmed. Early coordination with State and Federal permit and resource agencies has been initiated and will continue through the development of the EIS. The Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Fish and Wildlife Service are being requested to be cooperating agencies. At least one location public hearing will be held for which public notice will be given of the time and place. The draft EIS will be available for public and agency review and comment prior to the public hearing.
To ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposed action are addressed and all significant issues 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 FHWA at the address provided above.
Surface Transportation Board, DOT.
Notice of decision.
On July 2, 2003, the Board served a decision announcing the 2002 revenue adequacy determinations for the Nation's Class I railroads. No carrier is found to be revenue adequate.
This decision is effective July 2, 2003.
Leonard J. Blistein, (202) 565-1529. (Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.)
The Board is required to make an annual determination of railroad revenue adequacy. A railroad is considered revenue adequate under 49 U.S.C. 10704(a) if it achieves a rate of return on net investment equal to at least the current cost of capital for the railroad industry for 2002, determined to be 9.8% in
Additional information is contained in the Board's formal decision. To purchase a copy of the full decision, write to, call, or pick up in person from: Da-To-Da Legal, Room 405, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423. Telephone: 202-293-7776. (Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through FIRS at 1-800-877-8339.) The decision is also available on the Board's Internet site at
This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy resources.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 603(b), we conclude that our action in this proceeding will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The purpose and effect of the action is merely to update the annual railroad industry revenue adequacy finding. No new reporting or other regulatory requirements are imposed, directly or indirectly, on small entities.
By the Board, Chairman Nober.
On June 12, 2003, Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP), filed with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) a petition under 49 U.S.C. 10502 for exemption from the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 10903 to abandon a rail line known as the Jamaica Industrial Lead, formerly called the Lincoln Subdivision, from the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company connection at milepost 56.43 to the end of the line at milepost 57.00 in Lincoln, NE, a distance of 0.57 miles in Lancaster County, NE. The line traverses United States Postal Service zip codes 68508 and 68528.
The line does not contain federally granted rights-of-way. Any documentation in UP's possession will be made available promptly to those requesting it.
The interest of railroad employees will be protected by the conditions set forth in
By issuing this notice, the Board is instituting an exemption proceeding pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502(b). A final decision will be issued by September 30, 2003.
Any offer of financial assistance (OFA) under 49 CFR 1152.27(b)(2) will be due no later than 10 days after service of a decision granting the petition for exemption. Each OFA must be accompanied by a $1,100 filing fee. See 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(25).
All interested persons should be aware that, following abandonment of rail service and salvage of the line, the line may be suitable for other public use, including interim trail use. Any request for a public use condition under 49 CFR 1152.28 or for trail use/rail banking under 49 CFR 1152.29 will be due no later than July 22, 2003. Each trail use request must be accompanied by a $150 filing fee.
All filings in response to this notice must refer to STB Docket No. AB-33 (Sub-No. 207X) and must be sent to: (1) Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001; and (2) Mack H. Shumate, Jr., 101 North Wacker Drive, Room 1920, Chicago, IL 60606. Replies to the petition are due on or before July 22, 2003.
Persons seeking further information concerning abandonment procedures may contact the Board's Office of Public Services at (202) 565-1592 or refer to the full abandonment and discontinuance regulations at 49 CFR part 1152. Questions concerning environmental issues may be directed to the Board's Section of Environmental Analysis (SEA) at (202) 565-1552. (Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.)
An environmental assessment (EA) (or an environmental impact statement (EIS), if necessary), prepared by SEA, will be served upon all parties of record and upon any agencies or other persons who commented during its preparation. Other interested persons may contact SEA to obtain a copy of the EA (or EIS). EAs in these abandonment proceedings normally will be made available within 60 days after the filing of the petition. The deadline for submission of comments on the EA will generally be within 30 days of its service.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, Joseph H. Dettmar, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
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 Financial Management Service (FMS) within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning an Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) Survey of Federal Benefit Recipients. The Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) of St. Louis, on behalf of FMS/Treasury, is conducting this EFT Survey in support of FMS' on-going initiatives to increase the use of EFT for Federal payments. The FRB of St. Louis and its contractor, Wirthlin Worldwide, will conduct this study of Social Security Title II and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefit payment recipients to identify barriers to significant increases in EFT for benefit payments.
Written comments should be received on or before September 2, 2003 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Michael Dressler, 401 14th St., SW., Room 426B, Washington, DC 20227, (202) 874-7082; e-mail address:
Requests for additional information or copies of the form(s) and instructions should be directed tot the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Eleanor Kelly, 401 14th St., SW., Room 314, Washington, DC 20227, (202) 874-6838, e-mail address:
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designate critical habitat pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), for 41 of 58 listed plant species known historically from the island of Hawaii. A total of approximately 84,200 hectares (208,063 acres) of land on the island of Hawaii fall within the boundaries of the 99 critical habitat units designated for these 41 species. This critical habitat designation requires the Service to consult under section 7 of the Act with regard to actions carried out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency. Section 4 of the Act requires us to consider economic and other relevant impacts when specifying any particular area as critical habitat. This rule also determines that designating critical habitat would not be prudent for four species,
This rule becomes effective on August 1, 2003.
Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation, used in the preparation of this final rule will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Office, 300 Ala Moana Blvd., Room 3-122, P.O. Box 50088, Honolulu, HI 96850-0001.
Paul Henson, Field Supervisor, Pacific Islands Office at the above address (telephone 808/541-3441; facsimile 808/541-3470).
In 30 years of implementing the ESA, the Service has found that the designation of statutory critical habitat provides little additional protection to most listed species, while consuming significant amounts of available conservation resources. The Service's present system for designating critical habitat has evolved since its original statutory prescription into a process that provides little real conservation benefit, is driven by litigation and the courts rather than biology, limits our ability to fully evaluate the science involved, consumes enormous agency resources, and imposes huge social and economic costs. The Service believes that additional agency discretion would allow our focus to return to those actions that provide the greatest benefit to the species most in need of protection.
While attention to and protection of habitat is paramount to successful conservation actions, we have consistently found that, in most circumstances, the designation of critical habitat is of little additional value for most listed species, yet it consumes large amounts of conservation resources. [Sidle (1987) stated, “Because the ESA can protect species with and without critical habitat designation, critical habitat designation may be redundant to the other consultation requirements of section 7.”
Currently, only 306 species or 25% of the 1,211 listed species in the U.S. under the jurisdiction of the Service have designated critical habitat. We address the habitat needs of all 1,211 listed species through conservation mechanisms such as listing, section 7 consultations, the Section 4 recovery planning process, the Section 9 protective prohibitions of unauthorized take, Section 6 funding to the States, and the Section 10 incidental take permit process. The Service believes that it is these measures that may make the difference between extinction and survival for many species.
We have been inundated with lawsuits for our failure to designate critical habitat, and we face a growing number of lawsuits challenging critical habitat determinations once they are made. These lawsuits have subjected the Service to an ever-increasing series of court orders and court-approved settlement agreements, compliance with which now consumes nearly the entire listing program budget. This leaves the Service with little ability to prioritize its activities to direct scarce listing resources to the listing program actions with the most biologically urgent species conservation needs.
The consequence of the critical habitat litigation activity is that limited listing funds are used to defend active lawsuits, to respond to Notices of Intent (NOIs) to sue relative to critical habitat, and to comply with the growing number of adverse court orders. As a result, listing petition responses, the Service's own proposals to list critically imperiled species, and final listing determinations on existing proposals are all significantly delayed.
The accelerated schedules of court ordered designations have left the Service with almost no ability to provide for adequate public participation or to ensure a defect-free rulemaking process before making decisions on listing and critical habitat proposals due to the risks associated with noncompliance with judicially-imposed deadlines. This in turn fosters a second round of litigation in which those who fear adverse impacts from critical habitat designations challenge those designations. The cycle of litigation appears endless, is very expensive, and in the final analysis provides relatively little additional protection to listed species.
The costs resulting from the designation include legal costs, the cost of preparation and publication of the designation, the analysis of the economic effects and the cost of requesting and responding to public comment, and in some cases the costs of compliance with NEPA, all are part of the cost of critical habitat designation. None of these costs result in any benefit to the species that is not already afforded by the protections of the Act enumerated earlier, and they directly reduce the funds available for direct and tangible conservation actions. Sidle, J.G. 1987. Critical Habitat Designation: Is it Prudent? Environmental Management 11(4):429-437.
In the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants (50 CFR 17.12(h)), there are 58 plant species that, at the time of listing, were reported from the island of Hawaii.
Twenty-seven of these species are endemic to the island of Hawaii, while 31 species are reported from the island of Hawaii and one or more other
This largest island of the Hawaiian archipelago comprises 10,458 square kilometers (sq km) (4,038 sq miles (mi)) or two-thirds of the land area of the State of Hawaii, giving rise to its common name, the “Big Island.” We provided a detailed physical description for the island of Hawaii in the proposed critical habitat designation (67 FR 36970).
These species and their distribution by island are identified in Table 1 in the
A summary of occurrences and landownership for the 58 plant species on the island of Hawaii appears given in Table 1.
On May 28, 2002, we published the court-ordered proposed critical habitat designations for 58 plant species from the island of Hawaii (67 FR 36968). In that proposed rule (beginning on page 36990), we included a detailed summary of the previous Federal actions completed prior to publication of the proposal. We now provide updated information on the actions that we have completed since the proposed critical habitat designation. In Table 2, we list the final critical habitat designations or nondesignations previously completed for 46 of the 58 plant species from the island of Hawaii, some of which also occur on other islands.
For many of the 58 plant species from the island of Hawaii, the issue of whether critical habitat would be prudent was discussed in previous proposals and incorporated into the May 28 proposal (see 65 FR 79192; 65 FR 83158; 67 FR 3939; 67 FR 15856; 67 FR 9806; 67 FR 16492; 67 FR 36968; 67 FR 37108). We also proposed that critical habitat was not prudent for
The publication of the proposed rule opened a 60-day public comment period, which closed on July 29, 2002. On July 11, 2002, we submitted joint stipulations to the U.S. District Court with Earthjustice requesting extension of the court orders for the final rules to designate critical habitat for plants from Lanai (December 30, 2002), Kauai and Niihau (January 31, 2003), Molokai (February 28, 2003), Maui and Kahoolawe (April 18, 2003), Oahu (April 30, 2003), the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (April 30, 2003), and the island of Hawaii (May 30, 2003), citing the need conduct additional review of the proposals, address comments received during the public comment periods, and to conduct a series of public workshops on the proposals. The joint stipulations were approved and ordered by the court on July 12, 2002. On August 26, 2002, we published a notice (67 FR 54766) reopening the public comment period until September 30, 2002, on the proposal to designate critical habitat for plants from the island of Hawaii. On September 24, 2002, we published a notice (67 FR 59811) announcing the reopening of the comment period until November 30, 2002, and a notice of a public hearing. On October 8, 2002, we held a public information meeting at the Hilo State Office Building, Hilo, Hawaii. On October 9, 2002, we held a public information meeting at Waimea Civic Center, Waimea, Hawaii. On October 29, 2002, we held a public hearing at King Kamehameha Hotel, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii. On October 30, 2002, we held a public hearing at Hawaii Naniloa Resort, Hilo, Hawaii. On December 18, 2002, we published a notice (67 FR 77464) announcing the availability of the draft economic analysis on the proposed critical habitat and reopening the comment period until January 17, 2003.
In the final rule for Lanai plants (68 FR 1220), we found that critical habitat was prudent for the following 16 multi-island species that also occur on the island of Hawaii:
In the proposed rule published on May 28, 2002 (67 FR 36968), we requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the proposal. We also contacted all appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, scientific organizations, and other interested parties and invited them to comment. Two requests for public hearings were received. We announced the date, time, and locations of the public hearings in letters to all interested parties, appropriate State and Federal agencies, county governments, and elected officials, and in notices published in the
We received a total of 29 oral and 672 written comments during the three comment periods on the proposal published on May 28, 2002 (67 FR 36968), and the draft economic analysis, including the public information meetings and the public hearings held on October 29 and October 30, 2002. These included responses from 12 State offices, the Department of Defense (7 responses), and 10 designated peer reviewers. Approximately 586 of these written comments were identical letters submitted as part of a mailing campaign in support of the proposed critical habitat designations. Of the 86 parties who did not respond as part of the mailing campaign, 21 supported the proposed designation, 78 were opposed, and 16 provided information or expressed neither opposition nor support for the proposed designation.
We reviewed all comments received for substantive issues and new information regarding critical habitat for
In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited independent opinions from 23 knowledgeable individuals (“peer reviewers”) with expertise in one or several fields, including familiarity with the species, familiarity with the geographic region that the species occurs in, and familiarity with the principles of conservation biology. We received comments from 10 of these reviewers. All generally supported our methodology and conclusions. Four of the peer reviewers supported the designation of critical habitat on the island of Hawaii and the other six neither specifically supported or opposed the designation. Comments received from the peer reviewers are summarized in the following section and were considered in developing this final rule.
(1)
(2)
The protection of additional unoccupied critical habitat is essential to ensure the recovery of these species through reintroduction. Although propagation and reintroduction are difficult for some species, both are vitally important to their recovery. Many recovery plans therefore include research into best methods of propagation and reintroduction as important tasks prior to attempting reintroduction. Areas of unoccupied habitat are essential to the conservation of the species because they provide habitat for the establishment of new populations.
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
(26)
(27)
(28)
(29)
(30)
(31)
(32)
(33)
(34)
(35)
(36)
(37)
(38)
(39)
(40)
(41)
(42)
(43)
(44)
(45)
(46)
(47)
(48)
(49)
(50)
(51)
(52)
(53)
(54)
(55)
(56)
However, the mere promulgation of a regulation, like the enactment of a statute, does not take private property unless the regulation on its face denies the property owners all economically beneficial or productive use of their land (
(57)
(58)
We administer several programs aimed at providing incentives to landowners to conserve endangered and threatened species on their lands. One of these programs is the Endangered Species Landowner Incentive Program, which was first funded by Congress in fiscal year 1999. Under this program, we provide technical assistance and funding to landowners for carrying out conservation actions on their lands. In the first year alone, 145 proposals totaling $21.1 million competed for $5 million in grant money. Additional information on landowner incentive programs that we administer may be found on our Web site (
(59)
(60)
(61)
(62)
(63)
(64)
(65)
(66)
(67)
(68)
(69)
In summary, our final economic analysis estimates that the probability of a major State-initiated change in game mammal management,
(70)
Impacts to other projects that receive Federal funding or grants, or have Federal involvement, are discussed in the Direct Costs section of the DEA, as amended by the Addendum. As shown in Table Add-3, the total direct costs range from $46.6 million to $62.7 million over 10 years.
(71)
(72)
(73)
(74)
The DEA and Addendum examine any indirect costs of critical habitat designation, such as when critical habitat designation triggers the applicability of a State or local statute. Prohibition of “harm” is associated with State laws regarding the take of listed plants. Take prohibitions are attributable to a listing decision and they are not coextensive costs of critical habitat designations. There are no take prohibitions associated with critical habitat. Other possible indirect impacts, such as loss in property values due to State redistricting of land from agricultural or rural to conservation were analyzed (see also our response to Comment 81). However, there is considerable uncertainty as to whether any or all of these indirect impacts may occur since they depend on actions and decisions other than those required under the ESA, and there is only limited history to serve as guidance.
The commenters' reference to the Coastal Zone Management Act discusses the possibility of delays or denials of county Special Management Area (SMA) Use Permits for development projects in critical habitat. None of the planned development projects in the critical habitat designation are located in the SMA, so this analysis anticipates no impacts associated with SMA Use Permits.
(75)
(76)
(77)
(78)
(79)
(80)
(81)
State law only permits other State departments or agencies, the county in which the land is situated, and any person with a property interest in the land to petition the State Land Use Commission (LUC) for a change in the boundary of a district. HRS section 205-4. The Hawaii Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism's (DBEDT) Office of Planning also conducts a periodic review of district boundaries taking into account current land uses, environmental concerns and other factors and may propose changes to the LUC.
The State Land Use Commission determines whether changes proposed by DLNR, DBEDT, other state agencies, counties or landowners should be enacted. In doing so, State law requires LUC to take into account specific criteria, set forth at HRS 205-17. While the LUC is specifically directed to consider the impact of the proposed reclassification on “the preservation or maintenance of important natural systems or habitats,” it is also specifically directed to consider five other impacts in its decision: (1) “Maintenance of valued cultural, historical, or natural resources;” (2) “maintenance of other natural resources relevant to Hawaii's economy, including, but not limited to, agricultural resources;” (3) “commitment of state funds and resources;” (4) “provision for employment opportunities and economic development;” and (5) “provision for housing opportunities for all income groups, particularly the low, low-moderate, and gap groups.” HRS 205.17. Approval of redistricting requires six affirmative votes from the nine commissioners, with the decision based on a “clear preponderance of the evidence that the proposed boundary is reasonable.” HRS 205-4.
The costs associated with redistricting are discussed in detail in the Indirect Costs sections of the DEA and the Addendum. As stated in the Addendum, this analysis assumes that the probability is low that land currently planned for development in Hawaii Units 12 and 13 will be redistricted to the Conservation District, especially if landowners agree to certain conditions to protect portions of the critical habitat designation. This determination is the result of the requirements for redistricting, including the requirement that the LUC consider “provision for employment opportunities and economic development;” “commitment of State funds and resources;” the “provision for housing opportunities for all income groups, particularly the low, low-moderate, and gap groups;” and “preservation or maintenance of important natural systems or habitats” when considering a petition for redistricting (HRS 205-17).
However, it is reasonably foreseeable that certain other privately owned parcels in the Agricultural District in the critical habitat designation may be redistricted. Redistricting is more likely for these parcels because there are no current plans for economic or community development and they are not prime agricultural land. This redistricting could be completed by State agencies or mandated as a result of a third-party lawsuit. The economic costs associated with redistricting these unplanned parcels are expressed in terms of a loss in property values and a loss in agricultural activity as discussed in the Indirect Costs section of the Addendum.
This analysis assumes that the impacts on county tax revenues as a result of redistricting are expected to be small. Much of the land that is at risk of redistricting is already assessed at a low agricultural value. In many cases, the agricultural value is lower than the assessed value for land in the Conservation District. This counter-intuitive result reflects the tax break the State gives to encourage agriculture. If the land is redistricted to a subzone other than the Protective Subzone,
(82)
Most of the land (approximately 104,288 ha (257,700 ac), or 95 percent) in the critical habitat designation is (1) already in the Conservation District, or (2) owned by the State or Federal Government. Much of the remaining land either (1) is planned for development and thus not likely to be redistricted for the reasons mentioned above, or (2) has little economic value because it is a cinder cone (puu), gulch, or established endangered plant preserve. The remaining 3,806 ha (9,404 ac) of land are in the Agricultural District and are not currently planned for economic or community development. It is reasonably foreseeable that this land will be redistricted to the Conservation District because of its importance to the conservation of the plant species. The economic costs associated with redistricting this land are presented in the State Redistricting of Land section of the Addendum. Specifically, these costs and other costs associated with redistricting are estimated to be $22.3 million to $27.9 million.
(83)
The probability that certain indirect costs will occur depends on the interaction of Federal, State, and county officials; landowners; and other interested parties. The outcome of these interactions will depend on a variety of factors that are not subject to accurate quantification or prediction. Furthermore, the probability that third parties will file lawsuits and the probability that these lawsuits will be successful is not known. Thus, the probability that certain indirect costs will occur is undetermined.
(84)
(85)
(86)
(87)
(88)
(89)
As discussed in the State Redistricting of Land section in the Addendum, the planned development in the portions of the Kaloko Properties development that are included in critical habitat include
(90)
As mentioned in the State and County Development Approvals section of the Addendum, all of the major discretionary approvals for the Kaloko Industrial Park expansion have been obtained, so the designation of critical habitat is expected to have little impact on development approvals for the project. As such, this analysis anticipates there will be no loss of development potential attributable to the critical habitat designation.
(91)
(92)
(93)
However, the methodology used by the commenter to derive the estimated economic impact of $390 million is not consistent with the methodology presented in the DEA. The landowner's estimate is based on selling values and development cost, not profits. As mentioned in the DEA, only the previous expenditures (sunk costs) and future potential profits to the landowner are considered an economic impact of critical habitat designation. Additional construction and development costs are not considered because it is assumed that if development cannot occur in critical habitat, it will relocate elsewhere in the region. This assumption is supported by the fact that a large area surrounding critical habitat is planned for urban expansion in the County of Hawaii's General Plan, and because there are other entitled projects awaiting development (such as a 1,068 ha (2,640 ac) project on State lands that is just north of Hawaii Unit 13 and planned for residential, commercial, and light industrial development; parks; a golf course; and other uses).
As estimated in the State and County Development Approvals section in the Addendum, the sunk costs associated with the Kaloko Developments in the critical habitat designation is $5.8 million, and the present value of the future stream of profits ranges from $17 million to $34 million. Again, the specific likelihood that the Kaloko Developments will not obtain State and county development approvals as a result of the critical haibitat designation is unknown.
(94)
(95)
The area currently occupied by the sewage plant and planned for a wetlands endangered species park is not included in the critical habitat designation and thus this analysis anticipates no costs associated with this portion of the K2020 planned project.
(96)
The Mamalahoa Highway (Route 190) safety improvements in Hawaii Unit 10 involve simple re-paving and resurfacing of the existing roadway. As mentioned in the DEA, the critical habitat provisions of section 7 do not apply to the operation and maintenance (O&M) of existing manmade features and structures because these features do not contain any primary constituent elements. Thus, the safety improvements planned for Mamalahoa Highway in Hawaii Unit 10 would not be subject to section 7 consultation because they involve operation and maintenance activities rather than new construction.
Finally, while the widening of Kealakehe Parkway (Route 197) in Hawaii Unit 13 is a long-term project, there is no timetable given for the project. It is likely that extension of the Parkway (outside of the critical habitat designated critical habitat area) would be required before widening the existing portion of roadway; however, no timetable is given for the completion of the extension. In addition, the State DOT is working on several other widening projects in the area, with its main focus on widening the Queen Kaahumanu Highway from downtown Kailua to the Airport, that are not estimated to be completed until 2011. Given the circumstances, it is unlikely that widening of Kealakehe Parkway (Route 197) will occur within the next 10 years.
(97)
The portions of the parcel owned by Kamehameha Schools and leased by PIA-Kona Limited Partnership that are planned for housing development are not included in the final designation. The portions of this parcel that are included in the critical habitat designation are currently managed as an endangered plant preserve, and there are no plans for a change in management. Kamehameha Schools did not identify other lands in the critical habitat designation that are planned for development or are likely to generate significant future revenues.
(98)
The economic impacts associated with a delay of entitlements, a loss of revenue, and a potential modification to the development approvals for Phase III of the Keahuolu Project are discussed in the State and County Development Approvals section of the Addendum. In particular, costs are anticipated to range from $14.1 million to $21.9 million.
(99)
(100)
(101)
(102)
Based on a review of public comments received on the proposed determinations of critical habitat, we have reevaluated our proposed designations and included several changes to the final designations of critical habitat. These changes include the following:
(1) We have designated 99 single species critical habitat units for 41 plant species on the island of Hawaii instead of multi-species units to clarify the exact location of critical habitat for each species.
