Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Forest Service
Engineers Corps
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled
Inspector General Office, Health and Human Services Department
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Army Department
Engineers Corps
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
Inspector General Office, Health and Human Services Department
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Transportation Security Administration
Fish and Wildlife Service
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau
Drug Enforcement Administration
Justice Programs Office
Employee Benefits Security Administration
Employment Standards Administration
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Research and Special Programs Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Comptroller of the Currency
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.
National Endowment for the Arts (NEA).
Interim final rule, with request for comments.
The National Endowment for the Arts, with the concurrence of the Office of Government Ethics (OGE), is issuing regulations for officers and employees of the NEA that supplement the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch issued by OGE. The supplemental regulations require NEA employees, other than special Government employees, to obtain prior written approval to engage in certain outside employment or related activities.
These regulations take effect on September 5, 2003. Comments are invited and must be received on or before October 6, 2003.
Send comments to Karen Elias, Deputy General Counsel, National Endowment for the Arts, Room 518, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506.
Karen Elias, Deputy General Counsel, National Endowment for the Arts, Room 518, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506. Telephone (202) 682-5418. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may contact the NEA's TDD terminal at (202) 682-5496 Voice/T.T.
On August 7, 1992, OGE published in the
With the concurrence of OGE, 5 CFR 2635.105 authorizes executive branch agencies to publish agency-specific supplemental regulations necessary to implement their respective ethics programs. With OGE's concurrence, the NEA has determined that the following supplemental regulations contained in a new chapter LV, consisting of part 6501, of 5 CFR as set forth in this interim rule are necessary to implement the NEA's ethics program successfully, in light of the NEA's unique programs and operations.
The Foundation's old standards of conduct regulations at 45 CFR part 1105 were applicable to employees of both the NEA and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) until they were superseded by the executive branchwide Standards at 5 CFR part 2635, and by OGE's executive branchwide financial disclosure regulations at 5 CFR part 2634. In a separate rulemaking document being published in the
Section 6501.101 explains that the regulations contained in this interim rule will apply to NEA employees and are supplemental to the executive branchwide standards. Employees of the NEA are also subject to the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch at 5 CFR part 2635, the executive branch financial disclosure and financial interests regulations at 5 CFR parts 2634 and 2640, and the executive branch employees responsibilities and conduct regulations at 5 CFR part 735.
Under 5 CFR 2635.803, an agency that determines it is necessary or desirable for the purposes of administering its ethics program may, by supplemental regulation with OGE's concurrence and co-signature, require its employees to obtain written approval before engaging in outside employment. The Foundation's superseded regulation at 45 CFR part 1105 required NEA employees to obtain advance approval for certain outside employment (that advance approval requirement remained in effect until February 3, 1994 by operation of the prior note following 5 CFR 2635.803 of the Standards (see the January 1, 1997 edition of 5 CFR)). The NEA has determined that it is necessary to the administration of its ethics program to reinstitute the requirement that employees, other than special Government employees, obtain prior approval before engaging in certain types of outside employment that pose the most potential for employees to engage in conduct that might violate applicable conflicts laws and regulations.
Therefore, § 6501.102(a) requires prior approval of outside employment when the outside employment involves a prohibited source. In identifying a “prohibited source” for purposes of this prior approval requirement, the NEA will apply the definition of that term found in the Standards at 5 CFR 2635.203(d). Thus, an employee will have to obtain approval before engaging in outside employment with any person (including an organization more than half of whose members are persons) seeking official action by the NEA; doing business or seeking to do business with the NEA; conducting activities regulated by the NEA; or having interests that may be substantially affected by the performance or
Section 6501.102(c) defines outside employment as including any form of compensated or uncompensated non-Federal employment or business relationship involving the provision of personal services by the employee. It includes writing done under arrangement with another person for production or publication of the written product.
As Deputy General Counsel of the NEA, I have found good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and (d)(3) for waiving, as unnecessary and contrary to the public interest, the general notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for advance public comments, and the 30-day delay in effectiveness as to this interim rule. The reason for this determination is that this rulemaking is related to the NEA's organization, procedure and practice. Nonetheless, this is an interim rulemaking, with provision for a 30-day public comment period. The NEA will review all comments received during the comment period and will consider any modifications that appear appropriate in adopting these rules as final, with the concurrence and co-signature of the Office of Government Ethics.
As Deputy General Counsel of the NEA, I have determined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it only affects NEA employees.
As Deputy General Counsel of the NEA, I have determined that the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) does not apply because these regulations do not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget.
For purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. chapter 25, subchapter II), this rule will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments and will not result in increased expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (as adjusted for inflation) in any one year.
Conflict of interests, Government employees, Standards of conduct.
5 U.S.C. 7301, 5 U.S.C. App. (Ethics in Government Act of 1978); E.O. 12674, 54 FR 15159, 3 CFR, 1989 Comp., p. 215, as modified by E.O. 12731, 55 FR 42547, 3 CFR, 1990 Comp., p. 306; 5 CFR 2635.105, 2635.803.
In accordance with 5 CFR 2635.105, the regulations of this part apply to employees of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and supplement the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch contained in 5 CFR part 2635. In addition to the regulations in 5 CFR part 2635 and this part, employees of the NEA are subject to the executive branch employee responsibilities and conduct regulations at 5 CFR part 735, the executive branch financial disclosure regulations at 5 CFR part 2634, and the executive branch financial interests regulations at 5 CFR part 2640.
(a) Before engaging in any outside employment with a prohibited source within the meaning of 5 CFR 2635.203(d), whether or not for compensation, an employee other than a special Government employee must obtain written approval from his or her immediate supervisor and the Designated Agency Ethics Official. The request for approval shall include the following:
(1) The name of the person, group or other organization for whom the work is to be performed, the type of work to be performed, and the proposed hours of work and approximate dates of employment; and
(2) A description of the employee's NEA responsibilities and the employee's certification that the outside employment will not depend on nonpublic information obtained as a result of the employee's official Government position and that no official duty time or Government property, resources, or facilities not available to the general public will be used in connection with the outside employment.
(b) Approval shall be granted only upon determination that the outside employment is not expected to involve conduct prohibited by statute or Federal regulation, including 5 CFR part 2635.
(c)
National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH).
Interim final rule, with request for comments.
The National Endowment for the Humanities, with the concurrence of the Office of Government Ethics (OGE), is issuing regulations for officers and employees of the NEH that supplement the Standards of Ethics Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch issued by OGE. The supplemental regulations require NEH employees, other than special Government employees, to obtain prior written approval to engage in certain outside employment or related activities.
These regulations take effect on September 5, 2003. Comments are invited and must be received on or before October 6, 2003.
Send comments to Heather Gottry, Assistant General Counsel, National Endowment for the Humanities, Room 529, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506.
Heather Gottry, Assistant General Counsel, National Endowment for the Humanities, Room 529, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506. Telephone (202) 606-8322. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may contact the NEH's TDD terminal at (202) 606-8282 Voice/T.T or (866) 372-2930.
On August 7, 1992, OGE published in the
With the concurrence of OGE, 5 CFR part 2635.105 authorizes executive branch agencies to publish agency-specific supplemental regulations necessary to implement their respective ethics programs. With OGE's concurrence, the NEH has determined that the following supplemental regulations contained in a new chapter LVI, consisting of part 6601, of 5 CFR as set forth in this interim rule, are necessary to implement the NEH's ethics program successfully, in light of the NEH's unique programs and operations.
The Foundation's old standard of conduct regulations at 45 CFR were applicable to employees of both the NEH and the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) until they were superseded by the executive branchwide Standards at 5 CFR part 2635, and by OGE's executive branchwide financial disclosure regulations at 5 CFR part 2634. In a separate rulemaking document being published in the
Section 6601.101 explains that the regulations contained in this interim rule will apply to NEH employees and are supplemental to the executive branchwide standards. Employees of the NEH are also subject to the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch at 5 CFR part 2635, the executive branch financial disclosure and financial interests regulations at 5 CFR parts 2634 and 2640, and the executive branch employees responsibilities and conduct regulations at 5 CFR part 735.
Under 5 CFR 2635.803, an agency that determines it is necessary or desirable for the purposes of administering its ethics program may, by supplemental regulation with OGE's concurrence and co-signature, require its employees to obtain written approval before engaging in outside employment. The Foundation's superseded regulation at 45 CFR part 1105 required NEH employees to obtain advance approval for certain outside employment. That NEH advance approval requirement remained in effect until February 3, 1995 by operation of the prior note following 5 CFR part 2635.803 of the Standards and prior appendix A to 5 CFR part 2635 (see the January 1, 1997 edition of 5 CFR and 59 FR 4779-4780 (February 2, 1994)). The NEH has determined that it is necessary to the administration of its ethics program to reinstitute the requirement that employees, other than special Government employees, obtain prior approval before engaging in certain types of outside employment that may pose the most potential for employees to violate applicable conflicts laws and regulations.
Therefore, § 6601.102(a) requires prior approval of outside employment when the outside employment involves a prohibited source. In identifying a “prohibited source” for purposes of this prior approval requirement, the NEH will apply the definition of that term found in the Standards at 5 CFR part 2635.203(d). Thus, an employee would have to obtain approval before engaging in outside employment with any person (including an organization more than half of whose members are persons) seeking official action by the NEH; doing business or seeking to do business with the NEH; conducting activities regulated by the NEH; or having interests that may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of the employee's official duties. Section 6601.102(a) also requires written requests for approval to be submitted to the employee's immediate supervisor and his or her Designated Agency Ethics Official and specifies the information to be included in the employee's request. Section 6601.102(b) states the standard to be used in approving or denying requests for approval of outside employment. The basis for denial, if any, must be found in applicable statutes or Federal regulations, including the executive branchwide Standards.
Section 6601.102(c) defines outside employment as including any form of compensated or uncompensated non-Federal employment or business relationship involving the provision of personal services by the employee. It includes writing done under arrangement with another person for production or publication of the written product.
As Deputy General Counsel of the NEH, I have found good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and (d)(3) for waiving, as unnecessary and contrary to the public interest, the general notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for advance public comment, and the 30-day delay in effectiveness as to this interim rule. The reason for this determination is that this rulemaking is related to the NEH's organization, procedure and practice. Nonetheless, this is an interim rulemaking with provision for a 30-day public comment period. The NEH will review all comments received during the comment
As Deputy General Counsel of the NEH, I have determined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it only affects NEH employees.
As Deputy General Counsel of the NEH, I have determined that the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) does not apply because these regulations do not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget.
For purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. chapter 25, subchapter II), this rule will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments and will not result in increased expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (as adjusted for inflation) in any one year.
Conflict of interests, Government employees, Standards of conduct.
5 U.S.C. 7301, 5 U.S.C. App. (Ethics in Government Act of 1978); E.O. 12674, 54 FR 15159, 3 CFR, 1989 Comp., p. 215, as modified by E.O. 12731, 55 FR 42547, 3 CFR, 1990 Comp., p. 306; 5 CFR 2635.105, 2635.803.
In accordance with 5 CFR part 2635.105, the regulations of this part apply to employees of the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) and supplement the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch contained in 5 CFR part 2635. In addition to the regulations in 5 CFR part 2635 and this part, employees of the NEH are subject to the executive branch employee responsibilities and conduct regulations at 5 CFR part 735, the executive branch financial disclosure regulations at 5 CFR part 2634, and the executive branch financial interests regulations at 5 CFR part 2640.
(a) Before engaging in any outside employment with a prohibited source within the meaning of 5 CFR 2635.203(d), whether or not for compensation, an employee other than a special Government employee must obtain written approval from his or her immediate supervisor and the Designated Agency Ethics Official. The request for approval shall include the following:
(1) A brief description of the employee's official duties, a brief description of the proposed outside employment (including the name of the person, group or other organization for whom the work is to be performed), and a brief description of the employee's discipline or inherent area of expertise based on experience or educational background; and
(2) Responses to the following questions:
(i) Whether the proposed outside employment will draw on non-public information or pertain to a matter to which the employee is presently assigned or has been assigned within the last year;
(ii) Whether the proposed outside employment pertains to an ongoing or announced agency policy or program;
(iii) Whether the proposed outside employment will involve teaching a course which is part of the established curriculum of an accredited institution of higher education, secondary school, elementary school, or an education or training program sponsored by a Federal, State or local government entity;
(iv) Whether the sponsor of the proposed outside employment has any interests before the NEH that may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of the employee's duties;
(v) Whether the employee intends to refer to his or her official NEH position during the proposed outside employment, and, if so, the text of any disclaimers that he or she will use; and
(vi) Whether the employee will receive any payment or compensation for the proposed activity, and, if so, how much.
(b) Approval shall be granted only upon determination that the outside employment is not expected to involve conduct prohibited by statute or Federal regulation, including 5 CFR part 2635.
(c) Outside employment means any form of compensated or uncompensated non-Federal employment or business relationship involving the provision of personal services by the employee. It includes, but is not limited to, personal services such as acting as an officer, director, employee, agent, attorney, consultant, contractor, general partner, trustee, teacher or speaker. It includes writing done under arrangement with another person for production or publication of any written product.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special conditions.
These special conditions are issued for the Embraer Model ERJ-170 series airplanes. These airplanes will have novel or unusual design features when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. These design features are associated with (1) Electronic Flight Control Systems and (2) Automatic Takeoff Thrust Control System (ATTCS). The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards
August 15, 2003.
Tom Groves, FAA, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-1503; facsimile (425) 227-1149; email
On May 20, 1999, Embraer applied for a type certificate for its new Model ERJ-170 airplane. Two basic versions of the Model ERJ-170 are included in the application. The ERJ-170-100 airplane is a 69-78 passenger, twin-engine regional jet with a maximum takeoff weight of 81,240 pounds. The ERJ-170-200 is a derivative with a lengthened fuselage. Passenger capacity for the ERJ-170-200 is increased to 86, and maximum takeoff weight is increased to 85,960 pounds.
Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Embraer must show that the Model ERJ-170 series airplanes meet the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-98.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, Embraer Model ERJ-170 series airplanes must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36, and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy pursuant to § 611 of Public Law 93-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”
Special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, are issued in accordance with § 11.38 and become part of the type certification basis in accordance with § 21.17(a)(2), Amendment 21-69, effective September 16, 1991.
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or unusual design features, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under the provisions of § 21.101(a)(1), Amendment 21-69, effective September 16, 1991.
The Embraer Model ERJ-170 series airplanes will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features:
In airplanes with electronic flight control systems, there may not always be a direct correlation between pilot control position and the associated airplane control surface position. Under certain circumstances, a commanded maneuver that does not require a large control input may require a large control surface movement, possibly encroaching on a control surface or actuation system limit without the flightcrew's knowledge. This situation can arise in either manually piloted or autopilot flight and may be further exacerbated on airplanes where the pilot controls are not back-driven during autopilot system operation. Unless the flightcrew is made aware of excessive deflection or impending control surface limiting, control of the airplane by the pilot or autoflight system may be inadvertently continued so as to cause loss of control of the airplane or other unsafe characteristics of stability or performance.
Given these possibilities, a special condition for Embraer Model ERJ-170 series airplanes addresses control surface position awareness. This special condition requires that suitable display or annunciation of flight control position be provided to the flightcrew when near full surface authority (not crew-commanded) is being used, unless other existing indications are found adequate or sufficient to prompt any required crew actions. Suitability of such a display or annunciation must take into account that some piloted maneuvers may demand the airplane's maximum performance capability, possibly associated with a full control surface deflection. Therefore, simple display systems—that would function in both intended and unexpected control-limiting situations—must be properly balanced to provide needed crew awareness and minimize nuisance alerts. A monitoring system that compares airplane motion, surface deflection, and pilot demand could be useful in eliminating nuisance alerting.
The Embraer Model ERJ-170 series airplane will incorporate an Automatic Takeoff Thrust Control System (ATTCS) in the engine's Full Authority Digital Electronic Control (FADEC) system architecture. The manufacturer requested that the FAA issue special conditions to allow performance credit to be taken for use of this function during go-around to show compliance with the requirement of § 25.121(d) regarding the approach climb gradient.
Section 25.904 and Appendix I refer to operation of ATTCS only during takeoff. Model ERJ-170 series airplanes have this feature for go-around also. The ATTCS will automatically increase thrust to the maximum go-around thrust available under the ambient conditions in the following circumstances:
• If an engine failure occurs during an all-engines-operating go-around, or
• If an engine has failed or been shut down earlier in the flight.
This maximum go-around thrust is the same as that used to show compliance with the approach-climb-gradient requirement of § 25.121(d). If the ATTCS is not operating, selection of go-around thrust will result in a lower thrust level.
The part 25 standards for ATTCS, contained in § 25.904 [Automatic takeoff thrust control system (ATTCS) and Appendix I], specifically restrict performance credit for ATTCS to takeoff. Expanding the scope of the standards to include other phases of flight, such as go-around, was considered when the standards were issued but was not accepted because of the effect on the flightcrew's workload. As stated in the preamble to amendment 25-62:
In regard to ATTCS credit for approach climb and go-around maneuvers, current regulations preclude a higher thrust for the approach climb [§ 25.121(d)] than for the landing climb [§ 25.119]. The workload required for the flightcrew to monitor and select from multiple in-flight thrust settings in the event of an engine failure during a critical point in the approach, landing, or go-around operations is excessive. Therefore, the FAA does not agree that the scope of the amendment should be changed to include the use of ATTCS for anything except the takeoff phase.” (Refer to 52 FR 43153, November 9, 1987.)
The ATTCS incorporated on Embraer Model ERJ-170 series airplanes allows the pilot to use the same power setting procedure during a go-around, regardless of whether or not an engine fails. In either case, the pilot obtains go-around power by moving the throttles into the forward (takeoff/go-around) throttle detent. Since the ATTCS is permanently armed for the go-around phase, it will function automatically following an engine failure and advance the remaining engine to the ATTCS thrust level. This design adequately addresses the concerns about pilot workload which were discussed in the preamble to Amendment 25-62.
The system design allows the pilot to enable or disable the ATTCS function for takeoff. If the pilot enables ATTCS, a white “ATTCS” icon will be displayed on the Engine Indication and Crew Alerting System (EICAS) beneath the thrust mode indication on the display. This white icon indicates to the pilot that the ATTCS function is enabled. When the throttle lever is put in the TO/GA (takeoff/go-around) detent position, the white icon turns green, indicating to the pilot that the ATTCS is armed. If the pilot disables the ATTCS function for takeoff, no indication appears on the EICAS.
Regardless of whether the ATTCS is enabled for takeoff, it is automatically enabled when the airplane reaches the end of the take-off phase (that is, the thrust lever is below the TO/GA position and the altitude is greater than 1,700 feet above the ground, 5 minutes have elapsed since lift-off, or the airplane speed is greater than 140 knots).
During climb, cruise and descent, when the throttle is not in the TO/GA position, the ATTCS indication is inhibited. During descent and approach to land, until the thrust management system go-around mode is enabled—either by crew action or automatically when the landing gear are down and locked and flaps are extended—the ATTCS indication remains inhibited.
When the go-around thrust mode is enabled, unless the ATTCS system has failed, the white “ATTCS” icon will again be shown on the EICAS, indicating to the pilot that the system is enabled and in an operative condition in the event a go-around is necessary. If the thrust lever is subsequently placed in the TO/GA position, the ATTCS icon turns green, indicating that the system is armed and ready to operate.
If an engine fails during the go-around or during a one-engine-inoperative go-around in which an engine had been shut down or otherwise made inoperative earlier in the flight, the EICAS indication will be GA RSV (go-around reserve) when the thrust levers are placed in the TO/GA position. The GA RSV indication means that the maximum go-around thrust under the ambient conditions has been commanded.
The propulsive thrust used to determine compliance with the approach climb requirements of § 25.121(d) is limited to the lesser of (i) the thrust provided by the ATTCS system, or (ii) 111 percent of the thrust resulting from the initial thrust setting with the ATTCS system failing to perform its uptrim function and without action by the crew to reset thrust. This requirement limits the adverse performance effects of a failure of the ATTCS and ensures adequate all-engines-operating go-around performance.
These special conditions require a showing of compliance with the provisions of § 25.904 and Appendix I applicable to the approach climb and go-around maneuvers.
The definition of a critical time interval for the approach climb case is of primary importance. During this time it must be extremely improbable to violate a flight path derived from the gradient requirement of § 25.121(d). That gradient requirement implies a minimum one-engine-inoperative flight path with the airplane in the approach configuration. The engine may have been inoperative before initiating the go-around, or it may become inoperative during the go-around. The definition of the critical time interval must consider both possibilities.
Notice of proposed special conditions No. 25-03-03-SC for the Embraer Model ERJ-170 series airplane was published in the
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Embraer Model ERJ-170 series airplanes. Should Embraer apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design features, these special conditions would apply to that model as well under the provisions of § 21.101(a)(1), Amendment 21-69, effective September 16, 1991.
Under standard practice, the effective date of final special conditions would be 30 days after the date of publication in the
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on the Embraer Model ERJ-170 series airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability, and it affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
In addition to compliance with §§ 25.143, 25.671 and 25.672, when a flight condition exists where, without being commanded by the crew, control surfaces are coming so close to their limits that return to the normal flight envelope and (or) continuation of safe flight requires a specific crew action, a suitable flight control position annunciation shall be provided to the crew, unless other existing indications are found adequate or sufficient to prompt that action.
The term suitable also indicates an appropriate balance between nuisance and necessary operation.
To use the thrust provided by the ATTCS to determine the approach climb performance limitations, the Embraer Model ERJ-170 series airplane must comply with the requirements of § 25.904 and Appendix I, including the following requirements pertaining to the go-around phase of flight:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) When conducting an approach for landing using ATTCS, the critical time interval is defined as 120 seconds. A shorter time interval may be used if justified by a rational analysis. An accepted analysis that has been used on past aircraft certification programs is as follows:
(i) The critical time interval begins at a point on a 2.5 degree approach glide path from which, assuming a simultaneous engine and ATTCS failure, the resulting approach climb flight path intersects a flight path originating at a later point on the same approach path corresponding to the part 25 one-engine-inoperative approach climb gradient. The period of time from the point of simultaneous engine and ATTCS failure to the intersection of these flight paths must be no shorter than the time interval used in evaluating the critical time interval for takeoff, beginning from the point of simultaneous engine and ATTCS failure and ending upon reaching a height of 400 feet.
(ii) The critical time interval ends at the point on a minimum performance, all-engines-operating go-around flight path from which, assuming a simultaneous engine and ATTCS failure, the resulting minimum approach climb flight path intersects a flight path corresponding to the part 25 minimum one-engine-inoperative approach-climb-gradient. The all-engines-operating go-around flight path and the part 25 one-engine-inoperative, approach-climb-gradient flight path originate from a common point on a 2.5 degree approach path. The period of time from the point of simultaneous engine and ATTCS failure to the intersection of these flight paths must be no shorter than the time interval used in evaluating the critical time interval for the takeoff beginning from the point of simultaneous engine and ATTCS failure and ending upon reaching a height of 400 feet.
(2) The critical time interval must be determined at the altitude resulting in the longest critical time interval for which one-engine-inoperative approach climb performance data are presented in the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM).
(3) The critical time interval is illustrated in the following figure:
The engine and ATTCS failed time interval must be no shorter than the time interval from the point of simultaneous engine and ATTCS failure to a height of 400 feet used to comply with I25.2(b) for ATTCS use during takeoff.
2. Performance and System Reliability Requirements.
The applicant must comply with the following performance and ATTCS reliability requirements:
(a) An ATTCS failure or combination of failures in the ATTCS during the critical time interval:
(1) Shall not prevent the insertion of the maximum approved go-around thrust or power or must be shown to be an improbable event.
(2) Shall not result in a significant loss or reduction in thrust or power or must be shown to be an extremely improbable event.
(b) The concurrent existence of an ATTCS failure and an engine failure during the critical time interval must be shown to be extremely improbable.
(c) All applicable performance requirements of part 25 must be met with an engine failure occurring at the most critical point during go-around with the ATTCS system functioning.
(d) The probability analysis must include consideration of ATTCS failure occurring after the time at which the flightcrew last verifies that the ATTCS is in a condition to operate until the beginning of the critical time interval.
(e) The propulsive thrust obtained from the operating engine after failure of the critical engine during a go-around used to show compliance with the one-engine-inoperative climb requirements of § 25.121(d) may not be greater than the lesser of:
(i) The actual propulsive thrust resulting from the initial setting of power or thrust controls with the ATTCS functioning; or
(ii) 111 percent of the propulsive thrust resulting from the initial setting of power or thrust controls with the ATTCS failing to reset thrust or power and without any action by the crew to reset thrust or power.
3. Thrust Setting.
(a) The initial go-around thrust setting on each engine at the beginning of the go-around phase may not be less than any of the following:
(1) That required to permit normal operation of all safety-related systems and equipment dependent upon engine thrust or power lever position; or
(2) That shown to be free of hazardous engine response characteristics when thrust or power is advanced from the initial go-around position to the maximum approved power setting.
(b) For approval of an ATTCS for go-around, the thrust setting procedure must be the same for go-arounds initiated with all engines operating as for go-arounds initiated with one engine inoperative.
4. Powerplant Controls.
(a) In addition to the requirements of § 25.1141, no single failure or malfunction, or probable combination thereof, of the ATTCS, including associated systems, may cause the failure of any powerplant function necessary for safety.
(b) The ATTCS must be designed to accomplish the following:
(1) Following any single engine failure during go around: Apply thrust or power on the operating engine(s) to achieve the maximum approved go-around thrust without exceeding engine operating limits;
(2) Permit manual decrease or increase in thrust or power up to the maximum go-around thrust approved for the airplane under existing conditions through the use of the power lever. For airplanes equipped with limiters that automatically prevent engine operating limits from being exceeded under existing ambient conditions, other means may be used to increase the thrust in the event of an ATTCS failure. Any such means must be located on or forward of the power levers; be easily identified and operated under all operating conditions by a single action of either pilot with the hand that is normally used to actuate the power levers, and meet the requirements of § 25.777 (a), (b), and (c);
(3) Provide a means to verify to the flightcrew before beginning an approach for landing that the ATTCS is in a condition to operate (unless it can be demonstrated that an ATTCS failure combined with an engine failure during an entire flight is extremely improbable); and
(4) Provide a means for the flightcrew to deactivate the automatic function. This means must be designed to prevent inadvertent deactivation.
5. In addition to the requirements of § 25.1305, the following requirements pertaining to powerplant instruments must be met:
(a) A means must be provided to indicate when the ATTCS is in the armed or ready condition; and
(b) If the inherent flight characteristics of the airplane do not provide adequate warning that an engine has failed, a warning system that is independent of the ATTCS must be provided to give the pilot a clear warning of any engine failure during go-around.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain Airbus Model A330 and A340 series airplanes, that requires, among other actions, a detailed inspection of the rudder travel limitation unit for proper adjustment, measurement of the desynchronization of rudder servo-controls, installation of rigging placards for rudder servo-controls, and follow-on and corrective actions if necessary. This action is necessary to prevent desynchronization of the rudder servo-controls, which could result in high load factors on the rudder servo-controls, and consequent reduced structural integrity of the attachment fittings for the rudder servo-controls. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Effective October 10, 2003.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of October 10, 2003.
The service information referenced in this AD may be obtained from Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France. This information may be examined at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-2125; fax (425) 227-1149.
A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Airbus Model A330 and A340 series airplanes was published in the
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to the comments received.
Two commenters request that the compliance time of the proposed AD be extended from 16 months to 18 months. One of the commenters is the operator of the nine U.S.-registered Airbus Model A330 airplanes affected by the proposed AD. Extension of the compliance time to 18 months would match the Airbus C-check interval. The second commenter supports the comments of the first commenter and offers no additional comment.
The FAA does not agree with the commenters' request to extend the
After careful review of the available data, including the comments noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.
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. However, for clarity and consistency in this final rule, we have retained the language of the NPRM regarding that material.
We have reviewed the figures we have used over the past several years to calculate AD costs to operators. To account for various inflationary costs in the airline industry, we find it necessary to increase the labor rate used in these calculations from $60 per work hour to $65 per work hour. The cost impact information, below, reflects this increase in the specified hourly labor rate.
The FAA estimates that 9 Airbus Model A330 series airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 6 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required inspection and measurement, and 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the required installation of the rigging placards, and that the average labor rate is $65 per work hour. Required rigging placards will be provided to the operators at no cost. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $4,095, or $455 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this 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.
Currently, there are no Airbus Model A340 series airplanes on the U.S. Register. However, should an affected airplane be imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future, it would require 6 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required inspection and measurement, and 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the required installation of the rigging placards, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required placards would be provided to the operators at no cost. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD for Model A340 operators would be $455 per airplane.
The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to each airplane identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (e) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.
To prevent desynchronization of the rudder servo-controls, which could result in high load factors on the rudder servo-controls, and consequent reduced structural integrity of the attachment fittings for the rudder servo-controls, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 16 months after the effective date of this AD: Perform a one-time detailed inspection of the rudder travel limitation unit (RTLU) (including installing rigging pins on the bellcrank and the right and left input levers) for proper adjustment, per the Accomplishment Instructions specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3084 (for Model A330 series airplanes); or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-4088 (for Model A340 series airplanes); both dated March 28, 2001; as applicable. Although the service bulletins reference a reporting requirement, such reporting is not required by this AD.
(1) If it is possible to install rigging pins on both input levers, the RTLU is properly
(2) If it is not possible to install the rigging pins on either input lever, before further flight, adjust the length of the appropriate adjustable rod, per the Accomplishment Instructions specified in the applicable service bulletin.
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.”
(b) Within 16 months after the effective date of this AD: Measure the desynchronization value (value D) of the rudder servo-controls and, depending on the measurement, before further flight, perform the applicable corrective actions (
(c) If any rudder servo-control was replaced per the requirements of paragraph (b) of this AD, do paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.
(1) Before further flight, perform either a detailed inspection or a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection for cracks in the attachment fittings of the desynchronized rudder servo-controls, and perform the applicable follow-on and corrective actions (
(2) Repeat the inspection required by paragraph (c)(1) of this AD at the following intervals:
(i) If the immediately preceding inspection was conducted using detailed inspection techniques, conduct the next inspection within 300 flight cycles; or
(ii) If the immediately preceding inspection was conducted using HFEC techniques, conduct the next inspection within 6,000 flight cycles.
(d) Concurrently with the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this AD, install appropriate rigging placards for the rudder servo-controls, per Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3082 (for Model A330 series airplanes); or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-4086 (for Model A340 series airplanes); both dated March 28, 2001; as applicable.
(e) 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, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA. Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the International Branch, ANM-116.
(f) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(g) The actions shall be done in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3082, dated March 28, 2001; Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3084, dated March 28, 2001; Airbus Service Bulletin A330-55-3028, excluding Appendix 01, dated May 28, 2001; Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-4086, dated March 28, 2001; Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-4088, dated March 28, 2001; and Airbus Service Bulletin A340-55-4026, excluding Appendix 01, dated May 28, 2001; as applicable. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
The subject of this AD is addressed in French airworthiness directives 2001-156(B) and 2001-157(B), both dated May 2, 2001.
(h) This amendment becomes effective on October 10, 2003.
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Final rule; correction.
It has come to the attention of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission) recently that the equation defining the criteria for the reflective tire and rim test that appears in the current CPSC bicycle regulations has several typographical errors. Therefore, the Commission is issuing this immediately effective revision to the pertinent portion of the those regulations to correct the errors.
This rule is effective September 5, 2003.
Vincent Amodeo, Directorate for Engineering Sciences, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, DC 20207; telephone (301) 504-7570; e-mail
The Commission's bicycle regulations issued under authority of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA), 15 U.S.C. 1261-1278, appear at 16 CFR part 1512. The current version of the portion of those regulations establishing the criteria for testing reflective tires and rims contains several typographical errors. In particular, in § 1512.18(o)(2)(iv), in the Ratio equation, the symbol “θ” for the entrance angle is missing and the symbol “Φ” for the observation angle is incorrectly shown as a lower case “o”. The correct equation reads as follows:
The symbols θ and Φ are also omitted in the sentence following the Ratio equation. Accordingly, the Commission is issuing this immediately effective amendment to § 1512.18(o)(2)(iv) to correct these errors.
Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) authorizes an agency to dispense with certain notice procedures for a rule when it finds “good cause” to do so. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). Specifically, under section 553(b)(3)(B), the requirement for notice and an opportunity to comment does not apply when the agency, for good cause, finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” This amendment corrects obvious typographical errors in the current versions of § 1512.18(o)(2)(iv) and does not change the criteria set forth therein. Accordingly, the Commission hereby finds that notice of, and public comment on, this technical correction are unnecessary.
Section 553(d)(3) of the APA authorizes an agency, “for good cause found and published with the rule,” to dispense with the otherwise applicable requirement that a rule be published in the
Because this technical correction is being issued as a final rule not subject to notice and comment, it is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
The Commission's regulations at 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1) state that rules or safety standards to provide design or performance requirements for products normally have little or no potential for affecting the human environment. Because this amendment is a technical correction that makes no change to the substantive requirements of the portion of the regulations being amended, the Commission concludes that no environmental assessment or environmental impact statement is required.
As provided for in Executive Order 12988 (February 5, 1996), the CPSC states the preemptive effect of this technical correction amendment as follows. The FHSA provides that, generally, if the Commission issues a banning rule under section 2(q) of the FHSA to protect against a risk of illness or injury associated with a hazardous substance, “no State or political subdivision of a State may establish or continue in effect a requirement applicable to such substance and designed to protect against the same risk of illness or injury unless such requirement is identical to the requirement established under such regulations.” 15 U.S.C. 1261n(b)(1)(B). Upon application to the Commission, a State or local standard may be excepted from this preemptive effect if the State or local standard (1) provides a higher degree of protection from the risk of injury or illness than the FHSA standard and (2) does not unduly burden interstate commerce. In addition, the Federal government, or a State or local government, may establish and continue in effect a non-identical requirement that provides a higher degree of protection than the FHSA requirement for the hazardous substance for the Federal, State or local government's own use. 15 U.S.C. 1261n(b)(2). Thus, this technical correction amendment preempts non-identical state or local requirements designed to protect against the same risk of injury.
Secs. 2(f)(1)(D), (q)(1)(A), (s), 3(e)(1), 74 Stat. 372, 374, 375, as amended, 80 Stat. 1304-05, 83 Stat. 187-89 (15 U.S.C. 1261, 1262); Pub. L. 107-319, 116 Stat. 2776.
(o) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
EPA is announcing approval of revisions to the Nebraska State Implementation Plan (SIP) and Operating Permits Program. On September 5, 2002, the state updated its air program construction and operating permitting rules, its definitions rule, and emission inventory reporting rule. Approval of these revised rules will ensure consistency between the state and Federally-approved rules, and ensure Federal enforceability of the state's revised air program rules.
This direct final rule will be effective November 4, 2003, unless EPA receives adverse comments by October 6, 2003. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Comments may be submitted either by mail or electronically. Written comments should be submitted to Wayne Kaiser, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Electronic comments should be sent either to Wayne Kaiser at
Copies of documents relative to this action are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the above-listed Region 7 location. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in advance.
Wayne Kaiser at (913) 551-7603 or by E-mail at
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This section provides additional
What is a SIP?
What is the Federal approval process for a SIP?
What does Federal approval of a state regulation mean to me?
What is the part 70 Operating Permits Program?
What is the Federal approval process for an operating permits program?
What does Federal approval of a state operating permits program mean to me?
What is being addressed in this document?
Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision and part 70 program revision been met?
What action is EPA taking?
Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires states to develop air pollution regulations and control strategies to ensure that state air quality meets the national ambient air quality standards established by us. These ambient standards are established under section 109 of the CAA, and they currently address six criteria pollutants. These pollutants are: Carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.
Each state must submit these regulations and control strategies to us for approval and incorporation into the Federally-enforceable SIP.
Each Federally-approved SIP protects air quality primarily by addressing air pollution at its point of origin. These SIPs can be extensive, containing state regulations or other enforceable documents and supporting information such as emission inventories, monitoring networks, and modeling demonstrations.
In order for state regulations to be incorporated into the Federally-enforceable SIP, states must formally adopt the regulations and control strategies consistent with state and Federal requirements. This process generally includes a public notice, public hearing, public comment period, and a formal adoption by a state-authorized rulemaking body.
Once a state rule, regulation, or control strategy is adopted, the state submits it to us for inclusion into the SIP. We must provide public notice and seek additional public comment regarding the proposed Federal action on the state submission. If adverse comments are received, they must be addressed prior to any final Federal action by us.
All state regulations and supporting information approved by us under section 110 of the CAA are incorporated into the Federally-approved SIP. Records of such SIP actions are maintained in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at Title 40, part 52, entitled “Approval and Promulgations of Implementation Plans.” The actual state regulations which are approved are not reproduced in their entirety in the CFR outright but are “incorporated by reference,” which means that we have approved a given state regulation with a specific effective date.
Enforcement of the state regulation before and after it is incorporated into the Federally-approved SIP is primarily a state responsibility. However, after the regulation is Federally approved, we are authorized to take enforcement action against violators. Citizens are also offered legal recourse to address violations as described in the CAA.
The CAA Amendments of 1990 require all states to develop operating permits programs that meet certain Federal criteria. In implementing this program, the states are to require certain sources of air pollution to obtain permits that contain all applicable requirements under the CAA. One purpose of the part 70 operating permits program is to improve enforcement by issuing each source a single permit that consolidates all of the applicable CAA requirements into a Federally-enforceable document. By consolidating all of the applicable requirements for a facility into one document, the source, the public, and the permitting authorities can more easily determine what CAA requirements apply and how compliance with those requirements is determined.
Sources required to obtain an operating permit under this program include “major” sources of air pollution and certain other sources specified in the CAA or in our implementing regulations. For example, all sources regulated under the acid rain program, regardless of size, must obtain permits. Examples of major sources include those that emit 100 tons per year or more of volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, lead, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, or PM
In order for state regulations to be incorporated into the Federally-enforceable Title V operating permits program, states must formally adopt regulations consistent with state and Federal requirements. This process generally includes a public notice, public hearing, public comment period, and a formal adoption by a state-authorized rulemaking body.
Once a state rule, regulation, or control strategy is adopted, the state submits it to us for inclusion into the approved operating permits program. We must provide public notice and seek additional public comment regarding the proposed Federal action on the state submission. If adverse comments are received, they must be addressed prior to any final Federal action by us.
All state regulations and supporting information approved by EPA under section 502 of the CAA are incorporated into the Federally-approved operating permits program. Records of such actions are maintained in the CFR at Title 40, part 70, appendix A, entitled “Approval Status of State and Local Operating Permits Programs.”
Enforcement of the state regulation before and after it is incorporated into the Federally-approved operating permits program is primarily a state responsibility. However, after the regulation is Federally approved, we are authorized to take enforcement action against violators. Citizens are also offered legal recourse to address violations as described in section 304 of the CAA.
The state of Nebraska has requested that we approve as a revision to the Nebraska SIP, part 70 Operating Permits Program, and section 112(l) air toxics program rule revisions adopted by the Nebraska Environmental Quality Council on September 5, 2002. In its submission, the state also requested that we not take action, at this time, on certain revisions, as discussed below, relating to the state's “permit by rule.” The revisions to Title 129—Nebraska Air Quality Regulations which we are approving in today's rule are:
Chapter 1—Definitions, was revised to add new definitions for: Air Quality Control Region, AP-42, Insignificant activities, Low emitter, Method 9, Method 22, Mobile source, Speciation,
Chapter 5—Operating Permits—When Required. Clarifying terms were added to the terms Class I and Class II permits. Class I also means major source, and Class II means minor source.
Chapter 6—Emissions Reporting: When Required. The emissions reporting requirements were clarified to distinguish between non-hazardous and hazardous pollutants, and a reference to Appendix III was added. This appendix, otherwise called the Insignificant Activities List, specifies the hazardous air pollutants and quantities required to be reported on the emission inventory form.
Chapter 30—Open Fires, Prohibited; Exceptions. This revision broadens the range of groups that may be issued open burning permits for the purpose of plant and wildlife parks management when approved by the Director.
Appendix III—Reporting Levels of Hazardous Air Pollutants for Emissions Inventory. This table (the Insignificant Activities List) has been used by the Department for some time, but now has been codified into Title 129 of the state rules.
The state has also adopted a permit-by-rule provision in chapter 42 of Title 129 of the state rules. Because the state is in the process of revising chapter 42, and we are working with the state to make appropriate revisions, Nebraska has requested that we not consider chapter 42 as part of its official submission at this time. In keeping with that request, we are also not acting on portions of the submission which reference chapter 42 identified below. This will avoid confusion by ensuring that the Federally-approved requirements do not cross-reference other requirements which are not Federally approved at this time. We will be acting on these provisions when the state submits its revised chapter 42 for approval.
The specific portions of the September 5, 2002, revisions which are not approved are as follows:
The state submittal has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submittal also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In addition, as explained above and in more detail in the technical support document which is part of this document, the revisions approved today meet the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations. Finally, the approved revisions meet the substantive requirements of Title V of the 1990 CAA Amendments and 40 CFR part 70.
We are approving as an amendment to the Nebraska SIP revisions to Title 129, chapters 1, 5, 6, and 30 as described in this rule. We are also approving as a program revision to the state's part 70 Operating Permits Program revisions to Title 129, chapters 1, 5, 6, and appendix III. Finally, we are approving pursuant to section 112(l) revisions to chapter 5. These revisions to the state rules became effective November 20, 2002.
EPA is processing this action as a direct final action because the revisions make routine changes to the existing rules which are noncontroversial. Therefore, we do not anticipate any adverse comments. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
You may submit comments either electronically or by mail. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate rulemaking identification number, NE 190-1190a, 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.
1.
a.
b.
2.
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
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 4, 2003. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Operating permits, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
The addition and revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
42 U.S.C. 7401
Nebraska; City of Omaha; Lincoln-Lancaster County Health Department.
(g) The Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality approved revisions to NDEQ Title 129, chapters 1, 5, 6, and appendix III (which codifies its prior Federally approved Insignificant Activities List) on September 5, 2002, which became effective on November 20, 2002. These revisions were submitted on May 1, 2003. We are approving these program revisions effective November 4, 2003.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of propylene carbonate when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations applied pre- and post-harvest to agricultural commodities. Huntsman Corporation submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, requesting an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of propylene carbonate.
This regulation is effective September 5, 2003. Objections and requests for hearings, identified by docket ID number OPP-2003-0284, must be received on or before November 4, 2003.
Written objections and hearing requests submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit VIII. 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 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
The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.1001(c) be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of propylene carbonate, also known as 1,3-Dioxolan-2-one, 4-methyl- (CAS Reg. No. 108-32-7).
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for 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) defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”
EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings.
Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability and the relationship of this information 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 propylene carbonate are discussed in this unit. The Agency has reviewed 12 toxicity studies using propylene carbonate as the test substance. The results of those reviews are listed in the following Table 1:
For propylene carbonate, toxicity was assessed, in part, by a process called structure-activity-relationship (SAR). In this process, the chemical's structural similarity to other chemicals (for which data are available) is used to determine toxicity. For human health, this process, can be used to assess absorption and metabolism, mutagenicity, carcinogenicity, developmental and reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, systemic effects, immunotoxicity, and sensitization and irritation. This is a qualitative assessment using terms such as good, not likely, poor, moderate, or high.
For propylene carbonate the SAR assessment determined that the chemical was not structurally related to any known carcinogens. The following human exposures were examined as part of the analysis: Inhalation, dermal, exposures to the eyes, and drinking water. Absorption of propylene carbonate is expected to be good (well-absorbed) via all routes (oral, dermal and inhalation) based on physical/chemical properties. There are concerns for effects on the liver and kidneys, solvent-type neurotoxicity and developmental toxicity at high dose levels, and irritation to mucous
The SAR did note a concern for solvent neurotoxicity, i.e., neurotoxic effects that can occur due to “high” and/or “prolonged” dermal and inhalation exposures to organic solvents. It should be noted that the inclusion of the phrase “solvent-type neurotoxicity” in the SAR assessment does not necessarily indicate chemical-specific concerns. By including this statement those performing the SAR assessment are acknowledging that the chemical is a member of a class of chemicals that can exhibit solvent neurotoxicity.
The Agency used two sources of information to determine the toxicity of propylene carbonate: The 12 toxicity studies submitted by the petitioner and reviewed by the Agency, and a SAR assessment. The two sources of data support each other. However, results of the SAR Assessment are a type of predicted data based in part on surrogate data. There is actual data generated using propylene carbonate as the test substance, and actual data has precedence over predicted data.
The Agency reviewed a propylene carbonate developmental toxicity study in the rat with a maternal no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 1,000 milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day) and a maternal lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) of 3,000 mg/kg/day based on mortality, clinical signs and decreased food consumption. In the same study, the developmental NOAEL is 3,000 mg/kg/day and the developmental LOAEL is 5,000 mg/kg/day based on an increase in skeletal variations. In a propylene carbonate 13-week rat feeding study the NOAEL is equal to or greater than 5,000 mg/kg/day, the highest dose tested. A LOAEL was not identified in that study, but it would be even greater than 5,000 mg/kg/day. It is noted that each of these NOAELs is equal to or greater than 1,000 mg/kg/day. As a matter of practice, for both the developmental and the 13-week toxicity study, the Agency does not encourage testing above 1,000 mg/kg/day. The lack of effects at 1,000 mg/kg/day is considered adequate to define the toxicity, without pushing the dose levels higher until effects are apparent.
The SAR assessment judged propylene carbonate to be of low/moderate concern. It did not identify any carcinogenic concerns. One identified concern was for possible irritation to mucous membranes. This concern would involve the dermal and inhalation exposure routes and would be addressed through the use of protective equipment such as gloves and respirators, not through establishment of tolerance exemptions.
A concern predicted by the SAR, based on its structural chemistry and chemical class, is for possible solvent neurotoxicity from exposure to propylene carbonate. As previously explained, this statement acknowledges that propylene carbonate is a member of a class of chemicals that can exhibit solvent neurotoxicity. However, the propylene carbonate data base includes a 13-week inhalation toxicity study in the rat with a neurotoxicity evaluation. Based on its review and evaluation of this inhalation toxicity study, the Agency determined that there was no evidence of neurotoxicity potential.
The SAR also indicated a concern for developmental toxicity at high dose levels. However, the Agency reviewed a propylene carbonate developmental toxicity study in the rat with a maternal NOAEL of 1,000 mg/kg/day and a maternal LOAEL of 3,000 mg/kg/day based on mortality, clinical signs and decreased food consumption. In the same study, the developmental NOAEL is 3,000 mg/kg/day and the developmental LOAEL is 5,000 mg/kg/day based on increase in skeletal variations.
Considering the NOAELs of greater than 1,000 mg/kg/day for the propylene carbonate toxicity studies and the overall judgement of low/moderate concern from the SAR assessment, propylene carbonate is of low toxicological concern.
In examining aggregate exposure, FFDCA section 408 directs EPA to consider available information concerning exposures from the pesticide residue in food and all other non-occupational exposures, including drinking water from ground water or surface water and exposure through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings (residential and other indoor uses).
Over 1 million pounds of propylene carbonate are either produced or imported per year. Some of this propylene carbonate production is used as a chemical intermediate, in the production of other chemicals. Propylene carbonate has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use as an indirect food additive as a component of adhesives. According to 21 CFR 175.105, propylene carbonate can be a component of an adhesive used as part of “articles intended for use in packaging, transporting, or holding food.” Propylene carbonate is also used in cosmetics. Information on the internet (Huntsman website) indicates that propylene carbonate is used in tub and tile cleaners, hard surface and floor cleaners that could be used in and around the home.
The Agency has used various screening-level models to estimate some of the existing levels of exposure, and those that could occur as a result of establishing this tolerance exemption. To assure protectiveness, these estimates are deliberately intended to over-estimate exposure as shown in the following Table 2:
With one exception all of the screening-level exposure estimates are in the range of or less than 1 mg/kg/day. The existing studies for propylene carbonate yielded NOAELs that were equal to or greater than 1,000 mg/kg/day. The screening-level exposure estimates are orders of magnitude lower than these NOAELs. Even considering the reported uses, the use of propylene carbonate as an inert ingredient should result in human exposure far below any dose level that could possibly produce an adverse effect.
Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of the FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency
EPA does not have, at this time, available data to determine whether propylene carbonate has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to propylene carbonate and any other substances and propylene carbonate 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 propylene carbonate 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 policy statements released by EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs concerning common mechanism determinations and procedures for cumulating effects from substances found to have a common mechanism on EPA's website at
Based on the available data, the SAR assessment indicating low/moderate concern and the data submitted by the petitioner, Huntsman Corporation, which indicate that the chemical is of low toxicological concern, EPA concludes that propylene carbonate does not pose a dietary risk under reasonably foreseeable circumstances. Accordingly, EPA finds that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, and to infants and children from aggregate exposure to propylene carbonate. Due to the expected low oral toxicity, a safety factor analysis has not been used to assess the risk. For the same reasons and especially considering the developmental toxicity NOAEL, the additional tenfold safety factor for the protection of infants and children is unnecessary.
Based on the information in this preamble, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm from aggregate exposure to residues of 1,3-Dioxolan-2-one, 4-methyl- (propylene carbonate). Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting 1,3-Dioxolan-2-one, 4-methyl-(propylene carbonate) (CAS Reg. No. 108-32-7) from the requirement of a tolerance will be safe.
FQPA requires EPA to develop a screening program to determine whether certain substances, including all pesticide chemicals (both inert and active 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. As the Agency proceeds with implementation of this program, further testing of products containing propylene carbonate for endocrine effects may be required.
An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.
There are no existing tolerances or tolerance exemptions for propylene carbonate.
The Agency is not aware of any country requiring a tolerance for propylene carbonate nor have any CODEX Maximum Residue Levels been established for any food crops at this time.
The Agency established 40 CFR 180.950 (see the rationale in the proposed rule published January 15, 2002 (67 FR 1925) (FRL-6807-8)) to collect the tolerance exemptions for those substances classified as List 4A, i.e., minimal risk substances. As part of evaluating an inert ingredient and establishing the tolerance exemption, the Agency determines the chemical's list classification.
The available data and the SAR assessment indicated propylene carbonate is of lower toxicity. Given the NOAELs of greater than 1,000 mg/kg/day and the acute toxicity studies that were category III and IV, it has been determined that propylene carbonate, also known as 1,3-Dioxolan-2-one, 4-methyl- (CAS Reg. No. 108-32-7) is to be classified as a List 4A inert ingredient. Thus, the tolerance exemption will be established in 40 CFR 180.950 instead of 40 CFR 180.1001(c) as requested by the petitioner, Huntsman.
Based on the information in the record, summarized in this preamble, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm from aggregate exposure to residues of propylene carbonate (CAS Reg. No. 108-32-7). Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting propylene carbonate from the requirement of a tolerance will be safe.
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 of 1996, EPA will continue to use those procedures, with appropriate adjustments, until the necessary modifications can be made. The new section 408(g) provides essentially the same process for persons to “object ” to a regulation for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance issued by EPA under new section 408(d), as was provided in the old FFDCA sections 408 and 409. However, the period for filing objections is now 60 days, rather than 30 days.
You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in this unit and in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number OPP-2003-0284 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 November 4, 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 telephone number for the Office of the Hearing Clerk is (703) 603-0061.
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 an exemption from the tolerance requirement under FFDCA section 408(d) 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.
(e) * * *
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.
Interim final rule.
FEMA is changing the current Financial Assistance/Subsidy Arrangement (the Arrangement) to extend its term of October 1, 2002, through September 30, 2003, to a term of October 1, 2002, through December 31, 2003. The Arrangement defines the duties and responsibilities of insurers that sell and service insurance under the Write Your Own (WYO) program. It also identifies the responsibilities of the Government to provide financial and technical assistance to these insurers.
Effective October 1, 2003. Comments on this interim final rule, should be received on or before October 6, 2003.
Please send your comments to the Rules Docket Clerk, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Room 840, Washington, DC 20472, (facsimile) 202-646-4536, or (e-mail)
Edward L. Connor, FEMA, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, 202-646-3429 (Phone), 202-646-3445 (facsimile), or
On August 9, 2002, FEMA published in the
FEMA had planned to make significant changes in the Arrangement regarding litigation issues effective October 1, 2003. However, as the proposed rule for these changes has not yet been published in the
Under this extension of the current Arrangement, the expense allowance provided for in Article III, Section B of APPENDIX A TO PART 62—FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, FEDERAL INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION, FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE/SUBSIDY ARRANGEMENT will remain the same for the additional 3 months as it is now, except there will be no additional expense allowance of up to two percentage points for meeting marketing goals for the three-month extension. This additional expense allowance will be based on the period October 1, 2002, through September 30, 2003.
This interim final rule falls within the exclusion category 44 CFR part 10.8(d)(2)(ii), which addresses the preparation, revision, and adoption of regulations, directives, and other guidance documents related to actions that qualify for categorical exclusions. Qualifying for this exclusion and because no other extraordinary circumstances have been identified, this interim final rule will not require the preparation of either an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement as defined by the National Environmental Policy Act.
We have prepared and reviewed this rule under the provisions of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. Under Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993, a significant regulatory action is subject to an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
(2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
For the reasons that follow we have concluded that this interim final rule is neither an economically significant nor a significant regulatory action under the Executive Order. The interim final rule will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, the insurance sector, competition, or other sectors of the economy. It will create no serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency. It will not materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof. Nor does it raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
OMB has not reviewed this rule under the principles of Executive Order 12866.
This interim final rule does not contain a collection of information and it is therefore not subject to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
Executive Order 13132, Federalism, dated August 4, 1999, sets forth principles and criteria that agencies must adhere to in formulating and implementing policies that have federalism implications, that is, regulations that have substantial direct effects on the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Federal agencies must closely examine the statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States, and to the extent practicable, must consult with State and local officials before implementing any such action.
We have reviewed this rule under E.O. 13132 and have concluded that the rule does not have federalism implications as defined by the Executive Order. We have determined that the rule does not significantly affect the rights, roles, and responsibilities of States, and involves no preemption of State law nor does it limit State policymaking discretion.
This interim final rule meets the applicable standards of section 2(b)(2) of E.O. 12778.
In general, FEMA publishes a rule for public comment before issuing a final rule, under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 533 and 44 CFR 1.12. The Administrative Procedure Act, however, provides an exception from that general rule where the agency for good cause finds the procedures for comment and response contrary to the public interest. The public benefit of this rule is the continuation of the WYO arrangement without interruption. Therefore, we believe it is contrary to the public interest to delay the benefits of this rule. In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), we find that there is good cause for the interim final rule to be published without prior public comment and without a full 30-day delayed effective date.
Flood insurance.
42 U.S.C. 4001
Appendix A to part 62—Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Insurance Administration, Financial Assistance/Subsidy Arrangement.
A. This Arrangement shall be effective for the period October 1, 2002 through December 31, 2003. * * *
National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH).
Interim rule, with request for comments.
The NEA and the NEH, acting together as the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities (the “Foundation”), are amending regulations to repeal the Foundation's superseded and redundant old standards of conduct regulations and adding a residual cross-reference provision.
This interim rule takes effect on September 5, 2003. Comments are
Send comments to Karen Elias, Deputy General Counsel, National Endowment for the Arts, Room 518, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506 or Michael McDonald, Deputy General Counsel, National Endowment for the Humanities, Room 529, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20506.
Karen Elias, Deputy General Counsel, National Endowment for the Arts, Room 518, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506. Telephone (202) 682-5418. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may contact the NEA's TDD terminal at (202) 682-5496 Voice/T.T. Michael McDonald, Deputy General Counsel, National Endowment for the Humanities, Room 529, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506. Telephone (202) 606-8322; TDD (202) 606-8282 or (866) 372-2930.
On August 7, 1992, the U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE) published in the
The Foundation's old standards of conduct at 45 CFR part 1105 were applicable to employees at both the NEA and the NEH until they were superseded by the executive branchwide Standards at 5 CFR part 2635, and OGE's revised executive branch financial disclosure regulations at 5 CFR part 2634, which became effective in 1992. The Foundation's superseded old conduct regulations and certain redundant provisions thereof are being removed and 45 CFR part 1105 is being revised to contain a cross-reference section to the NEA's new supplemental standards regulations and the NEH's new supplemental standards regulations, which are both being published in the
The interim rule removes those provisions in the regulations at 45 CFR part 1105 governing NEA and NEH employees' responsibilities and conduct that were superseded by the OGE Standards and by OGE's executive branch financial disclosure regulations at 5 CFR part 2634. While the Standards became effective on February 3, 1993, by operation of the prior note following 5 CFR 2635.803 of the regulations and prior appendix A to 5 CFR part 2635 (see January 1, 1997 edition of 5 CFR), the Foundation's regulation concerning prior approval of outside employment remained in effect until February 3, 1994, plus one year longer with respect to the NEH. See 59 FR 4779-4780 (February 2, 1994).
The Foundation is also removing from 45 CFR part 1105 various sections that are unnecessary or redundant, in light of other regulations. Additionally, the Foundation has determined that the NEA and the NEH each are best suited to administer their own respective conduct-related regulations and to develop with OGE's concurrence any supplemental conduct regulations at their respective agencies.
A residual provision is being added to 45 CFR part 1105 to cross-reference the executive branchwide Standards at 5 CFR part 2635, the NEA's new supplemental standards of ethical conduct, the NEH's new supplemental standards of conduct, the executive branchwide regulations on financial disclosure and financial interests at 5 CFR parts 2634 and 2640, and the branchwide employee responsibilities and conduct regulations at 5 CFR part 735.
As Deputy General Counsel of the NEA and the Deputy General Counsel of NEH, acting together as the Foundation, we have found good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and (d)(3) for waiving, as necessary and contrary to public interest, the general notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for advance public comment, and the 30-day delay in effectiveness as to this interim rule. The reason for this determination is that this rulemaking is related to the Foundation's, the NEA's and the NEH's organization, procedure and practice. Nonetheless, this is an interim rulemaking, with provision for a 30-day public comment period. The NEA and the NEH, acting together as the Foundation, will review all comments received during the comment period and will consider any modifications that appear appropriate in adopting this rule as final.
As Deputy General Counsel of the NEA and as the Deputy General Counsel of the NEH, acting together as the Foundation, we have determined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it only affects NEA and NEH employees.
As Deputy General Counsel of the NEA and as the Deputy General Counsel of the NEH, acting together as the Foundation, we have determined that the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) does not apply because these regulations do not contain any information collection requirements that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget.
For purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. chapter 25, subchapter II), this rule will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments and will not result in increased expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (as adjusted for inflation) in any one year.
Conflict of interests, Government employees.
5 U.S.C. 7301.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final emergency rule.
NMFS announces changes to the closed areas affecting the limited entry fixed gear fleet, the open access non-trawl gear fleet and the recreational fishery in southern California. For the limited entry fixed gear and open access non-trawl gear fleets, south of 34°27′ N. lat. to the U.S./Mexico border, the eastern, inshore boundary of the non-trawl rockfish conservation area (non-trawl RCA), an area closed to fishing by those fisheries, will be a boundary line approximating the 30-fm (55-m) depth contour, except in the Cowcod Conservation Areas (CCA) where the inshore boundary will remain at 20-fm (37-m) [Note: The CCA is a distinct closed area separate from the non-trawl RCA]. The western, seaward boundary of the non-trawl RCA will remain at a line approximating 150-fm (274-m). For the recreational fishery, south of 34°27′ N. lat. to the U.S./Mexico border, the seaward boundary of the open area will be marked by a boundary line approximating the 30-fm (55 m) depth contour, except in the CCA where the boundary will remain at 20-fm (37-m). [Note: The CCA is a distinct closed area separate from the non-trawl RCA.] These actions, which are authorized by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), will allow fishermen access to more abundant groundfish stocks while protecting overfished and depleted stocks. NMFS also announces several corrections to the existing RCA boundaries.
Changes to management measures are effective 0001 hours (local time) September 2, 2003, until the 2004 annual specifications and management measures are effective, unless modified, superseded, or rescinded through a publication in the
Submit comments to D. Robert Lohn, Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115-0070; or Rod Mclnnis, Acting Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213. Information relevant to this emergency rule, which includes an Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review (EA/RIR), is available for public review during business hours at the offices of the NMFS Northwest Regional Administrator.
Jamie Goen or Carrie Nordeen (Northwest Region, NMFS), phone: 206-526-6140; fax: 206-526-6736; and e-mail:
This
The Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (Groundfish FMP) and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 660, subpart G, regulate fishing for over 80 species of groundfish off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California. Annual groundfish specifications and management measures are initially developed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council), and are implemented by NMFS. The groundfish specifications include optimum yields (OYs) for groundfish species and species groups. These OYs are the annual harvest targets. Management measures are implemented at the start of the season, and adjusted inseason, to allow the fishery to achieve, but not exceed, the OYs for groundfish. The specifications and management measures for the 2003 fishing year (January 1-December 31, 2003) were initially published in the
At their June 16-20, 2003 meeting in Foster City, CA, the Pacific Council, in consultation with Pacific Coast Treaty Tribes and the States of Washington, Oregon, and California, recommended changes to current groundfish management measures. Most changes were implemented on July 1, 2003 (68 FR 40187, July 7, 2003), but this change was delayed because of the need for additional analysis prior to implementation. The recommended change being implemented in this document is to move the conservation area boundary line affecting the commercial non-trawl fisheries (limited entry fixed gear and open access non-trawl) and the recreational fishery from 20-fm (37-m) to 30-fm (55-m) south of 34°27′ N. lat, except in the CCA where the boundary will remain at 20-fm (37-m). [Note: The CCA is a distinct closed area separate from the non-trawl RCA.] This increases the area in which the fishery can take place, and decreases the
When the 2003 specifications and management measures were developed for the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery in the fall of 2002, the Pacific Council's Groundfish Management Team (GMT) developed a bycatch scorecard to project and track estimated mortality of overfished groundfish species during 2003. The bycatch scorecard represents the best estimates of total catch and is an aid for making management decisions. The scorecard estimates which sectors are taking which overfished species and roughly how much of those species. This scorecard is updated throughout the year as catch data become available and was also updated using observer data. At the Pacific Council's June meeting, the scorecard was updated for inseason adjustments to be effective July 1. The proposed inseason adjustments presented at the June Council meeting remained below the OYs for all overfished species. Because estimated total mortality of all overfished species remained below their OYs for 2003, the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) proposed an additional inseason management measure to change the commercial non-trawl and recreational boundary line south of 34°27′ N. lat. from 20-fm (37-m) to 30-fm (55-m) to provide some additional fishing area to these sectors. The GMT and Pacific Council then reviewed analysis presented by CDFG on estimates of total mortality based on this change in the boundary line. With estimated total mortality as a result of these changes incorporated into the bycatch scorecard, estimated take of all overfished species remained below the OY for those species, except for bocaccio. Total estimated take of bocaccio, coastwide in all sectors, is predicted to be 21.72 mt in relation to a ≤20 mt OY for 2003 (1.72 mt over the OY). The Pacific Council and NMFS normally implement management measures that are projected to keep the fishery within the OYs for all species, especially overfished species. However, new information on the status of bocaccio that was presented at the June Council meeting indicates that bocaccio is healthier than had been thought at the beginning of 2003. Therefore, as explained below, taking into account this information and the severe adverse economic impacts from the 2003 management measures on the commercial and recreational non-trawl fisheries in southern California, the Pacific Council recommended the change to the boundary line off southern California.
A new stock assessment conducted in 2003 by NMFS, Southwest Fisheries Science Center shows notably increased biomass and productivity for the southern stock of bocaccio compared to the estimated biomass on the 2002 stock assessment and rebuilding analysis. Harvest specifications and management measures for 2003 were shaped by stock assessments for bocaccio, canary rockfish, and yelloweye rockfish, as well as sablefish and whiting. Based on consideration of a 2002 bocaccio stock assessment, rebuilding analysis, and a sustainability analysis, the Pacific Council recommended and NMFS approved an OY for bocaccio of ≤20 mt in 2003.
In May 2003, a new stock assessment and rebuilding analysis for bocaccio were released by the Southwest Fisheries Science Center. The new assessment is different from the bocaccio assessment in 2002, which had indicated that the 1999 year class for bocaccio was weaker than previously thought. The 2002 assessment results were driven by the 2001 Triennial Survey which showed very low abundance of bocaccio and no sign of the 1999 year class. For the new assessment, additional information on larval abundance from the California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigation, and both length and catch per unit effort (CPUE) data from recreational fisheries were used. The new data, which also assumed a new rate of natural mortality (0.15 as opposed to 0.20 in the 2002 assessment), indicate a much stronger 1999 year class and a sharp increase in abundance. The assessment and rebuilding analysis were reviewed by the Pacific Council's Stock Assessment Review Panel (STAR Panel) and presented to the Pacific Council at the Pacific Council's June 2003 meeting. To bracket uncertainty from the apparently conflicting signals in the different data sources, the STAR Panel recommended two models, STAR B1 and STAR B2. STAR B1 omits data from the Triennial Surveys and holds the estimated recruitment constant to 1959, whereas STAR B2 omits the recreational CPUE data and holds estimated recruitment constant to 1969. Each of these models de-emphasizes the other data source. The Stock Assessment Team (STAT Team) considered a third model, STAT C, that considered both data sources to be important and thus, included both data from the survey and recreational CPUE, and holds estimated recruitment constant to 1959, and places a low emphasis on the stock-recruitment relationship to stabilize estimates of post-1999 recruitment. The results of the STAT C model were not complete during the STAR Panel review. The STAR Panel did briefly discuss the STAT C model and rejected the approach of the STAT C model because the two sources of data used in the model were contradictory. The results from the STAR Panel review and the third model produced by the STAT Team were then reviewed by the Pacific Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) at the June Council meeting. The SSC and other advisory bodies to the Pacific Council (Groundfish Advisory Panel (GAP) and GMT) made recommendations to the Pacific Council based on the new stock assessment and rebuilding analysis, which are considered to be the best available science. The SSC felt the STAT C model was a reasonable way to integrate the survey and CPUE data and, therefore, recommended use of the STAT C model for bocaccio.
Based on the new stock assessment and rebuilding analysis discussed above, the Pacific Council adopted a preliminary range of OYs for bocaccio for 2004. The range of OYs contemplated for 2004 (199-526 mt) is an order of magnitude higher than the ≤20 mt OY implemented for management in 2003. Based on the new bocaccio stock assessment and rebuilding analysis, the Pacific Council also decided it could provide some relief in 2003 to the severely constrained commercial and recreational fishers in southern California without risk to the status of the bocaccio stock.
Generally, stock assessments that are released in 2003 would only be used for management in 2004 and beyond. In this case, however, the new assessment and rebuilding analysis forecast are being considered in implementing this emergency rule to allow for a change in the management measures which is projected to cause the OY for bocaccio to be exceeded. Because of the new science for bocaccio that indicates a modest increase in bocaccio harvest in 2003 should not interfere with stock rebuilding and because of the severe restrictions commercial non-trawl and recreational fisheries in southern California are experiencing, the Pacific Council recommended to NMFS to use the knowledge of the improved bocaccio forecast as a means to relieve restrictions on southern California fisheries without additional risk to the status of the stock.
Beginning in 2003, the limited entry fixed gear and open access non-trawl fleet in California has been severely constrained by low trip limits and limited nearshore fishing opportunities, with the non-trawl RCA (the area closed to most fishing with non-trawl gear) extending from the 20-fm (37-m)depth contour to latitude and longitude coordinates approximating the 150-fm (274-m) depth contour. These management measures were designed to limit the incidental take of bocaccio rockfish and keep the catch of bocaccio within its 2003 OY of no more than 20 mt. The recreational fishing fleet in California has also been similarly constrained, by a reduced season length (July - December) and has generally been restricted to fishing inshore of the 20-fm (37-m) depth contour, to minimize the incidental take of bocaccio. Prior to 2000, the recreational fishery has been year round. Since 2000, the recreational fishery has been closed for part of the year. Between 2000 and 2002, the California recreational fishery seasons have been from 8 to 10 months long. Beginning in 2001, some area restrictions were implemented. In 2003, the recreational fishery has been restricted to a 6 month season and it has only been allowed mainly inside of the 20-fm (37-m) depth contour.
Taking into account the most recent bocaccio stock assessment information discussed above and the economic hardship resulting from restrictive management measures necessary to keep the incidental catch of bocaccio within its 2003 OY, the CDFG proposed to the Pacific Council that the 2003 bocaccio OY be flexible enough to allow for a modest increase in nearshore fishing opportunity. Specifically, CDFG proposed that during the months of September-December the eastern boundary for the non-trawl RCA and recreational fisheries closed area between 34°27′ N. lat. and the U.S. border with Mexico be moved from the 20-fm (37-m) depth contour out to the 30-fm (55-m) depth contour, except in the CCA where the inshore boundary will remain at 20 fm (37 m). [Note: The CCA is a distinct closed area separate from the non-trawl RCA.] This boundary change was recommended by the Pacific Council because it would provide much needed harvest opportunity and economic relief for commercial non-trawl fishermen (limited entry fixed gear and open access non-trawl gear) and recreational fishers with an expected incidental take of an additional 2.22 mt of bocaccio. This proposal would allow commercial non-trawl and recreational fishermen some access to harvest species of groundfish that occur mainly on the continental shelf (in waters deeper than 20-fm (37-m)) and have OYs that remain largely unharvested in 2003, such as vermillion rockfish.
Unlike the 20-fm (37-m) depth contour which does not have latitude and longitude coordinates approximating the line, CDFG has developed a series of coordinates approximating the 30-fm (55-m) depth contour. All other depth-based boundaries for the groundfish fishery, except the 20-fm (37-m) depth contour, are defined by lines connecting specific latitude and longitude coordinates. The 20-fm (37-m) depth contour does not have a series of coordinates approximating the boundary line because it existed in management before depth-based management was implemented in the fall of 2002 and because it is primarily within State waters. Managers and enforcement officers from CDFG, along with a commercial fixed gear fisherman, met on July 2, 2003, at the GIS Lab in Monterey, CA to develop the coordinates for the 30-fm (55-m) boundary. With this emergency rule, recreational fisheries in southern California will be subject to closed areas defined by a line connecting latitude and longitude coordinates approximating a fathom contour similar to how commercial groundfish fishery participants have been managed since January 1, 2003.
The State of California has, under state law implemented on April 9, 2003, established some Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in State waters in some areas around the Channel Islands off California. These MPAs are described as Richardson Rock, Harris Point, and Judith Rock off San Miguel, Carrington Point, and South Point off Santa Rosa Island, Painted Cave, Gulf Island, and Scorpion off Santa Cruz Island, and Anacapa Island off Anacapa Island. Fishing is prohibited in these MPAs under California law. NMFS believes it would be too confusing to the public to draw the 30-fm (55-m) area boundary through areas in State waters that will remain closed under State law. Therefore, where the 30-fm (55-m) boundary line would go through the State water area that is closed under State law, the entire area will remain closed and this is so indicated by the coordinates in this rule.
Because the effects of this new boundary line were not previously analyzed, it is not considered a routine management measure under the Groundfish FMP that can be changed through inseason action. Therefore, NMFS has analyzed this management measures in an EA. Because this is not a routine management measure, the Pacific Council recommends and NMFS is implementing an emergency rule to move the boundary line from 20-fm (37-m) to 30-fm (55-m) south of 34°27′ N. lat. (except in the CCA where the inshore boundary will remain at 20-fm (37-m) for the commercial non-trawl and recreational fleets. This action is projected to cause the 2003 OY for bocaccio to be exceeded by approximately 1.72 mt. The purpose is to relieve some of the economic pressure on the fishing industry in southern California without risk to the status of the southern stock of bocaccio.
In addition to creating new 30-fm (55-m) RCA boundaries along the mainland coast, around the Channel Islands, and around seamounts off the State of California, this emergency rule also contains corrections to existing RCA boundaries. The first correction pertains to the 200-fm (366-m) coastwide RCA boundary. In an areas off the State of California, the 200-fm (366-m) RCA boundary was found to extend into waters as deep as 300-fm (549-m). This resulted in the groundfish trawl fleet being prohibited from fishing in areas where fishing with trawl gear should be permitted. Therefore, to better align the 200-fm (366-m) RCA boundary with the 200-fm (366-m) depth contour and allow the groundfish trawl fleet access to areas where fishing with trawl gear should be permitted, several of the coordinates for the 200- fm (366-m) RCA boundary were corrected. Throughout 2003, NMFS has clearly specified trawl RCA boundaries around islands and seamounts off California, however, we have not clearly specified the non-trawl RCA boundaries around those same islands and seamounts. This emergency rule corrects that oversight by clearly specifying the non-trawl RCA boundaries around islands and seamounts off California.
With the creation of the new 30-fm (55-m) RCA boundaries off California, coordinates were generated for additional islands (i.e., the northern Channel Islands) off California as well as the southern California islands that previously had trawl RCA boundaries. Through the process of reviewing maps of and bathymetry data for these islands,
For the reasons stated herein, NMFS concurs with the Pacific Council's recommendations and hereby announces the following changes to the 2003 management measures (68 FR 11182 (March 7, 2003), as amended at 68 FR 18166 (April 15, 2003), at 68 FR 23901 (May 6, 2003), at 68 FR 23924 (May 6, 2003), at 68 FR 32680 (June 2, 2003), at 68 FR 35575 (June 16, 2003), at 68 FR 40187 (July 7, 2003) and at 68 FR 43473 (July 23, 2003)) to read as follows:
1. On page 11214, in the
(x) The 150-fm (274-m) depth contour used around the southern Channel Islands and seamounts off the State of California is defined by straight lines around each island/seamount connecting all of the following points in the order stated:
(A) Santa Catalina Island
(1) 33°19.00′ N. lat., 118°15.00′ W. long.;
(2) 33°26.00′ N. lat., 118°22.00′ W. long.;
(3) 33°28.00′ N. lat., 118°28.00′ W. long.;
(4) 33°30.00′ N. lat., 118°31.00′ W. long.;
(5) 33°31.00′ N. lat., 118°37.00′ W. long.;
(6) 33°29.00′ N. lat., 118°41.00′ W. long.;
(7) 33°23.00′ N. lat., 118°31.00′ W. long.;
(8) 33°21.00′ N. lat., 118°33.00′ W. long.;
(9) 33°18.00′ N. lat., 118°28.00′ W. long.;
(10) 33°16.00′ N. lat., 118°13.00′ W. long.; and
(11) 33°19.00′ N. lat., 118°15.00′ W. long.
(B) San Clemente Island
(1) 32°48.50′ N. lat., 118°18.34′ W. long.;
(2) 32°56.00′ N. lat., 118°29.00′ W. long.;
(3) 33°03.00′ N. lat., 118°34.00′ W. long.;
(4) 33°05.00′ N. lat., 118°38.00′ W. long.;
(5) 33°03.00′ N. lat., 118°40.00′ W. long.;
(6) 32°48.00′ N. lat., 118°31.00′ W. long.;
(7) 32°43.00′ N. lat., 118°24.00′ W. long.; and
(8) 32°48.50′ N. lat., 118°18.34′ W. long.
(C) Lasuen Knoll
(1) 33°25.00′ N. lat., 118°01.00′ W. long.;
(2) 33°25.00′ N. lat., 117°58.00′ W. long.;
(3) 33°23.00′ N. lat., 117°58.00′ W. long.;
(4) 33°23.00′ N. lat., 118°01.00′ W. long.; and
(5) 33°25.00′ N. lat., 118°01.00′ W. long.
2. On page 32683, in the
(xiii) The 200-fm (366-m) depth contour used between the U.S. border with Canada and the U.S. border with Mexico as a western boundary for the trawl RCA is defined by straight lines connecting all of the following points in the order stated:
(132) 40°37.11′ N. lat., 124°38.03′ W. long.;
(133) 40°34.22′ N. lat., 124°41.13′ W. long.;
(134) 40°32.90′ N. lat., 124°41.83i W. long.;
(135) 40°31.30′ N. lat., 124°40.97′ W. long.;
(136) 40°29.63′ N. lat., 124°38.04′ W. long.;
(137) 40°24.99′ N. lat., 124°36.37′ W. long.;
(138) 40°22.23′ N. lat., 124°31.78′ W. long.;
(139) 40°16.95′ N. lat., 124°31.93′ W. long.;
(140) 40°17.59′ N. lat., 124°45.23′ W. long.;
(141) 40°13.25′ N. lat., 124°32.36′ W. long.;
(142) 40°10.16′ N. lat., 124°24.57′ W. long.;
(143) 40°6.43′ N. lat., 124°19.19′ W. long.;
(144) 40°7.07′ N. lat., 124°17.75′ W. long.;
(145) 40°5.53′ N. lat., 124°18.02′ W. long.;
(146) 40°4.71′ N. lat., 124°18.10′ W. long.;
(147) 40°2.35′ N. lat., 124°16.57′ W. long.;
(148) 40°1.53′ N. lat., 124°9.82′ W. long.;
(149) 39°58.28′ N. lat., 124°13.51′ W. long.;
(150) 39°56.60′ N. lat., 124°12.02′ W. long.;
(151) 39°55.20′ N. lat., 124°07.96′ W. long.;
(152) 39°52.55′ N. lat., 124°09.40′ W. long.;
(153) 39°42.68′ N. lat., 124°02.52′ W. long.;
(154) 39°35.96′ N. lat., 123°59.49′ W. long.;
(155) 39°34.62′ N. lat., 123°59.59′ W. long.;
(156) 39°33.78′ N. lat., 123°56.82′ W. long.;
(157) 39°33.02′ N. lat., 123°57.07′ W. long.;
(158) 39°32.21′ N. lat., 123°59.13′ W. long.;
(159) 39°7.85′ N. lat., 123°59.07′ W. long.;
(160) 39°00.90′ N. lat., 123°57.88′ W. long.;
(161) 38°59.95′ N. lat., 123°56.99′ W. long.;
(162) 38°56.82′ N. lat., 123°57.74′ W. long.;
(163) 38°56.40′ N. lat., 123°59.41′ W. long.;
(164) 38°50.23′ N. lat., 123°55.48′ W. long.;
(165) 38°46.77′ N. lat., 123°51.49′ W. long.;
(166) 38°45.28′ N. lat., 123°51.56′ W. long.;
(167) 38°42.76′ N. lat., 123°49.76′ W. long.;
(168) 38°41.54′ N. lat., 123°47.76′ W. long.;
(169) 38°40.98′ N. lat., 123°48.07′ W. long.;
(170) 38°38.03′ N. lat., 123°45.78′ W. long.;
(171) 38°37.20′ N. lat., 123°44.01′ W. long.;
(172) 38°33.44′ N. lat., 123°41.75′ W. long.;
(173) 38°29.45′ N. lat., 123°38.42′ W. long.;
(174) 38°27.89′ N. lat., 123°38.38′ W. long.;
(175) 38°23.68′ N. lat., 123°35.40′ W. long.;
(176) 38°19.63′ N. lat., 123°33.98′ W. long.;
(177) 38°16.23′ N. lat., 123°31.83′ W. long.;
(178) 38°14.79′ N. lat., 123°29.91′ W. long.;
(179) 38°14.12′ N. lat., 123°26.29′ W. long.;
(180) 38°10.85′ N. lat., 123°25.77′ W. long.;
(181) 38°13.15′ N. lat., 123°28.18′ W. long.;
(182) 38°12.28′ N. lat., 123°29.81′ W. long.;
(183) 38°10.19′ N. lat., 123°29.04′ W. long.;
(184) 38°07.94′ N. lat., 123°28.45′ W. long.;
(185) 38°06.51′ N. lat., 123°30.89′ W. long.;
(186) 38°04.21′ N. lat., 123°31.96′ W. long.;
(187) 38°02.07′ N. lat., 123°31.3′ W. long.;
(188) 38°00.00′ N. lat., 123°29.55′ W. long.;
(189) 37°58.13′ N. lat., 123°27.21′ W. long.;
(190) 37°55.01′ N. lat., 123°27.46′ W. long.;
(191) 37°51.40′ N. lat., 123°25.18′ W. long.;
(192) 37°43.97′ N. lat., 123°11.49′ W. long.;
(193) 37°36.00′ N. lat., 123°02.25′ W. long.;
(194) 37°13.65′ N. lat., 122°54.18′ W. long.;
(195) 37°00.66′ N. lat., 122°37.84′ W. long.;
(196) 36°57.40′ N. lat., 122°28.25′ W. long.;
(197) 36°59.25′ N. lat., 122°25.54′ W. long.;
(198) 36°56.88′ N. lat., 122°25.42′ W. long.;
(199) 36°57.40′ N. lat., 122°22.62′ W. long.;
(200) 36°55.43′ N. lat., 122°22.43′ W. long.;
(201) 36°52.29′ N. lat., 122°13.18′ W. long.;
(202) 36°47.12′ N. lat., 122°07.56′ W. long.;
(203) 36°47.10′ N. lat., 122°02.11′ W. long.;
(204) 36°43.76′ N. lat., 121°59.11′ W. long.;
(205) 36°38.85′ N. lat., 122°02.20′ W. long.;
(206) 36°23.41′ N. lat., 122°00.11′ W. long.;
(207) 36°19.68′ N. lat., 122°06.93′ W. long.;
(208) 36°14.75′ N. lat., 122°01.51′ W. long.;
(210) 36°06.67′ N. lat., 121°41.06′ W. long.;
(211) 35°57.07′ N. lat., 121°34.32′ W. long.;
(212) 35°52.31′ N. lat., 121°32.45′ W. long.;
(213) 35°51.21′ N. lat., 121°30.91′ W. long.;
(214) 35°46.32′ N. lat., 121°30.30′ W. long.;
(215) 35°33.74′ N. lat., 121°20.10′ W. long.;
(216) 35°31.37′ N. lat., 121°15.23′ W. long.;
(217) 35°23.32′ N. lat., 121°11.44′ W. long.;
(218) 35°15.28′ N. lat., 121°04.45′ W. long.;
(219) 35°07.08′ N. lat., 121°00.3′ W. long.;
(220) 34°57.46′ N. lat., 120°58.23′ W. long.;
(221) 34°44.25′ N. lat., 120°58.29′ W. long.;
(222) 34°32.30′ N. lat., 120°50.22′ W. long.;
(223) 34°19.08′ N. lat., 120°31.21′ W. long.;
(224) 34°17.72′ N. lat., 120°19.26′ W. long.;
(225) 34°22.45′ N. lat., 120°12.81′ W. long.;
(226) 34°21.36′ N. lat., 119°54.88′ W. long.;
(227) 34°09.95′ N. lat., 119°46.18′ W. long.;
(228) 34°09.08′ N. lat., 119°57.53′ W. long.;
(229) 34°07.53′ N. lat., 120°06.35′ W. long.;
(230) 34°10.54′ N. lat., 120°19.07′ W. long.;
(231) 34°14.68′ N. lat., 120°29.48′ W. long.;
(232) 34°09.51′ N. lat., 120°38.32′ W. long.;
(233) 34°03.06′ N. lat., 120°35.54′ W. long.;
(234) 33°56.39′ N. lat., 120°28.47′ W. long.;
(235) 33°50.25′ N. lat., 120°09.43′ W. long.;
(236) 33°37.96′ N. lat., 120°00.08′ W. long.;
(237) 33°34.52′ N. lat., 119°51.84′ W. long.;
(238) 33°35.51′ N. lat., 119°48.49′ W. long.;
(239) 33°42.76′ N. lat., 119°47.77′ W. long.;
(240) 33°53.62′ N. lat., 119°53.28′ W. long.;
(241) 33°57.61′ N. lat., 119°31.26′ W. long.;
(242) 33°56.34′ N. lat., 119°26.4′ W. long.;
(243) 33°57.79′ N. lat., 119°26.85′ W. long.;
(244) 33°58.88′ N. lat., 119°20.06′ W. long.;
(245) 34°02.65′ N. lat., 119°15.11′ W. long.;
(246) 33°59.02′ N. lat., 119°02.99′ W. long.;
(247) 33°57.61′ N. lat., 118°42.07′ W. long.;
(248) 33°50.76′ N. lat., 118°37.98′ W. long.;
(249) 33°38.41′ N. lat., 118°17.03′ W. long.;
(250) 33°37.14′ N. lat., 118°18.39′ W. long.;
(251) 33°35.51′ N. lat., 118°18.03′ W. long.;
(252) 33°30.68′ N. lat., 118°10.35′ W. long.;
(253) 33°32.49′ N. lat., 117°51.85′ W. long.;
(254) 32°58.87′ N. lat., 117°20.36′ W. long.; and
(255) 32°35.53′ N. lat., 117°29.67′ W. long.
3. On page 32685 in the
(xiv) The 200-fm (366-m) depth contour used around the southern Channel Islands and seamounts off the State of California is defined by straight lines around each island/seamount connecting all of the following points in the order stated:
(A) Santa Catalina Island
(1) 33°32.06′ N. lat., 118°44.52′ W. long.;
(2) 33°31.36′ N. lat., 118°35.28′ W. long.;
(3) 33°30.10′ N. lat., 118°30.82′ W. long.;
(4) 33°27.91′ N. lat., 118°26.83′ W. long.;
(5) 33°26.27′ N. lat., 118°21.35′ W. long.;
(6) 33°21.34′ N. lat., 118°15.24′ W. long.;
(7) 33°13.66′ N. lat., 118°08.98′ W. long.;
(8) 33°17.15′ N. lat., 118°28.35′ W. long.;
(9) 33°20.94′ N. lat., 118°34.34′ W. long.;
(10) 33°23.32′ N. lat., 118°32.60′ W. long.;
(11) 33°28.68′ N. lat., 118°44.93′ W. long.; and
(12) 33°32.06′ N. lat., 118°44.52′ W. long.
(B) San Clemente Island
(1) 33°05.89′ N. lat., 118°39.45′ W. long.;
(2) 33°02.68′ N. lat., 118°33.14′ W. long.;
(3) 32°57.32′ N. lat., 118°29.12′ W. long.;
(4) 32°47.51′ N. lat., 118°17.88′ W. long.;
(5) 32°41.22′ N. lat., 118°23.78′ W. long.;
(6) 32°46.83′ N. lat., 118°32.10′ W. long.;
(7) 33°01.61′ N. lat., 118°40.64′ W. long.; and
(8) 33°5.89′ N. lat., 118°39.45′ W. long.
(C) Lasuen Knoll
(1) 33°25.91′ N. lat., 117°59.44′ W. long.;
(2) 33°23.37′′ N. lat., 117°56.97′ W. long.;
(3) 33°22.82′ N. lat., 117°59.50′ W. long.;
(4) 33°25.24′ N. lat., 118°01.68′ W. long.; and
(5) 33°25.91′ N. lat., 117°59.44′ W. long.
(D) San Diego Rise
(1) 32°50.30′ N. lat., 117°50.18′ W. long.;
(2) 32°44.01′ N. lat., 117°44.46′ W. long.;
(3) 32°41.34′ N. lat., 117°45.86′ W. long.;
(4) 32°45.45′ N. lat., 117°50.09′ W. long.;
(5) 32°50.10i N. lat., 117°50.76′ W. long.; and
(6) 32°50.30′ N. lat., 117°50.18′ W. long.
4. In section IV., under A. General Definitions and Provisions, paragraph (19)(e), sections (xv),(xvi), and (xviii) are added to read as follows:
(xv) The 30-fm (55-m) depth-contour between 34°27' N. lat. and the U.S. border with Mexico is defined by straight lines connecting all of the following points in the order stated:
(1) 34°27.00′ N. lat., 120°30.31′ W. long.;
(2) 34°25.84′ N. lat., 120°27.04′ W. long.;
(3) 34°25.16′ N. lat., 120°20.18′ W. long.;
(4) 34°25.88′ N. lat., 120°18.24′ W. long.;
(5) 34°27.26′ N. lat., 120°12.47′ W. long.;
(6) 34°26.27′ N. lat., 120°02.22′ W. long.;
(7) 34°23.41′ N. lat., 119°53.04′ W. long.;
(8) 34°23.33′ N. lat., 119°48.74′ W. long.;
(9) 34°22.31′ N. lat., 119°41.36′ W. long.;
(10) 34°21.72′ N. lat., 119°40.14′ W. long.;
(11) 34°21.25′ N. lat., 119°41.18′ W. long.;
(12) 34°20.25′ N. lat., 119°39.03′ W. long.;
(13) 34°19.87′ N. lat., 119°33.65′ W. long.;
(14) 34°18.67′ N. lat., 119°30.16′ W. long.;
(15) 34°16.95′ N. lat., 119°27.09′ W. long.;
(16) 34°13.02′ N. lat., 119°26.99′ W. long.;
(17) 34°08.62′ N. lat., 119°20.89′ W. long.;
(18) 34°06.95′ N. lat., 119°17.68′ W. long.;
(19) 34°05.93′ N. lat., 119°15.17′ W. long.;
(20) 34°08.42′ N. lat., 119°13.11′ W. long.;
(21) 34°05.23′ N. lat., 119°13.34′ W. long.;
(22) 34°04.98′ N. lat., 119°11.39′ W. long.;
(23) 34°04.55′ N. lat., 119°11.09′ W. long.;
(24) 34°04.15′ N. lat., 119°09.35′ W. long.;
(25) 34°04.89′ N. lat., 119°07.86′ W. long.;
(26) 34°04.08′ N. lat., 119°07.33′ W. long.;
(27) 34°04.01′ N. lat., 119°06.89′ W. long.;
(28) 34°05.08′ N. lat., 119°07.02′ W. long.;
(29) 34°05.27′ N. lat., 119°04.95′ W. long.;
(30) 34°04.51′ N. lat., 119°04.07′ W. long.;
(31) 34°02.26′ N. lat., 118°59.88′ W. long.;
(32) 34°01.08′ N. lat., 118°59.77′ W. long.;
(33) 34°00.94′ N. lat., 118°51.65′ W. long.;
(34) 33°59.77′ N. lat., 118°49.26′ W. long.;
(35) 34°00.04′ N. lat., 118°48.92′ W. long.;
(36) 33°59.65′ N. lat., 118°48.43′ W. long.;
(37) 33°59.46′ N. lat., 118°47.25′ W. long.;
(38) 33°59.08′ N. lat., 118°45.89′ W. long.;
(39) 34°00.21′ N. lat., 118°37.64′ W. long.;
(40) 33°59.26′ N. lat., 118°34.58′ W. long.;
(41) 33°58.07′ N. lat., 118°33.36′ W. long.;
(42) 33°53.76′ N. lat., 118°30.14′ W. long.;
(43) 33°51.00′ N. lat., 118°25.19′ W. long.;
(44) 33°50.07′ N. lat., 118°24.07′ W. long.;
(45) 33°50.16′ N. lat., 118°23.77′ W. long.;
(46) 33°48.08′ N. lat., 118°25.31′ W. long.;
(47) 33°47.07′ N. lat., 118°27.07′ W. long.;
(48) 33°46.12′ N. lat., 118°26.87′ W. long.;
(49) 33°44.15′ N. lat., 118°25.15′ W. long.;
(50) 33°43.54′ N. lat., 118°23.02′ W. long.;
(51) 33°41.35′ N. lat., 118°18.86′ W. long.;
(52) 33°39.96′ N. lat., 118°17.37′ W. long.;
(53) 33°40.12′ N. lat., 118°16.33′ W. long.;
(54) 33°39.28′ N. lat., 118°16.21′ W. long.;
(55) 33°38.04′ N. lat., 118°14.86′ W. long.;
(56) 33°36.57′ N. lat., 118°14.67′ W. long.;
(57) 33°34.93′ N. lat., 118°10.94′ W. long.;
(58) 33°35.14′ N. lat., 118°08.61′ W. long.;
(59) 33°35.69′ N. lat., 118°07.68′ W. long.;
(60) 33°36.21′ N. lat., 118°07.53′ W. long.;
(61) 33°36.43′ N. lat., 118°06.73′ W. long.;
(62) 33°36.05′ N. lat., 118°06.15′ W. long.;
(63) 33°36.32′ N. lat., 118°03.91′ W. long.;
(64) 33°35.69′ N. lat., 118°03.64′ W. long.;
(65) 33°34.62′ N. lat., 118°00.04′ W. long.;
(66) 33°34.08′ N. lat., 117°57.73′ W. long.;
(67) 33°35.57′ N. lat., 117°56.62′ W. long.;
(68) 33°35.46′ N. lat., 117°55.99′ W. long.;
(69) 33°35.98′ N. lat., 117°55.99′ W. long.;
(70) 33°35.46′ N. lat., 117°55.38′ W. long.;
(71) 33°35.21′ N. lat., 117°53.46′ W. long.;
(72) 33°33.61′ N. lat., 117°50.45′ W. long.;
(73) 33°31.41′ N. lat., 117°47.28′ W. long.;
(74) 33°27.54′ N. lat., 117°44.36′ W. long.;
(75) 33°26.63′ N. lat., 117°43.17′ W. long.;
(76) 33°25.21′ N. lat., 117°40.09′ W. long.;
(77) 33°20.33′ N. lat., 117°35.99′ W. long.;
(78) 33°16.35′ N. lat., 117°31.51′ W. long.;
(79) 33°11.53′ N. lat., 117°26.81′ W. long.;
(80) 33°07.59′ N. lat., 117°21.13′ W. long.;
(81) 33°02.21′ N. lat., 117°19.05′ W. long.;
(82) 32°56.55′ N. lat., 117°17.07′ W. long.;
(83) 32°54.61′ N. lat., 117°16.06′ W. long.;
(84) 32°52.32′ N. lat., 117°15.97′ W. long.;
(85) 32°51.48′ N. lat., 117°16.15′ W. long.;
(86) 32°51.85′ N. lat., 117°17.26′ W. long.;
(87) 32°51.55′ N. lat., 117°19.01′ W. long.;
(88) 32°49.55′ N. lat., 117°19.63′ W. long.;
(89) 32°46.71′ N. lat., 117°18.32′ W. long.;
(90) 32°36.35′ N. lat., 117°15.68′ W. long.; and
(91) 32°32.85′ N. lat., 117°15.44′ W. long.
5. In section IV., under A. General Definitions and Provisions, paragraph (19)(e), section (xvi) is added to read as follows:
(xvi) The 30-fm (55-m) depth contour around the northern Channel Islands off the State of California is defined by straight lines connecting all of the following points in the order stated:
(1) 34°01.41′ N. lat., 119°20.61′ W. long.;
(2) 34°00.98′ N. lat., 119°20.46′ W. long.;
(3) 34°00.53′ N. lat., 119°20.98′ W. long.;
(4) 34°00.17′ N. lat., 119°21.83′ W. long.;
(5) 33°59.65′ N. lat., 119°24.45′ W. long.;
(6) 33°59.68′ N. lat., 119°25.20′ W. long.;
(7) 33°59.95′ N. lat., 119°26.25′ W. long.;
(8) 33°59.87′ N. lat., 119°27.27′ W. long.;
(9) 33°59.55′ N. lat., 119°28.02′ W. long.;
(10) 33°58.63′ N. lat., 119°36.48′ W. long.;
(11) 33°57.62′ N. lat., 119°41.13′ W. long.;
(12) 33°57.00′ N. lat., 119°42.20′ W. long.;
(13) 33°56.93′ N. lat., 119°48.00′ W. long.;
(14) 33°57.70′ N. lat., 119°48.00′ W. long.;
(between coordinates (14) and (15), the boundary follows the shoreline)
(15) 33°58.00′ N. lat., 119°51.00′ W. long.;
(16) 33°58.00′ N. lat., 119°52.00′ W. long.;
(17) 33°58.54′ N. lat., 119°52.80′ W. long.;
(18) 33°59.74′ N. lat., 119°54.19′ W. long.;
(19) 33°59.97′ N. lat., 119°54.66′ W. long.;
(20) 33°59.83′ N. lat., 119°56.00′ W. long.;
(21) 33°59.18′ N. lat., 119°57.17′ W. long.;
(22) 33°57.83′ N. lat., 119°56.74′ W. long.;
(23) 33°55.71′ N. lat., 119°56.89′ W. long.;
(24) 33°53.89′ N. lat., 119°57.68′ W. long.;
(25) 33°52.93′ N. lat., 119°59.80′ W. long.;
(26) 33°52.79′ N. lat., 120°1.81′ W. long.;
(27) 33°52.51′ N. lat., 120°03.08′ W. long.;
(28) 33°53.12′ N. lat., 120°04.88′ W. long.;
(29) 33°53.12′ N. lat., 120°05.80′ W. long.;
(30) 33°52.94′ N. lat., 120°06.50′ W. long.;
(31) 33°53.80′ N. lat., 120°06.50′ W. long.;
(32) 33°55.00′ N. lat., 120°10.00′ W. long.;
(33) 33°54.03′ N. lat., 120°10.00′ W. long.;
(34) 33°54.58′ N. lat., 120°11.82′ W. long.;
(35) 33°57.08′ N. lat., 120°14.58′ W. long.;
(36) 33°59.50′ N. lat., 120°16.72′ W. long.;
(37) 33°59.63′ N. lat., 120°17.88′ W. long.;
(38) 34°00.30′ N. lat., 120°19.14′ W. long.;
(39) 34°00.02′ N. lat., 120°19.68′ W. long.;
(40) 34°00.08′ N. lat., 120°21.73′ W. long.;
(41) 34°00.94′ N. lat., 120°24.82′ W. long.;
(42) 34°00.97′ N. lat., 120°25.30′ W. long.;
(43) 34°01.50′ N. lat., 120°25.30′ W. long.;
(44) 34°01.80′ N. lat., 120°26.60′ W. long.;
(45) 34°01.05′ N. lat., 120°26.60′ W. long.;
(46) 34°01.11′ N. lat., 120°27.43′ W. long.;
(47) 34°00.96′ N. lat., 120°28.09′ W. long.;
(48) 34°01.56′ N. lat., 120°28.71′ W. long.;
(49) 34°01.80′ N. lat., 120°28.31′ W. long.;
(50) 34°03.60′ N. lat., 120°28.87′ W. long.;
(51) 34°03.60′ N. lat., 120°28.20′ W. long.;
(52) 34°05.35′ N. lat., 120°28.20′ W. long.;
(53) 34°05.30′ N. lat., 120°27.33′ W. long.;
(54) 34°05.65′ N. lat., 120°26.79′ W. long.;
(55) 34°05.69′ N. lat., 120°25.82′ W. long.;
(56) 34°07.24′ N. lat., 120°24.98′ W. long.;
(57) 34°06.00′ N. lat., 120°23.30′ W. long.;
(58) 34°03.10′ N. lat., 120°23.30′ W. long.;
(59) 34°03.50′ N. lat., 120°21.30′ W. long.;
(60) 34°02.90′ N. lat., 120°20.20′ W. long.;
(61) 34°01.80′ N. lat., 120°18.40′ W. long.;
(62) 34°03.61′ N. lat., 120°18.40′ W. long.;
(63) 34°03.25′ N. lat., 120°16.64′ W. long.;
(64) 34°04.33′ N. lat., 120°14.22′ W. long.;
(65) 34°04.11′ N. lat., 120°11.17′ W. long.;
(66) 34°03.72′ N. lat., 120°09.93′ W. long.;
(67) 34°03.81′ N. lat., 120°08.96′ W. long.;
(68) 34°03.36′ N. lat., 120°06.52′ W. long.;
(69) 34°04.80′ N. lat., 120°04.00′ W. long.;
(70) 34°04.00′ N. lat., 120°04.00′ W. long.;
(71) 34°04.00′ N. lat., 120°05.20′ W. long.;
(72) 34°01.30′ N. lat., 120°05.20′ W. long.;
(73) 34°00.50′ N. lat., 120°02.80′ W. long.;
(74) 34°00.49′ N. lat., 120°01.01′ W. long.;
(75) 34°04.00′ N. lat., 120°01.00′ W. long.;
(76) 34°03.99′ N. lat., 120°00.15′ W. long.;
(77) 34°03.51′ N. lat., 119°59.42′ W. long.;
(78) 34°03.79′ N. lat., 119°58.15′ W. long.;
(79) 34°04.72′ N. lat., 119°57.61′ W. long.;
(80) 34°05.14′ N. lat., 119°55.17′ W. long.;
(81) 34°04.85′ N. lat., 119°53.00′ W. long.;
(82) 34°04.50′ N. lat., 119°53.00′ W. long.;
(83) 34°04.00′ N. lat., 119°51.00′ W. long.;
(84) 34°04.49′ N. lat., 119°51.01′ W. long.;
(85) 34°03.79′ N. lat., 119°48.86′ W. long.;
(86) 34°03.79′ N. lat., 119°45.46′ W. long.;
(87) 34°03.27′ N. lat., 119°44.17′ W. long.;
(88) 34°03.29′ N. lat., 119°43.30′ W. long.;
(89) 34°01.71′ N. lat., 119°40.83′ W. long.;
(90) 34°01.74′ N. lat., 119°37.92′ W. long.;
(91) 34°02.07′ N. lat., 119°37.17′ W. long.;
(92) 34°02.93′ N. lat., 119°36.52′ W. long.;
(93) 34°3.48′ N. lat., 119°35.50′ W. long.;
(94) 34°02.94′ N. lat., 119°35.50′ W. long.;
(95) 34°02.80′ N. lat., 119°32.80′ W. long.;
(96) 34°03.56′ N. lat., 119°32.80′ W. long.;
(97) 34°02.72′ N. lat., 119°31.84′ W. long.;
(98) 34°02.20′ N. lat., 119°30.53′ W. long.;
(99) 34°01.49′ N. lat., 119°30.20′ W. long.;
(100) 34°00.66′ N. lat., 119°28.62′ W. long.;
(101) 34°00.66′ N. lat., 119°27.57′ W. long.;
(102) 34°01.40′ N. lat., 119°26.94′ W. long.;
(103) 34°01.35′ N. lat., 119°26.70′ W. long.;
(104) 34°00.80′ N. lat., 119°26.70′ W. long.;
(105) 34°00.40′ N. lat., 119°24.60′ W. long.;
(106) 34°01.00′ N. lat., 119°21.40′ W. long.;
(107) 34°01.49′ N. lat., 119°21.40′ W. long.; and
(108) 34°01.41′ N. lat., 119°20.61′ W. long.
(xvii) The 30-fm (55-m) depth contour used around southern Channel Islands off the State of California is defined by straight lines around each island/seamount connecting all of the following points in the order stated:
(A) Santa Catalina Island
(1) 33°19.13′ N. lat., 118°18.04′ W. long.;
(2) 33°18.32′ N. lat., 118°18.20′ W. long.;
(3) 33°17.82′ N. lat., 118°18.73′ W. long.;
(4) 33°17.54′ N. lat., 118°19.52′ W. long.;
(5) 33°17.99′ N. lat., 118°21.71′ W. long.;
(6) 33°18.48′ N. lat., 118°22.82′ W. long.;
(7) 33°18.77′ N. lat., 118°26.95′ W. long.;
(8) 33°19.69′ N. lat., 118°28.87′ W. long.;
(9) 33°20.53′ N. lat., 118°30.52′ W. long.;
(10) 33°20.46′ N. lat., 118°31.47′ W. long.;
(11) 33°20.98′ N. lat., 118°31.39′ W. long.;
(12) 33°20.81′ N. lat., 118°30.49′ W. long.;
(13) 33°21.38′ N. lat., 118°30.07′ W. long.;
(14) 33°23.12′ N. lat., 118°29.31′ W. long.;
(15) 33°24.95′ N. lat., 118°29.70′ W. long.;
(16) 33°25.39′ N. lat., 118°30.50′ W. long.;
(17) 33°25.21′ N. lat., 118°30.79′ W. long.;
(18) 33°25.65′ N. lat., 118°31.60′ W. long.;
(19) 33°25.65′ N. lat., 118°32.04′ W. long.;
(20) 33°25.94′ N. lat., 118°32.96′ W. long.;
(21) 33°25.86′ N. lat., 118°33.49′ W. long.;
(22) 33°26.06′ N. lat., 118°34.12′ W. long.;
(23) 33°28.28′ N. lat., 118°36.60′ W. long.;
(24) 33°28.83′ N. lat., 118°36.42′ W. long.;
(25) 33°28.72′ N. lat., 118°34.93′ W. long.;
(26) 33°28.71′ N. lat., 118°33.61′ W. long.;
(27) 33°28.81′ N. lat., 118°32.95′ W. long.;
(28) 33°28.73′ N. lat., 118°32.07′ W. long.;
(29) 33°27.55′ N. lat., 118°30.14′ W. long.;
(30) 33°27.86′ N. lat., 118°29.41′ W. long.;
(31) 33°26.98′ N. lat., 118°29.06′ W. long.;
(32) 33°26.96′N. lat., 118°28.58′ W. long.;
(33) 33°26.76′ N. lat., 118°28.40′ W. long.;
(34) 33°26.52′ N. lat., 118°27.66′ W. long.;
(35) 33°26.31′ N. lat., 118°27.41′ W. long.;
(36) 33°25.09′ N. lat., 118°23.13′ W. long.;
(37) 33°24.80′ N. lat., 118°22.86′ W. long.;
(38) 33°24.60′ N. lat., 118°22.02′ W. long.;
(39) 33°22.82′ N. lat., 118°21.04′ W. long.;
(40) 33°20.23′ N. lat., 118°18.45′ W. long.; and
(41) 33°19.13′N. lat., 118°18.04′ W. long.
(B) San Clemente Island
(1) 33°03.37′N. lat., 118°37.76′ W. long.;
(2) 33°02.72′N. lat., 118°38.12′ W. long.;
(3) 33°02.18′N. lat., 118°37.46′ W. long.;
(4) 33°00.66′N. lat., 118°37.36′ W. long.;
(5) 33°00.08′N. lat., 118°36.94′ W. long.;
(6) 33°00.11′N. lat., 118°36.00′ W. long.;
(7) 32°58.02′N. lat., 118°35.41′ W. long.;
(8) 32°56.00′N. lat., 118°33.59′ W. long.;
(9) 32°54.76′N. lat., 118°33.58′ W. long.;
(10) 32°53.97′N. lat., 118°32.45′ W. long.;
(11) 32°51.18′N. lat., 118°30.83′ W. long.;
(12) 32°50.00′N. lat., 118°29.68′ W. long.;
(13) 32°49.72′N. lat., 118°28.33′ W. long.;
(14) 32°47.88′N. lat., 118°26.09′ W. long.;
(15) 32°47.03′N. lat., 118°25.73′ W. long.;
(16) 32°47.28′N. lat., 118°24.83′ W. long.;
(17) 32°48.12′N. lat., 118°24.33′ W. long.;
(18) 32°48.74′N. lat., 118°23.39′ W. long.;
(19) 32°48.69′N. lat., 118°21.75′ W. long.;
(20) 32°49.06′N. lat., 118°20.53′ W. long.;
(21) 32°50.28′N. lat., 118°21.09′ W. long.;
(22) 32°51.73′N. lat., 118°23.86′ W. long.;
(23) 32°52.79′N. lat., 118°25.08′ W. long.;
(24) 32°54.03′N. lat., 118°26.83′ W. long.;
(25) 32°54.07′N. lat., 118°27.55′ W. long.;
(26) 32°55.49′N. lat., 118°29.04′ W. long.;
(27) 32°59.58′N. lat., 118°32.51′ W. long.;
(28) 32°59.89′N. lat., 118°32.52′ W. long.;
(29) 33°00.29′N. lat., 118°32.73′ W. long.;
(30) 33°00.85′N. lat., 118°33.05′ W. long.;
(31) 33°01.07′N. lat., 118°33.64′ W. long.;
(32) 33°02.09′N. lat., 118°35.35′ W. long.;
(33) 33°02.61′N. lat., 118°36.96′ W. long.; and
(34) 33°03.37′N. lat., 118°37.76′ W. long.
* * * * *
6. On page 11221, in section IV., under B. Limited Entry Fishery, Table 4 (South) is revised to read as follows:
7. On page 11225, in section IV., under C. Trip Limits in the Open Access Fishery, Table 5 (South) is revised to read as follows:
8. On page 11227, in section IV., under D. Recreational Fishery, paragraph (3)(b)(i)(B) is revised and paragraph (3)(b)(i)(C) is added to read as follows:
(3) * * *
(b) * * *
(i)
(B)
(C)
9. On page 11227, in section IV., under D. Recreational Fishery, paragraph (3)(b)(ii)(A) is revised and the second paragraph (3)(b)(ii)(B) is corrected to read (3)(b)(ii)(D) as follows:
(3) * * *
(b) * * *
(ii)
(A)
10. On page 11227, in section IV., under D. Recreational Fishery, paragraphs (3)(b)(iii)(A) and (3)(b)(iv)(A) are revised and the second paragraph (3)(b)(iv) is corrected to read (3)(b)(v) and is revised as follows:
(3) * * *
(b) * * *
(iii)
(A)
(iv)
(v)
Classification
These actions are authorized by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and are based on the most recent data available. The aggregate data upon which these actions are based are available for public inspection at the Office of the Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, (see
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries (AA), NMFS, finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this action pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), because providing prior notice and opportunity for comment would be impracticable. It would be impracticable because the next cumulative trip limit period for the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery begins September 1, 2003, and affording prior notice and opportunity for public comment would delay implementation of this action to after the start of the cumulative limit period. The Pacific Coast groundfish commercial fishery is managed by trip limits and area closures, most of which are based on a 2-month cumulative period (January-February, March-April, May-June, July-August, September-October, November- December). If this action is not implemented by the beginning of the next cumulative trip limit period (September 1, 2003), fishers would be unnecessarily restricted from accessing the increased area available to fishing in southern California. In addition, data for management in both the commercial and recreational fisheries lines up with these 2 month cumulative periods. If management actions are changed during a cumulative limit period, it may complicate analysis of the data by making it more difficult to determine how management measures influence data results.
There was not adequate time between when new scientific information became available for decision-making and when drafting and reviewing the regulatory package, including the environmental analysis, was complete for prior notice and opportunity for public comment. The new stock assessment for bocaccio, showing an increased biomass and higher recruitment than previously predicted, was released in May 2003. This new scientific information was then presented to the Pacific Council as a tool for decision-making at their June 16-20, 2003 meeting in Foster City, CA. While new stock assessments are generally reserved for setting the harvest levels for the following annual management cycle, 2004 in this case, the Pacific Council recommended the new information on the status of bocaccio be used for inseason management of the fishery in 2003. In 2003, groundfish fisheries coastwide have been severely restricted by large areas closed to fishing. The Pacific Council, at its June meeting, decided to use the new information on bocaccio to provide some relief to the commercial non-trawl and recreational fisheries in southern California by moving the boundary line from 20-fm (37-m) to 30-fm (55-m) south of 34°27′ N. lat. to the U.S./Mexico border. Moving the boundary line in this area made additional area in the ocean available for fishing. Because this new management measure recommended by the Pacific Council had not been previously analyzed in an environmental assessment, as required under the National Environmental Policy Act to determine potential impacts to the environment, an EA/RIR was prepared for this action following the June Council meeting. In addition to developing further data for analysis for the EA/RIR after the June Council meeting, CDFG had to develop coordinates approximating the 30-fm (55-m)depth contour. Between the approximately 2 months from the Pacific Council meeting decision to implementation of the recommendation, there was a tight time schedule to gather further information and complete the EA/RIR and regulatory package that did not allow for adequate time for prior notice and opportunity for comment.
Moving the boundary line will relieve restrictions by opening an area that was previously closed, thereby providing greater harvest opportunities than were previously scheduled for the remainder of the year. Thus, they are not subject to a 30-day delay in effectiveness under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).
The AA also finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this correction
This emergency rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
This emergency rule is exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because this rule is
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the C season allowance of the pollock total allowable catch (TAC) for Statistical Area 610 of the GOA.
Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), August 30, 2003, through 1200 hrs, A.l.t., September 15, 2003.
Josh Keaton, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The C season allowance of the pollock TAC in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA is 5,500 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2003 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (68 FR 9924, March 3, 2003). In accordance with § 679.20(a)(5)(iii)(B), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, (Regional Administrator) hereby increases the C season pollock TAC by 6 mt, the amount of the A and B season pollock allowance in Statistical Area 610 that was not previously taken in the A and B seasons and split equally between the C and D seasons. The revised C season allowance of pollock TAC in Statistical Area 610 is therefore 5,506 mt (5,500 mt plus 6 mt).
In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Regional Administrator has determined that the revised C season allowance of the pollock TAC in Statistical Area 610 has been reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 5,456 mt, and is setting aside the remaining 50 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance will soon be reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA.
Maximum retainable amounts may be found in the regulations at § 679.20(e) and (f).
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is contrary to the public interest. This requirement is contrary to the public interest as it would delay the closure of the fishery, lead to exceeding the C season TAC in Statistical Area 610, and therefore reduce the public's ability to use and enjoy the fishery resource.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 620 of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the C season allowance of the pollock total allowable catch (TAC) for Statistical Area 620 of the GOA.
Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), August 30, 2003, through 1200 hrs, A.l.t., September 15, 2003.
Josh Keaton, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fisher Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The C season allowance of the pollock TAC in Statistical Area 620 of the GOA is 2,686 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2003 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (68 FR 9924, March 3, 2003). In accordance with § 679.20(a)(5)(iii)(B), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, (Regional Administrator) hereby reduces the C season pollock TAC by 820 mt, the amount of harvest previously taken in excess of the A and B season pollock allowances in Statistical Area 620 and split equally between the C and D seasons. The revised C season allowance of pollock TAC in Statistical Area 620 is therefore 1,866 mt (2,686 mt minus 820 mt).
In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Regional Administrator has determined that the revised C season allowance of the pollock TAC in Statistical Area 620 has been reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is
Maximum retainable amounts may be found in the regulations at § 679.20(e) and (f).
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is contrary to the public interest. This requirement is contrary to the public interest as it would delay the closure of the fishery, lead to exceeding the C season allowance of the pollock TAC in Statistical Area 620, and therefore reduce the public's ability to use and enjoy the fishery resource.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Pratt & Whitney (PW) JT9D-3A, -7, -7A, -7AH, -7H, -7F, -7J, -20, and -20J turbofan engines. This proposed AD would clarify a life limit for certain part numbers of 6th stage low pressure turbine (LPT) air seals, and require their removal from service before accumulating 15,000 cycles-since-new (CSN). This proposed AD is prompted by reports of certain 6th stage LPT air seals possibly not being life tracked due to confusion from updates to the engine manuals. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of the 6th stage LPT air seal, which could cause LPT damage resulting in an uncontained engine failure.
We must receive any comments on this proposed AD by November 4, 2003.
Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD:
• By mail: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), New England Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2003-NE-34-AD, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5299.
• By fax: (781) 238-7055.
• By e-mail:
You can get the service information identified in this proposed AD from Pratt & Whitney, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06108; telephone (860) 565-8770; fax (860) 565-4503.
You may examine the AD docket at the FAA, New England Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA.
Keith Lardie, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5299; telephone (781) 238-7189; fax (781) 238-7199.
We invite you to submit any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under
We are reviewing the writing style we currently use in regulatory documents. We are interested in your comments on whether the style of this document is clear, and your suggestions to improve the clarity of our communications that affect you. You may get more information about plain language at
You may examine the AD Docket (including any comments and service information), by appointment, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. See
The FAA has recently been made aware that the life limit for 6th stage LPT air seals, part numbers (P/Ns) 808846, 809171, 811260 and 811261, may not be clearly stated in Chapter 5 of the engine manuals. Proper life tracking of these parts is required to ensure safe operation of engines, but because of changes to the engine manuals some operators may have believed that some 6th stage LPT air seals may not require life tracking. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the 6th stage LPT air seal, which could cause LPT damage resulting in an uncontained engine failure.
We have reviewed and approved the technical contents of PW Service Bulletin No. JT9D 6448, dated June 10, 2003, that describes procedures for calculating 6th stage LPT air seal part life for air seals that have not been previously life tracked.
We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design. Therefore, we are proposing this AD, which would clarify the life limit for 6th stage LPT air seals, P/Ns 808846, 809171, 811260, and 811261, and require their removal from service before accumulating 15,000 CSN. The proposed AD would require you to use the service information described previously for calculating 6th stage LPT air seal part life for parts that have not been previously life tracked.
On July 10, 2002, we published a new version of 14 CFR part 39 (67 FR 47997, July 22, 2002), which governs the FAA's AD system. This regulation now includes material that relates to altered products, special flight permits, and alternative methods of compliance. This material previously was included in each individual AD. Since this material is included in 14 CFR part 39, we will not include it in future AD actions.
There are about 1,024 engines of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. We estimate that 367 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD. We also
We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD 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.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the 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. Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this proposal and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a request to us at the address listed under
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 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. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive:
(a) The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) action by November 4, 2003.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to Pratt & Whitney (PW) JT9D-3A, -7, -7A, -7AH, -7H, -7F, -7J, -20, and -20J turbofan engines. These engines are installed on, but not limited to, Boeing 747-100, 747-200, 747SR, 747SP, and DC10-40 series airplanes.
(d) This proposed AD is prompted by reports of certain 6th stage low pressure turbine (LPT) air seals possibly not being life tracked due to confusion from updates to the engine manuals. Chapter 5 of Engine Manuals part numbers (P/Ns) 646028, 770407, and 770408 will be revised to show a life limit of 15,000 cycles-since-new (CSN) for 6th stage air seal P/N's 808846, 809171, 811260 and 811261. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the 6th stage LPT air seal which could cause LPT damage, resulting in an uncontained engine failure.
(e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified unless the actions have already been done.
(f) For 6th stage LPT air seals, P/Ns 808846, 809171, 811260, and 811261, with an unknown number of cycles since installed, calculate the service life within 60 days after the effective date of this AD.
(1) Use Method 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of PW Service Bulletin (SB) No. JT9D 6448, dated June 10, 2003, for when all service records are available for the specific air seal, to calculate the service life.
(2) Use Method 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of PW SB No. JT9D 6448, dated June 10, 2003, for when any or all service records are not available for a specific air seal, to calculate the service life. If the worst-case daily utilization rate is unknown, use the fleet worst-case daily utilization rate of 2.9 cycles/day.
(g) Remove 6th stage LPT air seals, P/Ns 808846, 809171, 811260, and 811261, from service at or before accumulating the CSN in the following Table 1.
(h) If the service life cannot be determined as specified in paragraph (f) of this AD, remove the 6th stage LPT air seal before accumulating 2,500 cycles-in-service after the effective date of this AD.
(i) After the effective date of this AD, do not install any 6th stage LPT air seal, P/N 808846, 809171, 811260, or 811261, that exceeds 15,000 CSN, or that was removed to comply with paragraph (h) of this AD because its service life could not be determined.
(j) The Manager, Engine Certification Office, has the authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(k) You must use Pratt & Whitney Service Bulletin No. JT9D 6448, dated June 10, 2003, to perform the service life calculations required by this AD. Approval of incorporation by reference from the Office of the Federal Register is pending.
(l) None.
Department of Defense.
Withdrawal; correction.
The Department of Defense published a withdrawal of a final rule (68 FR 51705, August 28, 2003) on Coordination of Benefits Between TRICARE and the Department of Veterans Affairs (68 FR 49732, August 19, 2003). This document is published to correct the status of that rule as a “proposed” rule. All other information remains unchanged.
The correction effective September 5, 2003.
L.M. Bynum, 703-601-4722 ext. 109.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to temporarily change the operating regulations of the dual vertical lift bridges on Interstate Highway 5 across the Columbia River, mile 106.5, between Portland, OR and Vancouver, WA to accommodate a major rehabilitation of the mechanical and electrical systems of the bridges. From July 15, 2004, to August 6, 2004, the lift spans would be closed and from August 6, 2004, to October 15, 2004, the draws would open for the passage of vessels once every two weeks according to an established schedule. The affected period approximates the annual season of low water on the Columbia when the maximum vertical clearance will be available.
Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before October 20, 2003.
You may mail comments and related material to Commander (oan), 13th Coast Guard District, 915 Second Avenue, Seattle, WA 98174-1067 where the public docket for this rulemaking is maintained. 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 between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Austin Pratt, Chief Bridge Section, (206) 220-7282.
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 [CGD13-03-027], indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8
An abbreviated comment period is in effect for this proposal in order to expedite processing. This will allow the bridge owner to advertise the project for bidding with adequate lead-time and as described by the limits to the project set by the temporary rule promulgated in the light of comments received.
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 proposed temporary rule would enable the bridge owners to conduct a major rehabilitation project during the part of the year when water levels are typically low enough that most vessels do not need the drawspans to open for their passage. The seven million dollar project would completely replace the existing 1959 electrical system in both bridges and the 1916 gears in the northbound drawbridge. In addition, the operating control center would be rebuilt with improved visibility and new television cameras. During the first three weeks of the period, the dual lifts would remain in the down position to facilitate gear replacement. Thereafter, openings would be provided once every two weeks, if needed, until the end of the temporary period. Historically, water levels on the Columbia River fluctuate significantly over the course of an annual cycle. Essentially, water levels are dependent on the accumulation of snow in the winter and its melting in the spring and early summer. The annual dry season in the Pacific Northwest is typically from approximately July 15 to October 15. Usually rainfall begins to raise water levels again after October 15.
A river elevation of 6.0 feet Columbia River Datum (CRD) is the critical point for towboats on the Columbia River at and upstream of the bridges. Cargo towing is the main commercial use of the Columbia above the bridges. Large oceangoing vessels do not generally pass above these bridges. The towboats that ply that portion of the Columbia require 52 feet of vertical clearance. Most towing vessels and passenger tour vessels are able to pass through the highest fixed spans near midstream without requiring the vertical lift spans near the north shore to open when the river level is six feet or less.
The exceptions are the tallest sailboats, some construction derricks, and large structures that have been built upstream of the bridges at shore facilities. With the exception of the first three weeks of the affected period when the draws need not open, an opening will be provided every two weeks. During summer months the openings average less than one per day, mostly for sailboats, some of which could pass the higher fixed spans if antennas were lowered.
The established operating regulation for the Interstate 5 bridges requires that the draws open on signal except that they need not open from 6:30 a.m. to 9 a.m. and from 2:30 p.m. to 6 p.m.
The proposed temporary rule would authorize a continuous closure of the draws from 6:30 a.m. July 15 to 9 p.m. August 6, 2004. On August 6 and 20, September 3 and 17 and October 1, 2004, openings will be provided on signal at 9 p.m. Openings need not be provided at times other than these from August 6 until 9 p.m. October 15. In the event that the river runs at 6 feet Columbia River datum or higher between 9 p.m. on August 6 and 9 p.m. October 15, 2004, or the date the drawbridges are restored to normal operation, the bridge owners would provide an assist tug to commercial tows when requested by the towing vessel master for safe passage through the bridges. For downbound tows, this assist boat may be retained until a tow has safely passed the Burlington Northern Santa Fe swing span 0.8 mile downstream of the dual highway bridges. The master of the vessel would inform the draw tender prior to arrival at the I-5 bridges whenever an assist boat is to be used.
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.
We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary.
We do expect recreational sailboats to be affected by this temporary rule. This class of vessel most commonly requires openings of the subject drawbridges during the summer months. Some of these vessels will either have to find alternate moorage or otherwise be limited in their operating areas during the project. Others will be able to modify their top hamper by lowering antennas, instruments, masts, etc., in order to pass the bridge if the biweekly scheduled openings do not serve their needs. These vessel operators will receive notice of several months duration to plan their activities for summer 2004.
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. We expect that some recreational sailboat owners will be affected by this proposal. Most other vessels will either not require openings of the draws during low water season or will be accommodated by the biweekly scheduled openings. Some sail boaters will have to change their moorage and itineraries or modify their vessels to avoid delays.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (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 Austin Pratt, Chief, Bridge Section at (206) 220-7282.
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
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.
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
We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 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 (32)(e) of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. There are no expected environmental consequences of the proposed action that would require further analysis and documentation.
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:
33 U.S.C. 499; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); section 117.255 also issued under the authority of Pub.L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039.
2. From 6:30 a.m. on July 15, 2004, until 9 p.m. on October 15, 2004, in § 117.869, suspend paragraph (a) and add a new paragraph (d) to read as follows:
(d) The draws of the Interstate 5 Bridges, mile 106.5, between Portland, OR, and Vancouver, WA, need not open for the passage of vessels from 6:30 a.m. on July 15, 2004, to 9 p.m. on August 6, 2004, and at no other time until 9 p.m. on October 15 except for scheduled openings on signal at 9 p.m. on August 6 and 20 and September 3 and 17 and October 1, 2004.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA proposes to approve a revision to the Nebraska State Implementation Plan (SIP) and Operating Permits Program. On September 5, 2002, the state updated its air program construction and operating permitting rules, its definitions rule, and emission inventory reporting rule. Approval of these revisions will ensure consistency between the state and Federally-approved rules, and ensure Federal enforceability of the state's revised air program rules.
Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by October 6, 2003.
Comments may be submitted either by mail or electronically. Written comments should be mailed to Wayne Kaiser, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Electronic comments should be sent either to Wayne Kaiser at
Wayne Kaiser at (913) 551-7603 or by e-mail at
In the final rules section of the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice of availability; opening of public comment period.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, or “we”) is announcing an inspection for the week of September 8, 2003, at the Hanford Site in Washington. With this action, we also announce availability of Department of Energy (DOE) documents in the EPA Docket, and solicit public comments on the documents available in the docket for a period of 30 days. The following DOE documents, entitled “CCP-PO-001—Revision 6, 6/11/03—CCP Transuranic Waste Characterization Quality Assurance Project Plan” and “CCP-PO-002—Revision 6, 6/11/03—CCP Transuranic Waste Certification Plan,” are available for review in the public dockets listed in
EPA is requesting public comment on the documents. Comments must be received by EPA's official Air Docket on or before October 6, 2003.
Comments may be submitted by mail to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Air and Radiation Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West, Mail Code 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0144. Comments may also be submitted electronically, by facsimile, or through hand delivery/courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I.B of the
Mr. Ed Feltcorn, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, (202) 564-9422. You can also call EPA's toll-free WIPP Information Line, 1-800-331-WIPP or visit our website at
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.
For additional information about EPA's electronic public docket visit EPA Dockets online or see 67 FR 38102, May 31, 2002.
You may submit comments electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification 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. However, late comments may be considered if time permits.
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 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 your estimate.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Offer alternatives.
7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and
DOE is operating the WIPP near Carlsbad in southeastern New Mexico as a deep geologic repository for disposal of TRU radioactive waste. As defined by the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act (LWA) of 1992 (Pub. L. 102-579), as amended (Pub. L. 104-201), transuranic (TRU) waste consists of materials containing elements having atomic numbers greater than 92 (with half-lives greater than twenty years), in concentrations greater than 100 nanocuries of alpha-emitting TRU isotopes per gram of waste. Much of the existing TRU waste consists of items contaminated during the production of nuclear weapons, such as rags, equipment, tools, and sludges.
On May 13, 1998, EPA announced its final compliance certification decision to the Secretary of Energy (published May 18, 1998, 63 FR 27354). This decision stated that the WIPP will comply with EPA's radioactive waste disposal regulations at 40 CFR part 191, subparts B and C.
The final WIPP certification decision includes conditions that (1) Prohibit shipment of TRU waste for disposal at WIPP from any site other than the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) until the EPA determines that the site has established and executed a quality assurance program, in accordance with §§ 194.22(a)(2)(i), 194.24(c)(3), and 194.24(c)(5) for waste characterization activities and assumptions (Condition 2 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 194); and (2) prohibit shipment of TRU waste for disposal at WIPP from any site other than LANL until the EPA has approved the procedures developed to comply with the waste characterization requirements of § 194.22(c)(4) (Condition 3 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 194). The EPA's approval process for waste generator sites is described in § 194.8. As part of EPA's decision-making process, the DOE is required to submit to EPA appropriate documentation of quality assurance and waste characterization programs at each DOE waste generator site seeking approval for shipment of TRU radioactive waste to WIPP. In accordance with § 194.8, EPA will place such documentation in the official Air Docket in Washington, D.C., and informational dockets in the State of New Mexico for public review and comment.