(2) The scientific names were changed for the following associated species found in the “
(3) In “
(4) In order to avoid confusion regarding the number of location occurrences for each species (that do not necessarily represent viable populations) and the number of viable populations needed for recovery (
(5) We revised the list of excluded, manmade features in the “
(6) We made revisions to the unit boundaries based on information supplied by commenters, as well as information gained from field visits to some of the sites, that indicated that the primary constituent elements were not present in certain portions of the proposed unit, that certain changes in land use had occurred on lands within the proposed critical habitat that would preclude those areas from supporting the primary constituent elements, or that the areas were not essential to the conservation of the species in question. In addition, areas were excluded based other impacts pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act (
(7) In accordance with the revisions described in (1) through (6), we revised § 17.12 “
A brief summary of the modifications made to each unit is given below (
This unit was proposed as critical habitat for one species,
These modifications resulted in the reduction from 719 ha (1,777 ac) to 677 ha (1,673 ac). This unit was renamed Hawaii 7—
This unit was proposed as critical habitat for
These modifications resulted in the reduction from 2,685 ha (6,635 ac) to 1,516 ha (3,744 ac). This unit was renamed Hawaii 5—
This unit was proposed as critical habitat for three species:
The area designated as critical habitat for the two species endemic to the island of Hawaii provides habitat for six populations of
These modifications resulted in the reduction from 8,200 ha (20,263 ac) to 3,360 ha (8,304 ac). This unit was renamed Hawaii 9—
This unit was proposed as critical habitat for one multi-island species,
This unit was proposed as critical habitat for three species:
In addition, we eliminated the proposed critical habitat in Hawaii D1 for
The area designated as critical habitat for the island-endemic species,
These modifications resulted in the reduction from 55 ha (136 ac) to 49 ha (121 ac). This unit was renamed Hawaii 4—
This unit was proposed as critical habitat for three species:
We eliminated the proposed critical habitat in Hawaii D2 for
The area designated as critical habitat for the island-endemic species,
These modifications resulted in the reduction from 43 ha (107 ac) to 35 ha (87 ac). This unit was renamed Hawaii 4—
This unit was proposed as critical habitat for
These modifications resulted in the reduction from 257 ha (636 ac) to 49 ha (121 ac). This unit was renamed Hawaii 4—
This unit was proposed as critical habitat for three species:
We eliminated the proposed critical habitat in Hawaii D4 for
These modifications resulted in the reduction from 14 ha (34 ac) to 11 ha (26 ac). This unit was renamed Hawaii 4—
This unit was proposed as critical habitat for three species:
This unit was proposed as critical habitat for three species:
This unit was proposed as critical habitat for three species:
We eliminated the proposed critical habitat in Hawaii D7 for
The area designated as critical habitat for the island-endemic species,
These modifications resulted in the reduction from 112 ha (278 ac) to 51 ha (127 ac). This unit was renamed Hawaii 4—
This unit was proposed as critical habitat for three species:
We also excluded the proposed critical habitat on PTA lands (
This unit was proposed as critical habitat for three species:
The area designated as critical habitat for the two island-endemic species provides habitat for three populations of
These modifications resulted in the reduction from 2,992 ha (7,393 ac) to 2,189 ha (5,409 ac). This unit was renamed Hawaii 2—
This unit was proposed as critical habitat for seven species:
The area designated as critical habitat for the six island-endemic species provides habitat within their historical ranges for three populations each of
These modifications resulted in the reduction from 13,906 ha (34,363 ac) to 11,539 ha (28,513 ac). This unit was renamed Hawaii 1—
This unit was proposed as critical habitat for 12 species:
We eliminated the proposed critical habitat for the multi-island species,
The area designated as critical habitat for the nine island-endemic species provides habitat for 2 populations of
These modifications resulted in the reduction from 32,286 ha (79,781 ac) to 20,261 ha (50,066 ac). This unit was renamed Hawaii 29—
This unit was proposed as critical habitat for four island endemic species:
We eliminated the proposed critical habitat for the endemic species
These modifications resulted in the reduction from 5,322 ha (13,151 ac) to 2,433 ha (6,011 ac). This unit was renamed Hawaii 25—
This unit was proposed as critical habitat for two island-endemic species:
These modifications resulted in the reduction from 522 ha (1,290 ac) to 497 ha (1,228 ac). This unit was renamed Hawaii 26—
This unit was proposed as critical habitat for
These modifications resulted in the reduction from 5,065 ha (12,516 ac) to 2,733 ha (6,754 ac). This unit was renamed Hawaii 28—
This unit was proposed as critical habitat for seven species:
We eliminated the proposed critical habitat in Hawaii K for
The area designated as critical habitat for the five island-endemic species provides habitat for four populations of
These modifications resulted in the reduction from 15,294 ha (37,792 ac) to 10,961 ha (27,085 ac). This unit was
This unit was proposed as critical habitat for five species:
The area designated as critical habitat for the two island-endemic species provides habitat for five populations of
These modifications resulted in the reduction from 15,294 ha (37,792 ac) to 14,841 ha (36,674 ac). This unit was renamed Hawaii 20—
This unit was proposed as critical habitat for one multi-island species,
This unit was proposed as critical habitat for one multi-island species,
This unit was proposed as critical habitat for one multi-island species,
This unit was proposed as critical habitat for one multi-island species,
This unit was proposed as critical habitat for one species,
These modifications resulted in the reduction from 533 ha (1,316 ac) to 159 ha (393 ac). This unit was renamed Hawaii 22—
This unit was proposed as critical habitat for one multi-island species,
This unit was proposed as critical habitat for one multi-island species,
This unit was proposed as critical habitat for one species,
The area designated as critical habitat for this multi-island species provides habitat within its historical range for one population of
These modifications resulted in the reduction from 215 ha (531 ac) to 127 ha (313 ac). This unit was renamed Hawaii 19—
This unit was proposed as critical habitat for one species,
This unit was proposed as critical habitat for six species:
The area designated as critical habitat for the two island-endemic species provides habitat for two populations each of
These modifications resulted in the reduction from 15,294 ha (37,792 ac) to 2,997 ha (7,406 ac). This unit was renamed Hawaii 18—
This unit was proposed as critical habitat for two species:
The area designated as critical habitat for these two multi-island species provides habitat for one population each of
These modifications resulted in the reduction from 387 ha (955 ac) to 332 ha (819 ac). This unit was renamed Hawaii 17—
This unit was proposed as critical habitat for two species:
These modifications resulted in the reduction from 383 ha (947 ac) to 331 ha (819 ac). This unit was renamed Hawaii 16—
This unit was proposed as critical habitat for two species:
These modifications resulted in the reduction from 1,489 ha (3,681 ac) to 1,264 ha (3,123 ac). This unit was renamed Hawaii 15—
This unit was proposed as critical habitat for one species,
These modifications resulted in the reduction from 615 ha (1,520 ac) to 597 ha (1,475 ac). This unit was renamed Hawaii 14—
This unit was proposed as critical habitat for one species endemic to the island of Hawaii,
This unit was proposed as critical habitat for one multi-island species,
This unit was proposed as critical habitat for two species:
The area designated as critical habitat for the island-endemic species provides habitat for one population of
These modifications resulted in the reduction from 138 ha (340 ac) to 92 ha (227 ac). This unit was renamed Hawaii 11—
This unit was proposed as critical habitat for two species:
This unit was proposed as critical habitat for two species:
This unit was proposed as critical habitat for 12 species:
In addition, we excluded the proposed critical habitat on Kamehameha Schools and National Tropical Botanical Garden lands in Hawaii Z because the benefits of excluding these lands outweighed the benefits of including them in critical habitat (see “
The area designated as critical habitat for the four island-endemic species in this unit provides habitat for eight populations of
These modifications resulted in the reduction from 10,738 ha (26,535 ac) to 6,564 ha (16,221 ac). This unit was renamed Hawaii 10—
This unit was proposed as critical habitat for 10 species:
These excluded lands also provide habitat for seven populations of
Exclusion of this unit from critical habitat for
This unit was proposed as critical habitat for one multi-island species,
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as—(i) the specific areas within the geographic area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) that may require special management considerations or protection; and, (ii) specific areas outside the geographic area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. “Conservation,” as defined by the Act, means the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring an endangered or a threatened species to the point at which listing under the Act is no longer necessary.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act through the prohibition against destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat with regard to actions carried out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency. Section 7 also requires conferences on Federal actions that are likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. In our regulations at 50 CFR 402.02, we define destruction or adverse modification as “* * * a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for both the survival and recovery of a listed species. Such alterations include, but are not limited to, alterations adversely modifying any of those physical or biological features that were the basis for determining the habitat to be critical.” However, in the March 15, 2001, decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (
In order to be included in a critical habitat designation, areas within the geographical range of the species at the time of listing must contain physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species or for an area outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing, the area itself must be essential to the conservation of the species, 16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(A).
Our regulations state that “The Secretary shall designate as critical habitat areas outside the geographical area presently occupied by a species only when a designation limited to its present range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species” (50 CFR 424.12(e)). Accordingly, when the best available scientific and commercial data do not demonstrate that the conservation needs of the species require designation of critical habitat outside of occupied areas, we will not designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographic area occupied by the species.
Section 4 requires that we designate critical habitat for a species, to the extent such habitat is determinable, at the time of listing. When we designate critical habitat at the time of listing or under short court-ordered deadlines, we may not have sufficient information to identify all the areas essential for the conservation of the species, or we may inadvertently include areas that later will be shown to be nonessential. Nevertheless, we are required to complete the designation process, using the best information available to us. If new information becomes available subsequent to the designation, we have authority to revise the critical habitat at that time (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)).
Our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act, published in the
It is important to clearly understand that critical habitat designations do not signal that habitat outside the designation is unimportant or may not be required for recovery. Areas outside the critical habitat designation will continue to be subject to conservation actions that may be implemented under section 7(a)(1) and to the regulatory protections afforded by the Act's section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard and section 9 prohibitions, as determined on the basis of the best available information at the time of the action. We specifically anticipate that federally funded or assisted projects affecting listed species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some cases. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best available information at the time of designation will not control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans, or other species conservation planning efforts if new information available to these planning efforts calls for a different outcome. Furthermore, we recognize that designation of critical habitat may not include all of the habitat areas that may eventually be determined to be necessary for the recovery of the species.
Designation of critical habitat is not prudent when the species is threatened by taking or other human activity, and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the degree of such threat to the species (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)).
To determine whether critical habitat would be prudent for each species, we analyzed the potential threats and benefits for each species in accordance with the court's order. Two species,
Due to low numbers of individuals and populations and their inherent immobility, the other 56 plant species may be vulnerable to unrestricted collection, vandalism, or disturbance. However, we examined the evidence currently available for each of these species and found specific evidence of vandalism, disturbance, and the threat of unrestricted collection only for two species of
In addition, we believe that designation would not provide significant benefits that would outweigh
In the final rule for Lanai plants (68 FR 1220, January 9, 2003), we found that critical habitat was prudent for the following 16 multi-island species that also occur on the island of Hawaii:
We examined the evidence available for the other 23 species and have not, at this time, found specific evidence of taking, vandalism, collection, or trade of these species or of similar species. Consequently, while we remain concerned that these activities could potentially threaten these 23 plant species in the future, consistent with applicable regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)(i)) and the court's discussion of these regulations, we do not find that any of these species are currently threatened by taking or other human activity, which would be exacerbated by the designation of critical habitat.
In the absence of finding that critical habitat would increase threats to a species, if there are any benefits to critical habitat designation, then a prudent finding is warranted. The potential benefits include: (1) Triggering section 7 consultation in new areas where it would not otherwise occur because, for example, it is or has become unoccupied or the occupancy is in question; (2) focusing conservation activities on the most essential areas; (3) providing educational benefits to State or county governments or private entities; and (4) preventing people from causing inadvertent harm to the species.
In the case of these 23 species, there would be some benefits to critical habitat. The primary regulatory effect of critical habitat is the section 7 requirement that Federal agencies refrain from taking any action that destroys or adversely affects critical habitat. Thirteen of these species are reported on or near Federal lands (see Table 1 above), where actions are subject to section 7 consultation. Although many of the species considered in this rule are located exclusively on non-Federal lands with limited Federal activities, there could be Federal actions affecting these lands in the future. While a critical habitat designation for habitat currently occupied by these species would not likely change the section 7 consultation outcome, since an action that destroys or adversely modifies such critical habitat would also be likely to result in jeopardy to the species, there may be instances where section 7 consultation would be triggered only if critical habitat were designated. There may also be some educational or informational benefits to the designation of critical habitat. Educational benefits include the notification of landowner(s), land managers, and the general public of the importance of protecting the habitat of these species and dissemination of information regarding their essential habitat requirements. Therefore, we find that critical habitat is prudent for these 23 plant species:
As required by the Act and regulations (section 4(b)(2) and 50 CFR 424.12), we used the best scientific information available to determine areas that contain the physical and biological features that are essential for the conservation of
In 1994, the HPPRCC initiated an effort to identify and map habitat it believed to be important for the recovery of 282 endangered and threatened Hawaiian plant species. The HPPRCC identified these areas on most of the islands in the Hawaiian chain, and in 1999, we published them in our
The HPPRCC identified essential habitat areas for all listed, proposed, and candidate plants and evaluated species of concern to determine if essential habitat areas would provide for their habitat needs. However, the HPPRCC's mapping of habitat is distinct from the regulatory designation of critical habitat as defined by the Act. More data have been collected since the recommendations made by the HPPRCC in 1998. Much of the area that was identified by the HPPRCC as inadequately surveyed has now been surveyed to some degree. New location data for many species have been gathered. Also, the HPPRCC identified areas as essential based on species clusters (areas that included listed species, as well as candidate species and species of concern) while we have only delineated areas that are essential for the conservation of the specific listed species at issue. As a result, the critical habitat designations in this rule include not only some habitat that was identified as essential in the 1998 recommendations but also habitat that was not identified as essential in those recommendations.
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas to propose as critical habitat, we are required to base critical habitat determinations on the best scientific and commercial data available and to consider those physical and biological features (primary constituent elements) that are essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection. These features include, but are not limited to: Space for individual and population growth, and for normal behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing of offspring, germination, or seed dispersal; and habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic geographical and ecological distributions of a species.
Much of what is known about the specific physical and biological requirements of the 54 species (
All areas designated as critical habitat are either within the geographical range of the species at the time of listing and contain one or more of the physical or biological features (primary constituent elements) essential for the conservation of the species, or are essential to the conservation of the species.
As described in the discussions for each of the 41 species for which we are designating critical habitat, we are defining the primary constituent elements on the basis of the habitat features of the areas from which the plant species are reported, as described
The lack of detailed scientific data on the life history of these plant species makes it impossible for us to develop a robust quantitative model (
We considered several factors in the selection and proposal of specific boundaries for critical habitat for these 41 species. For each of these species, the overall recovery strategy outlined in the approved recovery plans includes: (1) Stabilization of existing wild populations, (2) protection and management of habitat, (3) enhancement of existing small populations and reestablishment of new populations within historic range, and (4) research on species biology and ecology (Service 1995a, 1995b, 1996a, 1996b, 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 1999, 2001). Thus, the long-term recovery of these species is dependent upon the protection of existing population sites and potentially suitable unoccupied habitat within the species' historic range.
The overall recovery goal stated in the recovery plans for each of these species includes the establishment of 8 to 10 populations with a minimum of 100 mature, reproducing individuals per population for long-lived perennials; 300 mature, reproducing individuals per population for short-lived perennials; and 500 mature, reproducing individuals per population for annuals. There are some specific exceptions to this general recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations for species that are believed to be very narrowly distributed on a single island (
By adopting the specific recovery objectives enumerated above, the adverse effects of genetic inbreeding and random environmental events and catastrophes, such as landslides, hurricanes, or tsunamis, which could destroy a large percentage of a species at any one time, may be reduced (Menges 1990; Podolsky 2001). These recovery objectives were initially developed by the HPPRCC and are found in all of the recovery plans for these species. While they are expected to be further refined as more information on the population biology of each species becomes available, the justification for these objectives is found in the current conservation biology literature addressing the conservation of rare and endangered plants and animals (Beissinger and Westphal 1998; Burgman
Many aspects of species life history are typically considered to determine guidelines for species' interim stability and recovery, including longevity, breeding system, growth form, fecundity, ramet (a plant that is an independent member of a clone) production, survivorship, seed longevity, environmental variation, and successional stage of the habitat. Hawaiian species are poorly studied, and the only one of these characteristics that can be uniformly applied to all Hawaiian plant species is longevity (
The HPPRCC also recommended the conservation and establishment of 8 to 10 populations to address the numerous risks to the long-term survival and conservation of Hawaiian plant species. Although absent the detailed information inherent to the types of population viability analysis models described above (Burgman
Due to the reduced size of suitable habitat areas for these Hawaiian plant species, they are now more susceptible to the variations and weather fluctuations affecting quality and quantity of available habitat, as well as direct pressure from hundreds of species of nonnative plants and animals. Establishing and conserving 8 to 10 viable populations on one or more islands within the historic range of the species will provide each species with a reasonable expectation of persistence and eventual recovery, even with the high potential that one or more of these populations will be eliminated by normal or random adverse events, such as the hurricanes that occurred in 1982 and 1992 on Kauai, fires, and nonnative plant invasions (HPPRCC 1996; Luijten
In summary, the long-term survival and recovery of Hawaiian plant species requires the designation of critical habitat units on one or more of the Hawaiian islands with suitable habitat for 8 to 10 populations of each plant species. Some of this habitat is currently not known to be occupied by these species. To recover the species, it is essential to conserve suitable habitat in these unoccupied units, which in turn will allow for the establishment of additional populations through natural recruitment or managed reintroductions. Establishment of these additional populations will increase the likelihood that the species will survive and recover in the face of normal and stochastic events (
Our approach to delineating critical habitat units was applied in the following manner:
(1) Critical habitat was designated on an island-by-island basis for ease of understanding for landowners and the public, for ease of conducting the public hearing process, and for ease of conducting public outreach. In Hawaii, landowners and the public are most interested and affected by issues centered on the island on which they reside;
(2) We focused on designating units representative of the known current and historical geographic and elevational range of each species; and
(3) We designated critical habitat units to allow for expansion of existing wild populations and reestablishment of wild populations within the historic range, as recommended by the recovery plans for each species.
The proposed critical habitat units were delineated by creating rough units for each species by screen digitizing polygons (map units) using ArcView (Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc.), a computer GIS program. We created the polygons by overlaying current and historic plant location points onto digital topographic maps of each of the islands.
We then evaluated the resulting shape files (delineating historic elevational range and potential, suitable habitat). We refined elevation ranges, and we avoided land areas identified as not suitable for a particular species (
We further evaluated these shape files of suitable habitat. We used several factors to delineate the proposed critical habitat units from these land areas. We reviewed the recovery objectives, as described above and in recovery plans for each of the species, to determine if the number of populations and population size requirements needed for conservation would be available within the suitable habitat units identified as containing the appropriate primary constituent elements for each species. If more than the area needed for the number of recovery populations was identified as potentially suitable, only those areas within the least disturbed suitable habitat were proposed as critical habitat. A population for this purpose is defined as a discrete aggregation of individuals located a sufficient distance from a neighboring aggregation such that the two are not affected by the same small-scale events and are not believed to be consistently cross-pollinated. In the absence of more specific information indicating the appropriate distance to assure limited cross-pollination, we are using a distance of 1,000 m (3,280 ft) based on our review of current literature on gene flow (Barret and Kohn 1991; Fenster and Dudash 1994; Havens 1998; Schierup and Christiansen 1996). We further refined the resulting critical habitat units by using satellite imagery and parcel data to eliminate areas that did not contain the appropriate vegetation or associated native plant species, as well as features such as cultivated agriculture fields, housing developments, and other areas that are unlikely to contribute to the conservation of one or more of the 47 plant species for which critical habitat was proposed on May 28, 2002. We used geographic features (ridge lines, valleys, streams, coastlines, etc.) or manmade features (roads or obvious land use) that created an obvious boundary for a unit as unit area boundaries.
Following publication of the proposed critical habitat rules, some of which were also published in revised form, for 255 Hawaiian plants (67 FR 3940, January 28, 2002; 67 FR 9806, March 4, 2002; 67 FR 15856, April 3, 2002; 67 FR 16492, April 5, 2002; 67 FR 34522, May 14, 2002; 67 FR 36968, May 28, 2002; 67 FR 37108, May 28, 2002), we reevaluated proposed critical habitat, Statewide, for each species using the recovery guidelines (8 to 10 populations with a minimum of 100 mature, reproducing individuals per population for long-lived perennials; 300 mature, reproducing individuals per population for short-lived perennials; and 500 mature, reproducing individuals per population for annuals) to determine if we had inadvertently proposed for designation too much or too little habitat to meet the essential recovery goals of 8 to 10 populations per species distributed among the islands of the species' known historic range (HINHP
Based on comments and information we received during the comment periods, we assessed the proposed critical habitat in order to ascertain which areas contained the highest quality habitat, had the highest likelihood of species conservation, and were geographically distributed within the species' historical range and distributed such that all populations of a single species are unlikely to be impacted by a single catastrophic event. We ranked areas of the proposed critical habitat by the quality of the primary constituent elements (
Within the critical habitat boundaries, section 7 consultation is generally necessary, and adverse modification could occur only if the primary constituent elements are affected. Therefore, not all activities within critical habitat would trigger an adverse modification conclusion. In selecting areas of designated critical habitat, we made an effort to avoid developed areas, such as towns and other similar lands, that are unlikely to contribute to the conservation of the 41 species. However, the minimum mapping unit that we used to approximate our delineation of critical habitat for these species did not allow us to exclude all such developed areas from the maps. Nevertheless, since manmade features and structures within the boundaries of the mapped unit do not contain the primary constituent elements, they are excluded by the terms of the final regulation such areas include: Buildings; roads; aqueducts and other water system features, including but not limited to, pumping stations, irrigation ditches, pipelines, siphons, tunnels, water tanks, gaging stations, intakes, reservoirs, diversions, flumes, and wells; existing trails; campgrounds and their immediate surrounding landscaped area; scenic lookouts; remote helicopter landing sites; existing fences; telecommunications towers and associated structures and equipment; electrical power transmission lines and distribution and communication facilities and regularly maintained associated rights-of-way and access ways; radars; telemetry antennas; missile launch sites; arboreta and gardens; heiau (indigenous places of worship or shrines) and other archaeological sites; airports; other paved areas; and lawns and other rural residential landscaped areas. Federal actions limited to those areas would not trigger a section 7 consultation unless they affect the species or primary constituent elements in adjacent critical habitat.
In summary, for these species we utilized the approved recovery plan guidance to identify appropriately sized land units containing essential occupied and unoccupied habitat. Based on the best available information, we believe these areas constitute the essential habitat on the island of Hawaii to provide for the conservation of these 41 species.
The critical habitat areas described below constitute our best assessment of the physical and biological features needed for the conservation of the 41 plant species from the island of Hawaii and the special management needs of these species, and are based on the best scientific and commercial information available and described above. We publish this final rule acknowledging that we have incomplete information regarding many of the primary biological and physical requirements for these species. However, both the Act and the relevant court orders require us to proceed with designation at this time based on the best information available. As new information accrues, we may consider reevaluating the boundaries of areas that warrant critical habitat designation.
The approximate areas of designated critical habitat by landownership or jurisdiction are shown in Table 3. The approximate final critical habitat area (ha (ac)), essential area, and excluded area are shown in Table 4.
Lands designated as critical habitat for the 41 species on the island of Hawaii have been divided into a total of 105 units. A brief description of each unit is presented below.
We are designating 10 critical habitat units for
Hawaii 9—
Hawaii 9—
Hawaii 9—
Hawaii 9—
Hawaii 9—
Hawaii 9—
Hawaii 9—
Hawaii 9—
Hawaii 9—
Hawaii 9—
We are designating one critical habitat unit for
We are designating four critical habitat units for
Hawaii 10—
Hawaii 24—
Hawaii 25—
Hawaii 30—
We are designating one critical habitat unit for
We are designating one critical habitat unit for
We are designating one critical habitat unit for
We are designating three units of critical habitat for
Hawaii 1—
Hawaii 2—
Hawaii 30—
We are designating three units of critical habitat for
Hawaii 1—
Hawaii 3—
Hawaii 29—
We are designating two units of critical habitat for
Hawaii 1—
Hawaii 2—
We are designating two units of critical habitat for
Hawaii 10—
Hawaii 18—
We are designating four units of critical habitat for
Hawaii 11—
Hawaii 14—
Hawaii 15—
Hawaii 16—
We are designating two critical habitat units for
Hawaii 3—
Hawaii 29—
We are designating three critical habitat units for
Hawaii 1—
Hawaii 30—
Hawaii 30—
We are designating four units of critical habitat for
Hawaii 15—
Hawaii 16—
Hawaii 24—
Hawaii 30—
We are designating three critical habitat units for
Hawaii 3—
Hawaii 29—
Hawaii 30—
We are designating two critical habitat units for
Hawaii 3—
Hawaii 29—
We are designating two critical habitat units for
Hawaii 10—
Hawaii 10—
We are designating two critical habitat units for
Hawaii 17—
Hawaii 18—
We are designating two critical habitat units for
Hawaii 17—
Hawaii 18—
We are designating one critical habitat unit for
We are designating one critical habitat unit for
We are designating one critical habitat unit for
We are designating one critical habitat unit for
We are designating two critical habitat units for
Hawaii 21—
Hawaii 22—
We are designating six critical habitat units for
Hawaii 4—
Hawaii 4—
Hawaii 4—
Hawaii 4—
Hawaii 4—
Hawaii 4—
We are designating one critical habitat unit for
We are designating two critical habitat units for
Hawaii 24—
This unit contains portions of Kipuka Puaulu and Kipuka Ki and lies completely within the Kapapala watershed and within HVNP. The unit provides habitat for 2 populations of 100 individuals of
We are designating two critical habitat units for
Hawaii 10—
Hawaii 18—
We are designating three critical habitat units for
Hawaii 5—
Hawaii 6—
Hawaii 10—
We are designating three critical habitat units for
Hawaii 1—
Hawaii 2—
Hawaii 30—
We are designating two critical habitat units for
Hawaii 24—
Hawaii 30—
We are designating two critical habitat units for
Hawaii 3—
Hawaii 8—
We are designating three critical habitat units for Plantago hawaiensis, a short-lived perennial. All three units are currently occupied by the species. They contain habitat features that are essential for this species including, but not limited to, montane wet sedge land with mixed sedges and grasses, montane mesic forest, dry subalpine woodland, or
Hawaii 24—
Hawaii 25—
Hawaii 30—
We are designating 4 critical habitat units for
Hawaii 7—
Hawaii 10—
Hawaii 23—
We are designating one critical habitat unit for
We are designating two units of critical habitat for
Hawaii 20—
Hawaii 23—
We are designating one critical habitat unit for
We are designating two critical habitat units for
Hawaii 25—
Hawaii 27—
We are designating two critical habitat units for
Hawaii 10—
Hawaii 11—
We are designating three critical habitat units for
Hawaii 4—
Hawaii 4—
Hawaii 4—
We are designating one critical habitat unit for
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal action agency must enter into consultation with us. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies (action agency) to confer with us on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species proposed for listing or result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. Destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat occurs when a Federal action directly or indirectly alters critical habitat to the extent that it appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for the conservation of the species. Individuals, organizations, States, local governments, and other non-Federal entities are directly affected by the designation of critical habitat only if their actions occur on Federal lands; require a Federal permit, license, or other authorization; or involve Federal funding.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate consultation on previously reviewed actions under certain circumstances, including instances where critical habitat is subsequently designated and the Federal agency has retained discretionary involvement, or control has been retained or is authorized by law. Consequently, some Federal agencies may request reinitiation of consultation or conferencing with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if those actions may affect designated critical habitat or adversely modify or destroy proposed critical habitat.
If we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat, we also provide “reasonable and prudent alternatives” to the project, if any are identifiable. Reasonable and prudent alternatives are defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as alternative actions identified during consultation that can be
Activities on Federal lands that may affect critical habitat of one or more of the 41 plant species from the island of Hawaii will require section 7 consultation. Activities on private or State lands requiring a permit from a Federal agency, such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly describe and evaluate in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical habitat those activities involving a Federal action that may adversely modify such habitat or that may be affected by such designation. We note that such activities may also jeopardize the continued existence of the species.
Activities that, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, may directly or indirectly destroy or adversely modify critical habitat include, but are not limited to:
(1) Activities that appreciably degrade or destroy the primary constituent elements including, but not limited to: Overgrazing; maintenance of feral ungulates; clearing or cutting of native live trees and shrubs, whether by burning or mechanical, chemical, or other means (
(2) Activities that alter watershed characteristics in ways that would appreciably reduce groundwater recharge or alter natural, dynamic wetland or other vegetative communities. Such activities may include water diversion or impoundment, excess groundwater pumping, manipulation of vegetation such as timber harvesting, residential and commercial development, and grazing of livestock that degrades watershed values;
(3) Rural residential construction that includes concrete pads for foundations and the installation of septic systems in wetlands where a permit under section 404 of the Clean Water Act would be required by the Corps;
(4) Recreational activities that appreciably degrade vegetation;
(5) Mining of sand or other minerals;
(6) Introducing or encouraging the spread of nonnative plant species into critical habitat units; and
(7) Importation of nonnative species for research, agriculture, and aquaculture, and the release of biological control agents that would have unanticipated effects on the listed species and the primary constituent elements of their habitats.
If you have questions regarding whether specific activities will likely constitute adverse modification of critical habitat, contact the Field Supervisor, Pacific Islands Ecological Services Field Office (see
The need for “special management considerations or protections” of the essential habitat features (primary constituent elements) included in a designation is required by the definition of critical habitat in section 3(5)(A) of the Act. If the primary constituent elements are being adequately managed, then they do not need “special management considerations or protections.” Adequate management or protection is provided by a legally operative plan that addresses the maintenance and improvement of the essential elements and provides for the long-term conservation of the species. We consider a plan adequate when it: (1) Provides a conservation benefit to the species (
Currently occupied and historically known sites containing one or more of the primary constituent elements considered essential to the conservation of these 47 plant species were examined to determine the adequacy of special management considerations or protection and, consequently, whether such areas meet the definition of critical habitat under section 3(5)(A). We reviewed all available management information on these plants at these sites, including published reports and surveys, annual performance and progress reports, management plans, grants, memoranda of understanding and cooperative agreements, DOFAW planning documents, internal letters and memos, biological assessments and environmental impact statements, and section 7 consultations. We reviewed all biological information received during the public comment periods, public meeting, and public hearing. When clarification was required on the information provided to us, we followed up by telephone. We also met with staff from the Hawaii District DOFAW office to discuss management activities they are conducting on the island of Hawaii.
In determining whether a management plan or agreement provides adequate management or protection, we first consider whether that plan provides a conservation benefit to the species. We considered the following threats and associated recommended management actions:
(1) The factors that led to the listing of the species, as described in the final rules for listing each of the species. Effects of clearing and burning for agricultural purposes and of invasive
Current threats to these species include nonnative grass- and shrub-carried wildfire; browsing, digging, rooting, and trampling from feral ungulates (including goats, cattle, and pigs); direct and indirect effects of nonnative plant invasions, including alteration of habitat structure and microclimate; and disruption of pollination and gene-flow processes by adverse effects of mosquito-borne avian disease on forest bird pollinators, direct competition between native and nonnative insect pollinators for food, and predation of native insect pollinators by nonnative hymenopteran insects (ants). In addition, physiological processes such as reproduction and establishment, continue to be negatively affected by fruit- and flower-eating pests such as nonnative arthropods, mollusks, and rats, and photosynthesis and water transport are affected by nonnative insects, pathogens, and diseases. Many of these factors interact with one another, thereby compounding effects. Such interactions include nonnative plant invasions altering wildfire regimes; feral ungulates carrying weeds and disturbing vegetation and soils, thereby facilitating dispersal and establishment of nonnative plants; and numerous nonnative insect species feeding on native plants, thereby increasing their vulnerability and exposure to pathogens and disease (Bruegmann
(2) The recommendations from the HPPRCC in its 1998 report to us (“Habitat Essential to the Recovery of Hawaiian Plants”). As summarized in this report, recovery goals for endangered Hawaiian plant species cannot be achieved without the effective control of nonnative species threats, wildfire, and land use changes; and
(3) The management actions needed for assurance of survival and ultimate recovery of these plants. These actions are described in our recovery plans for these 47 species (Service 1994, 1995a, 1996a, 1996b, 1996c, 1997a, 1998a, 1998b, 1998c, 1999), in the 1998 HPPRCC report to us, and in various other documents and publications relating to plant conservation in Hawaii (Cuddihy and Stone 1990; Mueller-Dombois 1985; Smith 1985; Stone 1985; Stone
In general, taking all of the above recommended management actions into account, the following management actions are important in providing a conservation benefit to the species: feral ungulate control; wildfire management; nonnative plant control; rodent control; invertebrate pest control; maintenance of genetic material of the endangered and threatened plant species; propagation, reintroduction, and augmentation of existing populations into areas essential for the recovery of the species; ongoing management of the wild, outplanted, and augmented populations; maintenance of natural pollinators and pollinating systems, when known; habitat management and restoration in areas essential for the recovery of the species; monitoring of the wild, outplanted, and augmented populations; rare plant surveys; and control of human activities/access (Service 1994, 1995a, 1995b, 1996a, 1996b, 1996c, 1996d, 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 1999). On a case-by-case basis, these actions may rise to different levels of importance for a particular species or area, depending on the biological and physical requirements of the species and the location(s) of the individual plants.
As shown in Table 2, the 47 species of plants are found on Federal, State, and private lands on the island of Hawaii. Information received in response to our public notices; meetings with Hawaii District DOFAW staff; the May 28, 2002, proposal; public comment periods; and the October 29 and 30, 2002, public hearings; as well as information in our files, indicated that there is limited ongoing conservation management action for these plants, except as noted below. Without management plans and assurances that the plans will be implemented, we are unable to find that the lands in question do not require special management or protection.
The Army has one installation under its jurisdiction on the island of Hawai: Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA). All of the PTA lands are administered by the Army Garrison, Hawaii, for various types of routine military training. The following discussion analyzes current management plans for lands under U.S. Army jurisdiction on the island of Hawaii and assesses whether they meet the Service's requirements for adequate management or protection.
The Sikes Act Improvements Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) requires each military installation that includes land and water suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources starting November 17, 2001 to complete an Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP). An INRMP integrates implementation of the military mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources found there. Each INRMP includes an assessment of the ecological needs on the installation, including needs to provide for the conservation of listed species; a statement of goals and priorities; a detailed description of management actions to be implemented to provide for these ecological needs; and a monitoring and adaptive management plan. Bases that have completed and approved INRMPs that adequately address the needs of the species may not meet the definition of critical habitat discussed above, because they may not require special management or protection. We would not include these areas in critical habitat designations if they meet the following three criteria: (1) A current INRMP must be complete and provide a conservation benefit to the species, (2) there must be assurances that the conservation management strategies will be implemented, and (3) there must be assurances that the conservation management strategies will be effective, by providing for periodic monitoring and revisions as necessary. If all of these criteria are met, then the lands covered under the plan would not meet the definition of critical habitat because special management is not needed.
Critical habitat was proposed at PTA for 10 of the 47 species addressed in this rule (
The INRMP describes specific actions for PTA, including anticipated implementation schedules. It includes many ongoing and proposed actions designed to address the variety of threats faced by these plant species at appropriate scales: species-specific, small areas, and installationwide. The list of ongoing and proposed actions detailed in the INRMP focuses management activities into the areas of wildfire management, nonmilitary human land use, feral ungulate control, invasive plant control, and other nonnative species control. As an example, some of the management actions that address feral ungulate control include: (1) The establishment and evaluation of permanent ungulate monitoring programs; (2) maintaining ungulate exclosure fencing; (3) using small-scale fencing to protect individuals and groupings of critically endangered plants; (4) removal of ungulates from fenced areas; (5) continuing semiannual aerial censuses of ungulates with support from the National Park Service; and (6) using hunter-generated ungulate harvest data to monitor ungulate population trends. In addition, management actions for control of nonnative plant species include: (1) development of a Targeted Alien Plant Taxa list used to prioritize control efforts; (2) control of
In 1998 PTA constructed a greenhouse with automatic climate controls affected by temperature and wind speed. Adjacent to the greenhouse is a plant holding compound used to provide an opportunity for plants scheduled for outplanting to adapt to conditions more similar to those they will encounter when they are moved to completely natural environments. All 12 of the listed species are being propagated at the facility. More common native species are propagated for revegetation projects. In addition to the propagation efforts, seeds are collected for storage at the National Seed Storage Laboratory at Colorado State University. These seeds will be critical to restoration of listed species in the event none remain in the wild. PTA staff periodically conduct germination tests on some of these seeds.
Currently there are several fenced areas on PTA that are managed for threatened and endangered plants. These include 755 ha (1,864 ac) of Kipuka Kalawamauna; 2,026 ha (5,004 ac) of Kipuka Alala; 202 ha (50 ac) of Puu Kapele; and 14 ha (33 ac) of
The comprehensive list of ongoing and proposed management activities detailed in the INRMP addresses each of the management actions detailed above that the Service considers important in providing a conservation benefit to the species; therefore, the plan provides a conservation benefit to the species.
In terms of providing assurances that the management plan will be implemented, the INRMP provides implementation schedules and identifies funding needs for each installation through the year 2006, when the 5-year update is due. Examples of those programs identified for funding include the Ecosystem Management Actions, Saddle Road Realignment Support, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Integrity, Pest Management, and Conservation Education and Outreach. The Army has committed to increased funding for their wildland fire program to ensure proactive fire management that will benefit threatened and endangered plant species through increased protection of habitat on their lands. They have also committed to continued funding of actions that benefit habitat restoration, species stabilization, and threat abatement (Anderson,
The plan does provide assurances that the conservation effort will be effective. The Army will fund and engage in activities that have been demonstrated to benefit threatened and endangered species (
Thus, the Service has determined that lands on the island of Hawaii which fall under U.S. Army jurisdiction do not meet the definition of critical habitat in the Act. According to the Service's published recovery plans, the major extinction threats to island of Hawaii plants involve the persistent and expanding presence of alien species and their associated impacts. In general, for most of these species there is less relative concern associated with Federal activities or proposed development. Recovery of these listed species will require active management such as plant propagation and reintroduction, management of fire risk, alien species
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to designate critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial information available, and to consider the economic and other relevant impacts of designating a particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude areas from critical habitat upon a determination that the benefits of such exclusions outweigh the benefits of specifying such areas as critical habitat. We cannot exclude such areas from critical habitat when such exclusion will result in the extinction of the species concerned.
Following the publication of the proposed critical habitat designation on May 28, 2002, a draft economic analysis was prepared to estimate the potential direct and indirect economic impacts associated with the designation, in accordance with the recent decision in
Our draft economic analysis evaluated the potential direct and indirect economic impacts associated with the proposed critical habitat designation for the 41 plant species from the island of Hawaii over the next 10 years. Direct impacts are those related to consultations under section 7 of the Act. They include the cost of completing the section 7 consultation process and potential project modifications resulting from the consultation. Indirect impacts are secondary costs and benefits not directly related to operation of the Act. Examples of indirect impacts include potential effects to property values, redistricting of land from agricultural or urban to conservation, and social welfare benefits of ecological improvements.
The categories of potential direct and indirect costs considered in the analysis included the costs associated with: (1) Conducting section 7 consultations, including incremental consultations and technical assistance; (2) modifications to projects, activities, or land uses resulting from the section 7 consultations; (3) uncertainty and public perceptions resulting from the designation of critical habitat including potential effects on property values and potential indirect costs resulting from the loss of hunting opportunities and the interaction of State and local laws; and (4) potential offsetting beneficial costs associated with critical habitat, including educational benefits. The most likely economic effects of critical habitat designation are on activities funded, authorized, or carried out by a Federal agency (
Following the close of the comment period on the draft economic analysis, an addendum was completed that incorporated public comments on the draft analysis and made other changes as necessary. These changes were primarily the result of modifications made to the proposed critical habitat designation based on biological information received during the comment periods.
The draft economic analysis and addendum addressed the impact of the proposed critical habitat designation that may be attributable coextensively to the listing of the species. Because of the uncertainty about the benefits and economic costs resulting solely from critical habitat designations, the Service believes that it is reasonable to estimate the economic impacts of a designation utilizing this single baseline. It is important to note that the inclusion of impacts attributable coextensively to the listing does not convert the economic analysis into a tool to be used in deciding whether or not a species should be added to the Federal list of threatened and endangered species.
Together, the draft economic analysis and the addendum constitute our final economic analysis. The final economic analysis estimates that, over the next 10 years, the designation (co-extensive with the listing) may result in potential direct economic effects from implementation of section 7 ranging from approximately $46.6 million to $62.7 million in quantifiable costs. This decrease of approximately $6.6 million to $9.1 million from the draft economic analysis's estimated potential direct economic effects from implementation of section 7 results primarily from the exclusion of proposed units Hawaii C, D5, M1, M2, M3, M4, N1, N2, P, V, and BB from final designation and the significant reduction in size of the remaining proposed units because they lacked the primary constituent elements or were not essential to the conservation of the species. Overall, the largest portion of this estimate includes impacts on Army land that was proposed as critical habitat but has been removed from the final designation. Therefore, the direct cost of designating critical habitat for these 41 plant species will be far less than this estimate.
While our final economic analysis includes an evaluation of potential indirect costs associated with the designation of critical habitat for 41 plant species on the island of Hawaii, some types of costs are unquantifiable. The costs that are provided are speculative in the sense that there is no certainty as to their being incurred, but we believe the numbers represent a reasonable range of costs for the specific actions in question, should they occur in whole or in part. The final economic analysis concludes that efforts to redistrict land as a result of this designation are likely to occur, but that there is no way of determining in advance the outcome of this process with respect to specific parcels, or of possible related litigation. However, such landowners may have economic costs associated with voluntary agreements to restrict development, and contesting redistricting. For land not planned for development, the analysis concluded that it is reasonably foreseeable that some landowners would see lower property values, restrictions on agricultural activity and costs to contest redistricting. In total, the costs associated with redistricting or the threat of redistricting could range from $22 to 28 million. The final economic analysis also concludes there is an undetermined probability of costs ranging from $48.9 to $96.5 million associated with obtaining State and county development approvals, and includes costs associated with a loss or delay of these approvals. Some of these costs, however, may overlap with a portion of the redistricting costs (
The final economic analysis also discusses most economic benefits in qualitative terms rather than providing quantitative estimates because of the lack of information available to estimate the economic benefits of endangered species preservation and ecosystem improvements. While the quantitative estimates provided in the analysis are speculative, the economic analysis estimates that federally funded section 7 related project modifications could generate an undetermined percentage of $83 million to $109 million over 10 years.
A more detailed discussion of our economic analysis is contained in the draft economic analysis and the addendum. Both documents are available for inspection at the Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see
No critical habitat units in the proposed rule were excluded or modified because of economic impacts because the cost of the designation is not expected to be significant. The likely direct cost impact of designating critical habitat on Hawaii for the 41 plant species is estimated to be between $4.7 and $6.3 million per year over the next 10 years. This estimate, however, includes areas that were proposed as critical habitat but have been excluded under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see below). Therefore, the anticipated direct costs of designating critical habitat of these 41 species is less.
Approximately 337 ha (833 ac) of State and private lands within two proposed critical habitat units (proposed Units Y1 and Y2) are excluded because the economic impacts of their inclusion outweigh the benefits provided by a designation of critical habitat. The economic analysis indicates that activities already planned for these two proposed units, including the State VOLA master planned community with over 1,000 units of affordable housing, the Kaloko Properties projects and the Kealakahe 2020 environmental remediation project could incur direct costs of over $5 million and indirect costs ranging between $87 and $104 million. While there is no certainty that any or all of these indirect costs would be incurred, these figures are illustrative of the order of magnitude of the indirect impacts that could occur from the designation.
These areas proposed for development or other uses are within proposed units Y1 and Y2. Proposed unit Y1 absent this exclusion would consist of 426 acres of private land as critical habitat for
Critical habitat for
If these areas were designated as critical habitat, any Federal agency which proposed to approve, fund or undertake any action which might adversely modify the critical habitat would be required to consult with us. This is commonly referred to as a “Federal nexus” for requiring the consultation. If the area in question were not occupied by the plants, this consultation would not be required absent the critical habitat designation. If the action affected an area occupied by the plants, consultation would be required even without the critical habitat designation. As indicated above, these two units are each occupied by one small population of one species of the listed plants.
The draft economic analysis and final addendum indicate only one project associated with the exclusions within the pre-exclusion boundaries of these proposed units that is likely to have the required Federal nexus, environmental remediation of an old landfill by the non-profit Kealakehe Ahupua'a 2020 organization (K2020). The landfill adjoins the pre-exclusion boundaries of proposed unit Y2 on 3 sides, and has internal fires. K2020 plans to secure Federal grants to remediate the site, including extinguishing the fires.
This will require use of unoccupied habitat within the proposed boundary of unit Y2 for the landfill material while the remediation is conducted. The economic analysis further indicates that this project will be to the long-term benefit to the listed plants by reducing the possibilities of wildfires. However, it is anticipated that as mitigation for the temporary loss of this portion of the critical habitat, the K202 group would be required to obtain funding to manage two preserves to be established elsewhere within this proposed unit (
Apart from this project a critical habitat designation will not directly protect the areas proposed for exclusion from any planned development, due to the lack of any known or anticipated “Federal nexus” for such development. However, the plants themselves are protected against “take” under State law, and thus the areas in which the plants are currently found are unlikely to be developed.
Another possible benefit of a critical habitat designation is education of landowners and the public regarding the potential conservation value of these areas. This may focus and contribute to conservation efforts by other parties by clearly delineating areas of high conservation values for certain species. However, we believe that this educational benefit has largely been achieved. These units have already been identified through the proposal and final designation. In addition, the State has included a preserve for listed plants within its VOLA development project which will contribute to the long-term educational benefit of conserving the habitat of these species (see “Benefits of Exclusion” below).
In summary, we believe that a critical habitat designation for these two plant species would provide relative low additional Federal regulatory benefits. Except for the project discussed above, there is no Federal activity which might trigger the section 7 consultation process for these species known or anticipated for the lands to be excluded. The additional educational benefits which might arise from critical habitat designation are largely accomplished through the notice and comments which accompanied the development of this regulation, and the proposed critical habitat is known to the landowners. In addition, the State is planning for a
There are three development projects currently planned within the pre-exclusion boundaries of proposed Units Y1 and Y2 which could suffer significant economic impacts due to indirect effects of the critical habitat designation. In addition, the $5.1 million in project modification costs to the K2020 landfill remediation project discussed above would likely be shifted from the State or from housing developers to the non-profit K2020 group.
The Housing and Community Development Corporation of Hawaii has since 1990 had a master-planned community development project known as “Villages at Laiopua” (VOLA), much of which is within the pre-exclusion boundary of proposed unit Y2. This includes a planned 1,700 homes within the area proposed for designation, of which 1,020, or 60%, would be classified as “affordable housing”. The State of Hawaii has already invested $30 million in infrastructure costs, including roads, utilities, a High School, planning and expanding the local waste-water treatment plant, and some of the project has been constructed.
The plan includes two areas totaling 38 acres to be set aside as preserves for the listed plants. As noted above, the final addendum to our economic analysis indicates it would likely cost $5.1 million over the next 10 years to manage these preserves. Absent the development being largely constructed, it is not likely that these plants would benefit from the management envisioned for the preserves.
Critical habitat provides primarily prohibitive regulatory benefits. But in Hawaii, simply preventing “harmful activities” will not slow the extinction of listed plant species (see detailed discussion under “Queen Liliuokalani Trust”, below). Establishment of plant preserves as planned here provide positive benefits to the species. In addition, in June 2002, the State enacted legislation allowing State entities to enter into Safe Harbor agreements and Habitat Conservation Plans for three designated areas, including the VOLA project. Absent the exclusion, it is unlikely the State would pursue either of these conservation options.
In addition, there are real but undeterminable possibilities that designation of these areas as critical habitat would lead to loss or significant restriction of the project through actions not under the control of the Federal government but resulting from the critical habitat designation. These include redistricting of land, rezoning and other regulatory approvals, and litigation related to both.
Hawaii has state-wide land classifications of Urban, Rural, Agricultural and Conservation, with restrictions on what type of activities can be conducted within the different classifications. The State Department of Land and Natural Resources commented on this proposal that they would be required to initiate rezoning of lands designated as critical habitat into the “Conservation” classification, which prohibits development.
While there is a low probability that the State Land Use Commission would finally vote to redistrict the lands proposed for the VOLA project, that possibility exists. In addition, there could well be litigation designed to either force the Commission to act or to have a court make the decision.
If the project were unable to proceed, the Housing and Community Development Corporation would lose the $30 million in sunk costs, and the affordable housing units that would have been constructed. Although the final addendum to the economic analysis assigns a cost to the loss of the affordable units of $4.8 million, there could well be considerable non-monetary social costs as well, particularly inasmuch as the available information indicates that there are no other affordable housing projects planned within the next 10 years.
The second project within the excluded areas is known as the Kaloko Properties/Kaloko Town Center. This project has been underway since 1987, and covers 1,150 acres, of which 335, or 29%, is within the pre-exclusion boundary of the proposed units. The developers have already expended over $20 million for infrastructure improvements, engineering and related costs, which approximately $5.8 (by percentage allocation) is associated with the portion of the project within the proposed critical habitat. This project will need both redistricting from the State and rezoning from the county for portions of the land. The final addendum to the economic analysis finds there is a reasonably foreseeable chance that the designation of critical habitat would affect this development.