EPA will perform an inspection of the TRU waste characterization activities performed by the DOE's Central Characterization Project (CCP) staff at the Hanford Site in accordance with Condition 3 of the WIPP certification. The CCP is a mobile characterization facility that DOE is developing to assist small TRU waste generator sites with complex waste characterization activities. We will evaluate the adequacy, implementation, and effectiveness of the CCP technical activities contracted by Hanford for characterization of the disposal of retrievably-stored debris waste at the WIPP. The overall program adequacy and effectiveness of CCP/Hanford documents will be based on the following DOE-provided documents: (1) CCP-PO-001—Revision 6, 6/11/03—CCP Transuranic Waste Characterization Quality Assurance Project Plan and (2) CCP-PO-002—Revision 6, 6/11/03—CCP Transuranic Waste Certification Plan. EPA has placed these DOE-provided documents pertinent to the Hanford inspection in the public docket described in
EPA will inspect the following technical elements for characterizing retrievably-stored TRU debris and solid waste: data validation and verification, acceptable knowledge (AK), nondestructive assay (NDA-WIT and APNEA), Digital Radiography/Computed Tomography, visual examination (VE), and data tracking and reporting via the WIPP Waste Information System (WWIS).
If EPA determines as a result of the inspection that the proposed CCP waste characterization processes and programs used at Hanford adequately control the characterization of transuranic waste, we will notify DOE by letter and place the letter in the official Air Docket in
Information on the certification decision is filed in the official EPA Air Docket, Docket No. A-93-02 and is available for review in Washington, DC, and at three EPA WIPP informational docket locations in New Mexico. The dockets in New Mexico contain only major items from the official Air Docket in Washington, DC, plus those documents added to the official Air Docket since the October 1992 enactment of the WIPP LWA.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (we or us) proposes changes in the regulations governing the import into the United States of parts of protected migratory birds. We propose to specify the requirements for importing down of nesting common eiders that breed in Iceland and list the procedures required to harvest, import, possess, and manufacture finished eiderdown products. We are requesting comments on information collection associated with the proposed rule.
Comments on this proposed rule will be accepted through December 4, 2003 to the address below.
Comments on the information collection aspects of this proposed rule will be considered if received by November 4, 2003. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove information collection but may respond after 30 days. Therefore, to ensure maximum consideration, your comments should be received by OMB by October 6, 2003.
You may mail or deliver written comments on this proposal to: RIN 1018-AI64, Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, MS MBSP 4107, Arlington, Virginia 22203-1610. Alternatively, you may submit your comments via the Internet:
You may submit comments on the information collection aspects of the proposed rule to the Desk Officer for the Department of Interior at the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, via facsimile or e-mail using the following fax number and e-mail address: 202/395-6566 (fax);
In your written comments to the Division of Migratory Bird Management, please reference “RIN 1018-AI64” at the top of your letter. Include your name and return address. Anonymous comments will not be accepted. Please submit Internet comments as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Include your name and return address in your e-mail message. If you do not receive a confirmation that we have received your message, contact us directly at 703/358-1714.
The complete file for this proposed rule, including electronic and written comments received, will be available for public inspection by appointment, during normal business hours at the Division of Migratory Bird Management address listed above. You may call 703/358-1714 to make an appointment to view the files.
Brian Millsap, Chief, Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 703/358-1714.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the Federal agency with the primary responsibility for managing migratory birds. We propose changes in the regulations governing the import into the United States of parts of protected migratory birds. We propose to specify the requirements for importing down of nesting common eiders that breed in Iceland and list the procedures required to harvest, import, possess, and manufacture finished eiderdown products. Our authority is based on the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703
The MBTA requires that any regulations authorizing activities otherwise prohibited by 16 U.S.C. 703 are “[s]ubject to the provisions and in order to carry out the purposes of the conventions.” 16 U.S.C. 704. This rule is consistent with each of the applicable treaties. Most importantly, this rule is consistent with the conservation intent of the treaties, as it builds in sufficient safeguards to ensure that the activities it allows will not have a negative impact on the conservation of common eiders or other birds protected by the conventions. It is also consistent with the expressed intent of the parties that migratory birds be conserved, in part, to allow their economic utilization.
First, the treaty with Canada (as amended by the 1995 Protocol) prohibits, with some exceptions not relevant here, the sale of “migratory birds, their nests, or eggs.” Article II, para. 2. However, this prohibition does
Second, the treaty with Mexico (as amended by the 1997 Protocol) prohibits the sale of products or parts of migratory birds during the close[d] season, and mandates a particular close[d] season for wild ducks (which include common eiders). Article II, paras. A and D. However, exceptions to this prohibition include “when proceeding, with appropriate authorization, from private game farms.” The Icelandic eider farms are “private game farms” within the meaning of this provision. There are no applicable restrictions on import of the eider down, as long as it does not enter the United States via Mexico.
Third, the treaty with Russia prohibits the sale or importation of the parts or products of protected birds, but allows exceptions to these prohibitions by law or regulation for any “specific purposes not inconsistent with the principles of this Convention.” Article II, para. 1(a). As discussed above, this rule is consistent with the principles of all the treaties, and therefore falls within this broad exception.
Finally, the treaty with Japan, unlike the other three treaties, does not apply to the common eider.
Federal regulations prohibit the commercial use of feathers from migratory birds to prevent the large-scale take of protected birds for profit and to insure the future viability of those species. Under the Act's implementing regulations found in Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, migratory birds or their parts, nests, or eggs may not be imported or sold except as permitted under the terms of a valid permit issued pursuant to the provisions of Parts 13, 17, 20, and 21. Current regulations, specifically Sections 20.61 (importation limits), 20.91 (commercial use of feathers), 21.21 (import and export permits), and 21.25 (waterfowl sale and disposal permits) of 50 CFR do not allow the importation of eiderdown. The only migratory bird feathers that can be sold are those taken from waterfowl that have been legally hunted (Section 20.91) or are captive bred (Section 21.25). The feathers from legally hunted birds can only be fashioned into fishing flies, bed pillows, and mattresses or used for similar commercial items. Feathers may not be used for millinery or ornamental purposes. Captive-bred waterfowl that are properly marked may be sold, but because the feathers of wild-reared common eiders in Iceland cannot meet this marking requirement, individual feathers cannot be sold under current regulations.
The wild, breeding common eider in Iceland is unique among the hundreds of MBTA-protected migratory birds. The hen of the common eider produces a breast down that has exceptional insulating qualities and is naturally shed during nesting to insulate the eggs and hatchlings. While other down from geese (
Before raw down is exported from Iceland, it is cleaned to remove extraneous materials such as moss, grass, and soil. The raw down is then heated (processed) for at least 8 hours at minimum sustained temperatures of 100 °C to kill any ectoparasites and diseases that may be carried by the feathers.
Two other species of eider in the genus
Icelanders have practiced “eider farming” for centuries. Although birds are not captive, they have developed a mutualistic association with humans. All nesting colonies are located on private lands. Some 650 colonies are currently registered with the Icelandic Ministry of the Environment. Landowners maintain legal rights to collect down from eider nests. Icelandic law allows landowners to have their eider nesting grounds declared “legally protected” during the breeding season from April 15 to July 14, which gives farmers the right to deny public access to nest sites and prohibit any shooting within 1.6 miles of nesting colony boundaries or prohibit any net fishing within 0.16 miles of the colony.
True eiderdown from the common eider is a scarce luxury item, with annual worldwide production averaging less than 3 metric tons, at a total annual average price of less than $2.2 million (U.S.). Iceland currently exports eiderdown primarily to Denmark, Germany, and Japan where it may be re-exported elsewhere. The high cost and limited quantity of true eiderdown may be an incentive for false labeling of eiderdown which may actually have been acquired from another waterfowl species. The eiderdown may also have been obtained using unsustainable methods outside of Iceland. Large populations of common eider are found
The general statutory authority to charge fees for applications for permits and certificates is found in 31 U.S.C. 9701, which states that services provided by Federal agencies are to be “self-sustaining to the extent possible.” Federal user fee policy, as stated in Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-25, requires Federal agencies to recoup the costs of “special services” that provide benefits to identifiable recipients. Permits are special services, authorizing identifiable recipients to engage in activities not otherwise authorized for the general public.
We propose to amend 50 CFR 13.11(d), the nonstandard fee schedule, to charge a $100 application processing fee (user fee) for an eiderdown import permit. For migratory bird permits, these fees are reallocated to the seven Service Regional Offices where all the permit processing work is done to offset the cost of processing applications.
In addition to workload-related cost, the Service considered several other factors in developing the new permit application fee schedule for import of eiderdown in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 9701, which states that changes for services provided by the Government shall be based on (1) the costs to the Government; (2) the value of the service or thing to the recipient; (3) public policy or interest served; and (4) other relevant factors. Thus, the Service took into consideration such factors as whether the permit serves the public interest, and whether the type of permit to be issued typically provides a commercial benefit, either directly or indirectly, to the recipient. Eiderdown is generally used for commercial purposes. The Service therefore feels this fee is appropriate for a commercial use. While the Service's proposed $100 fee will more closely conform to the Federal user fee policy by recovering a greater proportion of the direct and indirect costs of providing special services than is currently being required, this proposed permit fee allowing importation of eiderdown from Iceland is not great enough to recover the full cost of administering this permit. Administration costs include research and analysis, policy development, consultation, outreach, publication of notices in the
We have written the new regulation in plain language. We seek comment on this proposed regulation, particularly the following issues:
1. Appropriate down collection procedures, verification standards, and enforcement procedures;
2. Measures to ensure that exportation of down from Iceland does not encourage illegal importation of any other waterfowl species into the United States;
3. Record-keeping and annual reporting requirements;
4. Avian control of MBTA-protected species;
5. Reasonableness of the permit conditions; and
6. Reasonableness of the permit application fee.
Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. Under limited circumstances, as allowable by law, we can withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from individuals and organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representing an organization or business, available for public inspection in their entirety.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531,
a. This rule will not have an annual economic effect of $100 million or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of government. A cost-benefit and economic analysis are not required. Currently less than 3 metric tons of Icelandic eiderdown are exported annually, primarily to Denmark, Germany, and Japan, for a total annual sale that does not exceed $2.2 million (U.S.) on average. If a U.S. market is opened, very little eiderdown will likely be imported resulting in virtually no effect on the economy, productivity, jobs, the environment, or government.
b. This rule will not create inconsistencies with other agencies' actions. The rule deals solely with importation of Icelandic eiderdown into the United States. No other Federal agency has any role in regulating bird feather importation.
c. This rule will not materially affect entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients. There are no entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs associated with the regulation of eiderdown importation.
d. This rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues. This rule is primarily an amendment to and plain language rewrite of the existing regulations. Provisions to import Icelandic eiderdown proposed in the rule are in compliance with other laws, policies, and regulations.
a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.
c. Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
a. This rule will not “significantly or uniquely” affect small governments. A Small Government Agency Plan is not required. Enforcement of the MBTA is solely the responsibility of the Federal Government.
b. This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. It will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any year.
Simultaneous with the publication of this proposed rule, we have submitted an application for information collection approval to OMB. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
We intend to collect information associated with the importation of Icelandic eiderdown from those U.S. citizens and U.S. companies that are granted an Icelandic eiderdown import permit, from representatives of the Government of Iceland (GOI), and from representatives of the Icelandic Eider Farmers' Association.
Because it is difficult to identify the species of eider from which down is collected, and because it is difficult if not impossible to identify the source and type of down used in finished products, the requirements for information collection are key to monitoring common eider population stability, eiderdown harvest, down availability, down export from Iceland, government-certified collection procedures, possible down laundering, and possible false labeling. With less than 3 metric tons on average of eiderdown annually harvested from common eiders in Iceland, information collection will help track continuing harvests, alerting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) Office of Law Enforcement and the Service's Division of Migratory Bird Management to possible problems including alleged violations of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Without this information collection, it would not be possible to assess population stability and down harvest sustainability.
Information collections associated with this proposed rule are found in sections 21.33 (a) and (c) (completing an eiderdown import permit application), 21.33(b) (preconditions required of the GOI), 21.33(e)(2) (certification of inspection by a GOI inspector), 21.33(e)(3) (labeling requirements), and 21.33(e)(5) and (6) (recordkeeping requirements).
The breakdown of the information collection burden for U.S. citizens is as follows: We estimate that 21.33(a) and (c) will have 25 annual respondents with 25 total annual burden hours valued at $750; we estimate that 21.33(e)(5) and (6) will have 25 annual respondents with 25 total burden hours valued at $750. Overall, we estimate that a total of 25 U.S. respondents will annually submit a total of 50 responses to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with the importation of Icelandic eiderdown. We estimate that the average wage of U.S. citizens and representatives of U.S. companies importing eiderdown is $30 per hour, and we estimate that each response will require an average of 1 hour to complete, for a total 50 hours per year valued at $1,500 for all of the information collection and recordkeeping requirements in this proposed rule for U.S. citizens and U.S. companies.
For GOI and members of the Icelandic Eider Farmers' Association, many of the information collection requirements in this proposed rule are already standard business practice for exporting eiderdown from Iceland to countries other than the United States. Certain additional burden hours for these entities would be newly required by the proposed rule, however, and they are described below.
We estimate that 21.33(b)(3) will require the following information collection burden for GOI: The GOI will need an average of 25 hours per year to locate, photocopy, maintain records, and mail copies of all the veterinary certificates related to export of eiderdown to the United States; 25 hours to locate, photocopy, maintain records, and mail copies of all labeling certificates related to eiderdown export to the United States; 100 hours to visit randomly selected eider colonies to verify that preconditions are being met; 1 hour to locate, photocopy, maintain records, and mail information regarding preconditions to exporting eiderdown; and 1 hour to locate, photocopy, maintain records, and mail information for annual reporting, including information on the amounts of eiderdown exported to countries other than the United States. This amounts to a total of 152 hours per year for GOI to comply with the information collection requirements associated with the export of eiderdown to the United States and to other countries. We estimate that the average wage of GOI officials collecting the information is $30 per hour (U.S.), and thus, the dollar value of the total annual hour burden is $4,560.
We estimate that 21.33(b)(3)(v) and (e)(3) will require the following information collection burden for representatives of the Icelandic Eider Farmers' Association: 50 representatives of the Eider Farmers' Association will each need 1 hour to photocopy and mail records regarding the processing and export of eiderdown to GOI. This amounts to a total of 50 hours per year for Icelandic eider farmers to comply with the information collection requirements associated with the export of eiderdown to the United States. We estimate that the average wage of eider farmers collecting the information is $30 per hour (U.S.), and thus, the dollar value of the total annual hour burden is $1,500.
OMB regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an
Send a copy of any written comments about how we could make this rule easier to understand to: Office of Executive Secretariat and Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240. You may also e-mail comments to this address:
Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, we propose to amend parts 13 and 21, chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows.
1. The authority citation for part 13 continues to read as follows:
16 U.S.C. 668a, 704, 712, 742j-l, 1382, 1538(d), 1539, 1540(f), 3374, 4901-4916; 18 U.S.C. 42; 19 U.S.C. 1202; E.O. 11911, 41 FR 15683; 31 U.S.C. 9701.
2. Amend § 13.11(d)(4) by adding the following entry to the end of the table, to read as follows:
(d) * * *
(4)
3. Amend § 13.12(b) by adding to the table the following entry in numerical order under “Migratory bird permits” to read as follows:
(b) * * *
4. The authority citation for part 21 continues to read as follows:
Pub. L. 95-616; 92 Stat. 3112 (16 U.S.C. 712(2)); Pub. L. 106-108.
5. Add § 21.33 to subpart C to read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(1) That Icelandic eiderdown is collected by sustainable means. This includes collection procedures and periods, the collection process, the quantity of down to be taken from each nest, and verification standards.
(2) That only sustainably harvested down from Iceland is being exported to the United States.
(3) At the end of each calendar year, that:
(i) The common eider population continues to be stable (If we cannot verify population sustainability, then we will not issue permits for the import of Icelandic eiderdown);
(ii) No measures are being taken to kill or injure Migratory Bird Treaty Act-protected (MBTA) species (
(iii) Down is not being treated with DDT or other similar compounds banned in the United States;
(iv) Hunting of common eiders continues to be banned nationwide; and
(v) The complete annual export records contain the exact weight, shipment dates, and Icelandic shipment and permit numbers of all eiderdown.
(c)
(1) Each application must contain the information required under § 13.12(a) of this subchapter.
(2) Each applicant must sign the following certification statement: “I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the eiderdown I import under the authorization of this permit was collected and exported according to the conditions for the importation of Icelandic eiderdown as set forth in 50 CFR 21.33(b).” We will not issue a permit under this section without this signed certification statement.
(3) You must submit a check or money order made payable to the “U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service” in the amount of the application fee for permits issued under this section listed in § 13.11(d) of this subchapter.
(d)
(1) We will not issue a permit for these purposes unless the applicant certifies that the feathers were gathered according to the protocol detailed in paragraph (b) of this section by signing the certification provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section. In addition, each shipment of eiderdown to a U.S. company or individual must include an Icelandic eiderdown export permit and an import permit issued by the Service.
(2) To acquire a permit application, contact the Migratory Bird Permit Office in the Region where your business is headquartered, or, for private individuals, where you live (see § 2.2 of this chapter for Regional boundaries and addresses, or go to the Internet at
(3) You may, without a permit, sell in interstate commerce lawfully imported processed eiderdown in either raw processed form or that has been fashioned into finished products produced from down.
(e)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(f)
Yes. The OMB control number for the information collection associated with these regulations (50 CFR Parts 13 and 21) is 1018-XXXX. A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and you are not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS issues this proposed rule to implement Amendment 16-1 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Amendment 16-1 would set a process for and standards by which the Council will specify rebuilding plans for groundfish stocks declared overfished by the Secretary of Commerce. Amendment 16-1 is intended to ensure that Pacific Coast groundfish overfished species rebuilding plans meet the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), in particular National Standard 1 on overfishing and § 304(e), which addresses rebuilding overfished fisheries. Amendment 16-1 is also intended to partially respond to a court order in which NMFS was ordered to provide Pacific Coast groundfish rebuilding plans as FMPs, FMP amendments, or regulations, per the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Comments must be submitted in writing by October 6, 2003.
Comments on Amendment 16-1 or supporting documents should be sent to D. Robert Lohn, Administrator, Northwest Region,
Copies of Amendment 16-1 and the environmental assessment/ regulatory impact review/initial regulatory flexibility analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA)) are available from Donald McIsaac, Executive Director, Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Portland, OR 97220, phone: 503-820-2280.
Yvonne deReynier (Northwest Region, NMFS), phone: 206-526-6150; fax: 206-526-6736 and; e-mail:
This
NMFS is proposing this rule to implement Amendment 16-1 to the FMP. Amendment 16-1 mainly revises the FMP and not Federal regulations. However, the specific standards that govern the harvest levels for overfished species rebuilding plans would be codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Thus, this proposed rule would establish a new section in the Federal groundfish regulations at 50 CFR 660.370 for overfished species rebuilding plans. This proposed rule to implement Amendment 16-1 will be shortly followed by a proposed rule to implement Amendment 16-2, which was adopted by the Council in June 2003. If approved, Amendment 16-2 would place rebuilding plans for canary rockfish, darkblotched rockfish, lingcod, and Pacific ocean perch in the FMP and in Federal regulations. NMFS expects to publish a Notice of Availability for Amendment 16-2 in autumn 2003. This proposed rule is based on recommendations of the Council, under the authority of the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The background and rationale for the Council's recommendations are summarized below. Further detail appears in the EA/RIR/IRFA prepared by the Council for Amendment 16-1.
Amendment 12 to the FMP was intended to provide a process for developing overfished species rebuilding plans. Under Amendment 12, rebuilding plans were to be stand-alone documents that described an overfished stock's status and articulated rebuilding goals and strategies for achieving those goals. Amendment 12 was challenged, and the court ordered NMFS to develop rebuilding plans as fishery management plans, plan amendments, or regulations. Amendment 16-1 is intended to partially respond to this Court order (
Amendment 16-1 would require that Pacific Coast groundfish overfished species rebuilding plans be added into the FMP via FMP amendment, and then implemented through Federal regulations. For each approved overfished species rebuilding plan, the following parameters would be specified in the FMP: estimates of unfished biomass (B
The two rebuilding parameters that control the establishment of the annual or biennial optimum yield of each overfished species will be codified in the CFR: the target year for rebuilding and the harvest control rule to be used to rebuild the stock. If, after a new stock assessment, the Council and NMFS conclude that these should be revised, the revision will be done through a rulemaking, and the updated values codified in the CFR.
Amendment 16-1 additionally sets schedules and standards for reviewing rebuilding plans. The current FMP sets five goals for evaluating rebuilding plans: (1) Achieve the population size and structure that will support the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) within the specified time period; (2) minimize, to the extent practicable, the social and economic impacts associated with rebuilding, including adverse impacts on fishing communities; (3) fairly and equitably distribute both the conservation burdens (overfishing restrictions) and recovery benefits among commercial, recreational, and charter fishing sectors; (4) protect the quantity and quality of habitat necessary to support the stock at healthy levels in the future, and; (5) promote widespread public awareness, understanding, and support for the rebuilding program. Amendment 16-1 would require that the Council review rebuilding plan goals 2-5 every two years, but goal 1 only with new stock assessments, since new stock assessment data would be needed to determine whether rebuilding trajectories were being met. Stock assessments are generally updated every 2-4 years, with overfished species having higher priority in assessment scheduling.
As stated above, the first goal of rebuilding plans is to: “Achieve the population size and structure that will support the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) within the specified time period.” Amendment 16-1 specifies that the rebuilding plan for each species will set a species-specific standard for determining the adequacy of rebuilding progress for the particular species toward that goal. The Council had considered whether to set a single standard that would apply to all species, but decided that the variations in life histories, productivity, and abundances of the different overfished species warranted a species-specific rebuilding standard in each rebuilding plan.
Amendment 16-1 also considered how rebuilding plans would operate if an overfished species were to become listed as either threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Under Amendment 16-1, ESA jeopardy standards and/or recovery plans would take precedence over rebuilding plans if they establish higher recovery standards than those already set in the rebuilding plans. If a species is listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA and is subsequently de-listed, but still not rebuilt to BMSY under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, then the rebuilding plan would continue to provide standards for the management and rebuilding of that species.
Finally, Amendment 16-1 included several minor changes to the FMP text. These changes include: (1) revising the list of species managed under the FMP to correct mis-spellings and to specify certain rockfish species already managed under the FMP as part of the FMP's generic inclusion of all species of the family
Regulations to implement Amendment 16-1 would establish a new section of the Federal groundfish regulations at 50 CFR 660.370, “Overfished Species Rebuilding Plans.” Because Amendment 16-1 provides a framework for future rebuilding plans, the regulations implemented through this proposed rule would similarly provide a framework within federal groundfish regulations for future species-specific rebuilding plans. Amendment 16-2, which NMFS plans to make available for public review in autumn 2003, would propose implementation of the first four overfished species rebuilding plans (canary rockfish, darkblotched rockfish, lingcod, Pacific ocean perch) within 50 CFR 660.370. In the future, overfished species rebuilding plans would be reviewed under the schedule set by Amendment 16-1 and Federal regulations implementing species-specific rebuilding plans would be amended through a public notice-and-comment rulemaking.
At this time, NMFS has not determined whether Amendment 16-1, which this proposed rule would implement, is consistent with the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws. NMFS, in making that determination, will take into account the data, views, and comments received during the comment period.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Council has prepared an IRFA that describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. The IRFA is available from the Council (see
A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in the
A fish-harvesting business is considered a “small” business by the Small Business Administration (SBA) if it has annual receipts not in excess of $3.5 million. Approximately 2,000 vessels participate in the West Coast groundfish fisheries. Of those, about 500 vessels are registered to limited entry permits issued for either trawl, longline, or pot gear. About 1,500 vessels land groundfish against open access limits while either directly targeting groundfish or taking groundfish incidentally in fisheries directed at non-groundfish species. All but 10-20 of those vessels are considered small businesses by the SBA. This proposed rule is not expected to yield disproportionate economic impacts between those small and large entities. In the 2001 recreational fisheries, there were 106 Washington charter vessels engaged in salt water fishing outside of Puget Sound, 232 charter vessels active on the Oregon coast and 415 charter vessels active on the California coast.
The proposed action in this amendment affects only the administrative process by which individual species rebuilding plans are formulated, and so does not have significant adverse economic effects on consumers, producers or processors of groundfish. The EA/RIR/IRFA defines four issues for which alternatives were identified and selected by the Council. Of these four issues, only the alternatives identified under Issue 1 have regulatory implications. Under Issue 1, the Council considered the form (FMP amendments, regulations, a combination thereof) and required elements of a rebuilding plan. The remaining issues are concerned with setting internal Council standards for periodic review and modification of rebuilding plans (Issues 2 and 3), and defining the interaction of a rebuilding plan with recovery plans for a rebuilding species that is subsequently listed under the ESA (Issue 4).
The Council considered 4 alternatives under Issue 1, including a status quo alternative. All alternatives, with the exception of the status quo, would implement overfished species rebuilding plans as either FMP amendments or Federal regulations. One alternative (Issue 1, Alternative b) would have implemented rebuilding plans as FMP amendments, with rebuilding parameters specified in the FMP. Another alternative (Issue 1, Alternative c) would have implemented rebuilding plans as Federal regulations, with TTARGET and a harvest control rule for each overfished species specified in regulations. The final and preferred alternative (Issue 1, Alternative d) would specify T
While there will be no direct impact on small entities as a result of adopting any particular process for formulating rebuilding plans, the implementation of specific rebuilding plans for overfished species may entail substantial economic impacts for groundfish processors, commercial harvesters and recreational charter vessels. These type of impacts are specific to particular stocks or species and so will be addressed in the individual rebuilding plans themselves. While there may be slight differences between the alternatives in the amount of administrative capacity required to formulate and implement individual species rebuilding strategies, these differences are not quantifiable and will depend more on the variability of periodic stock assessments once a particular rebuilding plan is adopted than on the effects of these proposed actions or the subsequent adoption of individual rebuilding plans.
Based on the analysis within the IRFA, the agency does not believe the rule has a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities and has so advised the SBA. However, NMFS welcomes comments on this issue (see
Administrative practice and procedure, American Samoa, Fisheries, Fishing, Guam, Hawaiian Natives, Indians, Northern Mariana Islands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
2. Section § 660.370, “Overfished Species Rebuilding Plans” is added to read as follows:
For each overfished groundfish stock with an approved rebuilding plan, this section contains the standards to be used to establish annual or biennial OYs, specifically the target date for rebuilding the stock to its MSY level and the harvest control rule to be used to rebuild the stock.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Advance notice of public meeting and request for suggested agenda topics.
We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service will hold a public meeting for the purpose of exchanging information on our Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) program. We are planning the meeting agenda and are requesting suggestions for topics of general interest to PPQ stakeholders.
The meeting will be held December 9 and 10, 2003. Suggestion for agenda topics should be submitted by October 6, 2003.
The meeting will be held at the Melrose Hotel, 2430 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
Ms. Paula Henstridge, Special Assistant to the Deputy Administrator, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Room 302-E Whitten Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250; (202) 720-1737; e-mail
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) program protects and safeguards the Nation's plant resources through programs and activities to prevent the introduction and spread of plant pests and noxious weeds. PPQ is planning a public meeting to present information about topics of interest to persons who are affected by PPQ programs, as well as to receive feedback on the PPQ mission, the way the mission is carried out, and the issues PPQ must be prepared to address in the future to continue to be a relevant and credible plant health organization. We believe that such an information exchange is particularly timely as PPQ moves forward from the operation of certain agricultural quarantine and inspection activities to the transfer of these activities to the newly established Customs and Border Protection function of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
The agenda for the meeting is not yet complete. Topics will include, but are not limited to: Future priorities, budget update and outlook, update on the DHS transition, pest detection and emergency programs, and issues related to trade and risk assessments. Five interactive panel discussions and workshops are planned on the following topics: Pest risk assessments; permit systems; the stakeholder role in DHS; developing strategic approaches to export enhancement; and Federal, State, and industry roles in implementing incident command in response to pest threats. We are inviting key personnel from DHS, congressional committees, States, and certain stakeholder groups to serve on the panels. Before finalizing the agenda, we are seeking suggestions for additional meeting topics from the public.
Please submit suggested meeting topics to the person listed under
We request that all persons wishing to attend the meeting preregister on the PPQ Web site,
The Melrose Hotel is setting aside a number of rooms at the conference rate. When reserving a room, please specify that you would like the USDA/APHIS rate. The telephone number for the hotel is (202) 955-6400 or toll free (800) 635-7673. The hotel's Web site is
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
Notice is hereby given that the USDA, Forest Service and the Washington State Department of Ecology will jointly prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for a proposal by Crown Resources Corporation (Crown) to develop a mine and mill for precious mineral extraction in the vicinity of Chesaw, Washington. The Buckhorn Mountain Project will supplement the Final environmental impact statement (FEIS) for Crown Jewel Mine, which was released February 7, 1997. The Buckhorn Mountain Project is located approximately 21 miles east of Oroville, Washington and 3
Comments concerning the scope of this analysis must be received by October 20, 2003. Public information and scoping meetings are proposed to be held in September to provide information about the project to the public and to allow people to comment on the project. The Draft SEIS is expected to be filed in October 2004. The Final SEIS is expected to be filed in April 2005.
Submit written comments and suggestions concerning the scope of the analysis to Phil Christy, Project Coordinator, Tonasket Ranger District, 1 West Winesap, Tonasket, Washington 98855 [Phone: (509) 486-5137].
Direct questions about the proposed action and SEIS to Phil Christy, Project Coordinator, Tonasket Ranger District, 1 West Winesap, Tonasket, Washington 98855 [Phone: (509) 486-5137].
The purpose and need for this action is to respond to the plan of operations and other permit applications submitted by Crown Resources Corporation to construct and operate a mine of the specific body of ore on Buckhorn Mountain, along with processing facilities, while protecting surface resources.
The Project would consist of an underground mine on NFS land and private land with an off-site mill and tailings facility on private land. The mineral deposit itself lies under both private and NFS lands. The ore would be transported from the mine to the mill site by road in highway-legal trucks. The majority of underground mine openings would be backfilled upon completion of mining. The backfill would consist of development rock from the mine and gravel excavated during development of the mill/tailings facility. A cement binder would be added to some of the backfill. Haul trucks would transport the backfill gravel to the mine site. Water used in the milling facility would be obtained using existing surface and ground water rights controlled by Crown. Water would be conveyed in a buried pipe from the location of the water rights to the mill for process use. The mine site would consist of approximately 27 acres of fenced surface facilities located above the ore deposit. Approximately 23 acres of NFS lands would be disturbed. The mill and tailings disposal facility would occupy approximately 90 acres of private land. The transportation route from the mine to the mill is along a road alignment approximately 7 miles in length.
Approximately 8 months of underground development work is required prior to initial ore production. The 88,000 tons of development rock generated during this initial period would be temporarily staged on the surface until returned underground as backfill. Construction of the mill, administrative office, and the tailings disposal facility would occur concurrently. Full-scale production of fifteen hundred tons of ore per day is likely to begin twelve months after project initiation. Commercial production is projected to continue for approximately 90 months (7.4 years). Active physical decommissioning of site facilities would continue for approximately 2 additional years upon mining cessation, followed by a minimum of three additional years of reclamation monitoring and final closure. The estimated number of employees is 90 at the peak of construction activities and 150 during operations, including full time contract trucking employees. The SEIS will include analysis and development of mitigation measures and monitoring requirements for reclamation, environmental education of employees, spill prevention/emergency response planning, water quality monitoring, erosion and sediment control, air quality, wildlife impacts and protection, and public safety. Mill tailings, composed of dilute cyanide process solution and ground ore, is proposed to be detoxified using a closed circuit destruction process and piped to an engineered disposal facility on private land.
The Crown Jewel Mine FEIS analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives. The new underground mine proposal differs from the underground mine presented in the Crown Jewel Mine Final EIS, although some components remain the same. Because a reasonable range was established in the preceding FEIS, possible alternatives will be limited to alternative components to the underground mining/milling operation and will be based on the response to scoping.
The Forest Service and the Washington State Department of Ecology will be joint lead agencies in accordance with 40 CFR 1501.5(b), and are responsible for preparation of the SEIS. The Washington State Department of Natural Resources will be a cooperating agency in accordance with 40 CFR 1501.6. Scoping will determine if additional cooperating agencies are needed.
The Forest Supervisor for the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests will decide whether or not to permit a mining operation on Buckhorn Mountain, and if it is permitted, what mitigation measures and monitoring will be required. The Forest Supervisor will only be making a decision regarding operations on NFS lands.
Public participation will be especially important at several points during the analysis. The participating agencies will be seeking information, comments, and assistance from Federal, State, local agencies, Native American Tribe and other individuals and organizations who may be interested in or affected by the proposed project. This input will be used in preparation of the Draft SEIS. The scoping process includes:
• Identifying potential issues not addressed in the Crown Jewel Mine EIS.
• Identifying major issues to be analyzed in depth.
• Identifying issues, which have been addressed by a relevant previous environmental analysis include the Crown Jewel Mine EIS.
• Exploring additional potential components of an underground mine/mill alternative, which will be derived from issues recognized during scoping activities.
• Identifying potential environmental effects of this project.
• Determining potential cooperating agencies and task assignments.
• Notifying interested members of the public of opportunities to participate through meetings, personal contacts, or written comment. Keeping the public informed through the media and/or written material (
A number of issues were identified in the Crown Jewel Mine EIS. The major issues identified concerned water quality and quantity, wildlife habitat impacts, increased traffic, the use of toxic materials for processing the ore, extraction impacts, potential spills, the
Numerous permits and licenses are required for this project. A list of these can be requested at the contact address above.
This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides development of the SEIS. The Forest Service is seeking public and agency comment on the proposed action to determine if any additional issues arise which were not already addressed in the Crown Jewel Mine EIS. Additional issues may lead either to other alternatives, or additional mitigation measures and monitoring requirements.
A Draft SEIS will be prepared for comment. Copies will be distributed to interested and affected agencies, organizations, and members of the public for their review and comment. The comment period on the Draft SEIS will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the
The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of a Draft SEIS must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions.
To assist the participating agencies in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the Draft SEIS should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the Draft SEIS or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.
In the Final SEIS, the participating agencies are required to respond to comments and responses received during the comment period that pertain to the environmental consequences discussed in the Draft SEIS and applicable laws, regulations, and policies considered in making a decision regarding the proposal.
Comments received including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public inspection.
The Forest Supervisor for the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forest will be the responsible official for this SEIS and its Record of Decision. As the responsible official, the Forest Supervisor will document the decision and reasons for the decision in the Record of Decision. That decision will be subject to Forest Service Appeal Regulations (36 CFR part 215).
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Siskiyou County Resource Advisory Committee will meet in Yreka, California, September 15, 2003. The meeting will include routine business and discussion, review, and recommendation of submitted project proposals.
The meeting will be held September 15, 2003, from 4 PM until 8 PM.
The meeting will be held at the Yreka High School Library, Preece Way, Yreka, California.
Don Hall, RAC Coordinator, Klamath National Forest, (503) 841-4468 or electronically at
The meeting is open to the public. Public comment opportunity will be provided and individuals will have the opportunity to address the Committee at that time.
Lassen Resource Advisory Committee, Susanville, California, USDA Forest Service.
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committees Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-393) the Lassen National Forest's Lassen County Resource Advisory Committee will meet Thursday, September 11, 2003, in Susanville, California for a field trip and field business meeting. The meetings are open to the public.
The field trip departs the Lassen National Forest Headquarters Office, 2550 Riverside Drive, Susanville, CA 96130 at 8:15 a.m. and the field business meeting starts at 1 p.m at Willow Creek Campground on the Modoc National Forest off Highway 139 on September 11, 2003. Agenda topics will include: Review previous meeting minutes and approve, RAC member/sub-committee reports, Additional funds remaining from projects, Timeframes to complete projects and set limits, Review November RAC Meeting Proposal and finalize, Review Monitoring Reports, Report on Chico Flat Field Trip, Proposed agenda for next meeting, and Depart for home. Time will also be set
Contact Robert Andrews, Eagle Lake District Ranger and Designated Federal Office, at (530) 257-4188; or RAC Coordinator, Heidi Perry, at (520) 252-6604.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of issuance of agency interim directive.
The Forest Service Forest is issuing an interim directive (ID) to Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 4809.11, chapter 10, to guide Forest Inventory and Analysis employees in managing information in the Forest Inventory and Analysis Database (FIADB) in a manner consistent with the data privacy provisions of Section 1770 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 2276). The FIADB contains detailed plot and tree level data with approximate plot coordinates that allow flexible spatial data analysis. The direction adopted in the ID allows for increased location accuracy of the data from within 1.0 mile to 0.5 for each Forest Inventory plot, while requiring data masking procedures to ensure data privacy as required by Section 1770 of the Food Security Act. This interim directive is issued as ID 4809.11-2003-1 to FSH 4809.11, chapter 10.
This interim directive is effective September 5, 2003.
This interim directive (ID 4809.11-2003-1) is available electronically from the Forest Service via the World Wide Web/Internet at
W. Brad Smith, Science Policy, Planning, Information and Inventory Staff by phone at (703) 605-4177 or by e-mail to
Through its research organization, the Forest Service conducts continuous State-wide inventories of the Nation's forest resources to ascertain trends in the extent, condition, ownership, quantity, and quality of the forest resources as required by the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 1600, 1641-1648). This information is collected in the Forest Inventory and Analysis Database. Forest statistics and subsequent analyses are released as State, Regional, and National reports and are based on data collected at sample locations on all land ownerships across the United States. Access to Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) data is generally available to the public through direct electronic links within 6 months for standard plots and within 12 months for forest health plots after completion of the annual field data collection season for each State.
The direction adopted in the interim directive (ID) provides for increased accuracy of publicly available plot locations from plus or minus 1 mile, to plus or minus one-half mile. Due to the increased spatial precision of data locations, additional masking measures are now necessary to ensure data privacy required by the Food Security Act. In addition, the ID provides further guidance concerning agency objectives and policy for the FIA program; direction for the use of authorized agents; and procedures to follow when releasing FIA data and information.
Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed additions to Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to add to the Procurement List products and services to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3259.
Sheryl D. Kennerly, (703) 603-7740.
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C 47(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments of the proposed actions. If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in the notice for each product or service will be required to procure the products and services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. If approved, the action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products and services to the Government.
2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and services to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products and services proposed for addition to the Procurement List. Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information.
The following products and services are proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:
Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Additions to procurement list.
This action adds to the Procurement List products and services to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
October 5, 2003.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-3259.
Sheryl D. Kennerly, (703) 603-7740.
On June 27, July 3, and July 11, 2003, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (68 FR 38288, 39894, and 41297/41298) of proposed additions to the Procurement List.
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the products and services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products and services listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products and services to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and services to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products and services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following products and services are added to the Procurement List:
This action does not affect current contracts awarded prior to the effective
Commission on Civil Rights.
Friday, September 12, 2003, 9:30 a.m.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 624 Ninth Street, NW., Room 540, Washington, DC 20425.
11 a.m. Presentation on Native Americans and the South Dakota Criminal Justice System.
Les Jin, Press and Communications (202) 376-7700.
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, e-mail address D
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of Final Determinations of Antidumping Duty Investigations.
On May 8, 2003, the Department of Commerce published the preliminary determinations in the antidumping duty investigations of durum wheat and hard red spring wheat from Canada. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the preliminary determinations. Based upon the results of verification and our analysis of the comments received, we have made certain changes to the margin calculations presented in the final determinations of these investigations. We continue to find that durum wheat and hard red spring wheat from Canada were sold in the United States below normal value during the period of investigation. The final weighted-average dumping margins are listed below in the section entitled “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation.”
September 5, 2003.
Julie Santoboni or Cole Kyle, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-4194 or (202) 482-1503, respectively.
On May 8, 2003, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published in the
Since the Preliminary Determinations, the following events have occurred:
In May and June 2003, we conducted verifications of the sales and cost of production (“COP”) questionnaire responses submitted by the Canadian Wheat Board (“CWB”) and Canadian
For purposes of these investigations, the products covered are (1) durum wheat and (2) hard red spring wheat.
Imports covered by this investigation are all varieties of durum wheat from Canada. This includes, but is not limited to, a variety commonly referred to as Canada Western Amber Durum. The merchandise subject to this investigation is currently classifiable under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings: 1001.10.00.10, 1001.10.00.91, 1001.10.00.92, 1001.10.00.95, 1001.10.00.96, and 1001.10.00.99. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
Imports covered by this investigation are all varieties of hard red spring wheat from Canada. This includes, but is not limited to, varieties commonly referred to as Canada Western Red Spring, Canada Western Extra Strong, and Canada Prairie Spring Red. The merchandise subject to this investigation is currently classifiable under the following HTSUS subheadings: 1001.90.10.00, 1001.90.20.05, 1001.90.20.11, 1001.90.20.12, 1001.90.20.13, 1001.90.20.14, 1001.90.20.16, 1001.90.20.19, 1001.90.20.21, 1001.90.20.22, 1001.90.20.23, 1001.90.20.24, 1001.90.20.26, 1001.90.20.29, 1001.90.20.35, and 1001.90.20.96. This investigation does not cover imports of wheat that enter under the subheadings 1001.90.10.00 and 1001.90.20.96 that are not classifiable as hard red spring wheat. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
We have received several requests for exclusions from and clarifications of the scope of these investigations. On April 24, 2003, Montana Flour & Grains and Kamut International requested that the Department exclude Khorasan wheat from the scope of these investigations. The Government of Canada (“GOC”) made the same request on July 31, 2003. On June 27, 2003, the Organic Trade Association requested that the Department exclude organically produced wheat from the scope of these investigations. On July 29, 2003, Cargill, Incorporated (“Cargill”) requested that the Department clarify the scope of these investigations and specifically exclude from the scope Canadian Eastern Soft Red Winter Wheat and Canadian Eastern Hard Red Winter Wheat. On July 30, 2003, the petitioners submitted comments on all but the Cargill submission and also raised an additional issue concerning Canadian feed wheat. We have considered these requests and the comments from interested parties. We have determined that organically grown wheat is covered by the scope of these investigations and that the scope of the hard red spring investigation should be clarified by adding the following language to the scope: “This investigation does not cover imports of wheat that enter under the subheadings 1001.90.10.00 and 1001.90.20.96 that are not classifiable as hard red spring wheat.” For a complete discussion of these scope issues,
The period of investigation (“POI”) is July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2002.
As explained in the
Of the twenty-seven producers selected, one producer (
Section 776(a)(2) of the 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 of the Act; (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) of the Act, the Department shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination under this title.
With respect to cost respondent 2, this producer chose not to respond to the Department's questionnaire. As a result, use of facts available is appropriate pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act. In accordance with section 776(b) of the Act, if the Department finds that “an interested party failed to cooperate
Both cost respondents 10 and 27 did not respond to the Department's cost questionnaire based on extenuating circumstances. With respect to cost respondent 10, the CWB explained that this farmer had deliveries of HRS wheat to the CWB during the POI, but did not produce HRS wheat during the 2001 growing season. However, cost respondent 10 did have an affiliated party that produced HRS wheat during the cost reporting period. Therefore, as a surrogate, cost respondent 10 reported its affiliate's COP for the cost reporting period. We note that this affiliate was not considered a cost respondent in the sample selection and, as such, we determined it would not be appropriate to include the affiliate's COP in our overall calculation of COP.