In the worst-case scenario, the State or county might decide not to grant the discretionary approvals needed for the project—redistricting and rezoning—or might be prevented from doing so by litigation. This could lead to loss of the $5.8 million in sunk costs for the portion of the property within the proposed critical habitat, or of the entire $20 million investment. In addition, there would be an estimated loss of future profits from the land proposed for inclusion within the critical habitat of between $39 to $78 million. Using a present value discount, this loss would range between $17 and $34 million. There could also be the loss of all project revenues in the event the inability to utilize the lands within the critical habitat designation caused the failure of the entire project.
Alternatively, in an effort to avoid those situations, the developer might offer additional restrictions on the development. The final addendum estimates, with admitted imprecision, that these costs might range from $1.1 to $2 million for the portion of the project within the proposed designation.
The possibility of significant economic impacts to this project, while not certain, clearly exist. As noted above, we cannot find offsetting benefits from the designation of critical habitat in these two units which exceed the benefits of avoiding these possible economic costs.
The last project for which we are excluding areas for economic reasons is the environmental remediation of an old landfill by the non-profit K2020 organization discussed above. The landfill adjoins the pre-exclusion boundaries of proposed unit Y2 on 3 sides, and has internal fires. K2020 plans to secure Federal grants to remediate the site, including extinguishing the fires.
This will require use of unoccupied habitat within the boundary of proposed unit Y2 for the landfill material while the remediation is conducted. The economic analysis further indicates that this project will be to the long-term benefit to the listed plants by reducing the possibilities of wildfires. However, it is anticipated that as mitigation for the temporary loss of this portion of the critical habitat, the K202 group would be required to obtain funding to manage two preserves to be established in connection with the VOLA project, at a cost of $5.1 million over the next 10 years. Requiring this non-profit group to mitigate for use of unoccupied critical habitat to remediate an environmental problem, when the remediation will ultimately benefit the species, does not provide an overall conservation benefit to the species. This funding could well come from funds otherwise intended for conservation purposes in Hawaii, or the cost could cause the group to abandon the project.
The VOLA project has already been troubled by litigation and defaulting developers; additional regulatory or legal uncertainties arising from this designation could well cause further delays or kill the project altogether. If this were to occur, the Housing and Community Development Corporation would lose the $30 million in sunk costs, and the affordable housing units that would have been constructed. Although the final addendum to the economic analysis assigns a cost to the loss of the affordable units of $4.8 million, there could well be considerable non-monetary social costs as well, particularly inasmuch as the available information indicates that there are no other affordable housing projects planned within the next 10 years.
We do not find that the benefits from the designation of critical habitat for lands within the VOLA project, as discussed above, exceed the benefits of avoiding the possible economic and social costs which could well arise from this designation.
For the Kaloko Properties/Kaloko Town Center, there is also the real possibility that the designation of critical habitat could lead to loss of necessary regulatory approvals. This in turn could lead to loss of the $5.8 million in sunk costs for the portion of the property within the proposed critical habitat, or of the entire $20 million investment. In addition, there would be an estimated loss of future profits from the land proposed for inclusion within the critical habitat of between $39 to $78 million. Using a present value discount, this loss would range between $17 and $34 million. (There could also be the loss of all project revenues in the event the inability to utilize the lands within the critical habitat designation caused the failure of the entire project.) Alternatively, in an effort to avoid those situations, the developer might offer additional restrictions on the development. The final addendum estimates, with admitted imprecision, that these costs might range from $1.1 to $2 million for the portion of the project within the proposed designation.
We do not find that the benefits from the designation of critical habitat for lands within the VOLA project, as discussed above, exceed the benefits of avoiding the possible economic costs which could well arise from this designation.
We note that the developers of this project contacted us after the close of the comment period offering to undertake a number of actions designed to provide conservation benefits to the species. Specifically, the offer included: (1) To set aside 100 to 130 acres within the proposed unit Y2; (2) enter into good faith negotiations with the Federal, State or county entities for acquisition of the area; (3) agree to enter into a Safe Harbor agreement with us; and (4) to enter into a memorandum of understand or cooperative agreement to address habitat protection, monitoring and management actions for the remainder of their property relating to these species (and Blackburn's sphinx moth).
Due to the court-ordered date by which this designation must be completed, we were unable to conclude such an agreement prior to issuing this notice and regulation. If we had been able to do so, this is the type of agreement for which we have found in other cases that the conservation benefits of the agreement exceed the benefits of designation and thus warrant exclusion (
We also note that while preparing an original critical habitat proposal and designation is extremely costly and time-consuming, a revision to a designation, where all of the appropriate biological and economic information is already available, could be relatively easy. We will closely monitor the status of the listed plants within this exclusion and will be prepared to take necessary actions in the event their situation warrants it.
For the non-profit K2020 organization, the designation of critical habitat could add an additional $5.1 million in direct costs to their effort to remediate a burning old landfill, as discussed above. Requiring this non-profit group to raise and expend $5.1 million for use of unoccupied critical habitat to remediate an environmental problem, when the remediation will ultimately benefit the species, does not provide an overall conservation benefit to the species. This funding could well come from funds otherwise intended for conservation purposes in Hawaii, or the cost could cause the group to abandon the project. We accordingly believe the benefit of excluding the lands needed for the remediation effort, thus saving the group the $5.1 million cost and making it more likely that the landfill will be remediated, exceed the benefit of designating these lands as critical habitat.
Proposed units Y1 and Y2 on State and private lands provide occupied and unoccupied habitat for two species:
For both species, we conclude, based on all of the information available to us, that the projects proposed for the areas to be excluded will not adversely impact existing populations of either listed species. In addition, the Hawaii Housing and Community Development Corporation has proposed the creation of preserves for the plant with the VOLA development, which would be actively managed for the benefit of the plants. As noted below in detail, active management is an essential need of these species, one which cannot be accomplished through a critical habitat designation alone. Finally, we note that in Hawaii State law protected Federally listed plants against direct take, a protection not found in the ESA.
If a critical habitat designation reduces the likelihood that voluntary conservation activities will be carried out on the island of Hawaii, and at the same time fails to confer a counter-balancing positive regulatory or educational benefit to the species, then the benefits of excluding such areas
As described in the “Analysis of Managed Lands Under Section 3(5)(A)” section above, based on our evaluation of the adequacy of special management and protection that is provided in the Army's INRMP for PTA (Department of the Army 2002) for the plant species addressed in this proposal which are found on Army land, in accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act, we have not included the Army's PTA in this final designation of critical habitat. However, to the extent that special management considerations and protection may be required for this area and it would meet the definition of critical habitat according to section 3(5)(A)(i), it is properly excluded from designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, based on the following analysis.
As explained below, we believe the benefits of designating critical habitat for the 12 species at PTA (
The Army's PTA, including the lands being acquired for “Transformation,” is occupied habitat for 12 species, as referenced above. A total of 28,384 ha (70,138 ac) are excluded from final critical habitat, all of which is considered occupied by one or more listed species.
According to our published recovery plans, recovery of these 12 species will require reproducing, self-sustaining populations located in a geographic array across the landscape, with population numbers and population locations of sufficient robustness to withstand periodic threats caused by to natural disaster or biological threats (Service 1994, 1995a, 1995b, 1996a, 1996b, 1996c, 1996d, 1997a, 1998a, 1998b, 1998c, 1999). The highest priority recovery tasks include proactive management such as plant propagation and reintroduction, fire control, nonnative species removal, and ungulate fencing. Failure to implement these active management measures, all of which require voluntary landowner support and participation, increases the likelihood that species will go extinct or not recover. The Army is undertaking many of these types of conservation actions on their land on the island of Hawaii as part of the implementation of the INRMP for PTA. These activities, which are described in more detail in the “Analysis of Managed Lands Under Section 3(5)(A)” section, require substantial financial obligations by the Army and cooperation with other agencies, landowners, and local residents.
The following analysis describes the likely positive and negative impacts of a critical habitat designation on Army land compared to the likely positive and negative impacts of a critical habitat exclusion of that land. The Service paid particular attention to the following issues: to what extent a critical habitat designation would confer additional regulatory, educational, and social benefits; and to what extent would critical habitat interfere with the Army's ongoing proactive conservation actions.
Pohakuloa Training Area contains habitat essential to the conservation of the 12 species listed above. The primary regulatory benefit provided by a critical habitat designation on Army land is the requirement under section 7 of the Act that any actions authorized, funded, or carried out by the Army would not destroy or adversely modify any critical habitat, which includes an evaluation on the effects of the action on recovery of the species. However, as discussed above, all of the critical habitat proposed at PTA is occupied by listed species and thus section 7 consultation would already be required.
In addition, any net benefit of this aspect of critical habitat has been significantly minimized by the Army's commitment to coordinate with the Service on any of its activities that may adversely affect areas whether occupied or unoccupied by listed species that are considered essential to their conservation (
Moreover, the section 7 mandate to avoid destroying critical habitat does not extend to requiring plant reintroductions or other proactive conservation measures (
Another potential benefit of a critical habitat designation on this Army land is the education of the Army and the general public concerning the conservation value of this land. While we believe these educational benefits are important for the conservation of these species, we believe it has already been achieved through the Army's INRMP (for example, most of the INRMP's biologically sensitive areas overlap with proposed critical habitat), publication of the proposed critical habitat rule, the many public and interagency meetings that have been held to discuss the proposal, and discussion contained in this final rule.
In sum, the Army will manage for the conservation of all of these species through their INRMP process; this management will confer significant conservation benefits to the species that would not necessarily result from the section 7 consultation process. In addition, the Army has agreed to coordinate with the Service on any actions that may affect essential habitat areas (whether occupied or unoccupied by the listed species) even if these areas are not designated as final critical habitat. Taken together, these two management commitments by the Army lead the Service to conclude that any additional incremental regulatory benefits provided by a final critical habitat designation on Army lands would be relatively small.
When evaluating the potential negative impacts of a critical habitat designation and the potential benefits of excluding Army land from final critical habitat, the Service considered whether critical habitat designation would affect Army's military mission at PTA.
As noted above, these plants will need actions that proactively remove existing threats and that include propagation and reintroduction into unoccupied areas if they are to recover. Neither section 7 consultations nor a critical habitat designation would necessarily result in the implementation of actions needed for recovery of these species.
The Army is engaged in or has committed to engage in a wide variety of proactive conservation management activities that are set out in the “Analysis of Managed Lands Under Section 3(5)(A)” section of this rule.
The Service also considered whether a final critical habitat designation would negatively impact the Army's military mission. Overall, the Service believes it has been able to work closely and in a positive collaborative fashion with the Army to minimize potential negative impacts to the Army's military training activities as a consequence of Endangered Species Act regulation.
However, the 2nd Brigade of the 25th Infantry Division (Light) based at PTA has recently been selected to participate in the experimental “Transformation” of its force to a lighter rapidresponse force known as a Stryker Brigade Combat Team. The Army has stated that a final critical habitat designation may lead to disruption in training and a delay of construction of required training facilities if the Army has to consult on the impacts to newly designated critical habitat. The active training areas allow the troops to attain skills to respond to enemy fire quickly and accurately and to train in offensive operations. The natural and physical attributes of the training areas in Hawaii realistically mirror the battlefield conditions found in other nations in the Pacific region. As these training conditions are not found anywhere else in the continental United States, the Army states that it is imperative that the utilization of the military training installations in Hawaii not be impeded by additional requirements associated with section 7 consultations on critical habitat designations.
Based on the above considerations, and in accordance with section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we have determined that the benefits to national security of excluding the Army's PTA from critical habitat, as set forth above, outweigh the benefits of including this land in critical habitat for the 12 species listed above. We have carefully weighed the relative benefits of each option.
Although these areas within Army land are removed from the final critical habitat designation, the Service still considers them essential to the conservation of these species. The number of populations for which the habitat on these installations provides is applied towards the overall recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations for each species (see discussion below), and it is anticipated that these lands will be managed under the Army's INRMP for PTA consistent with the conservation goals for these species.
For both the three endemic (
In addition, critical habitat is being designated on other areas of the island of Hawaii for the three endemic species, and critical habitat has been designated elsewhere on the island, and/or designated or proposed on other islands, for eight of the remaining nine multi-island species consistent with the guidance in recovery plans. These other designations identify conservation areas for the maintenance and expansion of the existing populations.
Critical habitat is not designated for
In sum, the above analysis concludes that the exclusion of these lands will not cause extinction and should in fact improve the chances of recovery for all 12 species.
The portion of proposed units Hawaii G, W, and Z on Kamehameha Schools lands is occupied habitat for six species:
The following analysis describes the likely conservation benefits of a critical habitat designation compared to the conservation benefits without critical habitat designation. We paid particular attention to the following issues: To what extent a critical habitat designation would confer regulatory conservation benefits on these species; to what extent the designation would educate members of the public such that conservation efforts would be enhanced; and whether a critical habitat designation would have a positive, neutral, or negative impact on voluntary conservation efforts on this privately owned land as well as other non-Federal lands on the island of Hawaii that could contribute to recovery.
If a critical habitat designation reduces the likelihood that voluntary conservation activities will be carried out on the island of Hawaii, and at the same time fails to confer a counter-balancing positive regulatory or educational benefit to the species, then the benefits of excluding such areas from critical habitat outweigh the benefits of including them. Although the results of this type of evaluation will vary significantly depending on the landowners, geographic areas, and the species involved, we believe the Kamehameha Schools lands on the island of Hawaii merit this evaluation.
Critical habitat in the Kamehameha Schools portion of units Hawaii G, W, and Z was proposed for the following species:
The benefit of a critical habitat designation would ensure that any actions funded by or permits issued by a Federal agency would not likely destroy or adversely modify any critical habitat. Without critical habitat, some site-specific projects might not trigger consultation requirements under the Act in areas where species are not currently present; in contrast, Federal actions in areas occupied by listed species would still require consultation under section 7 of the Act.
Historically, we have conducted only two formal and 21 informal consultations under section 7 on the island of Hawaii for any of the 41 plant species. Only two consultations involved Kamehameha Schools lands, both of which were intra-Service consultations on conservation projects. One consultation was regarding a project to restore Opaeula Pond; however, none of the 47 species at issue were involved. The other consultation was regarding restoring dryland forest. The proposed restoration actions were found to benefit two species at issue here,
Another possible benefit is that the designation of critical habitat can serve to educate the public regarding the potential conservation value of an area, and this may focus and contribute to conservation efforts by other parties by clearly delineating areas of high conservation value for certain species. Information about the nine species for which critical habitat was proposed in this portion of units Hawaii G, W, and Z that reaches a wide audience, including other parties engaged in conservation activities, could have a positive conservation benefit. This result has been achieved through an exhaustive process that involved dozens of public and interagency meetings, media outreach including front-page articles in major newspapers, and several publications in the
In addition, we believe that education of relevant sectors of the public is being achieved through the existing management and education efforts carried out by Kamehameha Schools and their conservation partners. Kamehameha Schools participates in the Olaa-Kilauea Management Partnership along with Federal and State agencies, along with other private landowners, to protect the biological resources of the Olaa-Kilauea area.
In sum, we believe that a critical habitat designation for listed plants on Kamehameha Schools lands would provide a relatively low level of additional regulatory conservation benefits to each of the plant species beyond what is already provided by existing section 7 consultation requirements caused by the physical presence of the nine listed species. Any regulatory conservation benefits would accrue through the benefit associated with additional section 7 consultation associated with critical habitat. Based on a review of past consultations and consideration of the likely future activities in this specific area, we expect little Federal activity that would trigger section 7 consultation to occur on this privately owned land. We also believe that critical habitat designation would provide little additional educational benefit since the conservation value is already known by the landowner, the State, Federal agencies, and private organizations, and the area has been identified as essential to the conservation of nine plant species through publication in the proposed critical habitat rule and this final rule.
Proactive voluntary conservation efforts are necessary to prevent the extinction and promote the recovery of these species on the island of Hawaii and other Hawaiian islands (Shogren
Kamehameha Schools is involved in several important voluntary conservation agreements and is currently carrying out some of these
Malama Aina has been focused in two distinct areas, Keauhou in Kau District and North-South Kona, with a budget commitment in 2002 of $1,000,000, not including staff expenses. Kamehameha Schools has more than 25 years of stewardship experience at Keauhou in Kau District, which includes the Olaa-Kilauea Management partnership project entered into on July 6, 1994. This area is within proposed critical habitat unit Hawaii G. The vision for Keauhou is to restore the native ecosystems in order to utilize the entire area for education and cultural enrichment by using sustainable economic ventures to support these programs. Activities within this program include timber certification, large and small mammal control, weed control, koa thinning, propagation and outplanting of both rare and common native plants, inventory, monitoring and data analysis of stewardship efforts, access road improvement, refuse clean up, and the purchase of Keauhou Ranch. Participating partners include: Cultural practitioners (the Edith Kanakaole Foundation and the Polynesian Voyaging Society), ranching and timber interests (Hawaii Forest Industry Association), researchers and scientists (University of Hawaii at Manoa and Hilo, the Zoological Society of San Diego, U.S. Forest Service, Hawaiian Silversword Foundation, and USGS-BRD), educators (Nawahi Charter School), natural resource managers (Olaa-Kilauea Management Group, DOFAW, the Service, HVNP, and The Nature Conservancy of Hawaii (TNCH)). Malama Aina has allocated $681,000, and Aina Ulu has allocated $33,000. Preservation of this area conserves critically endangered species of plants and animals in a mix of ecosystems with microenvironments required by some of Hawaii's rarest plants and animals, including endangered forest birds and lobeliads (plants in the family Campanulaceae). This management strategy is consistent with recovery of these species.
Kamehameha's Schools North-South Kona natural resource conservation efforts focus on three distinct areas: Honaunau Forest and Honaunau Uka, Kaupulehu Kauila Lama Forest and Kaupulehu Uka, and Pulehua. Kamehameha Schools started a weed control program in 2002 in Honaunau Forest and Honaunau Uka. In both the Forest and Uka areas, they will continue the weed control program, along with a timber certification program to write certifiable plans and complete inventories. In the Honaunau Uka area, they will construct an ungulate exclosure fence and issue a contract for a botanical survey, and in the Honaunau Forest the road will be maintained. Funds allocated for the implementation of these projects total $52,500 to Honaunau Forest and $29,500 to Honaunau Uka. Kaupulehu Kauila Lama Forest and Kaupulehu Uka lie within the proposed critical habitat unit Hawaii Z. Conservation activities in the Aina Ulu program at Kaupulehu Kauila Lama Forest include an intern program, an outreach coordinator, multimedia curriculum development, small mammal and weed control, road maintenance, installation of self-composting toilets, and precious wood-gathering. Funds allocated for these projects total $70,700. Malama Aina projects at Kaupulehu Uka include timber certification, large mammal and weed control, ungulate exclosure fencing, inventory, monitoring and data analysis of conservation actions and road maintenance. Funds allocated for those projects total $101,000. Partners include: Hawaii Forest Industry Association, the Service, DOFAW, local residents, PIA Sports Properties (lessee), U.S. Forest Service, National Tropical Botanical Garden (lessee), and Honokaa High School. Pulehua lies within proposed critical habitat unit Hawaii W. Conservation efforts at Pulehua are in the beginning stages. Conservation projects in 2003 will focus on weed control, with $7,500 allocated. In 2002, an ungulate control program was initiated, which included $7,000 to study ungulate issues in Kona. This year's budget includes $35,000 for ungulate control, with an additional $40,000 to construct enclosures to measure the success of the control efforts.
Because Kamehameha Schools' goal is to improve habitat for threatened and endangered species, the district is developing a Safe Harbor Agreement with the Service and the State through the Safe Harbor program. The Safe Harbor program encourages proactive management to benefit endangered and threatened species on non-Federal lands by providing regulatory assurances to landowners that no additional Endangered Species Act restrictions will be imposed on future land, water, or resource use for enrolled lands. The Safe Harbor Agreement would include lands within proposed critical habitat units W and Z. The purpose of Kamehameha Schools' Safe Harbor Agreement is to encourage voluntary restoration and enhancement of habitat for threatened and endangered species, and to enable certain species to be reintroduced onto Kamehameha Schools' lands where such species formerly occurred, including the bird species palila (
As described earlier, Kamehameha Schools has a history of entering into conservation agreements with various Federal and State agencies and private organizations on biologically important portions of their lands. These arrangements have taken a variety of forms. They include partnership commitments such as the Olaa-Kilauea Partnership and the Dryland Forest Working Group. The listed plant species originally included within the Kamehameha Schools portion of proposed units Hawaii G, W, and Z will benefit substantially from their voluntary management actions because of a reduction in ungulate browsing and habitat conversion, a reduction in competition with nonnative weeds, a reduction in risk of fire, and the reintroduction of species currently extirpated from various areas and for which the technical ability to propagate these species currently exists or will be developed in the near future.
The conservation benefits of critical habitat are primarily regulatory or prohibitive in nature. But on the island of Hawaii, simply preventing “harmful activities” will not slow the extinction of listed plant species. Where consistent with the discretion provided by the Act, we believe it is necessary to implement policies that provide positive incentives to private landowners to voluntarily conserve natural resources, and that remove or reduce disincentives to conservation (Michael 2001; Michael, in press). Thus, we believe it is essential for the recovery of these nine species to build on continued conservation activities, such as these with a proven
Approximately 80 percent of imperiled species in the United States occur partly or solely on private lands where the Service has little management authority (Wilcove
Kamehameha Schools owns over 6,800 acres of land proposed as critical habitat in the Agricultural District. According to the final economic analysis, if this land were redistricted to the Conservation District, the total potential loss in property value could be more than approximately $1,997,000. They could also spend over $50,000 contesting a proposed redistricting. Thus, designation of critical habitat on Kamehameha Schools land could result in an economic impact to the Trust of over $2 million.
Based on the above considerations, we have determined that the benefits of excluding the Kamehameha Schools lands in proposed units Hawaii G, W, and Z as critical habitat outweigh the benefits of including them as critical habitat for
This conclusion is based on the following factors:
1. A substantial amount of the Kamehameha Schools lands in proposed units Hawaii G, W, and Z is currently being managed by the landowner on a voluntary basis in cooperation with us, cultural practitioners (the Edith Kanakaole Foundation and the Polynesian Voyaging Society), ranching and timber interests (Hawaii Forest Industry Association), researchers and scientists (UH Manoa and Hilo, the Zoological Society of San Diego, U.S. Forest Service, Silversward Foundation, and USGS-BRD), educators (Nawahi Charter School), and natural resource managers (Olaa-Kilauea Management Group, DOFAW, HVNP, National Tropical Botanical Garden, and TNCH) to achieve important conservation goals.
2. In the past, Kamehameha Schools has cooperated with Federal and State agencies and private organizations to implement voluntary conservation activities on their lands that have resulted in tangible conservation benefits.
3. Simple regulation of “harmful activities” is not sufficient to conserve these species. Landowner cooperation and support is required to prevent the extinction and promote the recovery of all of the listed species on this island, because of the need to implement proactive conservation actions such as ungulate management, weed control, fire suppression, plant propagation, and outplanting. This need for landowner cooperation is especially acute because the proposed units Hawaii G, W, and Z are unoccupied by three of the nine species. Future conservation efforts, such as translocation of these three plant species back into unoccupied habitat on these lands, will require the cooperation of Kamehameha Schools. Exclusion of Kamehameha Schools lands from this critical habitat designation will help the Service maintain and improve this partnership by formally recognizing the positive contributions of Kamehameha Schools to plant recovery, and by streamlining or reducing unnecessary oversight.
4. Especially given the current partnership agreements between Kamehameha Schools and many other organizations, we believe the benefits of including Kamehameha Schools lands as critical habitat are relatively small. The designation of critical habitat can serve to educate the general public as well as conservation organizations regarding the potential conservation value of an area, but this goal is already being accomplished through the identification of this area in the management agreements described above. Likewise, there will be little Federal regulatory benefit to the species because: (a) There is a low likelihood that these proposed critical habitat units will be negatively affected to any significant degree by Federal activities requiring section 7 consultation, and (b) these areas are already occupied by six listed species and a section 7 nexus already exists. We are unable to identify any other potential benefits associated with critical habitat for these portions of the proposed units.
5. We believe it is necessary to establish positive working relationships with representatives of the Native Hawaiian community. This approach of excluding critical habitat and entering into a mutually agreeable conservation partnership strengthens this relationship and should lead to conservation benefits beyond the boundaries of Kamehameha Schools land. It is an important long term conservation goal of the Service to work cooperatively with the Native Hawaiian community to help recover Hawaii's endangered species. This partnership with Kamehameha Schools is an important step forward toward this goal.
6. While we didn't find that designating critical habitat on Kamehameha Schools land would have a significant economic impact on them, the potential cost of over $1.65 million could affect Kamehameha Schools' willingness to continue their conservation partnerships. Even if they did continue to implement conservation activities on their Kamehameha Schools' land, this potential cost may result in a reduction of the amount of funding they would commit to conservation activities.
7. It is well documented that publicly owned lands and lands owned by private organizations alone are too small and poorly distributed to provide for the conservation of most listed species (Bean 2002; Crouse
In conclusion, we find that the exclusion of critical habitat in the Kamehameha Schools portions of
In considering whether or not exclusion of Kamehameha Schools lands in proposed units Hawaii G, W, and Z might result in the extinction of any of these nine species, we first considered the impacts to the seven species endemic to the island of Hawaii (
These agreements, which are described above, will provide tangible proactive conservation benefits that will reduce the likelihood of extinction for both the seven endemic and the two multi-island species in these areas of the island of Hawaii and increase their likelihood of recovery. Extinction for any of these species as a consequence of this exclusion is unlikely because there are no known threats in these portions of proposed units Hawaii G, W, and Z due to any current or reasonably anticipated Federal actions that might be regulated under section 7 of the Act. Further, these areas are already occupied by six of the nine species and thereby benefit from the section 7 protections of the Act, should such an unlikely Federal threat actually materialize. The exclusion of these Kamehameha Schools lands will not increase the risk of extinction to any of these species, and it may increase the likelihood these species will recover by encouraging other landowners to implement voluntary conservation activities as Kamehameha Schools has done.
In addition, critical habitat is being designated on other areas of the island of Hawaii for all seven of the endemic species (units Hawaii 10—
In sum, the above analysis concludes that an exclusion of Kamehameha Schools lands within proposed units Hawaii G, W, and Z from final critical habitat on the island of Hawaii will have a net beneficial impact with little risk of negative impacts. Therefore, the exclusion of the Kamehameha Schools portions of proposed units Hawaii G, W, and Z will not cause extinction and should in fact improve the chances of recovery for
The southwestern portion of proposed unit Hawaii Y2 on Queen Liliuokalani Trust land is unoccupied habitat for two species:
The following analysis describes the likely conservation benefits of a critical habitat designation compared to the conservation benefits without critical habitat designation. We paid particular attention to the following issues: To what extent a critical habitat designation would confer regulatory conservation benefits on these species; to what extent the designation would educate members of the public such that conservation efforts would be enhanced; and whether a critical habitat designation would have a positive, neutral, or negative impact on voluntary conservation efforts on this privately owned land as well as other non-Federal lands on the island of Hawaii that could contribute to recovery.
If a critical habitat designation reduces the likelihood that voluntary conservation activities will be carried out on the island of Hawaii, and at the same time fails to confer a counter-balancing positive regulatory or educational benefit to the species, then the benefits of excluding such areas from critical habitat outweigh the benefits of including them. Although, the results of this type of evaluation will vary significantly depending on the
Critical habitat in the Queen Liliuokalani Trust portion of proposed unit Hawaii Y2 was proposed for
Historically, we have conducted two formal and 21 informal consultations under section 7 on the island of Hawaii for any of the 47 plant species. None were for Queen Liliuokalani Trust land. As a result of the low level of previous Federal activity on Queen Liliuokalani Trust land, and after considering the likely low probability of Federal activities that might occur on this land (no anticipated Federal permits or funding), we think that there is likely to be a low number of future Federal activities that would negatively affect habitat on the Queen Liliuokalani Trust portion of proposed critical habitat (DEA 2002). Therefore, there is a low regulatory benefit of a critical habitat designation in this area.
Another possible benefit is that the designation of critical habitat can serve to educate the public regarding the potential conservation value of an area, and this may focus and contribute to conservation efforts by other parties by clearly delineating areas of high conservation value for certain species. Any information about these two species and their habitats that reaches a wide audience, including other parties engaged in conservation activities, could have a positive conservation benefit.
While we believe this educational outcome is important for
In sum, we believe that a critical habitat designation for listed plants on Queen Liliuokalani Trust land would provide a relatively low level of additional regulatory conservation benefits to
While the economic analysis concludes the designation of critical habitat on Queen Liliuokalani Trust land would not prevent them from developing their property, the analysis assumes it is reasonably foreseeable that the designation could cause a delay in development approvals as additional environmental studies may be conducted, and State and county officials investigate the implications of critical habitat on the property. The value of the loss of this potential delay is estimated to be between $13.8 and $21.6 million.
In addition, proactive voluntary conservation efforts are necessary to prevent the extinction and promote the recovery of these listed plant species on the island of Hawaii and other Hawaiian islands (Shogren
Under the terms of its January 17, 2003, proposal to the Service, Queen Liliuokalani Trust has agreed to implement a voluntary conservation partnership with the Service which will benefit these species. The conservation partnership includes the following: (1) The Trust is willing to partner with us on a propagation project for the
We believe that both of the species for which proposed unit Hawaii Y2 was originally proposed will benefit from these management actions. The primary benefits are the voluntary propagation and eventual reintroduction of species currently extirpated from this area.
The conservation benefits of critical habitat are primarily regulatory or prohibitive in nature. But, on the island of Hawaii, simply preventing “harmful activities” will not slow the extinction of listed plant species (Bean 2002). Where consistent with the discretion provided by the Act, we believe it is necessary to implement policies that provide positive incentives to private landowners to voluntarily conserve natural resources, and that remove or reduce disincentives to conservation (Wilcove
Thus, we believe it is essential for the recovery of
Based on the above considerations, we have determined that the benefits of excluding the Queen Liliuokalani Trust portion of proposed unit Hawaii Y2 from critical habitat outweigh the benefits of including it as critical habitat for
This conclusion is based on the following factors:
1. The Queen Liliukolani Trust has agreed to implement voluntary conservation measures for
2. Simple regulation of “harmful activities” is not sufficient to conserve these species. Critical habitat designation would not encourage, and may discourage, reintroductions of these species to these lands. Landowner cooperation and support will be required to prevent the extinction and promote the recovery of all of the listed island-endemic species caused by the need to implement proactive conservation actions such as ungulate management, weed control, fire suppression, plant propagation, and outplanting. This need for landowner cooperation is especially acute because proposed unit Hawaii Y2 is unoccupied by both of these species. Future conservation efforts, such as reintroduction of these plant species back onto these lands, will require the cooperation of Queen Liliuokalani Trust. Exclusion of Queen Liliuokalani Trust's land from this critical habitat designation will help the Service maintain and improve the voluntary cooperation of Queen Liliuokalani Trust by formally recognizing the positive contributions of Queen Liliuokalani Trust to plant conservation, and by streamlining or reducing unnecessary regulatory oversight. A critical habitat designation absent this cooperation would provide little meaningful conservation benefit to these species because the land would likely remain unoccupied.
3. Given the agreement between the landowner and us, as well as other planned conservation activities on their property, we believe the overall regulatory and educational benefits of including this portion of the unit as critical habitat are relatively small. The designation of critical habitat can serve to educate the general public as well as conservation organizations regarding the potential conservation value of an area, but this goal has been effectively accomplished through the identification of this area in the January 17, 2003, proposal described above. Likewise, there will be little Federal regulatory benefit to the species because (a) there is a low likelihood that this proposed critical habitat unit will be negatively affected to any significant degree by Federal activities requiring section 7 consultation, and (b) the fear that a critical habitat designation on this property will harm the ability of this landowner to generate funds to benefit orphan and destitute Hawaiian children, and any positive educational benefit of designation is negatively impacted when the impression is given that conservation goals can undermine the philanthropic goals of the landowner. We are unable to identify any other potential benefits associated with critical habitat for this portion of the proposed unit.
4. We believe it is necessary to establish positive working relationships with representatives of the Native Hawaiian community. This approach of excluding critical habitat and entering into a mutually agreeable conservation partnership strengthens this relationship and should lead to conservation benefits beyond the boundaries of Queen Liliuokalani Trust land. The Service has an important long term conservation goal to work cooperatively with the Native Hawaiian community to help recover Hawaii's endangered species. The partnership with Queen Liliuokalani Trust, as articulated in the Trust's letter to us, is an important step forward toward this goal.
5. While we didn't find designating critical habitat on Queen Lilioukolani Trust land would prevent the Trust from proceeding with their proposed development or have a significant economic impact on them, the potential cost of up to $21.6 million due to possible delays in obtaining State and county approvals and completing the development could affect their willingness to continue their conservation partnerships. Even if they did continue to implement conservation activities on their land, this potential cost may result in a reduction of the amount of funding available for implementing conservation activities. In addition, Queen Lilioukolani Trust uses revenue from its land holding to provide care for orphans and destitute children (with a preference to children of Native Hawaiian ancestry). This potential reduction in revenue could have significant social and cultural impacts on the community.
6. It is well documented that publicly owned lands, lands owned by conservation organizations and privately owned lands alone, are too small and poorly distributed to provide for the conservation of most listed species (Bean 2002, Crouse
In conclusion, we find that the exclusion of critical habitat in the Queen Liliuokalani Trust portion of proposed unit Hawaii Y2 would have a net positive conservation effect on the recovery and conservation of
In considering whether or not exclusion of the Queen Liliuokalani Trust portion of proposed unit Hawaii Y2 might result in the extinction of either of these two species, we first considered the impacts to the species endemic to the island of Hawaii,
For both the endemic and the multi-island species, we conclude that the voluntary conservation measures to be provided by Queen Liliuokalani Trust and the Service will provide more net conservation benefits than would be provided by designating the portion of proposed unit Hawaii Y2 as critical habitat. These conservation measures, which are described above, will provide tangible proactive conservation benefits that will reduce the likelihood of extinction for the two listed plants in this area of the island of Hawaii and increase their likelihood of recovery. Extinction for either of these species as a consequence of this exclusion is unlikely because there are no known threats in this portion of proposed unit Hawaii Y2 due to any current or reasonably anticipated Federal actions that might be regulated under section 7 of the Act. Implementation of the conservation measures by Queen Liliuokalani Trust, and the exclusion of their portion of proposed unit Hawaii Y2, have the greatest likelihood of preventing extinction of these two species, especially
In addition, critical habitat is being designated on other areas of the island of Hawaii for
In sum, the above analysis concludes that an exclusion of Queen Liliuokalani Trust land within proposed unit Hawaii Y2 from final critical habitat on the island of Hawaii will have a net beneficial impact with little risk of negative impacts. Therefore, the exclusion of the Queen Liliuokalani Trust portion of proposed unit Hawaii Y2 will not cause extinction and should in fact improve the chances of recovery for
As resources allow, the Service would be willing to consider future revisions or amendments to this final critical habitat rule if other landowners affected by this rule develop conservation programs or partnerships (
At the time we listed
During the public comment periods on the proposed designations and nondesignations of critical habitat for plants from the islands of Kauai, Niihau, Lanai, Maui, Molokai, Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, Oahu, and the island of Hawaii, we received several comments regarding the difficulty of commenting in an informed manner on critical habitat for species occurring on more than one island because the proposed rules did not provide information on critical habitat proposed on other islands for multi-island species. To address this concern, on August 20, 2002, we reopened simultaneous comment periods for the proposed designations and nondesignations of critical habitat for plant species on the islands of Kauai, Niihau, Maui, Molokai, and the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands until September 30, 2002, and for plant species on the islands of Hawaii and Oahu until November 30, 2002. The new comment periods allowed all interested parties to review all the proposals together and submit written comments. A comment period for the proposed designations and nondesignations of critical habitat for plant species on Lanai opened on July 15, 2002, and closed on August 30, 2002, overlapping with the reopened comment periods for the islands mentioned above.
As outlined in the above section “Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat,” the overall recovery goal stated in the recovery plans for each of these species includes the establishment of 8 to 10 populations with a minimum of 100 mature reproducing individuals per population for long-lived perennials; 300 mature reproducing individuals per population for short-lived perennials; and 500 mature reproducing individuals per population for annuals. There are some specific exceptions to this general recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations for species that are believed to be very narrowly distributed on a single island. To be considered recovered, the populations of a multi-island species should be distributed among the islands of its known historic range. In this final critical habitat rule, we include a table that summarizes the distribution of recovery populations by island for each of the 255 species at issue (Table 5).
This table includes the following information: (1) The number of populations on each island we believe the designated critical habitat or other habitat essential for the conservation of the species can provide for; (2) the species for which we are unable to identify any habitat essential to their conservation (
In accordance with Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this critical habitat designation is not a significant regulatory action. This rule will not have an annual economic effect of $100 million or more or adversely affect any economic sector, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, or other units of government. This designation will not create inconsistencies with other agencies' actions or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency. It will not materially affect entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients. Finally, this designation will not raise novel legal or policy issues. Accordingly, OMB has not formally reviewed this final critical habitat designation.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), whenever a Federal agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (
Based on the information in our economic analysis (draft economic analysis and addendum), we are certifying that the critical habitat designation for 41 island of Hawaii plant species will not have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities because a substantial number of small entities are not affected by the designation.
SBREFA does not explicitly define either “substantial number” or “significant economic impact.” Consequently, to assess whether a “substantial number” of small entities is affected by this designation, this analysis considers the relative number of small entities likely to be impacted in the area. Similarly, this analysis considers the relative cost of compliance on the revenues/profit margins of small entities in determining whether or not entities incur a “significant economic impact.” Only small entities that are expected to be directly affected by the designation are considered in this portion of the analysis. This approach is consistent with several judicial opinions related to the scope of the RFA (
Small entities include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions, including school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents, as well as small businesses. By this definition, Federal and State governments and Hawaii County are not a small governmental jurisdictions because its population was 148,677 in 2000.
SBREFA further defines “small organization” as any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. TNCH is a large organization that is dominant in the conservation and land management field on the Big Island. Thus, according to RFA/SBREFA definitions, TNCH is not likely to be considered a small organization. Kamehameha Schools is the largest charitable trust in Hawaii, as well as the State's largest private landowner; it also has a substantial investment in securities and owns real estate in other states. In 2001, Kamehameha Schools had over $1 billion in revenues, gains, and other support (Kamehameha Schools 2001). Thus, it is not likely to be considered a small organization.
To determine if the rule would affect a substantial number of small private entities, we consider the number of small entities affected within particular types of economic activities (
The primary projects and activities by private entities that might be directly affected by the designation that could affect small entities include farming and ranching operations and lending institutions. Based on our draft economic analysis and addendum, there were 1,400 diversified farmers and 470 ranchers in Hawaii County in 2000. The 2000 average annual sales for diversified farmers on the island of Hawaii were $59,600 per farmer, and the average annual sales for ranchers were $30,100 per rancher (DBEDT 2002). Since $8,700 is 15 percent of the average annual sales for a diversified farmer and 29 percent of the average annual sales for a rancher, it is assumed that critical habitat will have a significant economic impact (
Our economic analysis also found there are between two and three small lending institutions on the island of Hawaii that may be involved in section 7 consultations regarding HUD loan
The actual impacts of the final rule may even be smaller. These estimates were based on the proposed designations. However, this final rule designates 92,737 ha (229,147 ac) less than had been proposed, or a 52 percent reduction.
These conclusions are supported by the history of consultations on the island of Hawaii. Since these 41 plant species were listed (between 1991 and 1996), we have conducted 21 informal consultations and only two formal consultations on the island of Hawaii, 11 of which concerned PTA, in addition to consultations on Federal grants to State wildlife programs, which also do not affect small entities. The 21 informal consultations have concerned 10 of the 41 species (
One of the two formal consultations involving the 41 species was conducted with the Army regarding the addition of two firing lanes to Range 8 at PTA.
Three of the 21 informal consultations that have been conducted on the island of Hawaii concern the National Park Service's Hawaii Volcanoes National Park: One on fence construction for the purpose of excluding ungulates and regarding three of the 41 species (
None of these informal consultations directly affected or concerned small entities. In all 21 informal consultations, we concurred with each agency's determination that the project, as proposed or modified, was not likely to adversely affect listed species. The only ongoing projects are Kealakehe Parkway and those concerning military training
Even where the requirements of section 7 might apply due to critical habitat, based on our experience with section 7 consultations for all listed species, virtually all projects—including those that, in their initial proposed form, would result in jeopardy or adverse modification determinations under section 7—can be implemented successfully with, at most, the adoption of reasonable and prudent alternatives. These measures by definition must be economically feasible and within the scope of authority of the Federal agency involved in the consultation.
For these reasons, we are certifying that the designation of critical habitat for
Under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 801
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211, on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. Although this rule is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, it is not expected to significantly affect energy production supply and distribution facilities because no significant energy production, supply, and distribution facilities are included within designated critical habitat. Further, for the reasons described in the economic analysis, we do not believe that designation of critical habitat for the 41 species on the island of Hawaii will affect future energy production. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
(a) This rule will not “significantly or uniquely” affect small governments. A small Government Agency Plan is not required. Small governments will not be affected unless they propose an action requiring Federal funds, permits, or other authorizations. Any such activities will require that the Federal agency ensure that the action will not adversely modify or destroy designated critical habitat.
(b) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate on State or local governments or the private sector of $100 million or greater in any year; that is, it is not a “significant regulatory action” under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The designation of critical habitat imposes no obligations on State or local governments.
In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (“Government Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights”), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical habitat for the 41 species from the island of Hawaii in a takings implications assessment. The takings implications assessment concludes that this final rule does not pose significant takings implications.
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, this final rule does not have significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not required. In keeping with Department of Interior policy, we requested information from appropriate State agencies in Hawaii. This rule imposes no regulatory requirements unless an agency is seeking Federal funding or authorization, so it does not have Federal implications. In addition, this rule will not have substantial direct compliance costs because many of the planned projects that could affect critical habitat have no Federal involvement.
The designations may have some benefit to these governments, in that the areas essential to the conservation of these species are more clearly defined, and the primary constituent elements of the habitat necessary to the survival of the species are specifically identified. While this definition and identification do not alter where and what federally sponsored activities may occur, they may assist these local governments in long-range planning, rather than waiting for case-by-case section 7 consultation to occur.
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Department of the Interior's Office of the Solicitor has determined that this rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and does meet the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have designated critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Endangered Species Act. The rule uses standard property descriptions and identifies the primary constituent elements within the designated areas to assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the 41 plant species from the island of Hawaii.
This rule does not contain any information collection requirements for which OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act is required. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond
We have determined that we do not need to prepare an Environmental Assessment and/or an Environmental Impact Statement as defined by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act. We published a notice outlining our reason for this determination in the
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951) Executive Order 13175 and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal Tribes on a government-to-government basis. We have determined that there are no Tribal lands essential for the conservation of these 41 plant species. Therefore, designation of critical habitat for these 41 species does not involve any Tribal lands.