Similar to cost respondent 10, cost respondent 27 did not provide cost data for the 2001 growing season because the information was not available. Specifically, cost respondent 27 sold its farming operations and ceased farming. Because neither cost respondent 10 nor 27 had information available that would enable them to respond to the Department's cost questionnaire and in the case of cost respondent 10 they attempted to provide some cost information, we applied neutral facts available for the HRS wheat preliminary determination pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Act. As neutral facts available, we have relied on the cost data submitted by the other cost respondents within the same stratum. Therefore, we have not included an amount for these cost respondents in the simple average calculation within their respective stratums.
We calculated export price and normal value based on the same methodology used in the Preliminary Determinations with the following exceptions:
For a complete discussion of these changes,
We made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A of the Act in the same manner as in the preliminary determinations.
As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we verified the information submitted by the CWB and selected farmers during May and June 2003. We used standard verification procedures, including examination of relevant accounting and production records, as well as original source documents provided by the CWB and certain individual cost respondents (
All issues raised in the petitioners' and the CWB's case briefs are addressed in the
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we are directing the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (“BCBP”) to continue to suspend liquidation of all imports of subject merchandise from Canada that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after May 8, 2003, the date of publication of the
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) of our determinations. As our final determinations are affirmative, the ITC will, within 45 days, determine whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue antidumping duty orders.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
These determinations are issued and published in accordance with ections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the People's Republic of China (PRC) in response to a request from Zhoushan Huading Seafood Co., Ltd. (“Zhoushan Huading”). The period of review (POR) is September 1, 2001, through August 31, 2002. We have preliminarily determined that the new shipper review of Zhoushan Huading should be rescinded because the sale was not
September 5, 2003.
Douglas Kirby or Thomas Gilgunn, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement VII, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3782 or (202) 482-4236, respectively.
On September 30, 2002, the Department received a properly filed request for a new shipper review, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and section 351.214(b),(c) of the Department's regulations, from Zhoushan Huading under the antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the People's Republic of China. On October 18, 2002, the Department sought clarification in regard to the identification of Zhoushan Huading's reported buyer for the shipment of crawfish tail meat under review, since the reported buyer identified on Zhoushan Huading's commercial invoice and bill of lading was different from the importer of record identified on the Customs entry summary submitted with the request. On October 23, 2002, Zhoushan Huading explained that its shipment of crawfish tail meat was sold initially to the reported buyer, and the reported buyer then took title of the shipment of crawfish tail meat from Zhoushan Huading and transferred ownership of the shipment of crawfish tail meat and the associated bill of lading to the importer of record.
The Department determined that the request met the requirements stipulated in section 351.214 of the regulations. On November 7, 2002, the Department published its initiation of this new shipper review for the period September 1, 2001, through August 31, 2002.
On January 6, 2003, the Department received Zhoushan Huading's section A, C and D questionnaire responses. On March 6, 2003, the Department issued its first supplemental questionnaire to Zhoushan Huading. On March 31, 2003, Zhoushan Huading submitted its response to the first supplemental questionnaire. On April 2, 2003, the Department issued an importer questionnaire to the reported buyer. On May 19, 2003, the Department received a response to the importer questionnaire from the importer of record. On May 6, 2003, the Department issued its second supplemental questionnaire to Zhoushan Huading. On May 20, 2003, Zhoushan Huading submitted its response to the second supplemental questionnaire. On May 28, 2003, the Department issued supplemental questionnaires to both the reported buyer and the importer of record. On June 9, 2003, the reported buyer and the importer of record requested a one week extension to respond to the supplemental questionnaires. The Department extended the deadline to June 16, 2003. Neither the reported buyer or the importer of record has yet submitted a response to the importer supplemental questionnaire. On July 23, 2003, the Department issued a third supplemental questionnaire to Zhoushan Huading. On August 6, 2003, Zhoushan Huading submitted its response to the third supplemental questionnaire.
On April 14, 2003, the Department extended the due date for the preliminary results of this new shipper review by 120 days until August 28, 2003.
The product covered by this order is freshwater crawfish tail meat, in all its forms (whether washed or with fat on, whether purged or unpurged), grades, and sizes; whether frozen, fresh, or chilled; and regardless of how it is packed, preserved, or prepared. Excluded from the scope of the order are live crawfish and other whole crawfish, whether boiled, frozen, fresh, or chilled. Also excluded are saltwater crawfish of any type, and parts thereof. Freshwater crawfish tail meat is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) under item numbers 1605.40.10.10 and 1605.40.10.90, which are the new HTS numbers for prepared foodstuffs, indicating peeled crawfish tail meat and other, as introduced by the U.S. Customs Service in 2000, and HTS items 0306.19.00.10 and 0306.29.00, which are reserved for fish and crustaceans in general. The HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.
Concurrent with this notice, we are issuing our memorandum detailing our analysis of the
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice in accordance with section 351.310(c) of the Department's regulations. Any hearing would normally be held 37 days after the publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter, at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue N.W., Washington, DC 20230. Individuals who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the
Unless otherwise notified by the Department, interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 351.309(c)(ii) of the Department's regulations. As part of the case brief, parties are encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within five days after the case brief is filed. If a hearing is held, an interested party must limit its presentation only to arguments raised in its briefs. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time.
The Department will issue the final results of this new shipper review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in the briefs, within 90 days from the date of the preliminary results, unless the time limit is extended.
At the completion of this new shipper review, either with a final rescission or a notice of final results, the Department will notify the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (“BCBP”) that bonding is no longer permitted to fulfill security requirements for shipments by the exporter/producter combination Zhoushan Huading of freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption in the United States on or after the publication of the final rescission or results notice in the
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (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 the return/destruction of APO material 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 sanctions.
This new shipper review and this notice are published in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On November 7, 2002 the Department published the initiation of new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the People's Republic of China covering the period September 1, 2001, through August 31, 2002.
September 5, 2003.
Scott Lindsay or Thomas Gilgunn at (202) 482-0780 and (202) 482-4236, respectively; AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 7, Group III, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On November 7, 2002, the Department published the initiation of antidumping new shipper reviews of Qingdao JYX, Hubei Houhu, Zhoushan Huading, and Siyang, covering the period September 1, 2001, through August 31, 2002.
On January 6, 2003, the Department received Hubei Houhu's questionnaire responses regarding its corporate structure, sales information, and factors of production. A supplemental questionnaire was issued by the Department requesting additional sales information; Hubei Houhu responded on March 31, 2003. The Department also issued a questionnaire to Hubei Houhu's importer. Hubei Houhu's importer submitted their response on March 14, 2003.
On January 7, 2003, the Department received Qingdao JYX's questionnaire responses regarding its corporate structure, sales information, and factors of production. Three supplemental questionnaires and one importer questionnaire were issued by the Department requesting additional sales information; Qingdao JYX responded to these on March 31, 2003, June 12, 2003, July 2, 2003, and July 28, 2003.
On June 23, 2003 the Department rescinded the review on Siyang.
On August 15, 2003, the Department issued a memorandum detailing our analysis of the bona fides of Hubei Houhu's U.S. sale and our intent to rescind because we preliminarily determined that Hubei Houhu's U.S. sales were not bona fide based on the totality of the circumstances of the sale.
On August 15, 2003, the Department issued a memorandum detailing our analysis of the bona fides of Qingdao JYX's U.S. sale and our intent to rescind because we concluded that Qingdao JYX's U.S. sale was not bona fide based on the totality of the circumstances of the sale.
Our analysis of the sales under review, and our full reasoning for determining the sales are not bona fide, are presented in the
We gave the parties an opportunity to comment on both memoranda. No comments were submitted regarding our intent to rescind the new shipper review of Hubei Houhu. Qingdao JYX submitted comments on August 20, 2003. Petitioners submitted rebuttal comments on August 22, 2003. We have fully addressed the parties' comments in the
We received no comments on our intent to rescind the new shipper review of Hubei Houhu, therefore we are rescinding this new shipper review. We received comments on our intent to rescind the new shipper review of Qingdao JYX. However, our analysis of the comments has not led us to change our decision to rescind the review.
The Department will notify the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (Customs) that bonding is no longer permitted to fulfill security requirements for shipments for Hubei Houhu's or Qingdao JYX's freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption in the United States on or after the publication of this rescission notice in the
We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determinations: Certain Durum Wheat and Hard Red Spring Wheat from Canada.
The Department of Commerce has made final determinations that countervailable subsidies are being provided to certain producers and exporters of certain durum wheat and hard red spring wheat from Canada. For information on the estimated countervailing duty rates, please see the “Suspension of Liquidation” section, below.
September 5, 2003.
Audrey Twyman, Stephen Cho, or Daniel Alexy, Office of Antidumping/Countervailing Duty Enforcement, Group 1, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 3099, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-3534, (202) 482-3798 and (202) 482-1540, respectively.
The petitioners in these investigations are the North Dakota Wheat Commission (hard red spring wheat), United States Durum Growers Association (durum wheat), and the Durum Growers Trade Action Committee (durum wheat) (collectively, the “petitioners”).
The period for which we are measuring subsidies is August 1, 2001 to July 31, 2002, which coincides with the fiscal year of the Canadian Wheat
The following events have occurred since the publication of the preliminary determinations in the
On March 17, 2003, the petitioners submitted ministerial error allegations relating to the
On May 16, 2003, the CWB requested an extension of the final determinations for the dumping and countervailing duty investigations, therefore the Department published a
The Department conducted verifications of the questionnaire responses submitted by the GOC, the provincial governments (
For purposes of these investigations, the products covered are (1) durum wheat and (2) hard red spring wheat.
Imports covered by this investigation are all varieties of durum wheat from Canada. This includes, but is not limited to, a variety commonly referred to as Canada Western Amber Durum. The merchandise subject to this investigation is currently classifiable under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings: 1001.10.00.10, 1001.10.00.91, 1001.10.00.92, 1001.10.00.95, 1001.10.00.96, and 1001.10.00.99. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
Imports covered by this investigation are all varieties of hard red spring wheat from Canada. This includes, but is not limited to, varieties commonly referred to as Canada Western Red Spring, Canada Western Extra Strong, and Canada Prairie Spring Red. The merchandise subject to this investigation is currently classifiable under the following HTSUS subheadings: 1001.90.10.00, 1001.90.20.05, 1001.90.20.11, 1001.90.20.12, 1001.90.20.13, 1001.90.20.14, 1001.90.20.16, 1001.90.20.19, 1001.90.20.21, 1001.90.20.22, 1001.90.20.23, 1001.90.20.24, 1001.90.20.26, 1001.90.20.29, 1001.90.20.35, and 1001.90.20.96. This investigation does not cover imports of wheat that enter under the subheadings 1001.90.10.00 and 1001.90.20.96 that are not classifiable as hard red spring wheat. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
Since the Department's
Because Canada is a “Subsidies Agreement Country” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) is required to determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from Canada materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry. On November 25, 2002, the ITC transmitted to the Department its preliminary determinations finding that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is being materially injured by reason of imports from Canada of durum and hard red spring wheat.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to these investigations are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Countervailing Duty
In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we have calculated an individual net subsidy rate for each manufacturer of the subject merchandise. In accordance with sections 777A(e)(2)(B) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we have set the “all others” rate as CWB's rate, because it is the only exporter/manufacturer investigated. We determine the total estimated net subsidy rate for the CWB and “all others” to be:
As a result of our
We will issue countervailing duty orders and reinstate the suspension of liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act if ITC issues final affirmative injury determinations, and will require a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties for such entries of merchandise in the amounts indicated above. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, these proceedings will be terminated and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled.
In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of our determinations. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information related to these investigations. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an Administrative Protective Order (“APO”), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
In the event that the ITC issues final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Failure to comply is a violation of the APO.
These determinations are published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act.
Proposed collection; comment request.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the
Written comments must be submitted on or before November 4, 2003.
Direct all written comments to Susan K. Brown, Records Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Office of Data Architecture and Services, Data Administration Division, 703-308-7400, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313, Attn: CPK 3 Suite 310; by e-mail at
Requests for additional information should be directed to the attention of Robert J. Spar, Director, Office of Patent Legal Administration, United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; by telephone at 703-308-5107; or by e-mail at
The deposit of biological materials as part of a patent application is required by 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2) and outlined in 37 CFR chapter 1, subpart G, 1.801-809. Every patent must contain a description of the invention sufficient to enable a person (knowledgeable in the relevant science) to make and use the invention as specified by 35 U.S.C. 112. The term biological includes material that is capable of self-replication either directly or indirectly. When the invention involves a biological material, sometimes words alone cannot sufficiently describe how to make and use the invention in a reproducible or repeatable manner. In such cases, the required biological material must either be known and readily (and continually) available, or be deposited in a suitable depository to meet the enablement and written description requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112.
In cases where a novel microorganism is involved, the USPTO traditionally requires the deposit of a sample with a recognized patent depository in order to meet the above disclosure requirements. When a deposit is necessary, the USPTO collects information to determine whether the depositor is in compliance with the patent statute. This includes a statement proving notification to the interested public on where to obtain samples of the deposits. A viability statement showing that the biological material was tested by the depository, and is a viable or acceptable deposit, must also be submitted to the USPTO.
In order to meet and satisfy requirements for international patenting, all countries signing the Budapest Treaty must recognize the deposit of biological material with any International Depository Authority (IDA).
By mail, facsimile, or hand delivery to the USPTO when the applicant or agent files a patent application with the USPTO or submits subsequent papers during the prosecution of the application to the USPTO.
Depositories charge fees to depositors; all depositories charge about the same rates for their services. For example, the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC), one of the world's leading biological supply houses and recognized patent depositories, charges a one-time fee of $1,150 per deposit for basic storage and informing, and a minimum of $160 per deposit for viability testing, depending upon the type of deposit being tested. Most deposits received from outside the United States require an import permit from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Also required is a public Health Service (PHS) permit, available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), for importation of agents infectious to humans. This permit application processing fee is $150. The USPTO estimates that the total non-hour respondent cost burden in the form of capital start-up costs amounts to $1,460.
In addition, this collection does have postage costs. Biological deposits are generally shipped to the depository Domestic Overnight by Federal Express (FedEx) and, since depositors are urged to supply frozen or freeze dried material, it must be packed in dry ice, according to a representative from the Patent Department at ATCC. Dry ice itself is considered dangerous goods and requires special packaging. Additional FedEx special handling charges of $60 per shipment apply for temperature-sensitive biological material and also for the dry ice. An average cost for shipping by FedEx Domestic Overnight is estimated to be $75. If the shipment requires pick-up by FedEx, there is an
The USPTO estimates that the total non-hour respondent cost burden for this collection in the form of capital start-up costs ($1,460) and postage costs ($977,551) amounts to $979,011.
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 or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they will also become a matter of public record.
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).
Issuing a directive to the Commissioner, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection adjusting limits.
September 5, 2003.
Ross Arnold, International Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-4212. For information on the quota status of these limits, refer to the Quota Status Reports posted on the bulletin boards of each Customs port, call (202) 927-5850, or refer to the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection website at http://www.customs.gov. For information on embargoes and quota re-openings, refer to the Office of Textiles and Apparel website at http://otexa.ita.doc.gov.
Section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended.
The current limits for certain categories are being adjusted, variously, for swing, special shift and carryover.
A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see
Dear Commissioner: This directive amends, but does not cancel, the directive issued to you on October 9, 2002, by the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. That directive concerns imports of certain cotton, wool and man-made fiber textiles and textile products and silk blend and other vegetable fiber apparel, produced or manufactured in Malaysia and exported during the twelve-month period which began on January 1, 2003 and extends through December 31, 2003.
Effective on September 5, 2003, you are directed to adjust the limits for the following categories, as provided for under the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing:
The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements has determined that these actions fall within the foreign affairs exception of the rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1).
Sincerely,
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).
Issuing a directive to the Commissioner, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection adjusting limits.
September 5, 2003.
Ross Arnold, International Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-4212. For information on the quota status of these limits, refer to the Quota Status Reports posted on the bulletin boards of each Customs port, call (202) 927-5850, or refer to the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection website at http://www.customs.gov. For information on embargoes and quota re-openings, refer to the Office of Textiles and Apparel website at http://otexa.ita.doc.gov.
Section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended.
The current limits for certain categories are being adjusted for special shift and carryforward.
A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see
Dear Commissioner: This directive amends, but does not cancel, the directive issued to you on November 1, 2002, by the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. That directive concerns imports of certain cotton and man-made fiber textile products produced or manufactured in Pakistan and exported during the twelve-month period which began on January 1, 2003 and extends through December 31, 2003.
Effective on September 5, 2003, you are directed to adjust the limits for the following categories, as provided for under the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing:
The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements has determined that these actions fall within the foreign affairs exception of the rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1).
Sincerely,
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).
Issuing a directive to the Commissioner, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection adjusting limits.
September 5, 2003.
Naomi Freeman, International Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-4212. For information on the quota status of these limits, refer to the Quota Status Reports posted on the bulletin boards of each Customs port, call (202) 927-5850, or refer to the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection website at http://www.customs.gov. For information on embargoes and quota re-openings, refer to the Office of Textiles and Apparel website at http://otexa.ita.doc.gov.
Section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended.
The current limits for certain categories are being adjusted for swing and carryover.
A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see
Dear Commissioner: This directive amends, but does not cancel, the directive issued to you on September 3, 2002, by the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. That directive concerns imports of certain cotton, wool and man-made fiber textiles and textile products in the following categories, produced or manufactured in Romania and exported during the twelve-month period which began on January 1, 2003 and extends through December 31, 2003.
Effective on September 5, 2003, you are directed to adjust the limits for the following categories, as provided for under the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing:
The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements has determined that these actions fall within the foreign affairs exception to the rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1).
Sincerely,
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice of extension of comment period.
By notice in the
The Office of the Secretary must receive any comments on the petition not later than November 7, 2003.
Comments should be mailed, preferably in five copies, to the Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, DC 20207-0001, or delivered to the Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 502, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814; telephone (301) 504-0800. Comments also may be filed by facsimile to (301) 504-0127 or by e-mail to
Rockelle Hammond, Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, DC 20207; telephone (301) 504-6833, e-mail
Copies of the petition may be obtained from the Office of the Secretary. A copy of the petition is available for inspection at the Commission's Public Reading Room, Room 419, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland. The petition is also available on the CPSC World Wide Web site at:
Comments on the petition must be received by the Office of the Secretary not later than Friday, November 7, 2003.
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice of funding opportunity.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (hereinafter the “Corporation”) announces the anticipated availability of funds for Fiscal Year (FY) 2004 to award up to $500,000 in grant funds to pay for the Federal share of the cost of planning and carrying out service opportunities in conjunction with the federal legal holiday honoring the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. on January 19, 2004. The Corporation invites applications for these grants. By law, any entity otherwise eligible for assistance under the national service laws is eligible to receive a grant under this announcement. The applicable laws include the National and Community Service Act of 1990, as amended, and the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973, as amended. The federal grants we provide for this project, together with all other federal funds you use to plan or carry out the service opportunity, may not exceed 30 percent of the total cost.
The purpose of the grants is to mobilize more Americans to observe the Martin Luther King, Jr. federal holiday as a day of service in communities and to bring people together around the common focus of service to others. To achieve this, depending upon appropriations provided by the Congress for the Corporation, and based upon previous allocations of funding for this activity, we intend to disburse up to $500,000 in grant funds to support approved service opportunities. Eligible organizations may apply for a grant to support national service and community volunteering projects. Grant awards may range from $2,500 to $7,500. We seek proposals that are cost effective, based on the number of people serving and being served, and the service performed.
This program announcement is subject to the appropriation of funds and is a contingency action taken to ensure that, should funds become available for this purpose, applications can be processed in an orderly manner, and funds can be awarded in a timely fashion.
This notice is not a complete description of the activities to be funded or of the application requirements. For supplementary information and application guidelines, including the Corporation state office contact information, go to the Corporation's Web site at
The Corporation generally requires applicants to apply through eGrants, our on-line grants management system. The deadline for eGrants applications is 5 p.m. Eastern Time on October 2, 2003. If for some legitimate reason it is necessary for you to submit a paper application, please notify ahead of time the appropriate Corporation for National and Community Service office that serves your state (
You may access eGrants through our Web site at
Due to delays in delivery of regular mail to government offices, there is no
For further information, contact the person listed for the Corporation office in your state (
42 U.S.C. 12653(s).
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension of an existing OMB clearance (9000-0007).
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Secretariat has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a currently approved information collection requirement concerning summary subcontract report. A request for public comments was published in the
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments may be submitted on or before October 6, 2003.
Submit comments including suggestions for reducing this burden to: FAR Desk Officer, OMB, Room 10102, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, and a copy to the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVA), Room 4035 1800 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20405.
Rhonda Cundiff, Acquisition Policy Division, GSA (202) 501-0044.
In accordance with the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631,
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance (9000-0133).
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Secretariat will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a currently approved information collection requirement concerning defense production act amendments. This OMB clearance expires on November 30, 2003.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Submit comments on or before November 4, 2003.
Submit comments, including suggestions for reducing this burden to the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVA), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405.
Gerald Zaffos, Acquisition Policy Division, GSA (202) 208-6091.
Title III of the Defense Production Act (DPA) of 1950 authorizes various forms of Government assistance to encourage expansion of production capacity and
FAR 34.1 and 52.234-1 require contractors, upon the direction of the contracting officer, to test Title III industrial resources for qualification, and provide the test results to the Defense Production Act Office. The FAR coverage also expresses Government policy to pay for such testing and provides definitions, procedures, and a contract clause to implement the policy. This information is used by the Defense Production Act Office, Title III Program, to determine whether the Title III industrial resource has been provided an impartial opportunity to qualify.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance (9000-0075).
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Secretariat has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a currently approved information collection requirement concerning Government Property. A request for public comments was published in the
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Submit comments on or before October 6, 2003.
Submit comments, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: FAR Desk Officer, OMB, Room 10102, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, and a copy to the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVA), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405.
Jeritta Parnell, Acquisition Policy Division, GSA (202) 501-4082.
“Property,” as used in Part 45, means all property, both real and personal. It includes facilities, material, special tooling, special test equipment, and agency-peculiar property. Government property includes both Government-furnished property and contractor-acquired property.
Contractors are required to establish and maintain a property system that will control, protect, preserve, and maintain all Government property because the contractor is responsible and accountable for all Government property under the provisions of the contract including property located with subcontractors.
The contractor's property control records shall constitute the Government's official property records and shall be used to—
(a) Provide financial accounts for Government-owned property in the contractor's possession or control;
(b) Identify all Government property (to include a complete, current, auditable record of all transactions);
(c) Locate any item of Government property within a reasonable period of time.
This clearance covers the following requirements:
(a) FAR 45.307-2(b) requires a contractor to notify the contracting officer if it intends to acquire or fabricate special test equipment.
(b) FAR 45.502-1 requires a contractor to furnish written receipts for Government property.
(c) FAR 45.502-2 requires a contractor to submit a discrepancy report upon receipt of Government property when overages, shortages, or damages are discovered.
(d) FAR 45.504 requires a contractor to investigate and report all instances of loss, damage, or destruction of Government property.
(e) FAR 45.505-1 requires that basic information be placed on the contractor's property control records.
(f) FAR 45.505-3 requires a contractor to maintain records for Government material.
(g) FAR 45.505-4 requires a contractor to maintain records of special tooling and special test equipment.
(h) FAR 45.505-5 requires a contractor to maintain records of plant equipment.
(i) FAR 45.505-7 requires a contractor to maintain records of real property.
(j) FAR 45.505-8 requires a contractor to maintain scrap and salvage records.
(k) FAR 45.505-9 requires a contractor to maintain records of related data and information.
(l) FAR 45.505-10 requires a contractor to maintain records for completed products.
(m) FAR 45.505-11 requires a contractor to maintain records of transportation and installation costs of plant equipment.
(n) FAR 45.505-12 requires a contractor to maintain records of misdirected shipments.
(o) FAR 45.505-13 requires a contractor to maintain records of property returned for rework.
(p) FAR 45.505-14 requires a contractor to submit an annual report of Government property accountable to each agency contract.
(q) FAR 45.508-2 requires a contractor to report the results of physical inventories.
(r) FAR 45.509-1(a)(3) requires a contractor to record work accomplished in maintaining Government property.
(s) FAR 45.509-1(c) requires a contractor to report the need for major repair, replacement and other rehabilitation work.
(t) FAR 45.509-2(b)(2) requires a contractor to maintain utilization records.
(u) FAR 45.606-1 requires a contractor to submit inventory schedules.
(v) FAR 45.606-3(a) requires a contractor to correct and resubmit inventory schedules as necessary.
(w) FAR 52.245-2(a)(3) requires a contractor to notify the contracting officer when Government-furnished property is received and is not suitable for use.
(x) FAR 52.245-2(a)(4) requires a contractor to notify the contracting officer when government-furnished property is not timely delivered and the contracting officer will make a determination of the delay, if any, caused the contractor.
(y) FAR 52.245-2(b) requires a contractor to submit a written request for an equitable adjustment if Government-furnished property is decreased, substituted, or withdrawn by the Government.
(z) FAR 52.245-4 requires a contractor to submit a timely written request for an equitable adjustment when Government-furnished property is not furnished in a timely manner.
(aa) FAR 52.245-5(a)(4) requires a contractor to notify the contracting officer when Government-furnished property is received that is not suitable for use.
(bb) FAR 52.245-5(a)(5) requires a contractor to notify the contracting officer when Government-furnished property is not received in a timely manner.
(cc) FAR 52.245-5(b)(2) requests a contractor to submit a written request for an equitable adjustment if Government-furnished property is decreased, substituted, or withdrawn by the Government.
(dd) FAR 52.245-7(f) requires a contractor to notify the contracting officer when use of all facilities falls below 75% of total use.
(ee) FAR 52.245-7(l)(2) requires a contractor to alert the contracting officer within 30 days of receiving facilities that are not suitable for use.
(ff) FAR 52.245-9(f) requires a contractor to submit a facilities use statement to the contracting officer within 90 days after the close of each rental period.
(gg) FAR 52.245-10(h)(2) requires a contractor to notify the contracting officer if facilities are received that are not suitable for the intended use.
(hh) FAR 52.245-11(e) requires a contractor to notify the contracting officer when use of all facilities falls below 75% of total use.
(ii) FAR 52.245-11(j)(2) requires a contractor to notify the contracting officer within 30 days of receiving facilities not suitable for intended use.
(jj) FAR 52.245-17 requires a contractor to maintain special tooling records.
(kk) FAR 52.245-18(b) requires a contractor to notify the contracting officer 30 days in advance of the contractor's intention to acquire or fabricate special test equipment (STE).
(ll) FAR 52.245-18(d) & (e) requires a contractor to furnish the names of subcontractors who acquire or fabricate special test equipment (STE) or components and comply with paragraph (d) of this clause, and contractors must comply with the (b) paragraph of this clause if an engineering change requires acquisition or modification of STE. In so complying, the contractor shall identify the change order which requires the proposed acquisition, fabrication, or modification.
(mm) FAR 52.245-19 requires a contractor to notify the contracting officer if there is any change in the condition of property furnished “as is” from the time of inspection until time of receipt.
(nn) FAR 49.602-2(a) through (e) refers to the inventory schedule forms, SF's 1426 through 1434.
This information is used to facilitate the management of Government property in the possession of the contractor.
The total burden hours have changed under this OMB clearance 9000-0075 to reflect the incorporation of hours currently associated with OMB clearance 9000-0151 (FAR Case 1995-013) which expired as of June 2000 and was not renewed. The OMB collection burden associated with Government property nonetheless remains unchanged.
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice of open meeting.
In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), announcement is made of the following committee meeting:
Lieutenant Colonel Edward C. Clarke, United States Military Academy, West Point, NY 10996-5000, (845) 938-4200.
All proceedings are open.
Department of the Army, DOD.
Notice; final policy.
Change 1 of DOD 4500.9-R, the Defense Transportation Regulation, Part IV, Personal Property has been published and released as of August 2003. The revised DOD Regulation 4500.9-R, Part IV, supercedes DOD Regulation 4500.9-R, Part IV, dated August 1999 and replaces DOD Regulation 4500.34R.
August 6, 2003.
Debora Barnard, U.S. Transportation Command, TCJ5-PT, 508 Scott Drive, Scott AFB, IL, 62225, (618) 229-1985. HQ MTMC CONTACT: Robert Dawson or Alex Moreno, HQ Military Traffic Management Command MTPP-PP, 200 Stovall Street, Hoffman II, Room 10N67-72, Alexandria, VA, 22332-5000, (703) 428-3495.
This publication applies to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Military Departments, Chairman and Joint Chiefs of Staff, Unified Commands, and the Defense Agencies. The public may obtain copies of the new DTR Part IV for a fee from the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Services, 5285 Port Royal, Springfield, VA 22161.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DOD
Notice of intent.
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DOD, Huntington District will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The EIS will evaluate potential impacts to the natural, physical, and human environment as a result of the proposed flood damage reduction measure for the Levisa Fork and Russell Fork basins in Pike County, Kentucky.
The Corps of Engineers will conduct a public scoping meeting to gain input from interested agencies, organizations, and the general public concerning the content of the EIS, issues and impacts to be addressed in the EIS, and alternatives that should be analyzed. The meeting is scheduled for:
Send written comments and suggestions concerning this proposed project to S. Michael Worley PM-PD, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Huntington District, 502 Eighth Street, Huntington, WV 25701-2070. Telephone: (304) 529-5712. Electronic mail:
Mr. Mark D. Kessinger PM-P, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Huntington District, 502 Eighth Street, Huntington, WV, 25701-2070. Telephone: (304) 529-5083. Electronic mail:
1.
2.
The study area, primarily residential in nature, includes the incorporated areas of Pikeville, Coal Run, Elkhorn City, and unincorporated areas in the county subject to flood damage from the potential of a reoccurrence of the April 1977 flood. The project requires providing flood protection measures to approximately 2,000 structures, 75 percent of which are residential.
Alternatives being initially considered include floodwall/levee systems protecting Pikeville and Coal Run, non-structural flood-proofing and several ring walls protecting individual structures. Alternatives to be evaluated in detail in the Draft EIS will be selected from those described above.
3.
Public comments are welcomed anytime throughout the NEPA process. Formal opportunities for public participation include: (1) A public meeting will be held in the community of Pikeville, KY; (2) anytime during the NEPA process via mail, telephone or e-mail; (3) during Review and Comment on the Draft EIS—approximately January of 2004; and, (4) review of the Final EIS—Spring 2004. Schedules and locations will be announced in local news media. Interested parties should submit contact information to be included on the mailing list of public
Department of the Army, Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of open meeting.
In accordance with section 105(h) of the Estuary Restoration Act of 2000, (Title I, Pub. L. 106-457), announcement is made of the forthcoming meeting of the Estuary Habitat Restoration Council. The meeting is open to the public.
The meeting will be held from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. on Thursday, September 25, 2003.
The meeting will be in room 3M60/70, 441 G Street, NW., Washington, DC.
Ms. Ellen Cummings, Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC 20314-1000, (202) 761-4558; or Ms. Cynthia Garman-Squier, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), Washington, DC, (703) 695-6791.
The Estuary Habitat Restoration Council consists of representatives of five agencies. These are the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Agriculture, and Army. Among the duties of the Council is development of a national estuary restoration strategy designed in part to meet the goal of restoring one million acres by 2010.
The primary agenda topic will be the Council's approval of a list of projects, in priority order, to be submitted to the Secretary of the Army for consideration for implementation funding.
Current security measures require that persons interested in attending the meeting must pre-register with us before 2 p.m., September 23, 2003. Please contact Ellen Cummings at (202) 761-4558 to pre-register. When leaving a voice mail message please provide the name of the individual attending, the company or agency represented, and a telephone number, in case there are any questions. The public should enter on the “G” Street side of the GAO building. All attendees are required to show photo identification and must be escorted to the meeting room by Corps personnel. Attendee's bags and other possessions are subject to being searched. All attendees arriving between one-half hour before and one-half hour after 10 a.m. will be escorted to the hearing. Those who are not pre-registered and/or arriving later than the allotted time will be unable to attend the public meeting.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of open meeting.
In Accordance with 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), announcement is made of the forthcoming meeting.
Mr. Norman T. Edwards, Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, CECW-PD, 441 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20314-1000; Ph: 202-761-4559.
The meeting is open to the public. Any interested person may attend, appear before, or file statements with the committee at the time and in the manner permitted by the committee.
Department of the Navy, DOD.
Notice.
The inventions listed below are assigned to the United States Government as represented by the Secretary of the Navy and are available for licensing by the Department of the Navy.
U.S. Patent No. 6,105,382 entitled “Chest Mounted Armored Microclimate Conditioned Air Device”, Navy Case No. 79727, Inventor Reason, Issue Date 22 August, 2000.//U.S. Patent No. 6,240,742 entitled “Modular Portable Air-Conditioning System”, Navy Case No. 79780, Inventors Kaufman
Request for data and inventor interviews should be directed to Mr. Paul Fritz, Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Business Development Office, Office of Research and Technology Applications, Bldg 304, Rm 107, 22541 Millstone Rd, Patuxent River, MD 20670, (301) 342-5586 or E-Mail:
Mr. Paul Fritz, Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Business Development Office, Office of Research and Technology Applications, Bldg 304, Rm 107, 22541 Millstone Rd, Patuxent River, MD 20670, (301) 342-5586 or E-Mail:
The U.S. Navy intends to move expeditiously to license these patents. All licensing application packages and commercialization plans must be returned to Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Business Development Office, Office of Research and Technology Applications, Bldg 304, Rm 107, 22541 Millstone Rd, Patuxent River, MD 20670.
The Navy, in its decision concerning the granting of licenses, will give special consideration to small business firms,
The Navy intends to insure that its licensed inventions are broadly commercialized throughout the United States.
Any license of Navy technology will require that materials which embody the inventions licensed that are to be sold in the United States of America, will be manufactured substantially in the United States.
Department of the Navy, DOD.
Notice of open meeting.
The Secretary of the Navy's Advisory Subcommittee on Naval History, a subcommittee of the Department of Defense Historical Advisory Committee will meet to review naval historical activities since the last meeting of the Advisory Subcommittee on Naval History, which was conducted on September 19, and September 20, 2002, and to make comments and recommendations on these activities to the Secretary of the Navy. The meetings will be open to the public.
The meetings will be held on Thursday, September 18, 2003, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. and Friday, September 19, 2003, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.
The meetings will be held at the Navy Museum of The Naval Historical Center, 805 Kidder Breese Street, SE., Building 76, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5060.
Dr. William S. Dudley, Director of Naval History, 805 Kidder Breese Street, SE., Bldg. 57, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5060, telephone (202) 433-2210.
This notice of open meeting is provided in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2). The purpose of these meetings is to review naval historical activities since the last meeting of the Advisory Subcommittee on Naval History and to make comments and recommendations on these activities to the Secretary of the Navy.
President's Board of Advisers on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Education.
Notice of meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of an upcoming meeting of the President's Board of Advisers on Historically Black Colleges and Universities (Board). The notice also describes the functions of the Board. Notice of this meeting is required by section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and is intended to notify the public of their opportunity to attend.
Thursday, September 18, 2003.
The Board will meet in Arlington, VA at the Marriott Crystal Gateway Hotel, 1700 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
Dr. Leonard Dawson, Deputy Director to the Counselor to the Secretary for the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, 1990 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20202; telephone: (202) 502-7889.
The President's Board of Advisers on Historically Black Colleges and Universities is established under Executive Order 13256, dated February 12, 2003. The Board is established (a) to report to the President annually on the results of the participation of historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) in Federal programs, including recommendations on how to increase the private sector role, including the role of private foundations, in strengthening these institutions, with particular emphasis on enhancing institutional planning and development, strengthening fiscal stability and financial management, and improving institutional infrastructure, including the use of technology, to ensure the long-term viability and enhancement of these institutions; (b) to advise the President and the Secretary of Education (Secretary) on the needs of HBCUs in the areas of infrastructure, academic programs, and faculty and institutional development; (c) to advise the Secretary in the preparation of an annual Federal plan for assistance to HBCUs in increasing their capacity to participate in Federal programs; (d) to provide the President with an annual progress report on enhancing the capacity of HBCUs to serve their students; and (e) to develop, in consultation with the Department of Education and other Federal agencies, a private sector strategy to assist HBCUs.
The purpose of the meeting is to report on the status of recommendations made by the Board at the May 28, 2003 meeting; to discuss reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, plans and reports from the Private Sector Initiative, and preparation for the Annual Report to the President; and to address critical issues facing HBCUs.
Individuals who will need accommodations for a disability in order to attend the meeting (
An opportunity for public comment is available on September 18, 2003, between 2 p.m. and 3 p.m. Those members of the public interested in submitting written comments may do so at the address indicated above by Friday, September 12, 2003.
Records are kept of all Board proceedings and are available for public inspection at the office of the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities from the hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The following filings have been made with the Commission. The filings are listed in ascending order within each docket classification.
Take notice that on August 22, 2003, Reliant Energy Desert Basin, LLC (Reliant Desert Basin) filed an Application for Authorization Under section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Request for Expedited Action and Shortened Public Notice Period. Reliant Desert Basin requests that the Commission grant all necessary authorizations to transfer certain jurisdictional facilities to Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District.
Take notice that on August 22, 2003, Black Hills Corporation filed an application with FERC requesting authorization under section 203 of the Federal Power Act to implement a plan of internal corporate restructuring.
Take notice that on August 26, 2003, Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company (OG&E) and NRG McClain LLC (NRG McClain) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) an application pursuant to section 203 of the Federal Power Act for authorization for NRG McClain to sell, and OG&E to acquire, NRG McClain's 77 percent interest in the 520 megawatt McClain Energy Generating Facility and associated transmission equipment located near Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Take notice that on August 25, 2003, Texas Genco, LP (Texas Genco) tendered for filing an application for a determination of exempt wholesale generator status, pursuant to section 32(a)(1) of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, as amended, (PUHCA), 15 U.S.C. 79z-5a(a)(1) (2000), and subchapter T, part 365 of the regulations of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), 18 CFR part 365. Texas Genco states that it is a limited partnership organized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas that owns and operates twelve electric generating facilities, with an aggregate maximum capacity of approximately 14,000 megawatts, located in Texas. Texas Genco further states that it will be engaged directly, or indirectly through one or more affiliates as defined in section 2(a)(11)(B) of PUHCA, and exclusively in the business of owning eligible facilities, and selling electric energy at wholesale.
Take notice that on August 22, 2003, the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (Midwest ISO) submitted proposed revisions Schedules 7, 8 and 14 of the Midwest ISO Open Access Transmission Tariff (Tariff), FERC Electric Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, in compliance with the Commission's July 23, 2003 Order on Initial Decision, 104 FERC 61,105 (2003), in which the Commission directed the Midwest ISO and PJM Interconnection, Inc. (PJM) to eliminate the Regional Through and Out Rates under their Tariffs for transactions that sink in the Midwest ISO/PJM footprint, effective November 1, 2003.
The Midwest ISO has also 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, as well as all state commissions within the region. Midwest ISO also states that in addition, the filing has been electronically posted on the Midwest ISO's Web site at
Take notice that on August 21, 2003, the California Power Exchange Corporation (CalPX) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, a Petition for Declaratory Order. The Petition requests Commission approval for CalPX to enter into a settlement with American House Assurance Company on a performance bond covering defaults in its Core Market. CalPX states that the proposed settlement provides for the payment of $7.5 million into CalPX's Settlement Clearing Account.
Take notice that on August 25, 2003, the California Independent System Operator Corporation (ISO), submitted a filing in compliance with the Commission's July 25, 2003 Order in Docket Nos. ER03-407-002 and 003, 104 FERC 61,128.
The ISO states that this filing has been served upon all parties in the above referenced proceeding, and has been posted on the ISO Home Page.
Take notice that on August 25, 2003, ISO New England Inc. (ISO) submitted a Compliance Filing as directed by the Commission in its July 24, 2003 Order on Rehearing and Compliance, 104 FERC 61,123. The ISO states that copies of the filing have been served on all parties in this proceeding.
Take notice that on August 25, 2003, ISO New England Inc. (ISO) submitted a Compliance Filing as directed by the Commission in its July 25, 2003 Order Accepting Scarcity Pricing Proposal, 104 FERC 61,130. The ISO states that copies of the filing have been served on all parties on the Service List for Docket No. ER03-854.
Take notice that on August 25, 2003, Direct Commodities Trading (DCT) Inc. (DCT) filed a supplement to its application filed August 5, 2003 for market-based rates as a power marketer. DCT states that the supplemental information pertains to formatting and presentation of Rate Schedule FERC No. 1.
Take notice that on August 20, 2003, the California Independent System Operator Corporation (ISO), tendered for filing an errata concerning Amendment No. 57 to the ISO Tariff, which the ISO filed for acceptance by the Commission on August 18, 2003, in Docket No. ER03-1222-000.
The ISO states that this filing has been served on the Public Utilities
Take notice that on August 22, 2003, Wisconsin Electric Power Company (Wisconsin Electric) tendered for filing a revised Power Service Agreement (PSA) between Wisconsin Electric and the City of Crystal Falls, Michigan (City) modifying the price for energy Wisconsin Electric charges the City. Wisconsin Electric states that the revision to the energy price is being made pursuant to section 2.05 of the PSA. Wisconsin Electric and the City request that the Commission approve the revised PSA to become effective on August 25, 2003.
Take notice that on August 22, 2003, Tampa Electric Company (Tampa Electric) tendered for filing a Notice of Cancellation of a transaction-specific service agreement with the Reedy Creek Improvement District under Tampa Electric's market-based sales tariff. Tampa Electric proposes that the cancellation be made effective on August 22, 2003.
Tampa Electric states that copies of the filing have been served on RCID and the Florida Public Service Commission.
Take notice that on August 25, 2003, Southern California Edison Company (SCE) tendered for filing an Amended and Restated Interconnection Facilities Agreement (A&RIFA) between High Desert Power Project, LLC (HDPP) and SCE. SCE states that the A&RIFA specifies the final terms and conditions pursuant to which SCE will interconnect 850 MW of generation to the California Independent System Operator Controlled Grid pursuant to SCE's Transmission Owner Tariff, FERC Electric Tariff, Second Revised Original Volume No. 6. SCE also states that the A&RIFA will replace, in its entirety, the Interconnection Facilities Agreement between SCE and High Desert Power Trust accepted as Service Agreement No. 11 under SCE's Transmission Owner Tariff in Docket No. ER02-1073-000. SCE states that because of disputes over certain issues between SCE and HDPP, HDPP has requested that SCE file the A&RIFA unexecuted. SCE requests that the A&RIFA become effective one day after filing.
SCE states that copies of this filing were served upon the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California and HDPP.