A complete list of all references cited in this final rule is available upon request from the Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (
The primary authors of this final rule are staff of the Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
(h) * * *
(k)
(i) Unit consists of the following 18 boundary points: Start at 259287, 2189980; 258514, 2190124; 258227, 2189531; 257076, 2189405; 256231, 2189611; 256096, 2190304; 256159, 2190978; 256258, 2191715; 256132, 2192452; 256438, 2193135; 257202, 2193171; 258074, 2192865; 259566, 2192515; 260015, 2192551; 260564, 2192488; 260937, 2192137; 260600, 2191095; 260195, 2190187; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following seven boundary points: Start at 261799, 2189905; 259290, 2190265; 259437, 2191186; 260905, 2197592; 263380, 2198183; 264962, 2199047; 266443, 2189598; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 21 boundary points: Start at 258551, 2191038; 258529, 2189991; 258210, 2188565; 257890, 2188331; 257487, 2188365; 256896, 2188490; 256215, 2188925; 255931, 2188918; 255675, 2189060; 255456, 2189333; 255283, 2189470; 255306, 2189929; 255346, 2190140; 255408, 2190618; 255387, 2191557; 255496, 2193031; 255782, 2193009; 256122, 2193173; 256270, 2193339; 257054, 2193360; 258360, 2192915; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 15 boundary points: Start at 258782, 2190167; 258548, 2189979; 258183, 2188260; 257434, 2188452; 256928, 2188480; 256188, 2188929; 255258, 2189156; 255505, 2193009; 255781, 2192991; 256152, 2193174; 256156, 2193377; 257053, 2193355; 259425, 2192593; 259263, 2191816; 259174, 2191010; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 14 boundary points: Start at 258101, 2190453; 257892, 2189913; 256913, 2188486; 256656, 2188640; 256222, 2188920; 255488, 2189023; 255638, 2189438; 256199, 2190746; 256201, 2190776; 256355, 2192927; 256193, 2193388; 257046, 2193366; 258868, 2192771; 258286, 2190933; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 11 boundary points: Start at 257292, 2195256; 256959, 2195939; 256806, 2197162; 256815, 2198142; 256627, 2199661; 256609, 2200056; 259081, 2200802; 259908, 2197800; 259126, 2196047; 257939, 2196380; 257957, 2195319; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 20 boundary points: Start at 255651, 2196455; 255597, 2196941; 255516, 2197725; 255512, 2197761; 255468, 2198050; 255421, 2198130; 255299, 2198552; 255372, 2199203; 256335, 2199414; 256242, 2200024; 255213, 2199704; 254946, 2201156; 255168, 2201360; 256079, 2201937; 256430, 2201672; 257336, 2200280; 257616, 2199751; 257968, 2196298; 258088, 2195186; 255745, 2195208; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 13 boundary points: Start at 258723, 2200661; 258940, 2200060; 259480, 2196687; 259164, 2195977; 257990, 2196313; 258115, 2195161; 255794, 2195189; 255648, 2196936; 255554, 2197804; 255334, 2198495; 255397, 2199185; 256317, 2199426; 256234, 2199928; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 16 boundary points: Start at 265536, 2206014; 265870, 2201356; 264628, 2199741; 260958, 2198980; 260785, 2200155; 262026, 2204132; 261185, 2204813; 260398, 2204759; 259170, 2203211; 258222, 2203945; 258477, 2204289; 259386, 2206126; 259977, 2206520; 260443, 2206955; 261652, 2208710; 262533, 2208323; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following eight boundary points: Start at 261936, 2208604; 263321, 2207740; 265617, 2206104; 265417, 2204172; 264174, 2203283; 260750, 2206482; 260875, 2207122; 261952, 2208637; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 22 boundary points: Start at 263977, 2204191; 263091, 2203511; 262736, 2203406; 261836, 2204431; 261358, 2204610; 261162, 2204774; 261114, 2204782; 260137, 2205484; 260269, 2205773; 260727, 2206307; 260808, 2207135; 261955, 2208667; 262335, 2208492; 262457, 2208405; 262682, 2208256; 262829, 2208171; 263062, 2208031; 264606, 2206914; 264702, 2206732; 265162, 2206251; 265443, 2205871; 264381, 2205051; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 30 boundary points: Start at 261996, 2208648; 262049, 2208624; 263522, 2207698; 265651, 2206158; 265754, 2204527; 265122, 2203759; 262570, 2202152; 261169, 2201554; 261944, 2204127; 261158, 2204766; 260467, 2204723; 260185, 2204367; 260136, 2204327; 260129, 2204298; 259641, 2203682; 259436, 2203822; 258995, 2204073; 259216, 2204499; 259562, 2204625; 259924, 2205129; 260239, 2205570; 260255, 2205790; 260539, 2206042; 260743, 2206373; 260822, 2206782; 260854, 2207176; 261184, 2207475; 261515, 2208026; 261720, 2208326; 261972, 2208593; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 21 boundary points: Start at 257006, 2207522; 257019, 2207554; 257990, 2209960; 258969, 2210027; 258996, 2210030; 259000, 2210028; 259841, 2209621; 260070, 2208710; 261086, 2208085; 261545, 2208642; 262022, 2208476; 262839, 2208040; 263330, 2207359; 264502, 2206514; 265710, 2205217; 265744, 2204501; 265526, 2204234; 263864, 2203016; 263466, 2203598; 261804, 2205478; 259132, 2206487; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 30 boundary points: Start at 216918, 2213235; 217016, 2213305; 217029, 2213274; 217005, 2213247; 217021, 2213158; 217073, 2213172; 217095, 2213120; 217071, 2213088; 217094, 2213045; 217129, 2213041; 217123, 2212977; 217141, 2212945; 217161, 2212966; 217207, 2212974; 217303, 2213051; 217353, 2212944; 217455, 2212885; 217511, 2212825; 217544, 2212704; 217624, 2212704; 217658, 2212443; 217423, 2212270; 217284, 2212268; 217105, 2212451; 216974, 2212346; 216772, 2212797; 216900, 2213009; 216946, 2212994; 216966, 2213060; 216928, 2213088; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 32 boundary points: Start at 223492, 2211567; 223608, 2211572; 223691, 2211528; 223727, 2211464; 223811, 2211316; 223763, 2211291; 223859, 2211232; 223887, 2211182; 223881, 2211116; 223938, 2211006; 223918, 2210977; 223876, 2210984; 223832, 2210851; 223809, 2210816; 223729, 2210799; 223636, 2210739; 223556, 2210796; 223552, 2210877; 223614, 2210869; 223630, 2210891; 223572, 2210924; 223506, 2210932; 223418, 2210946; 223338, 2210965; 223296, 2211003; 223244, 2211091; 223188, 2211145; 223294, 2211291; 223359, 2211352; 223406, 2211368; 223414, 2211415; 223415, 2211453; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 15 boundary points: Start at 230256, 2210857; 230438, 2210998; 230517, 2211001; 230682, 2211057; 230897, 2211021; 231011, 2210874; 231090, 2210642; 231078, 2210504; 230899, 2210322; 230783, 2210259; 230543, 2210360; 230357, 2210475; 230289, 2210576; 230244, 2210644; 230224, 2210817; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following nine boundary points: Start at 231266, 2211631; 231267, 2211631; 231537, 2212023; 232139, 2211722; 231979, 2211293; 231830, 2211149; 231774, 2211152; 231436, 2211271; 231277, 2211485; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 39 boundary points: Start at 222273, 2208478; 222265, 2208455; 222245, 2208415; 222245, 2208393; 222331, 2208332; 222330, 2208290; 222311, 2208248; 222279, 2208219; 222256, 2208215; 222254, 2208246; 222251, 2208259; 222230, 2208261; 222222, 2208286; 222213, 2208303; 222225, 2208306; 222227, 2208316; 222214, 2208320; 222209, 2208331; 222194, 2208337; 222189, 2208329; 222194, 2208324; 222202, 2208299; 222198, 2208283; 222219, 2208259; 222244, 2208216; 222238, 2208183; 222198, 2208149; 222045, 2208166; 222020, 2208212; 221971, 2208225; 221966, 2208306; 221969, 2208396; 221963, 2208440; 221988, 2208483; 222015, 2208509; 222077, 2208552; 222199, 2208535; 222218, 2208498; 222247, 2208498; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 27 boundary points: Start at 221456, 2205056; 221315, 2205089; 220996, 2205294; 220895, 2205435; 220799, 2205324; 220680, 2205394; 220645, 2205535; 220550, 2205636; 220701, 2205687; 220754, 2205770; 220904, 2205756; 220861, 2205816; 221058, 2205989; 221139, 2205911; 221195, 2205756; 221253, 2205717; 221216, 2205641; 221179, 2205613; 221095, 2205611; 221197, 2205553; 221326, 2205451; 221675, 2205188; 221929, 2204996; 221948, 2204869; 221871, 2204802; 221737, 2204828; 221610, 2204957; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 30 boundary points: Start at 216918, 2213235; 217016, 2213305; 217029, 2213274; 217005, 2213247; 217021, 2213158; 217073, 2213172; 217095, 2213120; 217071, 2213088; 217094, 2213045; 217129, 2213041; 217123, 2212977; 217141, 2212945; 217161, 2212966; 217207, 2212974; 217303, 2213051; 217353, 2212944; 217455, 2212885; 217511, 2212825; 217544, 2212704; 217624, 2212704; 217658, 2212443; 217423, 2212270; 217284, 2212268; 217105, 2212451; 216974, 2212346; 216772, 2212797; 216900, 2213009; 216946, 2212994; 216966, 2213060; 216928, 2213088; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 32 boundary points: Start at 223492, 2211567; 223608, 2211572; 223691, 2211528; 223727, 2211464; 223811, 2211316; 223763, 2211291; 223859, 2211232; 223887, 2211182; 223881, 2211116; 223938, 2211006; 223918, 2210977; 223876, 2210984; 223832, 2210851; 223809, 2210816; 223729, 2210799; 223636, 2210739; 223556, 2210796; 223552, 2210877; 223614, 2210869; 223630, 2210891; 223572, 2210924; 223506, 2210932; 223418, 2210946; 223338, 2210965; 223296, 2211003; 223244, 2211091; 223188, 2211145; 223294, 2211291; 223359, 2211352; 223406, 2211368; 223414, 2211415; 223415, 2211453; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 27 boundary points: Start at 221456, 2205056; 221315, 2205089; 220996, 2205294; 220895, 2205435; 220799, 2205324; 220680, 2205394; 220645, 2205535; 220550, 2205636; 220701, 2205687; 220754, 2205770; 220904, 2205756; 220861, 2205816; 221058, 2205989; 221139, 2205911; 221195, 2205756; 221253, 2205717; 221216, 2205641; 221179, 2205613; 221095, 2205611; 221197, 2205553; 221326, 2205451; 221675, 2205188; 221929, 2204996; 221948, 2204869; 221871, 2204802; 221737, 2204828; 221610, 2204957; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 10 boundary points: Start at 223325, 2230961; 223717, 2230611; 223961, 2230395; 224099, 2230006; 222943, 2227775; 221847, 2228401; 221769, 2228638; 221914, 2229066; 222052, 2229490; 222606, 2230217; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 29 boundary points: Start at 217283, 2233128; 217629, 2233499; 218093, 2234242; 218828, 2233584; 218277, 2231773; 218266, 2231685; 218291, 2231675; 219411, 2233375; 219521, 2233443; 219655, 2233414; 220288, 2233050; 220656, 2232834; 221080, 2232612; 220999, 2232500; 220822, 2232233; 220802, 2231818; 220498, 2230963; 220529, 2230813; 220350, 2230453; 220296, 2229915; 220205, 2229697; 220190, 2229504; 220122, 2229416; 218354, 2230452; 216792, 2231049; 216919, 2231470; 217150, 2231890; 217026, 2232314; 217214, 2232981; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 92 boundary points: Start at 213884, 2231521; 213842, 2231562; 213785, 2231427; 213666, 2231261; 213601, 2230893; 213453, 2230596; 213305, 2230350; 213204, 2230269; 213030, 2230210; 212859, 2230290; 212807, 2230381; 212812, 2230467; 212835, 2230541; 212877, 2230637; 212939, 2230736; 213011, 2230905; 213041, 2231129; 212997, 2231275; 213007, 2231651; 213147, 2232011; 213409, 2232858; 213387, 2233177; 213269, 2233218; 213462, 2233730; 213453, 2233976; 213443, 2234090; 213442, 2234162; 213373, 2234284; 213315, 2234388; 213271, 2234480; 213320, 2234721; 213371, 2234760; 213429, 2234835; 213464, 2234878; 213513, 2234943; 213559, 2235003; 213642, 2235106; 213659, 2235121; 213685, 2235147; 213724, 2235205; 213745, 2235328; 213734, 2235407; 213765, 2235497; 213747, 2235588; 213771, 2235662; 213817, 2235706; 213849, 2235729; 213891, 2235850; 213906, 2235884; 213908, 2235940; 213886, 2235998; 213892, 2236033; 214009, 2236115; 214062, 2236170; 214080, 2236202; 214083, 2236227; 214091, 2236260; 214140, 2236304; 214165, 2236296; 214069, 2236123; 213954, 2236053; 214016, 2235921; 213862, 2235537; 213901, 2235357; 213770, 2235029; 213484, 2234675; 213587, 2234485; 213891, 2234567; 213773, 2233608; 214112, 2233331; 214183, 2233458; 214141, 2233713; 214320, 2234212; 214483, 2234338; 214390, 2234581; 214802, 2235593; 214978, 2235684; 215037, 2235434; 215190, 2235808; 215483, 2235675; 215479, 2235179; 215269, 2234894; 215127, 2234463; 215158, 2234131; 214937, 2233848; 215182, 2233321; 214973, 2232427; 215018, 2231531; 214640, 2231432; 214495, 2231365; 214382, 2231329; 214332, 2231335; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 30 boundary points: Start at 214766, 2225082; 215176, 2225539; 215405, 2225905; 215716, 2226097; 216131, 2226318; 217035, 2226328; 218354, 2225470; 219286, 2224824; 219895, 2223228; 218899, 2220922; 218806, 2219907; 218769, 2219298; 218197, 2219271; 217672, 2220036; 217653, 2220562; 217819, 2221512; 217520, 2221821; 217378, 2221880; 217229, 2221937; 217063, 2221937; 216768, 2222158; 216463, 2222582; 215919, 2223071; 215956, 2223348; 215550, 2223643; 215070, 2223892; 214393, 2224156; 214299, 2224261; 214335, 2224407; 214570, 2224647; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 27 boundary points: Start at 218326, 2219182; 218265, 2219899; 218572, 2220103; 219186, 2220554; 218961, 2221066; 218183, 2222274; 217900, 2223294; 218531, 2223871; 219842, 2223011; 220052, 2222981; 220255, 2223197; 220513, 2223371; 220883, 2223437; 221142, 2223301; 221469, 2222879; 221431, 2222712; 221443, 2222484; 221956, 2222124; 221860, 2221917; 221276, 2221939; 221020, 2221746; 220775, 2221645; 220679, 2221263; 221125, 2220585; 221255, 2220003; 220857, 2218373; 220445, 2219168; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 82 boundary points: Start at 211908, 2224450; 211840, 2224339; 211562, 2224160; 211477, 2224142; 211418, 2224067; 211356, 2224034; 211319, 2223969; 211271, 2223951; 211220, 2223903; 211172, 2223900; 211144, 2223870; 211106, 2223860; 211053, 2223873; 210980, 2223837; 210916, 2223837; 210864, 2223788; 210802, 2223764; 210694, 2223796; 210650, 2223761; 210578, 2223756; 210489, 2223646; 210425, 2223652; 210359, 2223635; 210254, 2223626; 210218, 2223598; 210154, 2223584; 210056, 2223595; 209922, 2223585; 209805, 2223507; 209521, 2223432; 209365, 2223366; 209228, 2223347; 208930, 2223267; 208835, 2223286; 208830, 2223355; 208907, 2223389; 209205,
(ii) Excluding one area bounded by the following 31 points (8 ha, 19 ac): Start at 211235, 2224062; 211172, 2224016; 211129, 2224012; 211093, 2223986; 211042, 2223992; 210945, 2223954; 210872, 2223952; 210792, 2223885; 210751, 2223908; 210770, 2223960; 210841, 2223994; 210870, 2224063; 210928, 2224102; 210992, 2224116; 211080, 2224094; 211174, 2224135; 211293, 2224156; 211335, 2224196; 211345, 2224253; 211373, 2224282; 211439, 2224272; 211501, 2224297; 211562, 2224404; 211619, 2224407; 211657, 2224425; 211731, 2224441; 211766, 2224436; 211506, 2224267; 211403, 2224240; 211340, 2224159; 211274, 2224128; return to starting point.
(iii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 211 boundary points: Start at 211305, 2223364; 211375, 2223384; 211403, 2223445; 211471, 2223464; 211508, 2223521; 211605, 2223565; 211667, 2223634; 211757, 2223690; 211885, 2223733; 211931, 2223724; 211986, 2223686; 212068, 2223746; 212139, 2223774; 212198, 2223854; 212277, 2223900; 212406, 2223912; 212539, 2223951; 212645, 2223915; 212681, 2223974; 212720, 2223994; 212836, 2224123; 212883, 2224222; 212935, 2224265; 213002, 2224253; 213015, 2224188; 212983, 2224154; 212926, 2224043; 212826, 2223931; 212746, 2223863; 212766, 2223847; 212819, 2223884; 212890, 2223915; 213075, 2223887; 213289, 2223971; 213371, 2223934; 213409, 2223871; 213316, 2223863; 213077, 2223764; 212894, 2223794; 212820, 2223740; 212780, 2223729; 212674, 2223741; 212626, 2223773; 212579, 2223781; 212533, 2223829; 212510, 2223825; 212439, 2223796; 212348, 2223795; 212294, 2223777; 212205, 2223673; 212125, 2223641; 212013, 2223563; 211957, 2223565; 211888, 2223610; 211803, 2223577; 211717, 2223519; 211686, 2223470; 211593, 2223426; 211549, 2223371; 211491, 2223344; 211458, 2223292; 211397, 2223257; 211323, 2223241; 211283, 2223193; 211242, 2223171; 211187, 2223097; 211045, 2223037; 210978, 2222957; 210854, 2222894; 210790, 2222817; 210763, 2222740; 210607, 2222645; 210591, 2222566; 210546, 2222536; 210433, 2222414; 210413, 2222350; 210443, 2222344; 210571, 2222422; 210666, 2222448; 210691, 2222500; 210725, 2222521; 210793, 2222517; 210852, 2222539; 210905, 2222517; 210925, 2222488; 211073, 2222553; 211191, 2222530; 211279, 2222586; 211348, 2222589; 211378, 2222610; 211441, 2222613; 211494, 2222638; 211568, 2222607; 211619, 2222618; 211712, 2222598; 211828, 2222527; 211912, 2222500; 212003, 2222547; 212069, 2222542; 212147, 2222486; 212228, 2222467; 212274, 2222404; 212348, 2222471; 212448, 2222511; 212668, 2222802; 212761, 2222874; 212802, 2222963; 213012, 2223108; 213060, 2223184; 213115, 2223225; 213115, 2223296; 213180, 2223380; 213342, 2223505; 213502, 2223538; 213592, 2223617; 213636, 2223593; 213643, 2223539; 213565, 2223434; 213394, 2223394; 213253, 2223285; 213234, 2223260; 213253, 2223205; 213231, 2223147; 213152, 2223106; 213084, 2223011; 212891, 2222882; 212863, 2222805; 212756, 2222719; 212535, 2222428; 212497, 2222398; 212412, 2222369; 212308, 2222279; 212217, 2222281; 212186, 2222304; 212160, 2222365; 212097, 2222377; 212025, 2222427; 211944, 2222384; 211894, 2222380; 211782, 2222415; 211678, 2222482; 211644, 2222482; 211575, 2222486; 211508, 2222513; 211448, 2222492; 211413, 2222496; 211386, 2222474; 211328, 2222470; 211194, 2222417; 211089, 2222433; 210981, 2222380; 210899, 2222365; 210832, 2222399; 210774, 2222396; 210736, 2222348; 210624, 2222314; 210481, 2222229; 210331, 2222220; 210250, 2222177; 210082, 2222125; 209980, 2222118; 209833, 2222142; 209813, 2222131; 209804, 2222071; 209776, 2222040; 209729, 2222030; 209675, 2222040; 209640, 2222012; 209577, 2222003; 209527, 2221938; 209471, 2221916; 209325, 2221943; 209234, 2221919; 209020, 2221948; 208952, 2221925; 208760, 2221918; 208599, 2221816; 208492, 2221827; 208460, 2221817; 208410, 2221927; 208484, 2221948; 208565, 2221936; 208676, 2222014; 208732, 2222035; 208927, 2222043; 209015, 2222068; 209236, 2222040; 209325, 2222064; 209449, 2222035; 209526, 2222112; 209647, 2222157; 209695, 2222158; 209723, 2222210; 209793, 2222256; 209892, 2222262; 210029, 2222239; 210205, 2222289; 210267, 2222326; 210332, 2222479; 210486, 2222645; 210485, 2222700; 210505, 2222750; 210534, 2222771; 210592, 2222771; 210670, 2222819; 210675, 2222877; 210775, 2222984; 210911, 2223056; 210970, 2223132; 211117, 2223195; 211175, 2223273; return to starting point.
(ii) Excluding one area bounded by the following five points (<1 ha, <1 ac): Start at 211099, 2222496; 211109, 2222499; 211114, 2222499; 211118, 2222497; 211103, 2222479; return to starting point.
(iii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 114 boundary points: Start at 214447, 2222623; 214480, 2222585; 214474, 2222534; 214441, 2222505; 214055, 2222500; 213775, 2222429; 213683, 2222443; 213605, 2222423; 213500, 2222421; 213445, 2222367; 213339, 2222356; 213251, 2222303; 213225, 2222268; 213112, 2222232; 213029, 2222167; 212905, 2222150; 212752, 2222091; 212654, 2222033; 212657, 2221930; 212627, 2221876; 212610, 2221781; 212532, 2221714; 212449, 2221692; 212403, 2221653; 212384, 2221545; 212341, 2221489; 212348, 2221423; 212328, 2221349; 212298, 2221305; 212213, 2221243; 212181, 2221177; 212126, 2221131; 212117, 2221072; 212086, 2221019; 212000, 2220995; 211970, 2220899; 211930, 2220851; 211934, 2220790; 211874, 2220666; 211868, 2220609; 211830, 2220572; 211804, 2220499; 211669, 2220360; 211517, 2220331; 211480, 2220298; 211424, 2220284; 211404, 2220203; 211334, 2220125; 211281, 2219976; 211155, 2219728; 211059, 2219692; 211026, 2219657; 210955, 2219623; 210865, 2219627; 210798, 2219584; 210675, 2219589; 210587, 2219571; 210551, 2219507; 210505, 2219505; 210465, 2219555; 210482, 2219632; 210532, 2219684; 210655, 2219709; 210771, 2219702; 210805, 2219739; 210843, 2219752; 210929, 2219741; 210992, 2219793; 211068, 2219818; 211172, 2220027; 211227, 2220180; 211295, 2220255; 211335, 2220366; 211461, 2220440; 211611, 2220468; 211703, 2220566; 211753, 2220665; 211761, 2220714; 211810, 2220794; 211811, 2220884; 211862, 2220954; 211895, 2221066; 211936, 2221107; 212003, 2221115; 212026, 2221204; 212080, 2221243; 212124, 2221326; 212220, 2221402; 212224, 2221522; 212274, 2221597; 212292, 2221705; 212388, 2221798; 212459, 2221812; 212503, 2221840; 212510,
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 83 boundary points: Start at 214438, 2221820; 214413, 2221797; 214386, 2221680; 214341, 2221624; 214236, 2221577; 214192, 2221506; 214008, 2221412; 213919, 2221344; 213917, 2221296; 213890, 2221262; 213884, 2221222; 213758, 2221097; 213685, 2221055; 213605, 2221031; 213535, 2220982; 213480, 2220882; 213407, 2220820; 213384, 2220774; 213316, 2220740; 213178, 2220485; 213084, 2220393; 213022, 2220355; 212956, 2220257; 212808, 2220171; 212777, 2220117; 212741, 2220090; 212715, 2220056; 212695, 2219935; 212668, 2219888; 212516, 2219808; 212489, 2219754; 212288, 2219567; 212179, 2219502; 212052, 2219459; 211790, 2219103; 211552, 2218878; 211513, 2218800; 211486, 2218774; 211451, 2218791; 211424, 2218818; 211424, 2218878; 211459, 2218955; 211700, 2219183; 211969, 2219547; 212135, 2219614; 212226, 2219670; 212391, 2219825; 212443, 2219903; 212578, 2219968; 212603, 2220105; 212654, 2220177; 212688, 2220198; 212709, 2220249; 212787, 2220293; 212824, 2220334; 212873, 2220352; 212940, 2220443; 213005, 2220484; 213090,
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 99 boundary points: Start at 214237, 2221396; 214246, 2221433; 214279, 2221468; 214325, 2221468; 214358, 2221436; 214355, 2221358; 214318, 2221305; 214305, 2221223; 214287, 2221049; 214300, 2220991; 214278, 2220930; 214286, 2220881; 214313, 2220902; 214322, 2221047; 214365, 2221179; 214410, 2221218; 214476, 2221333; 214576, 2221408; 214591, 2221498; 214624, 2221541; 214679, 2221569; 214698, 2221646; 214740, 2221664; 214796, 2221627; 214793, 2221531; 214759, 2221478; 214700, 2221448; 214690, 2221357; 214573, 2221258; 214555, 2221210; 214474, 2221113; 214430, 2220938; 214431, 2220859; 214371, 2220793; 214339, 2220598; 214356, 2220538; 214326, 2220426; 214294, 2220372; 214236, 2220332; 214188, 2220269; 214118, 2220061; 214005, 2219871; 213995, 2219762; 213945, 2219600; 213933, 2219438; 213852, 2219367; 213784, 2219348; 213756, 2219241; 213719, 2219214; 213680, 2219137; 213551, 2219003; 213560, 2218908; 213486, 2218751; 213396, 2218673; 213327, 2218524; 213204, 2218429; 213145,
(ii) Excluding two areas:
(A) Bounded by the following seven points (1 ha, 1 ac): Start at 214223, 2220569; 214237, 2220545; 214219, 2220515; 214216, 2220461; 214146, 2220412; 214161, 2220500; 214199, 2220523; return to starting point.
(B) Bounded by the following 42 points (38 ha, 94 ac): Start at 214049, 2220213; 214008, 2220110; 213892, 2219916; 213877, 2219786; 213826, 2219614; 213823, 2219491; 213696, 2219433; 213663, 2219365; 213649, 2219307; 213619, 2219275; 213591, 2219218; 213434, 2219056; 213440, 2218923; 213385, 2218816; 213302, 2218748; 213232, 2218602; 213126, 2218523; 213033, 2218514; 212998, 2218479; 212834, 2218368; 212794, 2218356; 212809, 2218402; 212825, 2218431; 212855, 2218461; 212888, 2218485; 212953, 2218499; 212996, 2218545; 213022, 2218636; 213007, 2218725; 213013, 2218754; 213131, 2218887; 213194, 2219087; 213261, 2219149; 213346, 2219306; 213394, 2219361; 213412, 2219449; 213602, 2219700; 213668, 2219734; 213820, 2219870; 213852, 2219933; 213913, 2219992; 214024, 2220195; return to starting point.