Take notice that on August 25, 2003, Virginia Electric and Power Company, doing business as Dominion Virginia Power (the Company), tendered for filing copies of a letter agreement between Virginia Electric and Power Company, doing business as Dominion Virginia Power (the Company), and Virginia Municipal Electric Association No. 1 (VMEA). The Company states that the letter agreement, dated June 16, 2003, adds a new point of delivery to the Agreement for the Purchase of Electricity for Resale between VMEA and the Company, First Revised Rate Schedule FERC No. 109.
The Company requests waiver of the Commission's notice of filing requirements to allow the letter agreement to become effective on October 15, 2003, the earliest date upon which all of the facilities necessary to provide service under the letter agreement will be completed. The Company states that copies of the filing were served upon VMEA, the Virginia State Corporation Commission and the North Carolina Utilities Commission.
Take notice that on August 25, 2003, the California Independent System Operator Corporation (ISO), tendered for filing Amendment No. 1 to the Participating Generator Agreement between the ISO and Energia Azteca X, S. de R.L. de C.V (EAX) for acceptance by the Commission.
The ISO states that this filing has been served on EAX and the California Public Utilities Commission. The ISO is requesting waiver of the 60-day notice requirement to allow Amendment No. 1 to the Participating Generator Agreement to be made effective July 15, 2003.
Take notice that on August 25, 2003, Southwestern Electric Power Company (SWEPCO) filed a Restated and Amended Power Supply Agreement (Restated Agreement) between SWEPCO and Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas, Inc. (Tex-La). SWEPCO states that the Restated Agreement supersedes in its entirety the Power Supply Agreement, dated July 31, 1997, as amended, between SWEPCO and Tex-La.
SWEPCO seeks an effective date of June 15, 2000 and, accordingly, seeks waiver of the Commission's notice requirements. SWEPCO states that copies of the filing have been served on Tex-La and on the Public Utility Commission of Texas.
Take notice that on August 13, 2003, Florida Power Corporation (FPC) tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) a Notice of Withdrawal of its April 2, 2003 application to recover stranded costs from the City of Casselberry, Florida .
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 (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before October 6, 2003.
Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number OW-2003-0009, to (1) EPA online using EDOCKET (our preferred method), by e-mail to
Tracy Hudak, Office of Water, Mail code: 4203M, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-0651; fax number: (202) 564-6431; 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 April 3, 2003 (68 FR 16282), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA has addressed the comments received.
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OW-2003-0009, which is available for public viewing at the Water 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 Water Docket is (202) 566-2426. 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. 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, see EPA's
EPA's Office of Wastewater Management (OWM) in the Office of Water (OW) is responsible for the management of the pretreatment program. The Clean Water Act requires EPA to develop national pretreatment standards to control discharges from Industrial Users (IUs) into Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs). These standards limit the level of certain pollutants allowed in non-domestic wastewater that is discharged to a POTW. EPA administers the pretreatment program through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. Under the NPDES permit program, EPA may approve State or individual POTW implementation of the pretreatment standards at their respective levels. Data collected from IUs during implementation of the pretreatment program include the mass, frequency, and content of IU discharges and IU schedules for installing pretreatment equipment. Data also include actual or anticipated IU discharges of wastes that violate pretreatment standards, have the potential to cause problems at the POTW, or are considered hazardous under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). OWM uses the data collected under the pretreatment program to monitor and enforce compliance with the pretreatment regulations, as well as to authorize program administration at the State or local (POTW) level. States and POTWs applying for approval of their pretreatment programs submit data concerning their legal, procedural, and administrative bases for establishing such programs. This information may include surveys of IUs, local limits for pollutant concentrations, and schedules for completion of major project requirements. IUs and POTWs submit written reports to the approved state or EPA. These data may then be entered into the NPDES databases by the approved state or by EPA.
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 in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9 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 October 6, 2003.
Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number OW-2003-0026, to (1) EPA online using EDOCKET (our preferred method), by e-mail to
John Wilson, Assessment and Watershed Protection Division, Office of Water, Mail Code 4503T, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-566-1158; fax number: 202-566-1331; 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 May 21, 2003 (68 FR 27793), 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 No. OW-2003-0026 , which is available for public viewing at the Water 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 Water Docket is (202) 566-2426. 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. 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, see EPA's
This announcement includes the reapproval of current, ongoing activities related to sections 305(b) and 303(d) reporting and TMDL development for
The respondent community for section 305(b) reporting consists of 50 States, the District of Columbia, 5 Territories (Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands), and 3 River Basin Commissions. The Ohio River Valley Sanitation Commission, the Delaware River Basin Commission, and the Interstate Sanitation Commission have jurisdiction over basins that lie in multiple States. Indian Tribes are exempt from the section 305(b) reporting requirement, but some Tribes choose to participate as a way of presenting assessments and water quality issues to the public and Congress. One Tribe or Tribal Group prepared section 305(b) reports in 1996 and 1997. However, since Tribal section 305(b) reporting is a voluntary effort, it is not included in the burden estimates for this ICR.
The respondent community for section 303(d) activities consists of 50 States, the District of Columbia, and 5 Territories (Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands). Although Indian Tribes can be authorized to meet section 303(d) requirements, none are currently authorized nor have applied for authorization. Further, very few Tribes have established water quality standards, and EPA is currently in the process of preparing standards where they are needed. Therefore, we assume that there would be no burden to Indian Tribes over the period covered by this ICR for section 303(d) activities.
The burden of specific activities that States undertake as part of their sections 305(b) and 303(d) programs are derived from an ongoing project among EPA, States and other interested stakeholders to develop a tool for estimating the States' resource needs for State water quality management programs. This project has developed the State Water Quality Management Workload Model (SWQMWM), which estimates and sums the workload involved in more than one hundred activities or tasks comprising a State water quality management program. Over twenty States have contributed information about their activities that became the basis for the model. According to the SWQMWM, the States will carry out the following activities or tasks to meet the sections 305(b) and 303(d) reporting requirements: Watershed characterization; modeling and analysis; development of a TMDL document for public review; public outreach; formal public participation; tracking; planning; legal support;
The biennial frequency of the collection is mandated by section 305(b)(1) of the CWA. Section 305(b) originally required respondents to submit water quality reports on an annual basis. In 1977, the annual requirement was amended to a biennial requirement in the CWA. EPA has determined that abbreviated reporting for hard-copy section 305(b) reports, combined with annual electronic reporting using respondent databases, will meet the CWA reporting requirements while reducing burden to respondents. The biennial period with annual electronic reporting ensures that information needed for analysis and water program decisions is reasonably current, yet abbreviated reporting requirements provides respondents with sufficient time to prepare the reports.
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 in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9 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 October 6, 2003.
Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number RCRA-2002-0024, to (1) EPA online using EDOCKET (our preferred method), by e-mail to
Dave Levy, Office of Solid Waste, Mail Code 5303W, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 703-308-8479; fax number: 703-308-8433; 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 March 18, 2003 (68 FR 12902), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA has addressed the comments received.
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. RCRA-2002-0024, which is available for public viewing at the RCRA 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 RCRA Docket is (202) 566-0270. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at
Please use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above.
Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. 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, see EPA's
The respondents' submissions (reports) describe each generated hazardous waste, the activity by which they generated the waste, and the waste quantity; the reports also list the management method by which each waste is treated, recycled, or disposed and the quantity managed. There are a number of uses of Biennial Report data. EPA uses Biennial Report data for planning and developing regulations, compliance monitoring, and enforcement. Also, Biennial Report data allows the Agency to determine whether its regulations are having the desired effect on the generation and management of hazardous waste. For example, Biennial Report data provides information on whether waste management has shifted from one method of disposal to another. Some State uses of Report data include support of planning, fee assessment, compliance monitoring, and enforcement.
Some businesses consider some of their hazardous waste information to be Confidential Business Information (CBI). A business may, if it desires, protect its Biennial Report information from public disclosure by asserting a claim of confidentiality covering all or part of its information. When a claim is made EPA will treat the information in accordance with the confidentiality regulations in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. EPA also ensures that the information collection procedures comply with the Privacy Act of 1974 and OMB Circular 108.
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 in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9 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 October 6, 2003.
Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number OEI-2003-0003, to (1) EPA online using EDOCKET (our preferred method), by e-mail to
Jeffrey Kohn, Collection Strategies Division, Office of Information Collection (2822T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 566-1407; fax number: (202) 566-1639; e-mail address:
EPA has submitted this renewal ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On April 10, 2003 (68 FR 17631), EPA sought comments on this renewal ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA has received and addressed comments from one organization.
EPA has established a public docket for this renewal ICR under Docket ID No. OEI-2003-0003, which is available for public viewing at the OEI 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 and fax numbers for the OEI Docket are (202) 566-1752 and (202) 566-1753, respectively. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at
Any comments related to this renewal ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. 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, see EPA's
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 in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.
EPA established the procedures described in 40 CFR part 2, subparts A and B to protect the confidentiality of information as well as the rights of the public to obtain access to the information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). In accordance with these regulations, when EPA finds it necessary to make a final confidentiality determination (
EPA is proposing to use an updated Request for Substantiation letter (“proposed letter”). The proposed letter is made up of two separate sample letters that address different factual situations: Sample Letter A, which requests a substantiation in response to a FOIA request, and Sample Letter B, which requests a substantiation in support of Agency rulemaking or litigation, in the case of an advance confidentiality determination, or for any other Agency purpose. The use of two letters is a clarification of existing EPA procedures. Some of the information requested differs slightly from the current Request for Substantiation letter, concerning the possible voluntary nature of the submission and the issue of substantial competitive harm, and takes into account the vast amount of information now available electronically. Nevertheless, EPA estimates that the overall burden to respond to inquiries contained in the proposed letter is the same as the burden to respond to inquiries contained in the current Request for Substantiation letter.
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 October 6, 2003.
Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number OAR-2003-0181, to (1) EPA online using EDOCKET (our preferred method), by e-mail to
Mrs. Chestine Payton, Certification and Compliance Division, Outreach and Planning Group, Mail Code 6405J, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-9328; fax number: (202) 565-2057; 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 May 8, 2003 (68 FR 24736), 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 No. OAR-2003-0181, which is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center 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 Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center 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. 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
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 in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9 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 October 6, 2003.
Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number OAR-2003-0042, to (1) EPA online using EDOCKET (our preferred method), by e-mail to
Mrs. Chestine Payton, Certification and Compliance Division, Outreach and Planning Group, Mail Code 6405J, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-9328; fax number: (202) 565-2057; 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 May 8, 2003 (68 FR 24736), 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 No. OAR-2003-0042, which is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center 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 Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. 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, see EPA's
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 in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.
Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's Board of Directors will meet in open session at 10 a.m. on Friday, September 5, 2003, to consider the following matters:
Summary reports, status reports, and reports of actions taken pursuant to authority delegated by the Board of Directors.
The meeting will be held in the Board Room on the sixth floor of the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC.
The FDIC will provide attendees with auxiliary aids (
Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be directed to Ms. Valerie J. Best, Assistant Executive Secretary of the Corporation, at (202) 898-3742.
Federal Maritime Commission.
10 a.m.—September 11, 2003.
800 North Capitol Street, NW., First Floor Hearing Room, Washington, DC.
Closed.
1. Fact Finding Investigation No. 25—Practices of Transpacific Stabilization Agreement Members Covering the 2002-2003 Service Contract Season.
2. Practices of the Puerto Rico Ports Authority,
Bryant L. VanBrakle, Secretary, (202) 523-5725.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at
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 September 29, 2003.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 29, 2003.
The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage
Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 18, 2003.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 29, 2003.
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 at (404) 639-7090.
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.
Women's health programs, including the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP), offer low-cost or free breast cancer screening to uninsured, low-income women. In 1991, CDC established the NBCCEDP to increase breast and cervical cancer screening among uninsured, underserved, low-income women. To date, over 1.5 million women have received services from NBCCEDP-sponsored programs. Yet NBCCEDP-sponsored programs are estimated to reach only 18% of women 50 years old and older who are eligible for screening services. A research priority for the NBCCEDP is to identify effective strategies to increase enrollment among eligible women who have never received breast or cervical cancer screening. Why women do not participate in this screening is not well understood.
The purpose of this task is to conduct formative research to better understand how low-income African-American women might use TV/radio as sources of health information and identify the particular formats, programs, stations, and hours the targeted woman listen. This task will examine how African-American women get information on community issues, services, and events and determine if these can be used as viable means to disseminate information on health services. The only cost to respondent is their time.
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 at (404) 639-7090.
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.
In order to prepare for another potential outbreak of SARS in the U.S. in the upcoming respiratory season, several collections of information may be required. Currently, CDC is collecting this information under a six month emergency clearance. To preserve continuity in the surveillance information collected by public health investigators, CDC is requesting a 3 year extension on the current surveillance forms. The information collected includes contact information for travelers on a flight with a person or persons suspected of having SARS, health care work exposures, and case report forms. There is no cost to the respondent.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public meeting.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a public meeting on the agency's effort to combat counterfeit drugs. The purpose of the meeting is to enable interested individuals, organizations, and other stakeholders to present information on all aspects of the agency's initiative against counterfeit drugs. FDA is particularly interested in hearing about information related to technology, public education, regulatory and legislative issues, and industry and health professional issues. The agency is also inviting vendors of anti-counterfeit technologies relevant to the pharmaceutical industry to display their
The public meeting and vendor display will be held on October 15, 2003, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Attendees should send notice of intent to attend the meeting by October 9, 2003. Speakers must register and submit a short summary of the presentation by September 24, 2003. Presenters must send final electronic presentations in Microsoft PowerPoint, Microsoft Word, or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) to FDA by close of business on October 3, 2003.
However, written and electronic comments will be accepted for consideration until November 3, 2003. Vendors must register and submit a brief summary of the product(s) they plan to display by close of business September 24, 2003.
The public meeting and vendor display will be held at the Four Points Sheraton Bethesda, 8400 Wisconsin Ave., Bethesda, MD 20814, 301-654-1000. The hotel may be reached by Metro using the Medical Center Station on the red line, which is 2 1/2 blocks from the hotel; or you may call the hotel for shuttle bus service. Notice of intent to attend the meeting and requests to present at the meeting should be sent to Elizabeth French, Office of Policy (HF-11), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-3360, FAX 301-594-6777, e-mail:
Requests to present should contain the following items:
• Presenter's name;
• Address;
• Telephone number;
• E-mail address;
• Affiliation, if any;
• Summary of the presentation; and
• Approximate amount of time requested for the presentation.
FDA encourages persons and groups having similar interests to consolidate their information and present it through a single representative, if possible, to enable a broad range of views to be presented. After reviewing the requests to present, the agency intends to schedule each appearance and notify each participant by e-mail or telephone of the time allotted to the person and the approximate time the person's presentation is scheduled to begin.
Presenters must send final electronic presentations in Microsoft PowerPoint, Microsoft Word, or PDF to FDA by close of business on October 3, 2003.
In addition, there will be an opportunity for vendors of authentication and track and trace anti-counterfeiting technologies to display their products in a room adjacent to the public meeting. The purpose of these displays is to educate FDA and other attendees of the types of anti-counterfeit technologies that are currently available. FDA is particularly interested in vendors displaying products that have the following features:
• Product is currently in commercial use or production;
• Product (or closely similar product) is currently being used in the pharmaceutical distribution system or that has clear applicability to authenticating or tracking pharmaceuticals (e.g., are easily incorporated into the manufacturing process, packaging, and/or labeling of drugs and biologics);
• Track/trace products that have the ability to locate the product throughout the distribution chain from the time of manufacture to the time sale to a consumer;
• Track/trace products that have the ability to be read and used by each entity (or individual) having physical contact with the pharmaceutical;
• Covert authentication technologies that are identifiable by one or more points in the distribution chain (i.e. by wholesalers, repackers, retailers, and health care entities); and
• Covert forensic technologies that are identifiable by a sophisticated analytical laboratory and the manufacturer.
FDA is not interested in having technologies displayed that are not in production or current commercial use, and that are not applicable to pharmaceuticals. For example, technologies that are not easily incorporated into the manufacture, packaging, and/or labeling of pharmaceuticals may not be appropriate for display. Vendors should take these factors into account prior to determining which products to display.
Because of limited space availability, all vendor requests may not be accommodated. If you wish to have a display at the public meeting, please submit your request and the following information to Karen Strambler (see
Requests to display should contain the following items:
• Presenter's name,
• Address,
• Telephone number,
• Affiliation,
• Product(s) for display, and
• Brief summary of how the anti-counterfeit technology meets the criteria listed in the previous list items.
After reviewing the requests to display, FDA intends to notify each vendor by e-mail or telephone whether there is space available for display.
If you need special accommodations due to disability, please inform Elizabeth French (see
Counterfeit drugs pose potentially serious public health and safety concerns. They may contain only inactive ingredients, incorrect ingredients, improper dosages, dangerous subpotent or superpotent ingredients, or even adventitious agents or contaminants such as harmful bacteria. In the United States, drug counterfeiting is a relatively rare event. Although FDA believes domestic counterfeiting is not widespread, the agency has recently seen an increase in counterfeiting activities as well as a more sophisticated ability to introduce finished dosage counterfeits into the otherwise legitimate drug distribution channels. During the late 1990's, FDA counterfeit drug investigations averaged about five per year. Since 2000,
On July 16, 2003, FDA announced an initiative to more aggressively protect American consumers from the risks associated with counterfeit drugs and reduce the possibility of potentially unsafe counterfeit drugs reaching consumers. As part of this effort, FDA established an internal task force that will develop recommendations for steps that FDA, other government agencies, and the private sector can take to minimize the risks to the public from counterfeit drugs getting into the supply chain. Some of the areas that FDA's task force is exploring are included in the following topics:
•
•
•
•
The task force anticipates the following deliverables:
• Interim task force report to be released in September 2003. We intend to include preliminary findings on which all interested parties may comment;
• Final task force report to be released in January 2004. We intend to provide recommendations for public and private sector actions to address the problem of counterfeit drugs.
FDA is planning this public meeting in order to hear public comments on ways to combat counterfeit drugs. The objective of the meeting is for FDA to gather information to assist FDA's counterfeit drug task force in finalizing its report, which will include recommendations on steps that FDA, other government agencies, and the private sector can take to minimize the risks to the public from counterfeit drugs entering the supply chain. We anticipate that discussions at this meeting will include presentations from members of the public.
FDA plans to include with the task force interim report a series of questions specifically addressing the preliminary findings. The questions will be posted on FDA's Web site at
1. What anti-counterfeit technologies currently are available for use as anti-counterfeit measures for pharmaceuticals (e.g., track/trace, authentication)? What are the costs associated with these technologies?
2. What is the current status of, and barriers to, adopting an industry standard for use of anti-counterfeiting technology?
3. What role should FDA play in facilitating the use of anti-counterfeit technologies and in the creation of an industry standard for use of anti-counterfeiting measures?
4. Should anti-counterfeiting measures be used for all drugs and biologics or just for drugs at high risk for counterfeiting? Is there a way to identify drugs at high risk for counterfeiting?
1. In 2001, FDA submitted a report to Congress (
2. How could PDMA be strengthened or augmented to reduce the risk of counterfeit drugs and biologicals from reaching consumers?
3. If PDMA were amended by Congress to require wholesale distributors to prepare and pass on a pedigree to all customers (“universal pedigree”), including to retail pharmacies, would the risk of distribution of counterfeit, expired, or otherwise unsuitable drugs to consumers be decreased?
4. How could state pharmacy practice acts be augmented or strengthened to minimize the introduction of counterfeit drugs into the drug distribution chain? Please give specific suggestions.
1. What are the information needs of consumers, trade groups, the media, state governments, manufacturers, wholesalers, pharmacists, and other health care professionals to help identify and report suspected counterfeit drugs?
2. What is the most effective and efficient way for FDA to notify the public and health professionals that a counterfeit product has been identified? What are the emergency messages that FDA should deliver to its various audiences when a report of a suspected counterfeit drug is received by the agency?
3. What types of communication tools are already in existence and/or should be developed to assist FDA in delivering its messages about counterfeiting?
4. How can FDA, other governmental agencies, and private stakeholders work together to create and disseminate education messages to various audiences (e. g. consumers, wholesalers, pharmacies) that are consistent while delivering the information that each stakeholder needs?
1. What is the role of manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, repackagers, and pharmacists in the following areas: (1) Identifying counterfeits, (2) preventing the introduction of counterfeits into the distribution chain, and (3) educating consumers. Should these stakeholders create in-house committees to develop and implement security and anti-counterfeit measures? Should stakeholders develop compliance programs?
2. Should a counterfeit drug alert network be developed? If so, should it be adapted from existing systems or should a new system be created? What would be the associated costs of adapting or creating a network?
We invite public comment on the overall FDA anti-counterfeit drug initiative, with a focus on the questions listed previously in this document.
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, written or electronic comments by November 3, 2003. Submit electronic comments to
You may request a copy of the transcript of the meeting in writing from the Freedom of Information Office (HFI-35), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, rm. 12A-16, Rockville, MD 20857, approximately 14 working days after the meeting at a cost of 10 cents per page or on compact disc at a cost of $14.25 each. You can also examine the transcript Monday through Friday between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. in the Division of Dockets Management.
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain additional information on the public meeting at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to the public.
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Michael Watson at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to the public.
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact AnnMarie Williams, Conference Management Staff, at 301-594-1283, ext. 113, at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an amendment to the notice of meeting of the Manufacturing Subcommittee of the Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Science. This meeting was announced in the
Hilda Scharen, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (HFD-21), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane (for express delivery, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1093), Rockville MD 20857, 301-827-7001, or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-0572 in the Washington, DC area), code 12539. Please call the Information Line for up-to-date information on this meeting.
In the
This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to advisory committees.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a draft document entitled “Guidance for Industry: Comparability Protocols—Protein Drug Products and Biological Products—Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls Information” dated September 2003. The draft guidance document provides recommendations to applicants on preparing and using comparability protocols for changes in chemistry, manufacturing, and controls of products in approved marketing applications. The guidance applies to comparability protocols that applicants would submit in biologics license applications (BLAs) or supplements to these applications for therapeutic recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) derived protein products, naturally derived protein products, plasma derivatives, vaccines, allergenics and therapeutic DNA plasmids. The guidance also applies to new drug applications (NDAs), abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs), new animal drug applications (NADAs), abbreviated new animal drug applications (ANADAs), or supplements to these applications for protein drug products, and certain peptides that are not sufficiently characterizable (i.e., complex mixture of small peptides).
Submit written or electronic comments on the draft guidance by December 4, 2003, to ensure their adequate consideration in preparation of the final guidance. General comments on agency guidance documents are welcome at any time.
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Office of Communication, Training, and Manufacturers Assistance (HFM-40), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-1448; or to the Office of Training and Communications, Division of Communications Management, Division of Drug Information (HFD-240), Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; or to the Communications Staff (HFV-12), Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in processing your requests. The draft guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling the CBER Voice Information System at 1-800-835-4709 or 301-827-1800. See the
Submit written comments on the draft guidance to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to
Nathaniel L. Geary, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM-17), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-1448, 301-827-6210; or Stephen K.
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft document entitled “Guidance for Industry: Comparability Protocols—Protein Drug Products and Biological Products—Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls Information” dated September 2003. The draft document applies to comparability protocols that would be submitted in BLAs, or supplements to these applications, for therapeutic recombinant DNA derived protein products, naturally derived protein products, plasma derivatives, vaccines and allergenics, therapeutic DNA plasmids and NDAs, ANDAs and investigational new drugs (INDs) for protein drug products, and not sufficiently characterizable peptide products (e.g., complex mixture of small peptides).
The draft guidance does not pertain to comparability protocols for human blood and blood components intended for transfusion and for further manufacture, somatic cell therapy, and gene therapy vectors (except therapeutic DNA plasmids). It also does not pertain to vaccines for veterinary use because these are regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The draft guidance contains information collection provisions that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collection of information in the guidance was approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0001, 0910-0032, and 0910-0338.
The draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the agency's current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
The draft guidance is being distributed for comment purposes only and is not intended for implementation at this time. Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Formal Dispute Resolution: Scientific and Technical Issues Related to Pharmaceutical CGMP.” In the draft guidance, the agency describes a formal, two-tiered dispute resolution process intended to resolve disputes of scientific and technical issues relating to current good manufacturing practice (CGMP) that arise during FDA inspections of pharmaceutical manufacturers.
Submit written or electronic comments on the draft guidance by March 3, 2004. General comments on agency guidance documents are welcome at any time. Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of information by November 4, 2003.
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information (HFD-240), Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; the Office of Communication, Training and Manufacturers Assistance (HFM-40), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, 1401 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-1448; or Communications Staff (HFV-12), Center for Veterinary Medicine, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Submit written comments on the draft guidance and on the collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance and the collection of information to
Mary Jane Mathews, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (HFD-3), Food and Drug Administration, 1451 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, 301-594-2847.
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Formal Dispute Resolution: Scientific and Technical Issues Related to Pharmaceutical CGMP.” The guidance was drafted as part of the FDA initiative “Pharmaceutical CGMPs for the 21st Century: A Risk-Based Approach,” which was announced in August 2002. The initiative focuses on FDA's current CGMP program and covers the manufacture of veterinary and human drugs, including human biological drug products.
The agency formed the Dispute Resolution Working Group comprising representatives from the Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA), the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), and the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM). The working group met weekly on issues related to the dispute resolution process and met with stakeholders in December 2002 to seek their input.
The draft guidance was initiated in response to industry's request for a formal dispute resolution process to resolve differences related to scientific and technical issues that arise between investigators and pharmaceutical manufacturers during FDA inspections of foreign and domestic manufacturers. In addition to encouraging manufacturers to use currently available dispute resolution processes, the draft guidance describes a formal two-tiered dispute resolution process that provides a formal mechanism for requesting review and decision on issues that arise during inspections.
• Tier-one of the dispute resolution process provides a mechanism to raise scientific or technical issues to the ORA and center levels.
• Tier-two of the dispute resolution process provides a mechanism to raise scientific or technical issues to the agency's Dispute Resolution Panel for Scientific and Technical Issues Related to Pharmaceutical CGMP (DR Panel).
The draft guidance also covers the following topics:
• The suitability of certain issues for the formal dispute resolution process, including examples of some issues with a discussion of their appropriateness for the dispute resolution process.
• Instructions on how to submit requests for formal dispute resolution and a list of the supporting information that should accompany these requests.
• Public availability of decisions reached during the dispute resolution process to promote consistent application and interpretation of drug quality-related regulations.
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the agency's current thinking on “Formal Dispute Resolution: Scientific and Technical Issues Related to Pharmaceutical CGMP.” It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) (the PRA), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on the following topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
When a scientific or technical issue arises during an FDA inspection, the manufacturer should initially attempt to reach agreement on the issue informally with the investigator. Certain scientific or technical issues may be too complex or time-consuming to resolve during the inspection. If resolution of a scientific or technical issue is not accomplished through informal mechanisms prior to the issuance of the Form FDA 483, the manufacturer can formally request dispute resolution and can use the formal two-tiered dispute resolution process described in the draft guidance.
Tier-one of the formal dispute resolution process involves scientific or technical issues raised by a manufacturer to the ORA and center levels. If a manufacturer disagrees with the tier-one decision, tier-two of the formal dispute resolution process would then be available for appealing that decision to the DR Panel.
If a manufacturer disagrees with the scientific or technical basis for an observation listed by an investigator on a Form FDA 483, the manufacturer can file a written request for formal dispute resolution with the appropriate ORA unit as described in the draft guidance. The request for formal dispute resolution should be made within 10 days of the completion of an inspection, and should include all supporting documentation and arguments for review, as described. If a manufacturer disagrees with the tier-one decision in the formal dispute resolution process, the manufacturer can file a written request for formal dispute resolution by the DR Panel. The manufacturer should provide the written request for formal dispute resolution and all supporting documentation and arguments, as described in the following paragraphs, to the DR Panel within 60 days of receipt of the tier-one decision.
All requests for formal dispute resolution should be in writing and include adequate information to explain the nature of the dispute and to allow FDA to act quickly and efficiently. Each request should be sent to the appropriate address listed in the draft guidance and include the following:
• Cover sheet that clearly identifies the submission as either a request for tier-one dispute resolution or a request for tier-two dispute resolution;
• Name and address of manufacturer inspected (as listed on the Form FDA 483);
• Date of inspection (as listed on the Form FDA 483);
• Date the Form FDA 483 issued (from the Form FDA 483);
• Firm establishment inventory (FEI) number, if available (from the Form FDA 483);
• Names and titles of FDA employees who conducted inspection (from the Form FDA 483);
• Office responsible for the inspection, e.g., district office, as listed on the Form FDA 483;
• Application number if the inspection was a preapproval inspection;
• Comprehensive statement of each issue to be resolved:
• Identify the observation in dispute.
• Clearly present the manufacturer's scientific position or rationale concerning the issue under dispute with any supporting data.
• State the steps that have been taken to resolve the dispute, including any informal dispute resolution that may have occurred before the issuance of the Form FDA 483.
• Identify possible solutions.
• State expected outcome.
• Name, title, telephone and fax number, and e-mail address (as available) of manufacturer contact.
Based on the time it currently takes manufacturers to prepare responses to FDA concerning issues raised in a Form FDA 483, FDA estimates that it will take manufacturers approximately 30 hours to prepare and submit each request for a tier-one dispute resolution and approximately 8 hours to prepare and submit each request for a tier-two dispute resolution.
Based on the methodology and assumptions in the previous paragraphs, table 1 of this document provides an estimate of the annual reporting burden for requests for a tier-one dispute resolution and requests for a tier-two dispute resolution under the draft guidance. FDA requests comments on this analysis of information collection burdens.
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance document at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Part 11, Electronic Records; Electronic Signatures—Scope and Application.” The guidance explains FDA's current thinking regarding the requirements and application of part 11 (21 CFR part 11). FDA has begun to re-examine part 11 as it applies to all FDA regulated products. This guidance explains that we will narrowly interpret the scope of part 11. While the re-examination of part 11 is under way, we intend to exercise enforcement discretion with respect to certain part 11 requirements. With respect to systems that were operational before August 20, 1997, the effective date of the final rule establishing part 11, we intend to exercise enforcement discretion with respect to all part 11 requirements under certain circumstances.
Submit written or electronic comments on agency guidances at any time.
Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the Division of Drug Information (HFD-240), Center for Drug Evaluation and
Joseph C. Famulare, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (HFD-320), Food and Drug Administration, 11919 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, 301-827-8940, or
FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Part 11, Electronic Records; Electronic Signatures—Scope and Application.” The guidance explains FDA's current thinking regarding the requirements and application of part 11.
In March 1997, FDA issued final part 11 regulations that provided criteria for acceptance by FDA, under certain circumstances, of electronic records, electronic signatures, and handwritten signatures executed to electronic records as equivalent to paper records, and handwritten signatures executed on paper (62 FR 13430, March 20, 1997). These regulations, which apply to all FDA program areas, were intended to permit the widest possible use of electronic technology, consistent with FDA's responsibility to protect the public health.
After part 11 became effective in August 1997, significant discussions ensued among industry, contractors, and the agency concerning the scope, interpretation, and implementation of the regulations. Concerns have been raised that some interpretations of the part 11 requirements would have the following effects: (1) Unnecessarily restrict the use of electronic technology in a manner that is inconsistent with FDA's stated intent in issuing the rule, (2) significantly increase the costs of compliance to an extent that was not contemplated at the time the rule was drafted, and (3) discourage innovation and technological advances without providing a significant public health benefit. These concerns have been raised particularly in the areas of part 11 requirements for validation, audit trails, record retention, record copying, and legacy systems.
As an outgrowth of its current good manufacturing practice (CGMP) initiative for human and animal drugs and biologics, FDA has begun to re-examine part 11 as it applies to all FDA regulated products. We may revise provisions of part 11 as a result of that examination. This guidance explains that we will narrowly interpret the scope of part 11. While the re-examination of part 11 is under way, we intend to exercise enforcement discretion with respect to certain part 11 requirements. However, with respect to legacy systems we intend to exercise enforcement discretion with respect to all part 11 requirements under certain circumstances. As announced on February 25, 2003, in the
FDA received a number of comments when it issued the February 2003 draft version of this guidance. We have considered the comments on the draft carefully and have made some changes to address those comments. Among other things, we have revised the guidance by making the following changes:
1. Emphasize that part 11 remains in effect and that enforcement discretion applies only to certain requirements or circumstances as identified in the guidance;
2. Clarify the term `enforcement discretion';
3. Explain that time stamps should be clearly referenced;
4. Remove the National Institute of Standards and Technology risk management guide as a reference and add the ISO 14971 risk management guide as a reference;
5. State that the FDA currently has no plans to re-issue the withdrawn part 11 draft guidance documents; and
6. Clarify the meaning of `part 11 legacy system.'
This guidance provides recommendations to persons who, in fulfillment of a requirement in a statute or another part of FDA's regulations to maintain records or submit information to FDA, have chosen to maintain the records or submit designated information electronically and, as a result, have become subject to part 11.
This guidance announces that we intend to exercise enforcement discretion with respect to the validation, audit trail, record retention, and record copying requirements of part 11. We also intend to exercise enforcement discretion and do not intend to recommend or take enforcement action to enforce any part 11 requirements with regard to systems that were operational before August 20, 1997, the effective date of part 11 (commonly known as existing or legacy systems) while we are re-examining part 11. However, records must still be maintained or submitted in accordance with the underlying predicate rules.
It is important to note that FDA's exercise of enforcement discretion as described in this guidance is limited to specified part 11 requirements (setting aside legacy systems, as to which the extent of enforcement discretion, under certain circumstances, will be more broad). We intend to enforce all other provisions of part 11 including, but not limited to, certain controls for closed systems in § 11.10, the corresponding controls for open systems (§ 11.30), and requirements related to electronic signatures (e.g., §§ 11.50, 11.70, 11.100, 11.200, and 11.300). We expect continued compliance with these provisions, and we will continue to enforce them. Where the interpretation of part 11 in this guidance differs from the interpretation in the preamble to part 11, the interpretation in this guidance will apply.
This level 1 guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance entitled “Guidance for Industry: PAT — A Framework for Innovative Pharmaceutical Manufacturing and Quality Assurance.” The draft guidance explains a science-based, risk-based framework, “Process Analytical Technology, or PAT,” for developing and implementing innovative manufacturing technology. The guidance is intended to encourage innovative pharmaceutical manufacturing and quality assurance. Working with existing regulations, this guidance also describes a regulatory approach that will enable the agency and the pharmaceutical industry to address technical and regulatory issues and questions anticipated during introduction of new manufacturing and quality assurance technologies.
Submit written or electronic comments on this draft guidance on paper or electronically, by November 4, 2003. General comments on agency guidance documents are welcome at any time.
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information (HFD-240), Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, or to the Office of Communication, Training, and Manufacturers Assistance (HFM-40), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-1448. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. Submit written comments on the draft guidance to the Divison of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance entitled “Guidance for Industry: PAT — A Framework for Innovative Pharmaceutical Manufacturing and Quality Assurance.” The draft guidance explains a science-based, risk-based framework, “Process Analytical Technology, or PAT,” for developing and implementing innovative manufacturing technology. The guidance is intended to encourage innovative pharmaceutical manufacturing and quality assurance.
Conventional pharmaceutical manufacturing is generally accomplished using batch processing with testing conducted on collected samples to ensure quality. This conventional approach has been successful in providing quality pharmaceuticals to the public. However, significant opportunities now exist for improving the efficiency of pharmaceutical manufacturing and quality assurance through the innovative application of modern process development and control technologies, including modern PAT. Unfortunately, the pharmaceutical industry generally has been hesitant to introduce new technologies and innovative systems into the manufacturing sector for a number of reasons. For example, one reason often cited is regulatory uncertainty, which may result from the perception that our existing regulatory system is unfavorable to the introduction of new technologies.
In August 2002, recognizing the need to free industry from its hesitant perspective, FDA launched a new initiative entitled “Pharmaceutical CGMPs for the 21st Century: A Risk-Based Approach.”
Pharmaceutical development and manufacturing is evolving with increased emphasis on science and engineering principles. Effective use of pharmaceutical science and engineering principles and knowledge, throughout the life cycle of a product, can improve the efficiencies of both manufacturing and regulatory processes. FDA's initiative is designed to do just that using an integrated systems approach to regulating pharmaceutical product quality. This approach is based on science and engineering principles for assessing and mitigating risks related to poor product and process quality. The desired future state of pharmaceutical manufacturing may be characterized as: (1) Product quality and performance achieved and ensured through the design of effective and efficient manufacturing processes, (2) product and process specifications based on a mechanistic understanding of how formulation and process factors affect product performance, (3) continuous real time quality assurance, (4) regulatory policies and procedures tailored to recognize the level of scientific knowledge supporting products and processes, (5) risk-based regulatory approaches that recognize the
The draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the agency's current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if the approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
The draft guidance is being distributed for comment purposes only and is not intended for implementation at this time. Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Sterile Drug Products Produced by Aseptic Processing.” FDA expects that enhanced compliance in the area of sterile drug manufacture will lead to a higher assurance of process consistency and minimize supply problems with therapeutically necessary drugs.
Submit written or electronic comments on the draft guidance by November 4, 2003. General comments on agency guidance documents are welcome at any time.
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information (HFD-240), Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. Submit written comments on the draft guidance to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to
On September 27, 2002, FDA released a “concept paper” regarding aseptic processing (
In preparation for issuing this draft guidance, we presented our CGMP concept for aseptic processing at the Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Science on October 22, 2002. At this meeting, the concept paper was discussed in a public forum and critiqued by the advisory committee's members as well as a panel of invited aseptic processing experts. The advisory committee meeting yielded a number of issues that provided impetus for further discussion. In December 2002, a working group under the Product Quality Research Institute (PQRI) was formed to address these issues. The PQRI working group, comprising 41 aseptic processing experts from industry, academia, and FDA, recommended 8 specific text clarifications on the concept paper and 10 detailed recommendations on various issues of aseptic processing. The PQRI Steering Committee forwarded the working group's final report to FDA on March 19, 2003, and it was subsequently posted on PQRI's Web site
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the agency's current thinking on the manufacturing of sterile drugs produced by aseptic processing. It does
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance at
Office of Inspector General (OIG), HHS.
Notice.
This
To assure consideration, comments must be delivered to the address provided below by no later than 5 p.m. on November 4, 2003.
Please mail or deliver your written comments, recommendations and suggestions to the following address: Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, Attention: OIG-13-CPG, Room 5527, Cohen Building, 330 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201.
We do not accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission. In commenting, please refer to the file code OIG-13-CPG. Comments received timely will be available for public inspection as they are received, generally beginning approximately 3 weeks after publication of a document, in Room 5527 of the Cohen Building at 330 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201 on Monday through Friday of each week from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Richard Stern, Office of Counsel to the Inspector General, (202) 619-0335; or Joel Schaer, Office of Counsel to the Inspector General, (202) 619-0089.
The development of compliance program guidances is a major initiative of the OIG in its effort to assist participants in Department programs in preventing and reducing fraud and abuse and in complying with Federal program requirements. Over the past several years, the OIG has developed and issued 11 compliance program guidances. The suggestions contained in the guidances are not mandatory, nor do they represent an exclusive discussion of the advisable elements of a compliance program.
Through this
As with OIG's earlier CPGs, the purpose of this guidance will be to assist organizations in preventing fraud and abuse and in better complying with Federal requirements. We anticipate that the guidance for recipients of NIH research grants will contain seven elements that we consider necessary for a comprehensive compliance program. These seven elements include:
• Implementing written policies and procedures that foster an institutional commitment to stewardship and compliance;
• Designating a compliance officer and compliance committee;
• Conducting effective training and education;
• Developing effective lines of communication;
• Conducting internal monitoring and auditing;
• Enforcing standards through well-publicized disciplinary guidelines; and
• Responding promptly to detected problems, undertaking corrective action, and reporting to the appropriate Federal agency.
We are also considering an eighth element, “Defining roles and responsibilities and assigning oversight responsibility,” that would include a discussion of the importance of effectively delegating oversight authority.
We would appreciate specific comments, recommendations and suggestions on aspects of these elements.
We are also interested in comments on (a) the scope of the guidance, and particularly the types of activities, such as grant administration, that should be subject to the CPG; and (b) the risk areas for recipients of NIH research grants. Based on our fraud investigations at research institutions, we have identified internal control deficiencies that may warrant attention in a CPG. OIG would also appreciate suggestions from the public on risk areas. Risk areas we have tentatively identified include: (i) The proper allocation of charges to grant projects; (ii) “time and effort” reporting, including an accurate reporting of the commitment of effort by researchers; and (iii) use of program income. We would also be interested in comments on each of these areas.
We will consider all comments, recommendations and suggestions received within the time frame
Transportation Security Administration (TSA), DHS.
Notice of meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Aviation Security Advisory Committee (ASAC).
The meeting will take place on October 1, 2003, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Crowne Plaza Washington National Hotel, 1489 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202. Telephone: (703) 416-1600.
Joseph Corrao, Office of Transportation Security Policy, TSA Headquarters (Room 1146N), 701 S. 12th Street, Arlington, VA, 22202; telephone 571-227-2980, e-mail
This meeting is announced pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.). The agenda for the meeting will include the report of the air cargo transportation security working groups, and the report of the general aviation airport security guidelines working group. This meeting, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m., is open to the public but attendance is limited to space available.
Members of the public must make advance arrangements to present oral statements at the open ASAC meeting. Written statements may be presented to the committee by providing copies of them to the Chair prior to or at the meeting. Anyone in need of assistance or a reasonable accommodation for the meeting, should contact the person listed under the heading
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless.
September 5, 2003.
Mark Johnston, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Room 7262, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 1-800-927-7588.
In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of 90-day petition finding.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, make a 90-day finding for a petition to remove
This finding was made on August 29, 2003. To be considered in the 12-month finding on this petition, comments and information should be submitted to us by November 4, 2003.
Comments, material, information, or questions concerning this petition and finding should be sent to the Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, CA 92009. The petition and supporting information are available for public inspection by appointment during normal business hours at the above address.
Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, at the above address (telephone: 760-431-9440).
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531
On October 25, 2001, we received a petition to delist
On November 6, 2002 we received a 60-day notice of intent to sue from David P. Hubbard
The factors for listing, delisting, or reclassifying species are described at 50 CFR 424.11. We may delist a species only if the best scientific and commercial data available substantiate that it is neither endangered nor threatened. Delisting may be warranted as a result of: (1) Extinction, (2) recovery, or (3) a determination that the original data used for classification of the species as endangered or threatened were in error.
Seeds are dispersed by three basic mechanisms: (1) Falling from partially open fruits that remain on the plant; (2) falling from fruits that are blown across the sand; or (3) falling to the ground within the fruit (Barneby 1964; Bowers 1986; Phillips and Kennedy 2002). Wind dispersal of fruits across the surface of the dunes is likely the primary long-distance dispersal method for this plant. The fruits and seeds tend to accumulate on the leeward side of the dunes. These seeds may be found scattered on the sand surface at times.
The number and location of standing plants may vary considerably from year to year due to a number of factors, including the amount, timing, and location of rainfall; temperature; soil conditions; and the extent and nature of the seed bank. For example, along the BLM transects, Willoughby (2001) reported that 942 plants were found in 1999 and only 86 plants in 2000, both low rainfall years compared to the wetter year 1998, when 5,064 plants were found. In 2001, 71,926 plants were reported (TOA 2001), but this single census does not provide any information on population trend. Plant mortality over the short term may also be considerable (Phillips and Kennedy 2002).
In 1979,
We have reviewed the petition and literature cited in and provided with the petition and considered it with other information in our files. We have found that the petition presents substantial information indicating that delisting
When we make a finding that substantial information exists to indicate that listing or delisting 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
If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials concerning this finding to the Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (
A complete list of all references cited in this finding is available, upon request, from the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (
The authority for this action is section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of meeting.
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 Klamath Fishery Management Council, established under the authority of the Klamath River Basin Fishery Resources Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 460ss
The Klamath Fishery Management Council will meet from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Wednesday, October 15, 2003, and from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Thursday, October 16, 2003.
Place: The meeting will be held at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Yreka Fish and Wildlife Office, 1829 South Oregon Street, Yreka, California.
Phil Detrich, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 1829 South Oregon Street; Yreka, California 96097; telephone (530) 842-5763.
For background information on the Klamath Council, please refer to the notice of their initial meeting that appeared in the
30-day notice of information collection under review: report of multiple sale or other disposition of pistols and revolvers.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) 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. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days for public comment until October 6, 2003. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to The Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally, comments may be submitted to OMB via facsimile to (202) 395-5806.
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)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Ms. Brenda E. Dyer, Deputy Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, Suite 1600, Patrick Henry Building, 601 D Street NW., Washington, DC 20530.
30-day notice of information collection under review: application for restoration of explosive privileges.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) 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. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days for public comment until October 6, 2003. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to The Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503, or facsimile (202) 395-5806.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the 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, 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,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Mrs. Brenda E. Dyer, Deputy Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, Suite 1600, Patrick Henry Building, 601 D Street NW., Washington, DC 20530.
30-day notice of information collection under review: Collection of laboratory analysis data on drug samples tested by non-Federal (State and local) crime laboratories.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) 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. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days for public comment until October 6, 2003. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time should be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503, or facsimile (202) 395-5806.
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:
—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 practiced utility;
—Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
—Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
—Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Overview of this information collection:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Brenda E. Dyer, Deputy Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, United States Department of Justice, Patrick Henry Building, Suite 1600, 601 D Street NW., Washington, DC 20530.
30-Day notice of information collection under review: Project Safe Neighborhoods Semi-Annual Researcher Reporting Form.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs (OJP) 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. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days for public comment until October 6, 2003. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to The Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503, or facsimile (202) 395-5806.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the 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, 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)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Employee Benefits Security Administration, Labor.
Grant of individual exemptions.
This document contains exemptions issued by the Department of Labor (the Department) from certain of the prohibited transaction restrictions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (the Act) and/or the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code).
A notice was published in the
The notice of proposed exemption was issued and the exemption is being granted solely by the Department because, effective December 31, 1978, section 102 of Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978, 5 U.S.C. App. 1 (1996), transferred the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to issue exemptions of the type proposed to the Secretary of Labor.
In accordance with section 408(a) of the Act and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code and the procedures set forth in 29 CFR Part 2570, Subpart B (55 FR 32836, 32847, August 10, 1990) and based upon the entire record, the Department makes the following findings:
(a) The exemption is administratively feasible;
(b) The exemption is in the interests of the plan and its participants and beneficiaries; and
(c) The exemption is protective of the rights of the participants and beneficiaries of the plan.
The restrictions of sections 406(a) and 406(b)(1) and (b)(2) of the Act and the sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975 of the Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A) through (E) of the Code, shall not apply to the proposed purchase of a 10 ft. x 52.6 ft. parcel of real property (the Property) by the West Side Realty Corporation, a wholly owned affiliate of the Plan from Local 705 Building Corporation (the Building Corporation), a party in interest with respect to the Plan. This exemption is conditioned upon the adherence to the material facts and representations described herein and upon the satisfaction of the following requirements:
(a) The purchase of the Property by the Plan is a one-time transaction for cash;
(b) The Plan pays no more than the lesser of: (i) $147,000; or (ii) the fair market value of the Property as determined at the time of the transaction;
(c) The fair market value of the Property is established by an independent, qualified, real estate appraiser that is unrelated to the Building Corporation or any other party in interest with respect to the Plan;
(d) The Plan will not pay any commissions or other expenses with respect to the transaction; and
(e) The Townsend Group, Institutional Real Estate Consultants, acting as an independent, qualified, fiduciary for the Plan, determines that the proposed transaction is in the best interest of the Plan and its participants and beneficiaries.
For a more complete statement of the facts and representations supporting the Department's decision to grant this
Mr. Khalif I. Ford of the Department, telephone (202) 693-8540. (This is not a toll-free number.)
The restrictions of sections 406(a), 406(b)(1) and (b)(2) of the Act and the sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975 of the Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A) through (E) of the Code,
This exemption is subject to the following conditions: (a) The exchange of the Pine Knoll Shores Lot between the Account and Dr. and Mrs. Edwards for Parcel One is a one-time transaction.
(b) The fair market value of the Pine Knoll Shores Lot and Parcel One is determined by qualified, independent appraisers, who will update their appraisal reports at the time the exchange is consummated.
(c) For purposes of the exchange, Parcel One has a fair market value that is no less than the fair market value of the Pine Knoll Shores Lot at the time the transaction is consummated.
(d) The terms and conditions of the exchange are at least as favorable to the Account as those obtainable in an arm's-length transaction with an unrelated party.
(e) The exchange does not involve more than 25 percent of the Account's assets.
(f) The exchange allows the Account to divest itself of property that is susceptible to hurricane damage and high maintenance costs, and it permits the Account to acquire virtually maintenance-proof property having increased liquidity.
(g) Dr. Edwards is the only participant in the Plan whose Account is affected by the transaction and he desires that such transaction be consummated.
For a more complete statement of the facts and representations supporting the Department's decision to grant this exemption, refer to the notice of proposed exemption published on June 24, 2003 at 68 FR 37545.
Ms. Blessed Chuksorji, telephone (202) 693-8567. (This is not a toll-free number.)
The restrictions of sections 406(a), 406(b)(1) and (b)(2) of the Act and the sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975 of the Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A) through (E) of the Code, shall not apply to the loan of $550,000 (the Loan) by the Plan to Valley OB-GYN Realty Company (the Company), a party in interest with respect to the Plan; provided that the following conditions are satisfied:
a. The Loan does not exceed 25% of the total assets of the Plan at any time;
b. The terms of the Loan are at least as favorable to the Plan as those terms which would exist in an arm's-length transaction with an unrelated party;
c. The Loan is secured by a building which has a fair market value, as determined by an independent, qualified appraiser, of at least 150% of the outstanding principal balance of the Loan (plus accrued but unpaid interest) throughout its duration (unless other property is pledged as collateral, as noted below in condition f.);
d. An independent, qualified fiduciary (the Independent Fiduciary) reviews the proposed terms and conditions of the Loan, and determines that the Loan is in the best interest and protective of the Plan and its participants and beneficiaries;
e. The Independent Fiduciary monitors the Loan throughout its duration and takes whatever actions are necessary to safeguard the interests of the Plan and its participants and beneficiaries; and
f. The Plan has the right, under the terms of the Loan and mortgage note related thereto, to require the Company to pledge additional property as collateral for the Loan, in the event such property is needed to maintain full collateralization at the amount specified herein.
For a more complete statement of the facts and representations supporting the Department's decision to grant this exemption, refer to the notice of proposed exemption published on June 24, 2003 at 68 FR 37546.
Ekaterina A. Uzlyan of the Department at (202) 693-8540. (This is not a toll-free number.)
The attention of interested persons is directed to the following:
(1) The fact that a transaction is the subject of an exemption under section 408(a) of the Act and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code does not relieve a fiduciary or other party in interest or disqualified person from certain other provisions to which the exemption does not apply and the general fiduciary responsibility provisions of section 404 of the Act, which among other things require a fiduciary to discharge his duties respecting the plan solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries of the plan and in a prudent fashion in accordance with section 404(a)(1)(B) of the Act; nor does it affect the requirement of section 401(a) of the Code that the plan must operate for the exclusive benefit of the employees of the employer maintaining the plan and their beneficiaries;
(2) This exemption is supplemental to and not in derogation of, any other provisions of the Act and/or the Code, including statutory or administrative exemptions and transactional rules. Furthermore, the fact that a transaction is subject to an administrative or statutory exemption is not dispositive of whether the transaction is in fact a prohibited transaction; and
(3) The availability of this exemption is subject to the express condition that the material facts and representations contained in the application accurately describes all material terms of the transaction which is the subject of the exemption.
Employee Benefits Security Administration, Labor.
Notice of proposed exemptions.
This document contains notices of pendency before the Department of Labor (the Department) of proposed exemptions from certain of the prohibited transaction restrictions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (the Act) and/or the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code).
All interested persons are invited to submit written comments or requests for a hearing on the pending exemptions, unless otherwise stated in the Notice of Proposed Exemption, within 45 days from the date of publication of this
All written comments and requests for a hearing (at least three copies) should be sent to the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), Office of Exemption Determinations, Room N-5649, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20210. Attention: Application No. ___, stated in each Notice of Proposed Exemption. Interested persons are also invited to submit comments and/or hearing requests to EBSA via e-mail or Fax. Any such comments or requests should be sent either by e-mail to:
Notice of the proposed exemptions will be provided to all interested persons in the manner agreed upon by the applicant and the Department within 15 days of the date of publication in the
The proposed exemptions were requested in applications filed pursuant to section 408(a) of the Act and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code, and in accordance with procedures set forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (55 FR 32836, 32847, August 10, 1990). Effective December 31, 1978, section 102 of Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978, 5 U.S.C. App. 1 (1996), transferred the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to issue exemptions of the type requested to the Secretary of Labor. Therefore, these notices of proposed exemption are issued solely by the Department.
The applications contain representations with regard to the proposed exemptions which are summarized below. Interested persons are referred to the applications on file with the Department for a complete statement of the facts and representations.
Based on the facts and representations set forth in the application, the Department is considering granting an exemption under the authority of section 408(a) of the Act and section 4975(c)(2) of the Code and in accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (55 FR 32836, 32847, August 10, 1990).
This proposed exemption is subject to the following conditions:
(a) The Sale occurs in the following manner:
(1) The Employer pays the Plan the fair market value of the Common Stock as of December 31, 2002, as determined by a qualified, independent appraiser, plus certain positive adjustments indicated in an addendum (the First Addendum) to a purchase agreement dated May 26, 2000 (the Purchase Agreement);
(2) The fair market value of the Common Stock as of the transaction date (the Closing Value) is determined no later than two months after the transaction date;
(3) As additional consideration, the Plan receives the difference between the Closing Value and the amount paid for the Common Stock on the transaction date (
(4) As collateral for the True-up, Mr. Dean Sorenson, the principal shareholder of the Employer, deposits $100,000 in cash in an escrow account for the benefit of the Plan to ensure that the Employer honors its obligation under the True-up.
(b) The Plan does not pay any commissions or other expenses with respect to the Sale.
(c) The transactions are approved by an independent fiduciary, who will monitor such transactions on behalf of the Plan.
(d) The Plan's trustees (the Trustees) determine that the Sale and True-up are appropriate transactions for the Plan and in the best interests of the Plan and its participants and beneficiaries.
1. The Employer is a South Dakota corporation maintaining its principal place of business in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Prior to January 1, 2000, the Employer operated 17 radio stations which broadcasted on various frequencies to the Upper Midwestern States of the United States. As of January 1, 2000, the broadcasting stations have been operated by Waitt Radio Inc. (Waitt) of Dakota Dunes, South Dakota, an unrelated entity, under an interim programming agreement (the Interim Programming Agreement), the terms of which are
Mr. Sorenson is President of the Employer and he owns 70 percent of the shares of outstanding Common Stock of the Employer. The Plan owns the remaining 30 percent of the shares of outstanding Common Stock of the Employer. Since January 1, 2000, the Employer has been operating as a sub-chapter “S” corporation.
2. The Plan is an employee stock ownership plan that is sponsored by the Employer. The Plan was established by the Employer on December 31, 1995. As of May 30, 2003, the Plan had 157 participants. As of December 31, 2002, which is the most recent date financial information is available, the Plan had total assets of approximately $3,148,522. Also, as of the same date, the Plan held 930 shares of Common Stock, valued at $3,148,230, and representing approximately 99% of the fair market value of the assets of the Plan.
Sharon Otten, Fred Smith, Scott Kooistra, Bruce Erlandson, Trent Schmotzer, Bill Grady, Holly Gill, and Tony Sieler, serve as the Trustees for the Plan, and have discretionary control over the Plan's assets involved in the transaction. These individuals were all employees of Sorenson at the time the Interim Programming Agreement went into effect, although since that time, some of the Sorenson employees have become Waitt employees.
3. The Plan originally acquired 930 shares of non-treasury Common Stock from Mr. Sorenson in a single transaction on December 31, 1996.
4. The Plan derived the funds to purchase the Common Stock from Mr. Sorenson and from First Dakota National Bank (the Bank), an unrelated entity with respect to the Plan. Mr. Sorenson made one loan (the Sorenson Loan) to the Plan in the amount of $2,898,718 and the Bank made another loan (the Bank Loan; together, the Loans) to the Plan in the amount of $432,859.
The Sorenson Loan was evidenced by a promissory note (the Sorenson Promissory Note) dated December 31, 1996 between the Plan and Mr. Sorenson. The Sorenson Promissory Note was executed simultaneously with the Sorenson Loan and provided that the Plan repay the principal sum of the Sorenson Loan plus interest thereon at an annual interest rate of 8.5 percent. Such note required the Plan to make annual payments of both principal and interest totaling $502,226.45, commencing on September 15, 1997. There were no prepayment penalties.
The Sorenson Promissory Note was made subject to the provisions of a pledge agreement (the Sorenson Pledge Agreement), also dated December 31, 1996, between the Plan and Mr. Sorenson. The Sorenson Pledge Agreement secured Mr. Sorenson's first lien interest in the 930 shares of Common Stock purchased by the Plan. An amortization schedule indicated that under normal amortization, the Sorenson Loan would be paid off by September 15, 2004.
5. The Bank Loan was also evidenced by a promissory note (the Bank Promissory Note), dated December 31, 1996, that was executed between the Plan and the Bank. The Bank Promissory Note required the Plan to repay the principal sum of the Bank Loan plus interest thereon at an annual interest rate of 8.5 percent until September 15, 2000. The Bank Promissory Note also provided that the Plan make three regular annual payments of $75,316.98 and one irregular last payment, estimated at $321,370.83. There were no prepayment penalties. The Bank Promissory Note was secured by both the Employer's and Mr. Sorenson's personal guarantees of the entire $432,859 principal amount of the Bank Loan.
6. Also on December 31, 1996, Mr. Sorenson, in his capacity as President of the Employer, sent the Bank a letter agreement. The agreement stated, in pertinent part, that in consideration of the Bank Loan and all other financial accommodations provided by the Bank to the Plan, the Employer would not, without the Bank's prior written consent, amend any provision of the Plan requiring the Employer to make contributions necessary to enable the Plan to discharge its obligations under the Bank Loan and the Bank Promissory Note.
7. Cash that the Plan received from the Loans was converted into Common Stock. The Common Stock is being maintained by the Plan in a “suspense” account (the Suspense Account), separate from the participants’ individual accounts. Initially, 317.752 shares of Common Stock were allocated to participants from the Suspense Account as payments were made by the Plan under the Loans. Because it was determined that there was insufficient compensation to permit deductible contributions, and that payments of the amounts due would violate the annual addition limits of section 415 of the Code, a freeze was placed on the Plan assets in 1999 in order to prevent any new participation in the Plan. Therefore, no further allocations of Common Stock were made to participants from the Suspense Account. At present, 612.248 shares of such stock continue to be held in the Suspense Account.
8. At the time of the freeze, there was $105,000 available in Plan assets to make payments on the Loans. Both Mr. Sorenson and the Bank agreed to receive interest only payments on the Sorenson Loan until a sale of the Common Stock held by the Plan could be made, at which point they would be paid the principal amount of their respective Loans. Interest only payments were made on the Loans throughout 2000 and briefly during 2001, until the money ran out. The last interest only payment was made by the Plan to Mr. Sorenson on October 16, 2000 and to the Bank on
9. Although the Plan defaulted on the Loans, the default provisions therein gave both Mr. Sorenson and the Bank the discretion to waive foreclosure on the Loans if the circumstances warranted. Therefore, both Mr. Sorenson and the Bank agreed that the enforcement of their rights to the collateral for the Loans was not in their best interests, as it would not be helpful to completing an eventual sale of the Employer to Waitt. On December 28, 2001, Mr. Sorenson and the Bank signed an agreement to extend the maturity date of the Loans from December 15, 2001 until June 15, 2002 in order that neither Loan could be foreclosed upon. Since then, in an agreement signed by both parties on December 27, 2002, the maturity date of the Loans was further extended until June 15, 2003. Such agreement has been re-extended pending the outcome of this exemption request.
10. Mr. Sorenson wishes to retire from the day-to-day management of the individual stations. While he had hoped that a group of key employees would emerge to acquire a small ownership stake outside of the Plan and assume the role of group-wide management, this has not happened. Mr. Sorenson also believes that a decrease in the fair market value of the radio stations is likely to occur over the next several years. Therefore, he has researched the marketplace to determine a prospective sale price should there be a willing buyer. Based on his research, Mr. Sorenson and his advisors consider a multiple of cash flows (a key factor used in calculating the purchase or selling price of radio stations) within the range of 8.0 and 9.0 to be a realistic target.
11. Mr. Sorenson has been approached by Waitt, a willing buyer, and the multiple of cash flows offered and agreed upon by Waitt and the Employer is 8.75. The Employer has also negotiated with Waitt an arrangement to transfer ownership of the broadcasting stations to Waitt. The preferred method is for the parties to enter into a long-term programming agreement (the Programming Agreement) with a purchase option (the Option Agreement) at its conclusion.
12. The Interim Programming Agreement with Waitt, dated January 1, 2000, was signed by Mr. Sorenson in his capacity as President of the Employer, and was approved by the Trustees on behalf of the participants. As initially executed, the Interim Programming Agreement stipulates that, not later than September 1, 2000, the Employer and Waitt would enter into either: (a) The Programming Agreement concurrently with the Option Agreement or (b) a stock purchase agreement (the Stock Purchase Agreement). However, because the applicant did not obtain the requested exemption as of the September 1, 2000 termination date, neither option was selected. Therefore, the Interim Programming Agreement still remains in effect and it has been extended by the Employer and Waitt every six months.
13. As consideration, under the Interim Programming Agreement, Waitt is required to pay the Employer $114,516, which amount is to be increased (or decreased) each month by an amount equal to $13,500 for every one percent increase (or decrease) in the New York prime rate, as published in the Wall Street Journal, on the 15th day of the preceding month. In addition, Waitt is required to reimburse the Employer for expenses incurred in the operation of the station and to deposit $1,374,000 in an escrow account. Also, pursuant to the Interim Programming Agreement, the broadcasting stations are being operated by Waitt, who supplies the stations with programming, while the Employer maintains ultimate control over the stations' finances, personnel matters and programming content. Further, the Interim Programming Agreement requires the Employer to continue to employ 15 management employees of the stations. All other employees became Waitt employees effective April 1, 2000, at the start of the Interim Programming Agreement.
14. The Interim Programming Agreement provides that upon its termination date, Waitt may exercise either of two options. First, Waitt can extend the Interim Programming Agreement into the ten year Programming Agreement that will end on December 31, 2009. At this time, Waitt may purchase the assets of the Employer for $12,967,023, under the terms of the Option Agreement, provided Waitt pays the Employer $3,200,000 as the option amount. Second, Waitt may immediately purchase, for $16,167,023 (subject to certain adjustments), all of the Employer's Common Stock held by the Employer and the Plan, pursuant to the provisions of the Stock Purchase Agreement. The Interim Programming Agreement will terminate on the earliest of (a) the effective date of the Programming Agreement and the execution of the Option Agreement, (b) the closing date of the Stock Purchase Agreement, or (c) a date mutually agreed to by the parties with at least thirty (30) days prior written notice.
15. The Trustees have concluded that a sale of the Common Stock and the retirement of the Loans with the Sale proceeds would be in the best interests of the Plan participants. Moreover, the Trustees believe that allowing the debt to go into default would only disrupt this process and could damage the interests of the Plan participants. Therefore, as noted above, both Mr. Sorenson and the Bank offered, and the Trustees accepted, the waiver of default and deferral of payments pending the resolution of the proposed Sale and True-Up transactions described herein.
16. To facilitate the termination of the Plan and allow the participants (most of whom are now Waitt employees) to diversify their portfolios into other investments with better future returns, the Trustees propose that the Common Stock held by the Plan be sold. The Employer is willing to purchase the Common Stock (and the Trustees are willing to sell such stock) under a deferred payment arrangement, in accordance with a “True-up” or adjustment to the purchase price. The Plan will not be required to pay any fees or expenses in connection with the Sale. Then, the Employer proposes to distribute the Sale proceeds to the participant accounts in the Plan.
Because the Employer is a subchapter S corporation, section 408(d)(2)(A) of the Act provides that the statutory relief under section 408(e) of the Act is unavailable with respect to the proposed Sale transaction since more than 50 percent of the Common Stock is owned by Mr. Sorenson, a shareholder-employee. Also, section 408(e) of the Act does not exempt extensions of credit in connection with adjustments to
17. On May 26, 2000, the Plan and the Employer entered into a purchase agreement (the Purchase Agreement) to acquire the Common Stock held by the Plan. The purchase price was to be based on the amount which would have been due the Plan from Waitt for shares of Common Stock under the Stock Purchase Agreement. According to the Stock Purchase Agreement, Waitt promised to pay the Employer and the Plan a total of $16,167,023 for such Common Stock. The purchase price was, however, subject to various adjustments. For example, not later than five days prior to the transaction closing date, the sellers would be required to submit a
18. On January 8, 2002, an addendum (the First Addendum) was made to the Purchase Agreement. In this regard, the Plan's price per share to be paid by the Employer for the Common Stock would be calculated to include additional value due to state and Federal taxes, amounts due to certain employees under an Individual Employment and Incentive Compensation Agreement, and accrued sales commissions.
19. According to a second addendum to the Purchase Agreement (the Second Addendum), effective November 13, 2002, the Purchase Agreement was again amended. In this regard, the Programming Agreement and proposed Sale by the Plan of its Common Stock to the Employer will occur on the first month following the publication, in the
The Second Addendum also provides that the True-up, which is the difference between the Closing Value and the amount which has already been deposited on the Closing Date, will be paid to the Plan, plus interest based on the New York prime market rate, effective on the Closing Date until the date of the True-up. As collateral for the True-up, Mr. Sorenson has agreed to deposit $100,000 cash in an escrow account for the benefit of the Plan.
20. In an independent appraisal report dated February 27, 2003, Mr. Johnson again valued the Common Stock held by the Plan and Mr. Sorenson, as of December 31, 2002 (the 2002 Appraisal). Mr. Johnson noted that the established value of all of the radio stations owned by the Employer was $16,167,023 as opposed to the value of the Common Stock. He explained that the valuation of the Employer's assets was based upon a multiple of 8.75 times the adjusted cash flow of the Employer's radio affiliates for the year ending December 31, 1998, including a provision for the costs incurred in constructing a radio station located in South Dakota, which was not completed until mid-1999. Mr. Johnson further noted that the $16,167,023 aggregate value of the Employer's assets had been reduced by $3,500,000 to compensate Waitt for the fact that it would be acquiring Employer Common Stock as opposed to the Employer's underlying assets. He indicated that he believed the 8.75 multiple for the Employer's radio stations was entirely appropriate and that the $16,167,023 selling price was realistic for such stations. Although Mr. Johnson did not express an opinion regarding the $3,500,000 downward adjustment to the selling price, he acknowledged that such a price reduction was common in the industry.
As stated above, it was Mr. Johnson's opinion that $16,167,023 represented the total fair market value of the various broadcast properties that were owned by the Employer as of December 31, 2002 rather than the value of the Common Stock. For the year ending December 31, 2002, he noted that the Computation of Stock Value equaled $10,494,101. Because the Plan holds a 30 percent interest in all of the Employer's assets, Mr. Johnson placed the fair market value of the Common Stock held by the Plan at $3,148,230 ($10,494,101 × 30%) as of December 31, 2002.
21. Thus, on the basis of the 2002 Appraisal, the Plan will receive 30% of $15,794,416 from the Employer prior to time of the True-up. This gross amount reflects the $10,494,101 value attributed to the Common Stock, plus the following positive adjustments: (a) State and Federal income taxes totaling $3,500,000, (b) a $1,692,315 aggregate amount due to certain employees under an “Individual Employment and Incentive Agreement,” and (c) accrued sales commissions of $108,000 that the Employer would be obligated to pay. Therefore, the net amount owed by the Employer to the Plan will be $4,738,325, without the inclusion of the True-Up.
22. Upon conclusion of the Sale, proceeds from the Sale will effectively be split into two pools: (a) The proceeds related to the allocated shares (the Allocated Share Proceeds) and (b) the proceeds related to the unallocated shares (the Unallocated Share Proceeds). The Allocated Share Proceeds will be allocated to each Plan participant based on the shares held in their account. The Unallocated Share Proceeds will be used to pay off the Loans to the Bank and Mr. Sorenson. It is anticipated that the share proceeds will exceed the Loans by approximately $290,000 and that such gain will be allocated to the participants.
23. Mr. John F. Archer, an attorney with the law firm of Hagen Wilka & Archer, P.C., of Sioux Falls, South Dakota, was designated by the Trustees to serve on behalf of the Plan as the independent fiduciary. In such capacity, Mr. Archer is representing the interests of the Plan and the Plan participants in connection with the Sale and the True-up. Mr. Archer asserts that he is qualified to act as an independent fiduciary for the Plan because of his background as it relates to reviewing business valuations. Such experience includes his position as the South Dakota Division of Securities Director from 1978 until 1983, in which he was chairman of the North American Securities Administrators Association Franchise Committee, and his private practice, which covers securities law, mergers and acquisitions, real estate law, franchise law, corporate law and title insurance law. In addition, Mr. Archer represents that he has been a speaker discussing securities and franchise law at various Continuing Legal Education seminars and has served on the South Dakota State Bar Committee on Corporations. Mr. Archer represents that he has had a professional
Mr. Archer states that he has no current ongoing relationship with Mr. Sorenson or the Employer, and he confirms that his firm will derive less than one percent of its gross annual income from the Employer. Mr. Archer has agreed to represent the interests of the Plan and its participants and he has executed a representation agreement (the Representation Agreement) with the Trustees containing the duties and capacities that such representation includes.
24. As independent fiduciary, Mr. Archer certifies that he has reviewed and analyzed the proposed transactions and related documents, as well as their potential effects, both direct and collateral, to the Plan participants. In addition, Mr. Archer states that he has evaluated the overall fairness of the subject transactions, specifically as to the other parties involved, and the validity of the proposed valuation. Based on such review and evaluation, Mr. Archer states that he is of the opinion that the 2002 Appraisal reflects a fair valuation of the Employer. He also explains that the sale of the shares owned by the Plan to the Employer based on the price set forth in the Purchase Agreement, treats the Plan participants fairly and justly in comparison to the other parties involved in such transaction. Further, after reviewing the 2002 Appraisal, Mr. Archer states that he concurs with the appraisal amount and he is of the opinion that the Sale is in the best interests of the Plan.
In addition, Mr. Archer states that the subject transactions are in the best interests of the Plan and its participants because the price being paid to the Plan is based on the sale of the Employer's Common Stock to a third party and it was determined on an arm's length basis between the Employer and Waitt. In reviewing other similar sales, Mr. Archer states that the Sale price in this case is consistent with other transactions dealing with radio stations and that the Plan's price per share will be higher than that paid to Mr. Sorenson because the Plan's interest in the Employer's Common Stock will be valued to include certain special adjustments (
25. Mr. Archer notes that while the Employer is receiving a programming fee of $13,500 per month under the Interim Programming Agreement from Waitt, it would appear that this fee is normal and customary in today's marketplace and that it is not uncommon that when a transaction of this sort is made that this type of fee is paid to a licensor such as the Employer. Mr. Archer states that he has reviewed this matter with other owners of radio stations and has found this practice to be consistent. Consequently, he believes that the payment of this programming fee by Waitt to the Employer does not make the Sale unfair to the Plan participants. Mr. Archer also notes that Mr. Sorenson is receiving lease payments from Waitt for the rental of the buildings that are owned by Mr. Sorenson in which the Employer's radio stations are located. Assuming that the lease payments are fair market value, Mr. Archer does not believe these rental payments would make the proposed Sale transaction unfair to the Plan participants.
Further, Mr. Archer opines that the subject transactions are protective of the Plan, participants and beneficiaries because they comply with the organization and governing documents of the Plan and the Trustees have been given all information necessary to determine their fairness.
Finally, Mr. Archer confirms that his duties with respect to the transactions are to ensure that there is a final valuation of the Common Stock as of the Sale date, to supervise the payment of the True-up and disbursement of the funds to Plan participants, and the filing of tax notices and final Form 5500, among other things. Mr. Archer also confirms that he will take all actions that are necessary and proper to enforce and protect the rights of the Plan participants and beneficiaries.
26. In summary, it is represented that the transactions will satisfy the statutory criteria for an exemption under section 408(a) of the Act because:
(a) The Sale will occur in the following manner:
(1) The Employer will pay the Plan the fair market value of the Common Stock as of December 31, 2002, as determined by a qualified, independent appraiser, plus certain adjustments indicated in the Second Addendum to the Purchase Agreement;
(2) The Closing Value of the Common Stock will be determined no later than two months after the transaction date;
(3) As additional consideration, the Plan will receive the difference between the Closing Value and the amount paid for the Common Stock on the transaction date (
(4) As collateral for the True-up, Mr. Dean Sorenson will deposit $100,000 in cash in an escrow account for the benefit of the Plan to ensure that the Employer honors its obligation under the True-up.
(b) The Plan will not pay any commissions or other expenses with respect to the Sale.
(c) The transactions have been approved by an independent fiduciary who will monitor such transactions on behalf of the Plan.
(d) The Trustees have determined that the Sale and True-up will be appropriate transactions for the Plan and in the best interests of the Plan and its participants and beneficiaries.
The Department is considering granting an exemption under the authority of section 4975(c)(2) of the Code and in accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (55 FR 32836, 32847, August 10, 1990). If the exemption is granted, the sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975 of the Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A) through (E) of the Code, shall not apply to the proposed sale of certain unimproved land (the Property) by the IRA to Mr. Grona's children (the Children), disqualified persons with
(a) The sale is a one-time cash transaction;
(b) The IRA receives the current fair market value for the Property, as established at the time of the sale by an independent, qualified appraiser; and
(c) the IRA pays no commissions or other expenses associated with the sale.
1. The IRA is an individual retirement account, as described in section 408(a) of the Code, which was established by Hayden O. Grona (Mr. Grona) in 1989. As of March 19, 2003, the IRA had approximately $6,701,128 in total assets. The Trust Company, N.A., located at 711 Navarro, Suite 750, in San Antonio, Texas, is the custodian of the IRA (the Custodian). Mr. Grona is the trustee for the IRA (the Trustee). The Children are identified as Mr. Nelson Grona, Ms. Suzanne Grona White, and Mr. James Grona.
2. On February 8, 2001, the IRA purchased the Property from Leigh Stelmach, an unrelated third party, for $1,791,403. The IRA paid the entire amount of the purchase price in cash at closing. At the time of purchase, the Property represented approximately 21% of the IRA's total assets. The applicant represents that the Property is not adjacent to any other property owned individually, or jointly, by Mr. Grona and/or the Children. It is represented that Mr. Grona, as the Trustee, made the decision to purchase the Property for the IRA as a investment, to be developed by the IRA into an income-producing asset. However, it is represented, that shortly after acquisition, Mr. Grona realized that the Property was not a suitable investment for the IRA. The IRA has paid approximately $5,484 in real estate taxes due to its ownership of the Property. There have been no additional expenses incurred by the IRA as a result of its ownership of the Property.
3. The Property is an approximately 1,515 acre tract of unimproved land, located in Medina and Bandera Counties, Texas. The applicant represents that since the acquisition of the Property by the IRA, the Property has not been leased to or used by any disqualified persons, as defined under section 4975(e)(2) of the Code. In addition, the Property has not generated any income for the IRA since its acquisition.
4. The Property was appraised on February 27, 2003 (the Appraisal). The Appraisal was prepared by Grady Hoermann, MSA (Mr. H), who is an independent, Texas state certified, general real estate appraiser. Mr. H is with Grady Hoermann Appraisal Service, which is located in San Antonio, Texas. Mr. H relied primarily on the sales comparison approach, with an analysis of recent sales of similar properties in the local geographic area. After examining available sales data, Mr. H determined that the Property's fair market value would be approximately $900 per acre.
Accordingly, Mr. H represents that the Property had a fair market value of approximately $ 1,363,000, as of February 27, 2003.
5. The applicant proposes that the Children purchase the Property from the IRA in a one-time cash transaction. The applicant represents that the proposed transaction would be in the best interest and protective of the IRA. The IRA will be able to dispose of the Property, which has depreciated in value since it was originally acquired, at its fair market value and will not pay any commissions or expenses associated with the sale. The Appraisal will be updated at the time the transaction is consummated. It is represented that Mr. Grona is currently age 68. He will be required to begin receiving distributions from the IRA when he attains age 70
6. In summary, the applicant represents that the proposed transaction satisfies the statutory criteria of section 4975(c)(2) of the Code because:
(a) The sale will be a one-time cash transaction;
(b) The IRA will receive the current fair market value for the Property, as established at the time of the sale by an independent, qualified appraiser;
(c) The IRA will pay no commissions or other expenses associated with the sale; and
(d) The sale will:
(i) Provide the IRA with more liquidity and facilitate future distributions to Mr. Grona;
(ii) Enable the IRA to diversify its assets;
(iii) Allow the IRA to divest itself of a non-income producing asset that has depreciated in value; and
(iv) Allow the IRA to reinvest the proceeds of the sale in other investments that potentially could yield greater returns.
Because Mr. Grona is the sole participant of the IRA, it has been determined that there is no need to distribute the notice of proposed exemption to interested persons (other than the Custodian). Comments and requests for a hearing are due thirty (30) days from the date of publication of this notice in the
The Department is considering granting an exemption under the authority of section 408(a) of the Act and section 4975(c)(2) of the Code and in accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (55 FR 32836, 32847, August 10, 1990).
If the exemption is granted, the restrictions of sections 406(a)(1)(A)-(D), 406(b)(1), and 406(b)(2) of the Act and the sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975 of the Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A) through (E) of the Code, shall not apply to: (1) The leasing of certain improved real property (the Property) by the Plan to the Newspaper Agency Corporation (the Employer), a party in interest with respect to the Plan, pursuant to the terms of a lease (the New Lease), effective August 1, 2003; and (2) the guarantee by MediaNews Group, Inc. (MediaNews) and Deseret News Publishing Corporation (Deseret) (collectively, the Owners of the Employer) of the obligations of the Employer under the terms of the New Lease.
This exemption is conditioned upon the adherence to the material facts and representations described herein and upon the satisfaction of the following requirements:
(a) An independent, qualified fiduciary (the I/F), acting on behalf of the Plan, determines that each of the proposed transactions is feasible, in the interest of, and protective of the Plan and the participants and beneficiaries of such Plan;
(b) The I/F manages the Property on an on-going basis and is empowered to take whatever action it deems appropriate to serve the best interest of the Plan and its participants and beneficiaries, including but not limited to the retention, leasing, or sale of the Property;
(c) The fair market value of the Property does not now and will at no time exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the fair market value of the total assets of the Plan;
(d) The I/F negotiates, reviews, and approves the terms of the subject transactions;
(e) The terms and conditions of the subject transactions are, and will at all times be, no less favorable to the Plan than terms obtainable by the Plan under similar circumstances when negotiated at arm's length with an unrelated third party;
(f) An independent, qualified appraiser determines the fair market value of the rental of the Property, as of August 1, 2003, and annually thereafter;
(g) The I/F monitors compliance with the terms of the New Lease throughout the duration of such lease and is responsible for legally enforcing the payment of the rent and the proper performance by the Employer and/or the Owners of the Employer of all other obligations of the Employer under the terms of such lease;
(h) The Plan incurs no fees, costs, commissions, or other charges or expenses as a result of its participation in the transactions which are the subject of this exemption, other than the fee payable to the I/F for services rendered to the Plan and the fee payable to the independent, qualified appraiser for the annual appraisal of the fair market value of the Property;
(i) The I/F ensures that the terms and conditions described herein are at all time satisfied;
(j) The I/F will place the Property on the market for sale or lease to unrelated third parties, within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the publication of the grant of this proposed exemption in the
(k) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the New Lease, the Plan may at any time upon six (6) month prior written notice to the Employer terminate the New Lease and the Employer's occupancy of the Property, effective as of the date specified in such notice, which date shall be at least six (6) months after the date such written notice is given to the Employer (but in no event extending the New Lease beyond the then current lease term.
Effective Date: If the proposed exemption is granted, the exemption will be effective August 1, 2003.
1. The Plan is a tax-qualified defined benefit pension plan covering 860 participants and beneficiaries, as of June 20, 2003. The total fair market value of the Plan's assets, as reflected in the FORM 5500 annual report for 2001 was $37,143,730.
2. The current trustee of the Plan is Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Wells Fargo), which is solely responsible for the investment of Plan assets. In addition, Wells Fargo has acknowledged and represented that it has accepted the appointment to serve as the I/F, acting on behalf of the Plan for purposes of the subject exemption. It is represented that the Plan is responsible for the payment of Wells Fargo's fees.
It is represented that on April 1, 1996, Wells Fargo acquired First Interstate Bank, the former trustee of the Plan and the I/F under terms of a prior exemption,
It is represented that Wells Fargo is independent in that there are no common officers or directors with the Employer or the Owners of the Employer. Substantially less than one percent (1%) of Wells Fargo's total deposits and substantially less than 1% of its outstanding loans (both in dollar amounts) are attributable, respectively, to deposits and loans of the Employer and its affiliates.
It is represented that Wells Fargo is qualified to serve as the I/F on behalf of the Plan in that Wells Fargo is knowledgeable as to its duties and responsibilities as a fiduciary under the Act and is knowledgeable as to the subject transactions. In addition, Wells Fargo represents that it has many years experience managing assets and is currently responsible for managing approximately $183,000,000,000 in assets of its customers.
3. The Property consists of a parcel of real estate (1.208 acres) improved by a one-story masonry warehouse building, constructed in 1968, and estimated to contain 52,635 square feet of space. The Property is located south of the downtown central business district of Salt Lake City, Utah. This neighborhood is primarily a general business area with some commercial and light industrial uses.
The Property is situated on a railroad spur. However, it is represented that the Salt Lake City Mayor's office has verbally expressed possible plans which may lead to the elimination of such railroad spur.
The Plan owns the Property, unencumbered by any outstanding mortgage or any other indebtedness. As of December 31, 2001, the fair market value of the Property constituted 4.361% of the total assets of the Plan.
The Plan purchased the Property in July of 1971, from Wycoff Warehouse, Inc., an unrelated third party, for a purchase price of $259,000. The Plan began leasing the Property to the Employer, pursuant to the terms of a lease (the Original Lease) entered into on July 21, 1971. The applicant represents that the Original Lease satisfied the conditions provided by section 414(c) of the Act, because: (1) The Original Lease was entered into before July 1, 1974, when such a lease was not a prohibited transaction within the meaning of section 503(b) of the Code; and (2) the terms of the Original Lease were as favorable to the Plan as those of an arm's length transaction with an unrelated party.
On August 1, 1983, the Plan and the Employer entered into another lease (the Old Lease) which superseded the Original Lease. With regard to the Old Lease between the Plan and the Employer, the Department issued, in 1985, a retroactive prohibited
4. The New Lease provides for an initial term of three (3) years with up to (4) four additional one (1) year extension options exercisable by the Employer, subject to the approval of the I/F. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the New Lease, the Plan may at any time upon six (6) month prior written notice to the Employer terminate the New Lease and the Employer's occupancy of the Property, effective as of the date specified in such notice. Such date shall be at least six (6) months after the date such written notice is given to the Employer, but in no event extending the New Lease beyond the then current lease term.
The initial rental amount under the provisions of the New Lease will be $16,448.42 a month ($197,381 annually). In this regard, for the purpose of portfolio management and lease negotiation, Mr. Howard J. Layton (Mr. Layton), MAI, CCIM, CRE, (dba The Appraisal Source, L.L.C.) prepared an appraisal report estimating the “as is” market value of the Property, as of November 26, 2002, the date the Property was inspected. In the opinion of Mr. Layton, as of November 26, 2002, the fee simple “as is” market value of the Property was $1,700,000. Based on the terms of the Old Lease, Mr. Layton further concluded that, as of November 26, 2002, the annual rental rate for the Property would be $197,381 ($3.75/SF × 52,635 SF in the Property) rounded to approximately $16,448 a month. After examining a copy of the New Lease, Mr. Layton, represented in a letter dated July 28, 2003, that there is no value impact to the subject Property, as a result of the terms of the New Lease.
Mr. Layton is qualified to serve as an appraiser of real property in that he is a designated MAI member of the Appraisal Institute, a CCIM member of the Commercial Investment Real Estate Institute, a CRE member of the Counselors of Real Estate, and a certified general appraiser for the state of Utah. In addition, Mr. Layton has been engaged as a real estate appraiser since 1983.
Mr. Layton represents that he is independent in that he is not related to the Employer, the Owners of the Employer, or their principals. Further, Mr. Layton has no present or prospective interest in the Property and has no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved. Mr. Layton's compensation was not contingent on reporting a predetermined value or a requested minimum valuation.
The New Lease also provides for a periodic adjustment annually to the rental amount, so that the rent will be no less than the fair market rental value of the Property at the time of each adjustment. Such adjustments will be made by retaining a qualified, independent appraiser, selected by Wells Fargo. The cost of each such appraisal will be paid for by the Plan. It is represented that in no event shall the rental amount paid by the Employer be reduced below $16,448 a month during the term of the New Lease.
The New Lease is a triple-net lease, such that the Employer is obligated to pay all taxes levied against the Property, all utility charges, the cost of installing any fixtures and equipment, all maintenance and repair costs, and premiums for both liability and casualty insurance for the benefit of the Plan as an additional named insured. All trade fixtures and equipment installed by the Employer remain the property of the Employer and may be removed by the Employer, who must repair any damage caused by such removal. In addition, the Employer has agreed to indemnify the Plan from all liabilities for personal injury or property damage occurring on the Property and not caused by the negligence of the Plan.