(iii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 65 boundary points: Start at 215029, 2221141; 215078, 2221118; 215100, 2221081; 215105, 2221047; 215092, 2220971; 215106, 2220903; 215094, 2220834; 215046, 2220727; 215049, 2220676; 215102, 2220585; 215091, 2220525; 215103, 2220441; 215078, 2220357; 215072, 2220203; 215020, 2219976; 214978, 2219936; 214975, 2219872; 214947, 2219833; 214959, 2219766; 214941, 2219705; 214948, 2219637; 214883, 2219550; 214829, 2219519; 214843, 2219377; 214782, 2219151; 214741, 2219084; 214717, 2218965; 214700, 2218708; 214660, 2218467; 214650, 2218237; 214625, 2218082; 214553, 2217870; 214527, 2217739; 214511, 2217708; 214476, 2217702; 214431, 2217728; 214417, 2217776; 214449, 2217955; 214510, 2218118; 214530, 2218247; 214540, 2218479; 214581, 2218725; 214598, 2218985; 214627, 2219125; 214669, 2219193; 214725, 2219396; 214706, 2219465; 214712, 2219549; 214738, 2219603; 214819, 2219663; 214796, 2219730; 214835, 2219788; 214819, 2219871; 214858, 2219922; 214862, 2219981; 214908, 2220033; 214951, 2220206; 214958, 2220369; 214981, 2220452; 214979, 2220577; 214947, 2220626; 214924, 2220735; 214985, 2220898; 214972, 2220976; 214987, 2221070; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 58 boundary points: Start at 215603, 2220632; 215636, 2220594; 215638, 2220532; 215595, 2220313; 215594, 2220146; 215573, 2220086; 215557, 2219909; 215486, 2219693; 215509, 2219626; 215490, 2219443; 215514, 2219279; 215507, 2219212; 215525, 2219154; 215513, 2218965; 215487, 2218921; 215439, 2218935; 215421, 2218871; 215447, 2218842; 215441, 2218779; 215356, 2218664; 215275, 2218426; 215304, 2218286; 215233, 2218154; 215249, 2218060; 215206, 2217972; 215206, 2217897; 215158, 2217810; 215145, 2217560; 215094, 2217556; 215038, 2217584; 215038, 2217818; 215090, 2217932; 215089, 2218007; 215131, 2218085; 215109, 2218142; 215112, 2218184; 215185, 2218304; 215155, 2218404; 215160, 2218458; 215247, 2218714; 215328, 2218821; 215342, 2218926; 215394, 2219001; 215403, 2219144; 215387, 2219204; 215383, 2219387; 215367, 2219431; 215388, 2219616; 215365, 2219699; 215438, 2219924; 215431, 2219963; 215454, 2220022; 215453, 2220094; 215475, 2220163; 215474, 2220317; 215523, 2220516; 215533, 2220621; 215545, 2220669; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 89 boundary points: Start at 215734, 2220485; 215765, 2220497; 215804, 2220452; 215818, 2220397; 215784, 2220322; 215772, 2220245; 215817, 2220179; 215889, 2220150; 215937, 2220077; 215955, 2219923; 215999, 2219846; 216021, 2219758; 216009, 2219647; 216048, 2219449; 216024, 2219367; 216031, 2219325; 216010, 2219282; 216053, 2219305; 216094, 2219364; 216137, 2219519; 216139, 2219583; 216177, 2219682; 216178, 2219953; 216194, 2220018; 216223, 2220058; 216259, 2220059; 216289, 2220016; 216301, 2219987; 216298, 2219945; 216308, 2219773; 216295, 2219664; 216254, 2219549; 216260, 2219498; 216212, 2219335; 216179, 2219277; 216099, 2219197; 216052, 2219098; 215990, 2219041; 215937, 2219032; 215843, 2218966; 215826, 2218898; 215861, 2218819; 215873, 2218650; 215805, 2218472; 215755, 2218447; 215775, 2218360; 215691, 2218233; 215604, 2218175; 215561, 2218121; 215555, 2217915; 215490, 2217671; 215528, 2217566; 215517, 2217489; 215481, 2217456; 215448, 2217452; 215415, 2217471; 215399, 2217507; 215407, 2217557; 215371, 2217647; 215391, 2217794; 215436, 2217930; 215438, 2218124; 215486, 2218223; 215604, 2218316; 215641, 2218385; 215687, 2218427; 215688, 2218503; 215752, 2218652; 215738, 2218734; 215745, 2218785; 215706, 2218864; 215704, 2218932; 215753, 2219051; 215835, 2219097; 215867, 2219146; 215875, 2219268; 215910, 2219348; 215926, 2219453; 215888, 2219641; 215902, 2219734; 215881, 2219806; 215827, 2219895; 215830, 2220023; 215804, 2220057; 215765, 2220062; 215684, 2220120; 215664, 2220161; 215649, 2220293; 215707, 2220428; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 54 boundary points: Start at 216834, 2219498; 216868, 2219502; 216901, 2219476; 216916, 2219442; 216903, 2219353; 216759, 2219197; 216646, 2219111; 216624, 2219076; 216621, 2218932; 216675, 2218863; 216728, 2218712; 216725, 2218649; 216696, 2218569; 216704, 2218501; 216752, 2218421; 216755, 2218361; 216727, 2218309; 216657, 2218257; 216603, 2218151; 216551, 2218112; 216511, 2218060; 216492, 2217991; 216451, 2217967; 216352, 2217946; 216275, 2217799; 216194, 2217733; 216138, 2217593; 216168, 2217500; 216154, 2217339; 216130, 2217288; 216078, 2217289; 216046, 2217330; 216047, 2217501; 216017, 2217608; 216088, 2217792; 216177, 2217870; 216230, 2217941; 216264, 2218034; 216303, 2218058; 216396, 2218077; 216458, 2218191; 216514, 2218232; 216562, 2218330; 216635, 2218388; 216586, 2218499; 216576, 2218561; 216609, 2218685; 216581, 2218726; 216562, 2218818; 216503, 2218897; 216504, 2219112; 216559, 2219201; 216683, 2219290; 216791, 2219410; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 45 boundary points: Start at 218342, 2218980; 218378, 2218973; 218407, 2218964; 218411, 2218929; 218400, 2218875; 218323, 2218752; 218189, 2218630; 218079, 2218566; 217956, 2218519; 217764, 2218345; 217745, 2218240; 217685, 2218167; 217657, 2218101; 217608, 2218068; 217537, 2217828; 217508, 2217776; 217518, 2217705; 217495, 2217636; 217530, 2217550; 217478, 2217497; 217416, 2217507; 217370, 2217634; 217398, 2217718; 217386, 2217786; 217509, 2218141; 217535, 2218373; 217570, 2218472; 217631, 2218518; 217662, 2218576; 217748, 2218779; 217756, 2218840; 217758, 2218986; 217738, 2219099; 217771, 2219108; 217806, 2219095; 217846, 2219075; 217869, 2218958; 217876, 2218841; 217861, 2218736; 217768, 2218520; 217898, 2218624; 218030, 2218675; 218152, 2218753; 218233, 2218832; 218305, 2218922; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 22 boundary points: Start at 196364, 2183671; 196588, 2183730; 197040, 2183678; 197248, 2183609; 197370, 2183522; 197891, 2183644; 198395, 2183678; 198917, 2183661; 199421, 2183574; 199838, 2183400; 200064, 2183261; 200498, 2183174; 200689, 2183053; 200869, 2183009; 200548, 2182197; 199189, 2182675; 199188, 2182675; 198920, 2182722; 197323, 2182971; 196589, 2183108; 196526, 2183207; 196397, 2183572; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 12 boundary points: Start at 194344, 2189312; 194345, 2189312; 195096, 2189814; 195763, 2190048; 196316, 2190285; 198038, 2190803; 198120, 2190635; 198240, 2190325; 197169, 2189897; 195603, 2189733; 194504, 2189243; 194375, 2189221; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 23 boundary points: Start at 194733, 2188289; 194501, 2189318; 195028, 2189765; 196242, 2190221; 199593, 2191274; 200077, 2191445; 199462, 2192171; 199079, 2192786; 199311, 2193260; 199926, 2193724; 200763, 2193240; 201809, 2192548; 202245, 2192040; 202231, 2191144; 202231, 2190040; 202215, 2189832; 202071, 2189709; 200959, 2189699; 199966, 2189369; 199139, 2189093; 197714, 2188688; 196629, 2188284; 195353, 2187919; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 50 boundary points: Start at 201717, 2188574; 201906, 2188644; 202144, 2188700; 202144, 2188602; 202284, 2188434; 202305, 2188399; 202452, 2188462; 202347, 2188728; 202326, 2188868; 202389, 2188952; 202459, 2189036; 202543, 2189120; 202683, 2189204; 202781, 2189288; 202922, 2189330; 203132, 2189365; 203279, 2189365; 203279, 2189260; 203454, 2189225; 203650, 2189113; 203776, 2188959; 203629, 2188868; 203419, 2189043; 203342, 2188910; 203258,
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 46 boundary points: Start at 200358, 2186648; 200652, 2186613; 200897, 2186774; 201009, 2186431; 201114, 2186199; 201409, 2186389; 201640, 2186683; 201675, 2187187; 201738, 2187292; 201892, 2186998; 201913, 2186767; 201843, 2186571; 201780, 2186522; 201808, 2186312; 201913, 2186347; 201969, 2186227; 201899, 2186178; 201997, 2186038; 201934, 2185947; 201987, 2185871; 201923, 2185703; 201864, 2185800; 201794, 2185800; 201857, 2185569; 201871, 2185564; 200825, 2182788; 200596, 2182893; 200701, 2183146; 200785, 2183391; 200890, 2183440; 200841, 2183566; 200848, 2183755; 200806, 2183860; 200855, 2183958; 200862, 2184287; 200596, 2184708; 200596, 2184820; 200351, 2184974; 200316, 2185219; 200197, 2185261; 200183, 2185695; 200204, 2185919; 200092, 2186010; 200113, 2186199; 200169, 2186375; 200211, 2186634; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 38 boundary points: Start at 195782, 2185368; 195522, 2186168; 195315, 2186796; 195326, 2187196; 195544, 2187388; 195469, 2188155; 195786, 2188492; 195432, 2189916; 199124, 2191069; 199983, 2191543; 199508, 2192106; 200761, 2193288; 201812, 2192545; 201404, 2191895; 203343, 2189879; 203681, 2189439; 203918, 2188866; 203785, 2188371; 203480, 2187932; 202574, 2187761; 202584, 2187526; 202456, 2187271; 201998, 2186930; 201572, 2187207; 200965, 2187345; 200731, 2186962; 200177, 2186557; 200011, 2185340; 199774, 2185089; 198932, 2185139; 198670, 2185243; 198391, 2185428; 198036, 2185330; 197566, 2185385; 197604,
(ii) Excluding one area bounded by the following 12 points (15 ha, 38 ac): Start at 202034, 2189562; 202141, 2189566; 202153, 2189649; 202308, 2189645; 202298, 2189564; 202339, 2189548; 202329, 2189219; 202193, 2189187; 202230, 2189088; 202042, 2189024; 202020, 2189151; 202024, 2189554; return to starting point.
(iii)
(i) Unit consists of the following six boundary points: Start at 202687, 2192346; 203014, 2192842; 203739, 2192737; 204306, 2191983; 203553, 2190355; 203111, 2191829; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 15 boundary points: Start at 194344, 2189314; 194343, 2189318; 194355, 2189326; 195020, 2189752; 195454, 2189938; 196227, 2190232; 199076, 2191106; 201428, 2191880; 202171, 2192469; 202165, 2191079; 202163, 2189814; 199428, 2188470; 195418, 2187770; 194855, 2187783; 194588, 2188581; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 29 boundary points: Start at 194693, 2188269; 194383, 2189286; 195034, 2189776; 195460, 2189937; 196240, 2190194; 199103, 2191128; 199891, 2191533; 198991, 2192862; 199103, 2193492; 199824, 2193830; 199804, 2193770; 200696, 2193256; 201895, 2192456; 201355, 2191804; 201174, 2186424; 201586, 2185393; 199915, 2185040; 199838, 2185152; 198796, 2185246; 198417, 2185384; 197754, 2185341; 197538, 2185442; 197616, 2186073; 197228, 2186185; 197289, 2185505; 196333, 2185522; 196200, 2186785; 195323, 2187943; 194697, 2188256; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 19 boundary points: Start at 199227, 2191119; 199931, 2191535; 199427, 2192287; 198994, 2192926; 199211, 2193518; 199835, 2193778; 201804, 2192540; 202800, 2192542; 203018, 2192863; 203684, 2192822; 203919, 2192569; 203588, 2192149; 202916, 2191296; 201823, 2189505; 200231, 2188809; 200012, 2188896; 199513, 2189670; 199023, 2190652; 199126, 2191046; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 14 boundary points: Start at 200840, 2183071; 200105, 2183211; 198217, 2183674; 196354, 2183822; 195904, 2185079; 198074, 2185218; 198313, 2185355; 198524, 2185294; 198681, 2185062; 199717, 2185030; 199911, 2185024; 200028, 2184733; 200540, 2184657; 200956, 2183332; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 30 boundary points: Start at 204490, 2186961; 204259, 2186791; 203663, 2186586; 203502, 2186552; 202908, 2186594; 202064, 2186341; 200938, 2186115; 200094, 2185862; 199277, 2185806; 198968, 2185581; 197898, 2185721; 197620, 2185755; 197630, 2186116; 197213, 2186192; 197260, 2185765; 197082, 2185778; 196970, 2185975; 196660, 2185975; 196294, 2185806; 196217, 2186760; 197251, 2187269; 197645, 2187579; 198321, 2187579; 199334, 2187860; 199503, 2187860; 200544, 2188451; 203129, 2189150; 203527, 2189491; 203802, 2189055; 203972, 2188619; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 11 boundary points: Start at 197174, 2177104; 196674, 2177566; 196458, 2177613; 196239, 2177751; 196187, 2178067; 195553, 2178701; 196028, 2179334; 196530, 2178147; 196637, 2177811; 197221, 2177377; 197278, 2177142; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following seven boundary points: Start at 195939, 2179184; 196289, 2178679; 196513, 2178138; 196403, 2177670; 196252, 2177759; 196204, 2178081; 195581, 2178700; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 10 boundary points: Start at 207156, 2146304; 207134, 2146239; 206598, 2144681; 206598, 2143570; 204429, 2143915; 204728, 2144393; 204674, 2145490; 204674, 2145491; 204426, 2146629; 204425, 2146649; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following eight boundary points: Start at 205937, 2136720; 204747, 2133469; 204039, 2133547; 203420, 2133302; 203440, 2135670; 203670, 2137181; 203517, 2138526; 206149, 2138468; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following five boundary points: Start at 202738, 2135888; 202669, 2138135; 206446, 2137807; 205568, 2136027; 203447, 2135810; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following four boundary points: Start at 203994, 2129916; 203715, 2131071; 205603, 2131073; 206118, 2130489; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following five boundary points: Start at 206085, 2130525; 204548, 2130013; 202838, 2129682; 202649, 2131030; 205588, 2131077; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following nine boundary points: Start at 199021, 2121439; 198916, 2122019; 199049, 2122319; 199008, 2122707; 199063, 2122847; 199186, 2123092; 199520, 2123204; 201031, 2123446; 201505, 2122323; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following eight boundary points: Start at 199031, 2121453; 198919, 2122094; 199007, 2122357; 198981, 2122641; 199188, 2123085; 199474, 2123194; 201018, 2123445; 201491, 2122325; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 15 boundary points: Start at 198394, 2113625; 198223, 2113930; 197796, 2114535; 197583, 2115280; 203752, 2119808; 203928, 2119514; 204315, 2119167; 205315, 2118433; 206212, 2117332; 206446, 2117067; 204284, 2114251; 203373, 2114863; 202434, 2114094; 201438, 2115531; 198636, 2113397; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 13 boundary points: Start at 202997, 2119281; 203310, 2119053; 204449, 2119707; 205626, 2118736; 205346, 2118306; 205626, 2117783; 205999, 2117970; 206709, 2117375; 204354, 2114272; 202588, 2115599; 202097, 2116400; 201568, 2117511; 201401, 2118078; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following six boundary points: Start at 203129, 2119316; 204604, 2116730; 205505, 2115780; 204286, 2114193; 202146, 2115653; 200912, 2117708; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following five boundary points: Start at 204444, 2120239; 206850, 2117574; 204309, 2114257; 202399, 2115771; 201311, 2117954; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 10 boundary points: Start at 201174, 2117843; 202959, 2119186; 204559, 2117309; 205954, 2116477; 204277, 2114280; 203399, 2114850; 202976, 2115309; 202698, 2115528; 202028, 2116090; 201532, 2117457; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 14 boundary points: Start at 202966, 2119257; 204672, 2117280; 206034, 2116476; 204325, 2114252; 203522, 2114753; 203049, 2115266; 202477, 2115720; 201375, 2115486; 199227, 2113813; 199190, 2114100; 198653, 2114587; 198378, 2115149; 198141, 2115661; 201104, 2117894; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 14 boundary points: Start at 220519, 2105287; 220658, 2105408; 220821, 2105428; 221200, 2105198; 221467, 2104758; 221444, 2104588; 221445, 2104587; 221710, 2104303; 221694, 2104107; 221493, 2103896; 221254, 2103732; 221032, 2103615; 220535, 2104849; 220496, 2105093; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following nine boundary points: Coast; 249798, 2124556; 248451, 2124193; 247078, 2126859; 247458, 2126835; 247811, 2127062; 248104, 2127469; 249187, 2126745; 249330, 2126069; 249701, 2125632.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 16 boundary points: Start at 265058, 2131828; 265367, 2132139; 265624, 2132015; 265956, 2131806; 266250, 2131617; 266582, 2131721; 267180, 2131645; 267711, 2131370; 267789, 2131408; 267891, 2131332; 268138, 2131256; 268432, 2131114; 268755, 2131009; 269049, 2130962; 269248, 2130905; 269266, 2130849; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 11 boundary points: Coast; 284893, 2137276; 279221, 2134615; 279221, 2134615; 279175, 2134728; 280175, 2135157; 281315, 2136008; 282395, 2136841; 284061, 2137614; 284803, 2137355; 284850, 2137360; 284874, 2137349.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 33 boundary points: Start at 274892, 2136370; 270874, 2135790; 269174, 2134697; 267700, 2135019; 265425, 2135256; 264383, 2134214; 263150, 2133692; 260638, 2133740; 259217, 2134451; 257700, 2134309; 255757, 2132839; 253387, 2131465; 252487, 2129948; 251241, 2130960; 250795, 2131956; 251310, 2134361; 252547, 2134120; 253852, 2133261; 254607, 2135700; 255437, 2136482; 256222, 2136490; 256394, 2137383; 258592, 2138001; 261132, 2138090; 262576, 2137383; 263163, 2138161; 264146, 2138195; 268506, 2139617; 269645, 2139914; 270342, 2140091; 270763, 2139124; 272917, 2139676; 275306, 2138240; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 27 boundary points: Start at 260007, 2138277; 260064, 2138614; 260288, 2138861; 260620, 2139007; 260945, 2138979; 261187, 2138985; 261288, 2138856; 261541, 2138867; 261945, 2138822; 262013, 2138945; 262440, 2138951; 262861, 2138592; 263063, 2138125; 262940, 2137446; 262614, 2136665; 262294, 2136266; 262007, 2135817; 261704, 2135564; 260951, 2135401; 260255, 2135424; 260176, 2135727; 260316, 2136075; 260361, 2136524; 260608, 2137002; 260580, 2137440; 260153, 2137906; 260058, 2138064; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 27 boundary points: Start at 241932, 2146263; 241417, 2145847; 239409, 2145112; 237401, 2142639; 235247, 2140949; 234781, 2139725; 232871, 2137399; 232161, 2136003; 230227, 2133432; 229223, 2132403; 227778, 2131032; 226357, 2130052; 225133, 2129685; 223541, 2127995; 223150, 2128461; 223394, 2129220; 224594, 2130542; 226039, 2132819; 227998, 2136174; 231377, 2140386; 234659, 2143741; 236177, 2145945; 238210, 2148467; 239997, 2149789; 241711, 2149544; 242495, 2148491; 242372, 2147341; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following six boundary points: Start at 239781, 2146615; 241003, 2145626; 238959, 2142183; 237893, 2141565; 237452, 2143181; 238209, 2145335; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following nine boundary points: Start at 240250, 2141066; 241783, 2139920; 240835, 2137607; 238868, 2139097; 238947, 2139692; 239116, 2140248; 239332, 2140329; 239455, 2140496; 239602, 2140570; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following four boundary points: Start at 238867, 2139105; 240894, 2140601; 241788, 2139910; 240819, 2137611; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 18 boundary points: Start at 238962, 2141970; 242007, 2139925; 242207, 2139714; 242118, 2139436; 241893, 2139030; 241440, 2137533; 241162, 2137224; 240062, 2137024; 239123, 2134346; 237550, 2135268; 238350, 2137847; 235994, 2138947; 236552, 2140823; 237172, 2141003; 237594, 2141281; 237850, 2141570; 237828, 2142070; 238005, 2142204; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 14 boundary points: Start at 239891, 2150141; 240843, 2150153; 241675, 2149824; 242668, 2149348; 241709, 2148593; 240533, 2148496; 240027, 2147666; 238765, 2146944; 238485, 2145606; 237676, 2145240; 237021, 2144491; 235459, 2145119; 237410, 2147869; 238480, 2148664; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 13 boundary points: Start at 250289, 2157327; 251003, 2156578; 251595, 2155516; 250654, 2154088; 249731, 2153374; 248704, 2153565; 247907, 2154271; 246893, 2155307; 245987, 2156978; 246353, 2158267; 247468, 2159347; 248478, 2158877; 249279, 2158302; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 35 boundary points: Start at 250884, 2156394; 250042, 2154844; 249371, 2154454; 247769, 2154222; 246915, 2154794; 245791, 2156465; 245586, 2156984; 245636, 2157360; 245710, 2157517; 245929, 2157517; 246442, 2157846; 247040, 2157529; 247235, 2157212; 247369, 2156711; 247784, 2156175; 248224, 2155589; 248639, 2155406; 248980, 2155320; 249005, 2155564; 249285, 2156187; 248773, 2156528; 248358, 2157090; 247967, 2157383; 248175, 2157737; 247528, 2157895; 246991, 2158164; 246649, 2158418; 246674, 2158444; 246320, 2159164; 246527, 2159640; 246918, 2159860; 247369, 2159775; 247723, 2159701; 248761, 2158530; 249786, 2157944; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 20 boundary points: Start at 249605, 2154443; 249282, 2155670; 249489, 2156083; 248205, 2157211; 248257, 2157694; 248587, 2158073; 249179, 2158214; 249790, 2157993; 250127, 2157482; 250559, 2157202; 251403, 2156390; 252371, 2155266; 251701, 2154870; 251902, 2154637; 252099, 2154017; 252071, 2153773; 251517, 2154149; 251301, 2154449; 250993, 2154406; 250728, 2154562; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 18 boundary points: Start at 256349, 2151035; 256516, 2151138; 256717, 2151196; 257064, 2151279; 257624, 2151506; 257795, 2151400; 258009, 2151416; 258048, 2151718; 258777, 2152045; 258966, 2151770; 259051, 2151582; 258433, 2150898; 258430, 2150898; 257945, 2150909; 257790, 2150915; 257034, 2150898; 256769, 2150857; 256333, 2150857; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following seven boundary points: Start at 259520, 2152124; 258420, 2150913; 257324, 2150755; 256781, 2150023; 255379, 2150583; 257220, 2152206; 259198, 2152680; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following nine boundary points: Start at 263596, 2140748; 262234, 2140517; 258055, 2142041; 254269, 2144742; 255668, 2145679; 257593, 2146289; 260387, 2146659; 262395, 2147120; 265212, 2144650; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 28 boundary points: Start at 261207, 2150002; 262152, 2149529; 262966, 2148732; 262640, 2147357; 261953, 2146398; 261102, 2146308; 260976, 2145910; 260541, 2145204; 261048, 2144534; 260596, 2144100; 260125, 2144299; 259890, 2144552; 259220, 2144335; 258515, 2144335; 257845, 2144263; 256922, 2144462; 256560, 2145059; 256506, 2145801; 256886, 2145710; 257239, 2146201; 257501, 2146344; 258279, 2147086; 258496, 2147337; 258877, 2147212; 258949, 2147864; 259637, 2148117; 260035, 2148895; 260704, 2149800; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 11 boundary points: Start at 279712, 2148510; 276648, 2146439; 271250, 2147346; 271140, 2147797; 271319, 2148257; 271361, 2149267; 271770, 2149568; 276751, 2150845; 277839, 2151215; 279362, 2150061; 279952, 2149315; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 29 boundary points: Start at 256704, 2173629; 258341, 2177012; 260142, 2179904; 261881, 2182923; 262993, 2182963; 264053, 2182050; 265872, 2181759; 266999, 2181195; 267018, 2180286; 266781, 2179777; 266454, 2179686; 265993, 2179903; 265443, 2179855; 264701, 2179425; 264030, 2179281; 263288, 2179209; 262953, 2178826; 262905, 2178084; 262761, 2177461; 262498, 2176480; 261708, 2175450; 262666, 2174828; 264380, 2174192; 265235, 2173756; 265744, 2172137; 265944, 2171082; 261670, 2170827; 257377, 2170773; 257013, 2171646; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 15 boundary points: Start at 270137, 2179182; 270117, 2178705; 269049, 2178426; 266707, 2178218; 265505, 2178550; 264852, 2179669; 264237, 2180565; 263774, 2181296; 263878, 2181980; 264821, 2183016; 265256, 2183296; 265629, 2183151; 267567, 2181379; 266904, 2179742; 269567, 2179503; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 28 boundary points: Start at 262416, 2181378; 262234, 2181545; 262682, 2181990; 263440, 2181695; 263960, 2182446; 264133, 2182822; 263843, 2183142; 264177, 2183241; 264755, 2182952; 264784, 2183472; 265594, 2183524; 267656, 2181395; 267302, 2180559; 267067, 2180712; 266763, 2180438; 266546, 2180496; 266214, 2180553; 265752, 2180423; 265275, 2180683; 264856, 2180640; 264596, 2180553; 264191, 2180611; 264018, 2180727; 263642, 2180727; 263367, 2181102; 263122, 2181334; 262891, 2181536; 262486, 2181377; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following eight boundary points: Start at 267234, 2180396; 266451, 2180468; 263662, 2181160; 263032, 2181914; 263831, 2182224; 264610, 2181934; 265290, 2181716; 267462, 2181056; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 35 boundary points: Start at 251376, 2166456; 250829, 2167375; 250254, 2169847; 250992, 2170628; 251020, 2172877; 251769, 2174236; 252605, 2174758; 254398, 2174497; 255008, 2173313; 255513, 2172668; 255879, 2171502; 255879, 2170492; 255339, 2169604; 255451, 2168509; 256441, 2167275; 256753, 2166610; 256810, 2165770; 256453, 2164780; 255495, 2163352; 255306, 2163361; 254541, 2164098; 254498, 2164137; 254481, 2164182; 254455, 2164255; 254449, 2164271; 254374, 2164589; 254004, 2165599; 253287, 2167525; 253238, 2167661; 253194, 2167785; 253194, 2167786; 253193, 2167786; 253192, 2167786; 253191, 2167786; 253146, 2167752; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 13 boundary points: Start at 254584, 2164181; 253305, 2167650; 254302, 2168554; 256320, 2167251; 256487, 2165898; 257687, 2164037; 257302, 2163331; 258133, 2162854; 258725, 2162386; 258756, 2162085; 257655, 2161172; 256263, 2162480; 255102, 2163686; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 17 boundary points: Start at 250385, 2172716; 250588, 2172812; 250726, 2172919; 250993, 2173015; 251162, 2173040; 251356, 2172692; 251292, 2172620; 251217, 2172460; 251121, 2172321; 251014, 2172236; 250918, 2172140; 250790, 2172086; 250673, 2172161; 250545, 2172300; 250385, 2172332; 250300, 2172449; 250310, 2172535; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 17 boundary points: Start at 254374, 2164589; 254004, 2165599; 253236, 2167756; 253128, 2168010; 254193, 2168432; 254246, 2168296; 254470, 2167400; 254649, 2167176; 255481, 2167289; 256666, 2167013; 256799, 2166728; 257113, 2166101; 257113, 2164936; 256396, 2164757; 255321, 2165116; 254559, 2165295; 254649, 2164623; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 27 boundary points: Start at 254498, 2164341; 254727, 2164444; 255743, 2164078; 255868, 2163816; 256222, 2164021; 256656, 2163576; 257560, 2163785; 257352, 2163331; 258066, 2162902; 257844, 2161395; 257900, 2161317; 259249, 2160573; 260356, 2159979; 259695, 2159517; 259319, 2159380; 258898, 2159773; 258849, 2159861; 258810, 2159929; 258784, 2159981; 258755, 2160036; 258715, 2160077; 258688, 2160104; 258437, 2160584; 258243, 2160676; 258167, 2160673; 256128, 2162630; 254574, 2164116; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 28 boundary points: Start at 266492, 2165136; 267184, 2165097; 267638, 2165195; 269069, 2162612; 268669, 2161281; 267615, 2161161; 266924, 2160825; 266490, 2159798; 265048, 2159265; 264495, 2159127; 264001, 2158357; 263902, 2157567; 264357, 2155927; 263981, 2154960; 263634, 2154426; 262793, 2155728; 262477, 2156217; 261337, 2155564; 260360, 2157263; 260584, 2159423; 260367, 2160114; 260734, 2160659; 263088, 2160361; 264090, 2162500; 264176, 2162638; 264221, 2162790; 264951, 2164464; 265860, 2164445; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 10 boundary points: Start at 255001, 2163655; 256020, 2163968; 257634, 2163912; 257384, 2163319; 257871, 2163010; 257756, 2162804; 256542, 2162680; 256379, 2162447; 256238, 2162463; 256081, 2162615; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 25 boundary points: Start at 255001, 2163655; 256020, 2163968; 257556, 2163812; 257342, 2163356; 258145, 2162834; 258761, 2162325; 259766, 2162727; 259792, 2162339; 260155, 2161636; 260142, 2160687; 260553, 2160880; 260676, 2160624; 260669, 2159628; 260010, 2158695; 259835, 2158111; 258895, 2159775; 258845, 2159864; 258808, 2159929; 258780, 2159981; 258748, 2160040; 258707, 2160080; 258644, 2160142; 258562, 2160221; 258544, 2160239; 256081, 2162615; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 13 boundary points: Start at 254476, 2168522; 254473, 2168510; 254874, 2167383; 256572, 2166997; 257174, 2165685; 257971, 2164620; 258044, 2164337; 257576, 2163925; 256125, 2164018; 255434, 2163788; 255099, 2163685; 254488, 2164250; 253207, 2168032; return to starting point.
(ii)
(i) Unit consists of the following 18 boundary points: Start at 266388, 2165221; 267132, 2165147; 267709, 2165277; 267412, 2162783; 268417, 2161049; 269013, 2157105; 267821, 2155262; 264606, 2153076; 262507, 2156298; 261492, 2155783; 259208, 2160114; 260710, 2160549; 263148, 2160288; 264210, 2162671; 264954, 2164570; 265289, 2164477; 265811, 2164588; 266183, 2164886; return to starting point.
(ii)
(105) Critical habitat unit descriptions and maps, and a description of primary constituent elements, for Family Malvaceae:
(l)
(1)
Hawaii 9—
(i)
(ii) Elevations between 646 and 1,509 m (2,120 and 4,949 ft).
Hawaii 10—
(i) Moist, open forest; subalpine mesic shrubland; bogs; and weathered, old pahoehoe (smooth) or aa (rough) lava with well-developed pockets of soil, and containing one or more of the following associated native plant species:
(ii) Elevations between 1,583 and 2,246 m (5,193 and 8,024 ft).
Hawaii 8—
(i)
(ii) Elevations between 1,106 and 1,676 m (3,627 and 5,459 ft).
Hawaii 1—
(i) Slightly open forest cover in wet and mesic
(ii) Elevations between 1,495 and 1,953 m (4,906 and 6,407 ft).
Hawaii 1—
(i) Montane, wet
(ii) Elevations between 663 and 1,622 m (2,175 and 5,321 ft).
Hawaii 1—
(i) Wet and mesic montane forest dominated by
(ii) Elevations between 1,652 and 2,026 m (5,416 to 6,646 ft).
Hawaii 11—
(i) Mesic montane forest dominated by
(ii) Elevations between 1,366 and 1,755 m (4,482 and 5,759 ft).
Hawaii 3—
(i)
(ii) Elevations between 615 and 1,082 m (2,017 and 3,551 ft).
Hawaii 1—
(i) Montane mesic forest dominated by
(ii) Elevations between 1,629 and 2,025 m (5,345 and 6,645 ft).
Hawaii 15—
(i)
(ii) Between elevations of 1,056 and 1,917 m (3,466 and 6,288 ft).
Hawaii 10—
(i) Dry cinder cones and open
(ii) Elevations between 893 to 1,734 m (2,928 to 5,690 ft).
Hawaii 25—
(i) Weathered lava or variously aged lava flows and cinder substrates in montane and subalpine dry shrubland containing one or more of the following
(ii) Elevations between 1,022 and 2,413 m (3,352 and 7,915 ft).
Hawaii 10—
(i) Dry forest, containing one or more of the following associated native plant species:
(ii) Elevations between 492 and 697 m (1,614 and 2,285 ft).
Hawaii 30—
(i)
(ii) Elevations between 966 and 1,546 m (3,170 and 5,072 ft).
Hawaii 19—
(i)
(ii) Elevations between 278 and 342 m (913 and 1,123 ft).
Hawaii 17—
(i) Mesic
(ii) Elevations between 499 and 818 m (1,637 and 2,684 ft).
Hawaii 20—
(i) Open, dry
(ii) Elevations between sea level and 922 m (0 and 3,025 ft).
Hawaii 4—
(i)
(ii) Elevations between 717 and 993 m (2,352 and 3,259 ft).
Hawaii 3—
(i) Wet montane forest dominated by
(ii) Between elevations of 654 and 1,440 m (2,146 and 4,723 ft).
Hawaii 3—
(i) Lowland wet forest dominated by dense
(ii) Between elevations 641 and 1,391 m (2,102 and 4,565 ft).
Hawaii 1—
(i) Tree trunks in
(ii) Elevations between 1,371 and 1,935 m (4,498 and 6,349 ft).
Hawaii 24—
(i)
(ii) Elevations between 966 and 1,881 m (3,168 and 6,170 ft).
Hawaii 3—
(i)
(ii) Elevations between 681 and 1,411 m (2,234 and 4,629 ft).
Hawaii 7—
(i) Open aa lava in diverse lowland dry forests and
(ii) Elevations between 86 and 892 m (281 and 2,925 ft).
Hawaii 26—
(i) Mixed montane mesic forest containing one or more of the following native plant species:
(ii) Elevations between 1,193 and 1,274 m (3,914 and 4,181 ft).
Hawaii 10—
(i) Dry-mesic to dry
(ii) Between elevations 512 and 1,223 m (1,679 and 4,012 ft).
Hawaii 10—
(i)
(ii) Elevations between 649 and 847 (2,130 and 2,779 ft).
Hawaii 24—
(i) Montane wet sedge land (often in damp cracks of pahoehoe lava) with mixed sedges and grasses, montane mesic forest, dry subalpine woodland, or
(ii) Elevations between 1,584 and 2,513 m (5,198 and 8,243 ft).
Hawaii 21—
(i) Coastal wet to dry shrubland, near the ocean, rocks or pahoehoe lava in cracks and holes, and containing one or more of the following associated native plant species:
(ii) Elevations between sea level and 28 m (0 and 91 ft).
Hawaii 27—
(i) Weathered Mauna Kea soils, cinder cones, or geologically young lavas, in montane dry shrubland, often on bare cinder, near steam vents, or in open
(ii) Elevations between 941 and 1,634 m (3,087 to 5,360 ft).
Hawaii 10—
(i) Lowland dry and mesic forests dominated by
(ii) Elevations between 177 and 927 m (580 and 3,042 ft).
Hawaii 18—
(i) Dry, rocky ridges and slopes in dry shrubland or dry to mesic
(ii) Elevations between 536 and 1,020 m (1,757 and 3,346 ft).
Hawaii 24—
(i)
(ii) Elevations between 1,060 and 1,336 m (3,476 and 4,383 ft).
Hawaii 10—
(i)
(ii) Elevations between 874 and 1,208 m (2,867 and 3,964 ft).
Hawaii 5—
(i) Lowland dry forest, montane dry forest, or montane mesic forest dominated by
(ii) Elevations between 45 and 1,236 m (146 and 4,055 ft).
Hawaii 10—
(i) Dry to mesic forest, diverse mesic forest, or subalpine forest, and containing one or more of the following associated native plant species:
(ii) Elevations between 1,185 and 2,169 m (3,887 and 7,115 ft).
Hawaii 10—
(i) Open
(ii) Elevations between 28 and 1,526 m (93 to 5,005 ft).
Hawaii 4—
(i) Cinder cones with montane dry shrubland and containing one or more of the following associated native plant species:
(ii) Elevations between 717 and 1,242 m (2,352 and 4,074 ft).
Hawaii 12—
(i) Lowland dry forests containing one or more of the following native plant species:
(ii) Elevations between 29 and 128 m (94 and 420 ft).
(2)
Hawaii 24—
(i)
(ii) Elevations between 1,313 and 2,194 m (4,306 and 7,198 ft).
Hawaii 17—
(i)
(ii) Elevations between 510 and 981 m (1,672 and 3,217 ft).
Hawaii 28—
(i) Epiphytic on
(ii) Elevations between 675 and 921 m (2,215 and 3,021 ft).
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice with comment period.
This notice with comment period sets forth an update to the 60-day national episode rates and the national per-visit amounts under the Medicare prospective payment system for home health agencies. It also responds to public comments received on the June 28, 2002 notice with comment period, which set forth the home health prospective payment system rate update for FY 2003.
Effective Date: The rate updates in this notice with comment period are effective on October 1, 2003.
In commenting, please refer to file code CMS-1473-NC. Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission. Mail written comments (one original and three copies) to the following address ONLY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS-1473-NC, P.O. Box 8016, Baltimore, MD 21244-8016.
Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be timely received in the event of delivery delays.
If you prefer, you may deliver (by hand or courier) your written comments (one original and three copies) to one of the following addresses: Room 443-G, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201, or Room C5-14-03, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.
Comments mailed to the addresses indicated as appropriate for hand or courier delivery may be delayed and could be considered late.
For information on viewing public comments, see the beginning of the
Chester Robinson, (410) 786-6959 or Susan Levy, (410) 786-9364.
This
The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA), Pub. L. 105-33, enacted on August 5, 1997, significantly changed the way Medicare pays for Medicare home health services. Until the implementation of a home health prospective payment system (HH PPS) on October 1, 2000, home health agencies (HHAs) received payment under a cost-based reimbursement system. Section 4603 of the BBA governed the development of the HH PPS by adding section 1895 to the Social Security Act (the Act).
Section 1895(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires the standard prospective payment amounts to be increased by a factor equal to the applicable home health market basket increase for FY 2004.
Generally, Medicare makes payment under the HH PPS on the basis of a national standardized 60-day episode payment, adjusted for case mix and wage index. For episodes with four or fewer visits, Medicare pays on the basis of a national per-visit amount by discipline, referred to as a low utilization payment adjustment (LUPA). Medicare also adjusts the 60-day episode payment for certain intervening events that give rise to a partial episode payment adjustment or a significant change in condition adjustment. For certain cases that exceed a specific cost threshold, an outlier adjustment may also be available. For a complete and full description of the HH PPS as required by the BBA and as refined by the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (OCESAA) for FY 1999, Pub. L. 105-277, enacted on October 21, 1998, and the Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999, Pub. L. 106-113, enacted on November 29, 1999, see the July 3, 2000 HH PPS final rule (65 FR 41128).
On June 28, 2002, we published a notice with comment period in the
As we explained in the FY 2003 update notice, the level by which actual payments to HHAs would be reduced by lowering the limits is not the same percent by which the IPS limits would be lowered. Our actuaries have used the 7 percent reduction in the PPS rates in every estimate for legislation since BBA 1997. Since it was the intention of the Congress to delay the cut it had already specified, we have simply captured the reductions in payments and carried those assumptions forward to the present. If our actuaries had attempted to impute the continued operation of the IPS until October 2002 given the amount of money available under the IPS limits that had not been spent, the actuaries may have well identified a larger reduction in payments. We did not believe such a result was the intent of the Congress.
Medicare HH PPS has been effective since October 1, 2000. As set forth in the final rule published July 3, 2000 in the
For FY 2004, we use again the design and case-mix methodology described in section III.G of the HH PPS July 3, 2000 final rule (65 FR 41192 through 41203). For FY 2004, we base the wage index adjustment to the labor portion of the PPS rates on the most recent pre-floor and pre-reclassified hospital wage index available at the time of publication of this notice, which is discussed in section III.C of this notice with comment period.
As discussed in the July 3, 2000 HH PPS final rule, for episodes with four or fewer visits, Medicare pays the national per-visit amount by discipline, referred to as a LUPA. We update the national per-visit amounts by discipline annually by the applicable home health market basket. We adjust the national per-visit amount by the appropriate wage index based on the site of service for the beneficiary as set forth in § 484.230. We adjust the labor portion of the updated national per-visit amounts by discipline used to calculate the LUPA by the most recent pre-floor and pre-reclassified hospital wage index available at the time of publication of this notice, as discussed in section III.C of this notice with comment period.
Medicare pays the 60-day case-mix and wage-adjusted episode payment on a split percentage payment approach. The split percentage payment approach includes an initial percentage payment and a final percentage payment as set forth in § 484.205(b)(1) and (b)(2). We may base the initial percentage payment on the submission of a request for anticipated payment and the final percentage payment on the submission of the claim for the episode, as discussed in regulations in § 409.43. The claim for the episode that the HHA submits for the final percentage payment determines the total payment amount for the episode and whether we make an applicable adjustment to the 60-day case-mix and wage-adjusted episode payment. The end date of the 60-day episode as reported on the claim determines the rate level at which Medicare will pay the claim for the fiscal period.
In summary, we may adjust the 60-day case-mix and wage adjusted episode payment based on the information submitted on the claim to reflect the following:
• A low utilization payment provided on a per-visit basis as set forth in § 484.205(c) and § 484.230.
• A partial episode payment adjustment as set forth in § 484.205(d) and § 484.235.
• A significant change in condition adjustment as set forth in § 484.205(e) and § 484.237.
• An outlier payment as set forth in § 484.205(f) and § 484.240.
On July 1, 1996, we published a notice with comment period (61 FR 34349) in the
Market baskets are periodically rebased and revised to a more current base year. To this end, we have been monitoring the most recently available data (for proposes of this analysis, we used 1999 data) on the distribution of costs in providing home health services and the appropriateness of our price proxies. Though this work is still very preliminary, the distribution of costs through 1999 does not appear to be dramatically different than the distribution of costs in the 1993 base year. We will continue to monitor these data, particularly data for the periods after prospective payment began, to determine the most appropriate time to rebase and revise the home health market basket. In Table 1 below, we set forth the 1993-based cost categories, weights, price proxies, and FY 2004 updates for the market basket forecast. In Table 2 below, we have provided a comparison of the FY 2003 and FY 2004 updates to the home health market basket.
Section 1895(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires the standard prospective payment amounts to be increased by a factor equal to the applicable home health market basket increase for FY 2004. This requirement has been codified in regulations in § 484.225.
•
In calculating the annual update for the FY 2004 60-day episode rates, we first looked at the FY 2003 rates as a starting point. The FY 2003 national 60-day episode rate is $2,159.39.
In order to calculate the FY 2004 national 60-day episode rate, we multiplied the FY 2003 national 60-day episode rate (2,159.39) by the applicable home health market basket update for FY 2004. The home health market basket increase for FY 2004 is 3.3 percent. We increased the FY 2003 amount by the FY 2004 home health market basket increase ($2,159.39 + 3.3 percent) to yield the updated FY 2004 national 60-day episode rate ($2,230.65) (see Table 3 below).
•
As discussed previously in this notice with comment period, the policies governing the LUPAs and outlier calculations set forth in the July 3, 2000 HH PPS final rule will continue during FY 2004. In calculating the annual update for the FY 2004 national per-visit amounts we use to pay LUPAs and to compute the imputed costs in outlier calculations, we again looked at the FY 2003 rates as a starting point. We then multiply those amounts by the applicable home health market basket increase for FY 2004 to yield the updated per-visit amounts for each home health discipline for FY 2004. (See Table 4 below.)
Sections 1895(b)(4)(A)(ii) and (b)(4)(C) of the Act require the Secretary to establish area wage adjustment factors that reflect the relative level of wages and wage-related costs applicable to the furnishing of home health services and to provide appropriate adjustments to the episode payment amounts under HH PPS to account for area wage differences. We apply the appropriate wage index value to the labor portion of the HH PPS rates based on the geographic area in which the beneficiary received home health services. We determine each HHA's labor market area based on definitions of Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
As discussed previously and set forth in the July 3, 2000 final rule, the statute provides that the wage adjustment factors may be the factors used by the Secretary for purposes of section 1886(d)(3)(E) of the Act for hospital wage adjustment factors. Again, as discussed in the July 3, 2000 final rule, we used the most recent pre-floor and pre-reclassified hospital wage index available at the time of publication of this notice to adjust the labor portion of the HH PPS rates based on the geographic area in which the beneficiary receives the home health services. We believe the use of the most recent available pre-floor and pre-reclassified hospital wage index data results in the appropriate adjustment to the labor portion of the costs as required by statute. (See addenda A and B of this notice with comment period, respectively, for the rural and urban hospital wage indexes. Furthermore, we have added an addendum C that shows a side-by-side comparison of the FY 2002 pre-floor and pre-reclassified hospital wage index and FY 2003 pre-floor and pre-reclassified hospital wage index for the FY 2004 HH PPS update notice. We believe that addendum C provides a clear illustration of changes in the wage index from FY 2002 and FY 2003.)
We ordinarily publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
We believe it is unnecessary to undertake proposed notice and comment rulemaking as the statute requires annual updates to the HH PPS rates, the methodologies used to update the rate have been previously subject to public comment, and this notice reflects the application of previously established methodologies. This required annual update for the FY 2004 PPS rates is dictated by statute and does not require an exercise of discretion. Therefore, for good cause, we waive prior notice and comment procedures. As indicated previously, we are, however, providing a 60-day comment period for public comment.
This document does not impose information collection and recordkeeping requirements. Consequently, it need not be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Because of the large number of items of correspondence we normally receive on
We have examined the impacts of this rule as required by Executive Order 12866 (September 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 16, 1980, Pub. L. 96-354), section 1102(b) of the Social Security Act, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), and Executive Order 13132.
Executive Order 12866 (as amended by Executive Order 13258, which merely reassigns responsibility of duties) directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any 1 year). The update set forth in this notice with comment period applies to Medicare payments under HH PPS in FY 2004. Accordingly, the following analysis describes the impact in FY 2004 only. We estimate that there will be an additional $340 million in FY 2004 expenditures attributable to the FY 2004 market basket increase of 3.3 percent.
The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief of small businesses. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and
In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act requires us to prepare a regulatory impact analysis if a rule may have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. This analysis must conform to the provisions of section 604 of the RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of the Act, we define a small rural hospital as a hospital that is located outside of a metropolitan statistical area (MSA) and has fewer than 100 beds. We have determined that this notice with comment period will not have a significant economic impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in expenditure in any 1 year by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $110 million. We believe this notice will not mandate expenditures in that amount.
Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has Federalism implications. We have reviewed this notice under the threshold criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We have determined that this notice would not have substantial direct effects on the rights, roles, and responsibilities of States.
In accordance with the requirements of section 1895(b)(3) of the Act, we publish an update for each subsequent fiscal year that will provide an update to the payment rates. Section 1895(b)(3) of the Act requires us, for FY 2004, to increase the prospective payment amounts by the applicable home health market basket increase. The home health market basket increase for FY 2004 is 3.3 percent. Taking into account the provisions of section 1895(b)(3) of the Act, the increase for FY 2004 is 3.3 percent.
This notice merely provides a percentage update to all Medicare HHAs. Therefore, we have not furnished any impact tables. We increase the payment to each Medicare HHA equally by the home health market basket update for FY 2004, as required by statute. There is no differential impact among provider types. The impact is in the aggregate. We estimate that there will be an additional $340 million in FY 2004 expenditures attributable to the FY 2004 market basket increase of 3.3 percent. Thus, the anticipated expenditures outlined in this notice exceed the $100 million annual threshold for a major rule as defined in Title 5, USC, section 804(2).
The applicable home health market basket increase of 3.3 percent for FY 2004 applies to all Medicare participating in HHAs. We do not believe there is a differential impact due to the aggregate nature of the update.
This notice will have a positive effect on providers of Medicare home health services by increasing their rate of Medicare payment. We do not anticipate specific effects on other providers. This notice reflects the statutorily required annual update to the HH PPS rates. We do not believe there is a differential impact due to the consistent and aggregate nature of the update.
As discussed in section II, this notice with comment period reflects an annual update to the HH PPS rates as required by statute. Due to the lack of discretion provided in the statutory requirements governing this notice with comment period, we believe the statute provides no latitude for alternatives other than the approach set forth in this notice reflecting the FY 2004 annual update to the HH PPS rates. Other than the positive effect of the market basket increase, this notice with comment will not have a significant economic impact nor will it impose an additional burden on small entities. When a regulation or notice imposes additional burden on small entities, we are required under the RFA to examine alternatives for reducing burden.
Since this notice with comment period will not impose an additional burden, we have not examined alternatives.
We have examined the economic impact of this notice with comment period on small entities and have determined that the economic impact is positive, significant, and that all HHAs will be affected. To the extent that small rural hospitals are affiliated with HHAs, the impact on these facilities will also be positive. Finally, we have determined that the economic effects described above are largely the result of the specific statutory provisions, which this notice serves to announce.
In accordance with the provisions of notice with comment Executive Order 12866, this was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
(1) In order to provide that one or more countries that have not been treated as beneficiary developing countries with respect to one or more eligible articles should be redesignated as beneficiary developing countries with respect to such article or articles for purposes of the GSP, and, in order to provide that one or more countries should no longer be treated as a beneficiary developing country with respect to one or more eligible articles for purposes of the GSP, general note 4(d) to the HTS is modified as provided in section A of Annex I to this proclamation.
(2) In order to designate certain articles as eligible articles for purposes of the GSP, the HTS is modified by amending and sub-dividing the nomenclature of certain existing HTS subheadings as provided in section B of Annex I to this proclamation.
(3)(a) In order to designate certain articles as eligible articles for purposes of the GSP when imported from any beneficiary developing country, the Rates of Duty 1-Special subcolumn for such HTS subheadings is modified as provided in section C(1) of Annex I to this proclamation.
(4) A waiver of the application of section 503(c)(2)(A)(i)(II) of the 1974 Act shall apply to the eligible articles in the HTS subheadings and to the beneficiary developing countries listed in Annex II to this proclamation.
(5) A waiver of the application of section 503(c)(2)(A) of the 1974 Act shall apply to the eligible articles in the HTS subheading and to the beneficiary developing countries set forth in Annex III to this proclamation.
(6) Any provisions of previous proclamations or Executive orders that are inconsistent with the actions taken in this proclamation are superseded to the extent of such inconsistency.
(7) (a) The modifications made by Annex I to this proclamation shall be effective with respect to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after July 1, 2003.