5. The Employer and sponsor of the Plan is engaged in the business of producing two (2) daily newspapers seven (7) days a week. It is represented that the Employer uses the Property to receive (via the railroad spur on the Property and by truck) newsprint and other supply items for printing newspapers and related functions and to store such supplies. It is represented that the Employer has consistently complied with the terms of both the Original Lease and the Old Lease in a timely manner.
6. The Owners of the Employer are each engaged in the newspaper publishing business. MediaNews owns 100 percent (100%) of Kearns-Tribune, LLC (Kearns-Tribune), which owns 50 percent (50%) of the stock of the Employer. MediaNews purchased its ownership in Kearns-Tribune MediaNews from AT&T Corporation. The remaining 50 percent (50%) of the stock of the Employer is owned by Deseret. The Owners of the Employer have guaranteed performance of all conditions of the New Lease, including the payment of rent, by the Employer and have agreed to perform such conditions themselves, if the Employer is unable to do so. Wells Fargo has reviewed various information and financial data on MediaNews and Deseret and believes that each is creditworthy.
7. The Employer is a party in interest with respect to the Plan, pursuant to section 3(14)(C) of the Act. The Owners of the Employer are parties in interest with respect to the Plan, pursuant to section 3(14)(E) of the Act. The Plan and the Employer entered into the New Lease, effective August 1, 2003, on the condition that the proposed exemption is granted. In addition the Owners of the Employer have guaranteed the obligations of the Employer under such New Lease. Accordingly, the applicant has requested relief from section 406(a)(1)(A) through (D), 406(b)(1) and 406(b)(2) of the Act and 4975 of the Code by reason of 4975(c)(A)(A) through (E) for both transactions, the leasing of the Property by the Employer and the guarantee by the Owners of the Employer.
8. It is represented that the proposed transactions are administratively feasible in that the Property has been previously leased by the Employer from the Plan for an extended period of time, pursuant to PTE 85-37. Further, no modification of the Property would be required to accommodate the Employer who is the current tenant. In addition, the appraisal of the Property, the drafting of the New Lease, and the other administrative requirements necessary to continue the leasing of the Property to the Employer by the Plan have already been accomplished.
9. It is represented that there are sufficient safeguards in the proposed exemption for the protection of the Plan and its participants and beneficiaries. Wells Fargo has reviewed the terms of the New Lease and compared such terms with similar leases between unrelated parties. Further, Wells Fargo has agreed to monitor the New Lease and the conditions of the exemption on behalf of the Plan throughout the term of the New Lease and has authority to take all appropriate actions to safeguard the interests of the Plan.
It is represented that Wells Fargo has examined the Plan's overall investment portfolio, considered the Plan's liquidity and diversification requirements in light of the proposed leasing, and has determined that the proposed leasing complies with the Plan's investment
10. The exemption contains additional protections for the Plan and its participants and beneficiaries. In this regard, the exemption contains a condition that the Plan may at any time upon six (6) months prior written notice to the Employer terminate the New Lease and the Employer's occupancy of the Property. Further, the exemption contains a requirement that Wells Fargo, acting as the I/F on behalf of the Plan, place the Property on the market for sale or lease to an unrelated third party, within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the publication of the grant of this proposed exemption in the
11. Wells Fargo has stated that it believes the proposed leasing is in the best interest of the Plan and its participants and beneficiaries. In this regard, according to Wells Fargo, the estimated average annual total rate of return to the Plan from the Property over the past seven (7) years, based on both unrealized gain and income has been 13.31 percent (13.31%). Wells Fargo believes that rental payments to the Plan will be maximized by continuing to lease the Property to the Employer at a fair market rental amount (adjusted annually). In this regard, Wells Fargo estimates an annual rate of return for the Property in the coming year of approximately 11.61 percent (11.61%), even assuming that there is no increase in the fair market value of the Property. Accordingly, Wells Fargo has concluded that by leasing the Property to the Employer, the Plan will gain uninterrupted occupancy of the Property for an extended period of time and continued maintenance of the Property by a responsible and financially viable tenant. Further, the Plan will avoid additional expenses for modifications to the Property, and will avoid lost profits.
12. In summary, the applicant represents that the proposed transactions satisfy the criteria for exemption, as set forth in section 408(a) of the Act, because: (a) The Employer will pay the fair market rental rate, as determined by a independent, qualified appraiser; (b) the rental rate under the terms of the New Lease will be adjusted every year to reflect the fair rental value of the Property at the beginning of each such period, as determined by an independent, qualified appraiser, but will never be less than $16,448 a month; (c) the New Lease does not require the Plan to pay any costs relating to the Property and requires the Employer to indemnify the Plan for certain liabilities relating to the Property; (d) the Employer will maintain both liability and casualty insurance, naming the Plan as an additional insured, with respect to the Property; (e) Wells Fargo, acting as the trustee and I/F with respect to the Plan, represents that the proposed transactions are in the best interests of the Plan and its participants and beneficiaries; (f) Wells Fargo will monitor the New Lease throughout its duration on behalf of the Plan, taking any appropriate actions to safeguard the interests of the Plan; (g) Wells Fargo will place the Property on the market for sale or lease to unrelated third parties, within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the publication of the grant of this proposed exemption in the
Angelena C. Le Blanc, of the Department, telephone (202) 693-8540. (This is not a toll-free number.)
The attention of interested persons is directed to the following:
(1) The fact that a transaction is the subject of an exemption under section 408(a) of the Act and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code does not relieve a fiduciary or other party in interest or disqualified person from certain other provisions of the Act and/or the Code, including any prohibited transaction provisions to which the exemption does not apply and the general fiduciary responsibility provisions of section 404 of the Act, which, among other things, require a fiduciary to discharge his duties respecting the plan solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries of the plan and in a prudent fashion in accordance with section 404(a)(1)(b) of the Act; nor does it affect the requirement of section 401(a) of the Code that the plan must operate for the exclusive benefit of the employees of the employer maintaining the plan and their beneficiaries;
(2) Before an exemption may be granted under section 408(a) of the Act and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code, the Department must find that the exemption is administratively feasible, in the interests of the plan and of its participants and beneficiaries, and protective of the rights of participants and beneficiaries of the plan;
(3) The proposed exemptions, if granted, will be supplemental to, and not in derogation of, any other provisions of the Act and/or the Code, including statutory or administrative exemptions and transitional rules. Furthermore, the fact that a transaction is subject to an administrative or statutory exemption is not dispositive of whether the transaction is in fact a prohibited transaction; and
(4) The proposed exemptions, if granted, will be subject to the express condition that the material facts and representations contained in each application are true and complete, and that each application accurately describes all material terms of the transaction which is the subject of the exemption.
General wage determination decisions of the Secretary of Labor are issued in accordance with applicable law and are based on the information obtained by the Department of Labor from its study of local wage conditions and data made available from other sources. They specify the basic hourly wage rates and fringe benefits which are determined to be prevailing for the described classes of laborers and mechanics employed on construction projects of a similar character and in the localities specified therein.
The determinations in these decisions of prevailing rates and fringe benefits have been made in accordance with 29 CFR part 1, by authority of the Secretary of Labor pursuant to the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act of March 3, 1931, as amended (46 Stat. 1494, as amended, 40 U.S.C. 276a) and of other Federal statutes referred to in 29 CFR part 1, Appendix, as well as such additional statutes as may from time to time be enacted containing provisions for the payment of wages determined to be prevailing by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with the Davis-Bacon Act. The prevailing rates and fringe benefits determined in these decisions shall, in accordance with the provisions of the foregoing statutes, constitute the minimum wages payable on Federal and federally assisted construction projects to laborers and mechanics of the specified classes engaged on contract work of the character and in the localities described therein.
Good cause is hereby found for not utilizing notice and public comment procedure thereon prior to the issuance of these determinations as prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 553 and not providing for delay in the effective date as prescribed in that section, because the necessity to issue current construction industry wage determinations frequently and in large volume causes procedures to be impractical and contrary to the public interest.
General wage determination decisions, and modifications and supersedeas decisions thereto, contain on expiration dates and are effective from their date of notice in the
Any person, organization, or governmental agency having an interest in the rates determined as prevailing is encouraged to submit wage rate and fringe benefit information for consideration by the Department. Further information and self-explanatory forms for the purpose of submitting this data may be obtained by writing to the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment Standards Administration, Wage and Hour Division, Division of Wage Determinations, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room S-3014, Washington, DC 20210.
The number of the decisions listed to the Government Printing Office document entitled “General Wage Determinations Issued Under the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts” being modified are listed by Volume and State. Dates of publication in the
General wage determinations issued under the Davis-Bacon and related Acts, including those noted above, may be found in the Government Printing Office (GPO) document entitled “General Wage Determinations Issued Under the Davis-Bacon And Related Acts”. This publication is available at each of the 50 Regional Government Depository Libraries and many of the 1,400 Government Depository Libraries across the country.
General wage determinations issued under the Davis-Bacon and related Acts are available electronically at no cost on the Government Printing Office site at
Hard-copy subscriptions may be purchased from: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, (202) 512-1800.
When ordering hard-copy subscription(s), be sure to specify the State(s) of interest, since subscriptions may be ordered for any or all of the six separate Volumes, arranged by State. Subscriptions include an annual edition (issued in January or February) which includes all current general wage determinations for the States covered by each volume. Throughout the remainder of the year, regular weekly updates will be distributed to subscribers.
Notice is hereby given that by letter dated August 5, 2003, Mr. David Lochbaum (petitioner), on behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), has withdrawn his May 30, 2003, request that the NRC take action with regard to Watts Bar Nuclear Plant. The
As the basis for this withdrawal, the petitioner states that the UCS has reviewed the response provided by the licensee and finds it fully responsive so that the Demand for Information is no longer necessary.
Notice of the receipt of the request for action was published in the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of an exemption from Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) part 20, section 20.1003 for Facility Operating License No. DPR-40, issued to Omaha Public Power District (OPPD/the licensee), for operation of the Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1 (FCS), located in Washington County, Nebraska. Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact.
The proposed action would provide an exemption from the 10 CFR 20.1003 definition of total effective dose equivalent (TEDE), which is the sum of the deep-dose equivalent (for external exposures) and the committed effective dose equivalent (for internal exposures). The proposed exemption would change the definition of TEDE to mean the sum of the effective dose equivalent or the deep-dose equivalent (for external exposures) and the committed effective dose equivalent (for internal exposures). The staff has determined that the new method for calculating TEDE, under certain conditions, is a more accurate means of estimating worker radiation exposure.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application dated January 8, 2003.
The proposed action is needed because the current method of calculating TEDE, under certain conditions, can significantly overestimate the dose received.
The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and concludes that revising the methodology for calculating the dose received by individuals will not have any significant environmental impacts.
The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of effluents that may be released off site, and there is no significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites. It does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed action (
The action does not involve the use of any different resource than those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the FCS dated August 1972.
On August 8, 2003, the staff consulted with the Nebraska State official, Julia Schmitt of the Nebraska Consumer Health Services Agency, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments.
On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's letter dated January 8, 2003. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Rate Commission.
Notice of public briefing.
The United States Postal Service will present a briefing on September 17, 2003 at 10 a.m. in the Postal Rate Commission's hearing room on the proposed merger of two major data reporting systems. The systems affected by the merger are the Revenue, Pieces and Weight (RPW) system and the Origin Destination Information System (ODIS). The briefing is open to the public.
September 17, 2003, at 10 a.m.
Postal Rate Commission (hearing room), 1333 H Street NW., Washington, DC 20268-0001, Suite 300.
Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 202-789-6818.
The following is a notice of applications for deregistration under section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 for the month of August, 2003. A copy of each application may be obtained for a fee at the SEC's Public Reference Branch, 450 Fifth St., NW., Washington, DC 20549-0102 (tel. 202-942-8090). An order granting each application will be issued unless the SEC orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by writing to the SEC's Secretary at the address below and serving the relevant applicant with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the SEC by 5:30 p.m. on September 23, 2003, and should be accompanied by proof of service on the applicant, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Secretary, SEC, 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549-0609. For Further Information Contact: Diane L. Titus at (202) 942-0564, SEC, Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company Regulation, 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549-0504.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Goverment in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold the following meetings during the week of September 8, 2003:
Closed Meetings will be held on Tuesday, September 9, 2003, at 2 p.m. and Wednesday, September 10, 2003, at 11 a.m., and Open Meetings will be held on Wednesday, September 10, 2003, at 10 a.m. and Thursday, September 11, 2003, at 10 a.m.
Commissioner Atkins, as duty officer, determined that no earlier notice thereof was possible.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meetings. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(5), (7), (9)(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(5), (7), (9)(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the Closed Meetings
The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, September 9, 2003, will be:
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an enforcement nature;
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Formal orders of investigation; and
Adjudicatory matter.
The subject matter for the Open Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, September 10, 2003 will be:
1. The Commission will hear oral argument on an appeal by the Barr Financial Group, Inc. (“BFG”), an investment adviser, and Alfred E. Barr (“Barr”), BFG's president, from the decision of an administrative law judge.
The law judge found that:
a. Respondents violated section 207 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”) by making untrue statements of material fact in Forms ADV and ADV amendments filed by BFG during 1997 and 1998. Respondents' statements concerned the amount of assets BFG had under management and Barr's academic credentials;
b. Respondents were permanently enjoined in 1999 from violating Advisers Act section 204 and “regulations thereunder governing the conduct of investment advisers under Rule 204-2 of the Advisers Act.”
The law judge ordered both respondents to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations or future violations of Advisers Act sections 204 and 207, barred Barr from associating with any investment adviser, and revoked BFG's registration as an investment adviser.
Among the issues likely to be argued are:
a. Whether the evidence supports the allegations;
b. Whether and to what extent sanctions should be imposed in the public interest.
For further information, please contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 942-7070.
2. The Commission will hear oral argument on an appeal by the Division of Enforcement from the decision of an administrative law judge.
The law judge found that the Division of Enforcement failed to prove that Jeffrey M. Steinberg and John Geron, (“the Respondents”), certified public accountants and former partners of accounting firm Arthur Andersen & Co., L.L.P., caused violations by Spectrum Information Technologies, Inc. (“Spectrum”) of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 13a-13 and 12b-20 thereunder (“the reporting provisions”), and the law judge dismissed the proceedings against the Respondents. The law judge concluded that the Respondents' accounting advice to Spectrum was consistent with generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”). The law judge determined also that Spectrum's quarterly reports filed with the Commission on Forms 10-Q for the periods ended June 30, 1993, and September 30, 1993, the reports at issue,
The Division has requested that the Commission reverse the law judge's findings of fact and conclusions of law and his dismissal of all charges, and issue cease-and-desist orders against the Respondents.
Among the issues likely to be argued are:
a. Whether Spectrum's accounting treatment was consistent with GAAP;
b. Whether the Respondents acted negligently;
c. Whether the Respondents were “a cause” of Spectrum's violations of the reporting provisions within the meaning of Exchange Act section 21C; and
d. Whether issuance of cease-and-desist orders against the Respondents is in the public interest.
For further information, please contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 942-7070.
The subject matter for the Closed Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, September 10, 2003 will be: Post argument discussion.
The subject matter for the Open Meeting scheduled for Thursday, September 11, 2003, will be:
1. The Commission will consider whether to adopt amendments to rule 206(4)-2, the custody rule under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, to enhance the protections afforded to advisory clients' assets, harmonize the rule with current custodial practices, and clarify circumstances under which advisers have custody of client assets.
For further information, please contact Vivien Liu at (202) 942-0664.
2. The Commission will consider whether to propose a rule to exempt qualified foreign banks from the insider lending prohibition of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 section 13(k), as added by section 402 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The proposed rule would exempt foreign banks that meet specified criteria similar to those that qualify domestic banks for the exemption under section 13(k). The Commission will also consider whether to propose an amendment to Form 20-F that would require a foreign bank issuer to provide the same disclosure regarding problematic loans to insiders as that required for domestic banks under Regulation S-K.
For further information contact Elliot Staffin at (202) 942-2990.
3. The Commission will also consider whether to propose an amendment to For F-6 that would add an eligibility requirement making the form unavailable to register under the Securities Act of 1933 depositary shares evidenced by American depositary receipts if the foreign issuer has separately listed the deposited securities on a registered national securities exchange or automated inter-dealer quotation system of a national securities association.
For further information please contact Michael Coco at (202) 942-2990.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted, or postponed, please contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 942-7070.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The CBOE is proposing to trade options on the reduced-value, revised NYSE Composite Index (“Reduced Value NYSE Composite Index” or “Reduced Value Index”) based on levels imposed by the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) itself. Options traded on the “old” NYSE Composite Index will no longer trade on the CBOE. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Office of the Secretary, the CBOE, and at the Commission.
In its filing with the Commission, the CBOE included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The CBOE has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Currently, the CBOE lists and trades European-style, cash-settled options on the NYSE Composite Index. The NYSE Composite Index, prior to January 9, 2003, was a full-market capitalization-weighted index comprised of all of the securities that are listed on the NYSE.
The revised index will continue to measure the performance of all NYSE-listed common stock, American Depositary Receipts (“ADR”), tracking stocks, and real estate investment trusts (“REIT”), but will exclude closed-end investment companies, exchange traded funds (“ETF”), and derivatives. Additionally, the revised NYSE Composite Index (“Revised Index”) will use a float-adjusted market capitalization weighting method instead of the previous full-market capitalization weighting.
In calculating the market capitalization of each underlying issuer, the Float-adjusted market capitalization methodology reduces each underlying issuer's market share by the market capitalization value represented by those shares held through block ownership. The following are considered block ownership for the purposes of float-adjusted market capitalization: (1) Cross ownership—shares that are owned by other companies; (2) government ownership—shares that are owned by governments or their agencies; (3) private ownership—shares that closely held by individuals, families or charitable trusts and foundations; and, (4) restricted shares—shares that are not allowed to be traded during a certain period of time.
The following chart illustrates the pertinent differences between the old index methodology and the Revised Index methodology.
The NYSE has calculated the Revised Index to a base value of 5,000 as of December 31, 2002. Due to the extremely large contract size ($500,000) that would result from pairing the standard contract multiplier ($100) with such a high underlying index level, the CBOE proposes to list and trade options based on one-tenth (1/10th) of the value of the Revised Index. Options on the Reduced Value NYSE Composite will provide investors with product offerings consistent with those available for the Old Index.
All option series on the old NYSE Composite Index have expired and no new series in old NYSE Composite Index options have been added or will be added. Options on the Reduced Value Index will trade under a new root ticker symbol.
In order to avoid confusion, the CBOE will notify market participants of both the Revised Index and the details of the new options series that the CBOE will list on the Reduced-Value Index. In its notification, the CBOE will include a discussion of the float adjusted market capitalization method. The Reduced-Value Index levels will be disseminated throughout the trading day at 15-second intervals through OPRA.
The Exchange believes that listing options on the Reduced Value Index will attract a greater source of customer business than if options were based on the full value of the Revised Index. The Exchange also believes that options on the Reduced Value Index will provide an opportunity for investors to hedge, or speculate on, the market risk associated with the stocks comprising this broad-based Index. Further, by reducing the value of the Revised Index, such investors will be able to utilize this trading vehicle, while extending a smaller outlay of capital. The CBOE believes that this should attract additional investors, and, in turn, create a more active and liquid trading environment.
In addition to regular index options, the Exchange has the authority to list long-term index option series (“LEAPS®”), as well as reduced-value LEAPS,
The option settlement value on the Reduced Value Index will be based on the opening prices of the component securities as reported by the NYSE. For options on the Reduced Value Index, strike prices will be set to bracket the Reduced Value Index in 2.5-point increments for strikes below $200 and 5-point increments above $200, as will be reflected in CBOE Rule 24.9. The trading hours for options on the Reduced Value Index will be from 8:30 a.m. to 3:15 p.m. Chicago time.
Options shall be European-style exercise and A.M.-settled, as currently reflected in CBOE Rule 24.9(a)(3), and position limits will remain the same for options traded on the Reduced Value Index as those established on the old Index; 45,000 contracts on either side of
For purposes of calculating customer margin requirements, the Revised Index, just like the Old Index, is considered a broad-based index for purposes of calculating customer margin requirements.
The Exchange represents that its surveillance procedures are adequate to monitor the trading in options and LEAPS on the Reduced Value Index. The CBOE does not believe that there are any material differences in the manner in which options on the Reduced Value Index will trade. The Exchange also believes that reducing the value of the Revised Index, as well as the other changes to the index's design and calculation, does not raise any new concerns about manipulation or adverse market impact. As a result, the Exchange believes that the existing surveillance procedures as they applied to the Old Index options should be adequate to detect or deter manipulation.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,
The CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
A. By order approve such proposed rule change; or
B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All submissions should refer to file number SR-CBOE-2003-14 and should be submitted by September 26, 2003.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
On June 11, 2003, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD” or “Association”), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Under the proposal, registered persons would be prohibited from borrowing money from or lending money to a customer unless the member has written procedures allowing such lending arrangements consistent with the proposal, the loan falls within one of five permissible types of lending arrangements, and the member pre-
As noted above, the Commission received two comment letters on the proposed rule change.
In its response letter, NASD stated that proposed NASD Rule 2370 would give its members the ability to prohibit all lending arrangements between their registered persons and customers.
After careful consideration of the proposed rule change, the comment letters, and NASD's response, the Commission 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 association
While the Commission appreciates the concern raised by NASAA, the Commission believes that NASD has proposed sufficient safeguards that would enable members to proscribe customer-broker loans and to monitor and control lending arrangements, if permitted, through the notice and approval process. To the extent that a member decides to permit lending arrangements with customers in the limited circumstances allowed by the proposed rule, the rule would also require members to have written procedures to monitor such arrangements. As a result, the Commission also believes that the proposed rule change should enhance NASD's ability to monitor loans, when permitted, between registered persons and their customers.
The Commission notes that the safeguards provided under the rule, including bringing disciplinary actions for violations of the rule, are in addition to the general powers that NASD has to bring a disciplinary action against a registered person who has entered into an unethical lending arrangement with a customer under NASD Rule 2110. For example, the notice requirement would place an affirmative obligation on registered persons that could be separately charged in a disciplinary action if not followed. Lastly, the Commission notes that this proposal has no affect on the application of Regulation T to such lending arrangements.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and rules and regulations thereunder.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a list of information collection packages that will require clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with Public Law 104-13 effective October 1, 1995, The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection packages that may be included in this notice are for new information collections, revisions to OMB-approved information collections and extensions (no change) of OMB-approved information collections.
SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility and clarity; and on ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Written comments and recommendations regarding the information collection(s) should be submitted to the OMB Desk Officer and the SSA Reports Clearance Officer. The information can be mailed
I. The information collections listed below are pending at SSA and will be submitted to OMB within 60 days from the date of this notice. Therefore, your comments should be submitted to SSA within 60 days from the date of this publication. You can obtain copies of the collection instruments by calling the SSA Reports Clearance Officer at 410-965-0454 or by writing to the address listed above.
1.
2.
3.
4.
II. The information collections listed below have been submitted to OMB for clearance. Your comments on the information collections would be most useful if received by OMB and SSA within 30 days from the date of this publication. You can obtain a copy of the OMB clearance packages by calling the SSA Reports Clearance Officer at 410-965-0454, or by writing to the address listed above.
1.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
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 object, contact Carol B. Epstein, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, Department of State, (telephone: (202) 619-6981). The address is Department of State, SA-44,
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 the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State, (telephone: 202/619-6982). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.
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 Julianne Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State, (telephone: 202/619-6529). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.
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.
Federal Aviation Administration (DOT).
Notice of availability and requests for public comment.
This notice announces the availability of and requests comments on a proposed order. The proposed order establishes the type certification principles and responsibilities pertaining to imported and exported aircraft, aircraft engines and propellers.
Comments must identify the Order and arrive by October 3, 2003.
Send all comments on the proposed order to: Federal Aviation Administration, Aircraft Certification Service, Aircraft Engineering Division, Room 815, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591. ATTN: Gregory A. Edwards, AIR-110. Or, deliver comments to: Federal Aviation Administration, Room 815, 800
Gregory A. Edwards, Aerospace Engineer, Federal Aviation Administration, Aircraft Certification Service, Aircraft Engineering Division, Certification Procedures Branch, AIR-110, Room 815, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, Telephone (202) 267-9287, FAX (202) 267-5340. E-mail:
You may comment on the proposed order listed in this notice by sending written data, views, or arguments to the above listed address. You may also examine comments received on the proposed order, before and after the comment closing date, in Room 815, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, weekdays except Federal holidays, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. The Director of the Aircraft Certification Service will consider all communications received by the closing date before issuing the final order.
This order addresses several type certification issues. It defines the principles guiding FAA certification personnel who certificate imported and exported aircraft, aircraft engines, and propellers. It also explains how to ensure the continued airworthiness of imported and exported products, and lists the duties of the importing authority, the exporting authority, and the applicant.
You may get a copy of the proposed order via the Internet at
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemption from the vision standard; request for comments.
This notice publishes the FMCSA's receipt of applications from 30 individuals for an exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. If granted, the exemptions will enable these individuals to qualify as drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without meeting the vision standard prescribed in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
Comments must be received on or before October 6, 2003.
You may submit comments identified by DOT DMS Docket Number FMCSA-2003-15268 by any of the following methods:
• Web Site:
• Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
• Hand Delivery: Room Pl-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
Ms. Sandra Zywokarte, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and Operations, (202) 366-2987, FMCSA, Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Public Participation: The DMS is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. You can get electronic submission and retrieval help guidelines under the “help” section of the DMS Web site. If you want us to notify you that we received your comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), the FMCSA may grant an exemption for a 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The 30 individuals listed in this notice have recently requested an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce. Accordingly, the agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety.
Mr. Allen, age 58, has amblyopia in his right eye. His visual acuity in the right eye is 20/150 and in the left, 20/
Mr. Ammons, 46, has amblyopia in his left eye. His best-corrected visual acuity in the right eye is 20/20 and in the left, 20/100. Following an examination in 2003, his optometrist certified, “His vision is sufficient to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Ammons reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 13 years, accumulating 955,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from North Carolina. His driving record for the last 3 years shows one accident and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV. According to the police report, another driver slid through a stop sign due to icy road conditions and struck Mr. Ammons' vehicle. Neither driver was cited.
Mr. Combs, 58, has amblyopia in his left eye. His best-corrected visual acuity in the right eye is 20/15 and in the left, 20/100. His optometrist examined him in 2003 and stated, “In my opinion, Mr. Combs has more than adequate vision for safely operating a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Combs submitted that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 19 years, accumulating 1.4 million miles. He holds a Class DA CDL from Kentucky. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no accidents or convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Corder, 38, has amblyopia in his right eye. His best-corrected visual acuity in the right eye is 20/400 and in the left, 20/20. Following an examination in 2002, his ophthalmologist certified, “Visual fields overall and vision in the left eye in my opinion are sufficient to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Corder reported that he has driven straight trucks for 4 years, accumulating 320,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 10 years, accumulating 1.0 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from North Carolina. His driving record for the last 3 years shows one accident and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV. According to the police report, the accident occurred when Mr. Corder's vehicle struck a deer. He was not cited.
Mr. Cross, 41, has amblyopia in his right eye. His best-corrected visual acuity in the right eye is 20/300 and in the left, 20/20. Following an examination in 2003, his optometrist certified, “In my opinion, he should have no problems operating a commercial vehicle taking into consideration his current visual condition.” Mr. Cross reported that he has driven straight trucks for 15 years, accumulating 67,000 miles. He holds a Class F driver's license from Missouri. His driving record shows no accidents or convictions for moving violations in a CMV during the last 3 years.
Mr. Davis, 56, has a retinal scar in his left eye due to a childhood infection. His best-corrected visual acuity in the right eye is 20/20, and in the left, hand motions. His optometrist examined him in 2002 and stated, “Paul's vision is more than adequate for any driving challenge that he may have, private or commercial.” Mr. Davis submitted that he has driven straight trucks for 38 years, accumulating 2.8 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Georgia. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no accidents and one conviction for a moving violation—speeding—in a CMV. He exceeded the speed limit by 9 mph.
Mr. Ferguson, 48, lost his right eye due to an injury at age 13. His best-corrected visual acuity in the left eye is 20/20. Following an examination in 2003, his optometrist certified, “I feel that Mr. Ferguson's vision is sufficient to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Ferguson reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 17 years, accumulating 1.5 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Arkansas. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no accidents or convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Genovese, 38, has amblyopia in his right eye. His best-corrected visual acuity in the right eye is 20/60 and in the left, 20/20. Following an examination in 2003, his optometrist certified, “I believe that with his prior driving experience and his current visual acuity, he is capable of performing duties required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Genovese reported that he has driven straight trucks for 19 years, accumulating 665,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 16 years, accumulating 560,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no accidents and one conviction for a moving violation—“disregarding an official traffic device”—in a CMV.
Mr. Harms, 62, lost his left eye due to an injury at age 3. His best-corrected visual acuity in the right eye is 20/20. Following an examination in 2002, his ophthalmologist certified, “Finally it is my medical opinion that Mr. Harms has sufficient vision to perform driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Harms reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 28 years, accumulating 280,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no accidents or convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Kraft, 49, sustained an injury to his right eye at age 13. His best-corrected visual acuity in the right eye is light perception and in the left, 20/20. Following an examination in 2003, his optometrist certified, “Considering the longstanding duration and stability of vision loss of the left eye associated with Mr. Mark Kraft and his unremarkable driving record, I feel Mr. Kraft has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate commercial vehicles.” Mr. Kraft reported that he has driven straight trucks for 27 years, accumulating 885,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from Illinois. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no accidents or convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. LeClerc, 44, lost his right eye due to a childhood injury. The visual acuity in his left eye is 20/20. Following an examination in 2003 his optometrist stated, “It is my medical opinion that Mr. LeClerc has no visual limitations that would inhibit his ability to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. LeClerc submitted that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 25 years, accumulating 3.1 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no accidents and one conviction for a moving violation—speeding—in a
Mr. Mason, 60, has had a torn iris in his right eye for 54 years. His best-corrected visual acuity in the right eye is 20/80 and in the left, 20/20. His optometrist examined him in 2003 and stated, “In my optometric opinion, Mr. Roger J. Mason has sufficient vision to perform driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Mason reported that he has driven straight trucks for 3 years, accumulating 210,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 37 years, accumulating 3.1 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Maryland. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no accidents or convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Menken, 47, lost his right eye in 1999 due to an injury. His visual acuity in the left eye is 20/20. Following an examination in 2003, his ophthalmologist certified, “In my opinion, he is medically and visually stable to perform the driving tasks necessary to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Menken reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 20 years, accumulating 2.4 million miles. He holds a class AM CDL from New York. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no accidents and two convictions for moving violations—“disregarding a traffic control device” and “obstructing an intersection”—in a CMV.
Mr. Messinger, 74, has amblyopia in his right eye. His best-corrected visual acuity in the right eye is 20/200 and in the left, 20/25. Following an examination in 2003, his ophthalmologist certified, “I feel he has sufficient vision to perform driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Messinger reported that he has driven straight trucks for 35 years, accumulating 2.9 million miles. He holds a Class CM driver's license from Pennsylvania. His driving record shows no accidents or convictions for moving violations in a CMV during the last 3 years.
Mr. Nelson, 58, lost his right eye due to trauma 30 years ago. His best-corrected visual acuity in the left eye is 20/25. Following an examination in 2003, his optometrist certified, “He has had an artificial eye for 30 years, and in my medical opinion he has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle since he has done such for several years.” Mr. Nelson reported that he has driven straight trucks for 3 years, accumulating 120,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 34 years, accumulating 3.8 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Tennessee. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no accidents or convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Perfetto, 63, has only light perception in the right eye due to a congenital defect. His best-corrected visual acuity in the left eye is 20/20. Following an examination in 2003, his ophthalmologist certified, “I believe that he has sufficient vision in his eyes to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Perfetto reported that he has driven straight trucks for 30 years, accumulating 750,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from New Jersey. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no accidents and one conviction for a moving violation—“truck off truck route”—in a CMV.
Mr. Reichel, 39, has amblyopia in his left eye. His best-corrected visual acuity in the right eye is 20/20 and in the left, 20/60. Following an examination in 2003, his optometrist certified, “In my opinion Mr. Reichel has adequate vision to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Reichel reported that he has driven straight trucks for 17 years, accumulating 340,000 miles. He holds a Class AM CDL from Georgia. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no accidents or convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Rohrbaugh, 47, has amblyopia in his left eye. His best-corrected visual acuity in the right eye is 20/20 and in the left, 20/60. His optometrist examined him in 2003 and stated, “With normal visual fields and 20/20 vision in the right eye, Mr. Rohrbaugh's slightly decreased acuity would not hinder his ability to safely operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Rohrbaugh submitted that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 25 years, accumulating 557,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania. His driving record shows no accidents or convictions for moving violations in a CMV during the last 3 years.
Mr. Roy, 39, is blind in his left eye due to an injury in 1992. His visual acuity in the right eye is 20/20. Following an examination in 2003, his ophthalmologist certified, “In my opinion, he has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks needed to safely operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Roy reported that he has driven straight trucks and tractor-trailer combinations for 21 years, accumulating 525,000 miles in the former and 735,000 miles in the latter. He holds a Class AL CDL from Illinois. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no accidents and one conviction for a moving violation—exceeding the speed limit by 13 mph—in a CMV.
Mr. Sanders, 55, has amblyopia in his left eye. His best-corrected visual acuity in the right eye is 20/20 and in the left, 20/400. Following an examination in 2003, his ophthalmologist stated, “His vision is sufficient and stable to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Sanders reported that he has driven straight trucks for 30 years, accumulating 750,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 5 years, accumulating 375,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no accidents or convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Sheets, 38, has amblyopia in his right eye. His best-corrected visual acuity in the right eye is count fingers and in the left, 20/25. His ophthalmologist examined him in 2003 and stated, “I certify that it is my medical opinion that he has sufficient vision to perform his driving tasks while operating a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Sheets submitted that he has driven straight trucks for 2 years, accumulating 120,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 20 years, accumulating 2.2 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no accidents or convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Simmons, 62, has had macular degeneration in his left eye since 1998. His best-corrected visual acuity in the right eye is 20/10 and in the left, 20/200. His ophthalmologist examined him in 2003 and certified, “This patient has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Simmons submitted that
Mr. Snider, 54, has amblyopia in his left eye. His best-corrected visual acuity in the right eye is 20/20 and in the left, 20/200. His ophthalmologist examined him in 2003 and certified, “His situation is stable and I feel he has sufficient vision to continue operating a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Snider reported that he has driven straight trucks for 3 years, accumulating 22,000 miles. He holds a chauffeur's license from Indiana. His driving record shows no accidents or convictions for moving violations in a CMV during the last 3 years.
Mr. Tisdale, 61, lost his right eye due to an injury at age 13. The visual acuity in his left eye is 20/15. Following an examination in 2002 his optometrist stated, “I believe Mr. Tisdale has sufficient vision to perform any driving tasks required of him to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Tisdale reported that he has driven straight trucks for 25 years, accumulating 1.3 million miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 7 years, accumulating 385,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Arkansas. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no accidents or convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Townsend, 60, has amblyopia in his left eye. His best-corrected visual acuity in the right eye is 20/20 and in the left, 20/200. Following an examination in 2002, his ophthalmologist certified, “In my opinion this patient has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Townsend reported that he has driven straight trucks for 42 years, accumulating 2.9 million miles, tractor-trailer combinations for 30 years, accumulating 2.1 million miles, and buses for 5 years, accumulating 50,000 miles. He holds a Class D chauffeur's license from Louisiana. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no accidents or convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Valik, 38, had a tumor removed from his left eye in 1985. His visual acuity in the right eye is 20/20 and in the left, no light perception. Following an examination in 2003, his optometrist certified, “There is no visual or ocular reason why he would be unable to safely operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Valik submitted that he has driven straight trucks and tractor-trailer combinations for 15 years, accumulating 375,000 miles in each. He holds a Class A CDL from Michigan. His driving record shows no accidents or convictions for moving violations in a CMV during the last 3 years.
Mr. Walden, 50, has been blind in his left eye due to corneal scarring since age 9. His visual acuity in the right eye is 20/15 with correction. Following an examination in 2003, his ophthalmologist certified, “I believe that if Mr. Walden is accustomed to driving a commercial vehicle that he should meet the criteria for continuing to drive with his current ocular status.” Mr. Walden reported that he has driven straight trucks for 23 years, accumulating 1.1 million miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 10 years, accumulating 500,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Georgia. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no accidents or convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Welch, 41, has amblyopia in his left eye. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in the left, 20/200. Following an examination in 2002, his optometrist certified, “Mr. Welch shows a good driving history for many years and has sufficient vision to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Welch reported that he has driven straight trucks for 21 years, accumulating 1.1 million miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 2 years, accumulating 52,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from New Hampshire. His driving record for the last 3 years shows one accident and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV. According to the police report, Mr. Welch's truck was struck in the rear while he was waiting to merge into traffic. Mr. Welch was not cited.
Mr. Whetham, 58, was born with no vision in his right eye. The best-corrected visual acuity in his left eye is 20/20. Following an examination in 2003, his optometrist certified, “In my opinion, from my examination and the visual fields, Mr. Whetham has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required for his commercial license.” Mr. Whetham reported that he has driven straight trucks and tractor-trailer combinations for 32 years, accumulating 256,000 miles in the former and 1.2 million miles in the latter. He holds a Class A CDL from Montana. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no accidents or convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Yount, 46, lost his left eye due to an injury at age 17. His best-corrected visual acuity in the right eye is 20/20. Following an examination in 2003, his optometrist certified, “It is my professional opinion that Mr. Yount is able to visually meet the demands of driving a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Yount reported that he has driven straight trucks for 3 years, accumulating 75,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 20 years, accumulating 1.0 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Idaho. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), the FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated earlier in the notice.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice.
The FMCSA announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) described in this notice is being sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. On May 30, 2003, the
Comments must be submitted on or before October 6, 2003.
Send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 Seventeenth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503,
Ms. Marian Lee, (202) 385-2423, Insurance Compliance Division (MC-ECI), Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.,
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.73.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT).
Notice of intent.
The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be prepared for a proposed highway improvement project in northern Sussex County, Delaware.
Mr. Robert F. Kleinburd, Realty and Environmental Program Manager, Federal Highway Administration, Delaware Division, J. Allen Frear Federal Building, 300 South New Street, Room 2101, Dover, DE 19904; Telephone: (302) 734-2966; or Mr. Monroe C. Hite, III, P.E., Project Manager, Delaware Department of Transportation, 800 Bay Road, P.O. Box 778, Dover, DE 19903; Telephone: (302) 760-2120. DelDOT Public Relations office (800) 652-5600 (in DE only).
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in cooperation with the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT), will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to consider the construction of a potential new alignment in northern Sussex County, Delaware. The proposed limited access facility could connect two existing highways (U.S. Route 113 and Delaware Route 1), which pass through a rapidly developing commercial area in the City of Milford, Delaware.
DelDOT is currently undertaking a planning study (US 113 North/South Study) to consider improvements for the U.S. Route 113 corridor from the vicinity of Delaware Route 1 north of the City of Milford south to the Delaware/Maryland State Line. The US 113 North/South Study is the next step in the overall planning process for this corridor. This effort will be a follow-up to a previously completed feasibility study (Sussex County North-South Transportation Feasibility Study) in July 2001. The data and findings from the feasibility study indicate that a new alignment bypassing the existing U.S. Route 113 may be considered in the Milford Area.
The US 113 North/South Study recommends that the Milford Area (area in and around the City of Milford located in northern Sussex County, Delaware) should be studied separately from the remaining U.S. Route 113 corridor, south to the Maryland State Line. Because of the potential for a new alignment alternative and the resulting potential for significant impacts on the human environment, the FHWA has determined that an EIS is the appropriate documentation for the Milford Area study.
A program of public involvement and coordination with Federal, State, and local agencies has been initiated. Both agency and public involvement will continue throughout project development. Comments are being solicited from appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, and to private organizations and citizens who have previously expressed or are known to have interest in this proposal. Public scoping meetings will be held. Additional informational meetings will be scheduled during the course of the study. In addition, a formal public hearing will be held after the draft EIS
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 or DelDOT at the addressed provided above:
Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.
Notice; issuance of advisory bulletin.
RSPA's Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) is issuing this advisory bulletin to owners and operators of hazardous liquid pipelines, gas transmission pipelines, gas distribution pipelines, and crude oil and gas gathering pipeline systems regulated under 49 CFR parts 192 and 195. The Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 (PSIA) requires that each owner or operator of a gas or hazardous liquid pipeline facility implement a continuing public education program. By December 17, 2003, each owner or operator must review its existing public education program for effectiveness and modify the program as necessary. RSPA/OPS is asking that each operator complete a self-assessment of its public education program against the guidelines established in the recently-issued consensus standard, American Petroleum Institute's API RP 1162, “Public Awareness Programs for Pipeline Operators,” before December 17, 2003, to demonstrate compliance with the PSIA.
Jeff Wiese, (202)366-2036; or by e-mail,
The Federal pipeline safety regulations at 49 CFR parts 192 and 195 require operators of gas and hazardous liquid pipelines to establish continuing educational programs to enable customers, the public, government organizations, and persons engaged in excavation-related activities to recognize a pipeline emergency for the purpose of reporting it to the operator or the appropriate public officials. The regulations also require that operators implement written programs to prevent pipeline damage from excavation activities and establish public awareness liaison with emergency officials. Accordingly, pipeline operators have previously conducted public awareness programs with the affected public, emergency responders, and excavators along their routes.
The PSIA requires that each owner or operator of a gas or hazardous liquid pipeline facility must carry out a continuing program to educate the public on the use of a one-call notification system prior to excavation and other damage prevention activities, the possible hazards associated with unintended releases from the pipeline facility, the physical indications that such a release may have occurred, what steps should be taken for public safety in the event of a pipeline release, and how to report such an event.
The PSIA requires that by December 17, 2003 (not later than 12 months after the date of its enactment), each owner or operator of a gas or hazardous liquid pipeline facility must review its existing public education program for effectiveness and modify the program as necessary. The completed program must include activities to advise affected municipalities, school districts, businesses, and residents of pipeline facility locations. The completed program must be submitted to the Secretary of Transportation or, in the case of an intrastate pipeline facility operator, the appropriate State agency, and shall be periodically reviewed by the Secretary or, in the case of an intrastate pipeline facility operator, the appropriate State agency.
The PSIA also provides that the Secretary of Transportation may issue standards prescribing the elements of an effective public education program. The Secretary may also develop material for use in the program.
In recognition of the importance of effective public awareness programs, outstanding recommendations from the National Transportation Safety Board and anticipated legislative action in this regard, an industry task force developed
API RP 1162 is currently in the final stages of the balloting process, following the guidelines of both API and the American National Standards Institute. After appropriate revisions to address comments, it is expected to be published as a national consensus standard in the fall of 2003.
RSPA/OPS considers that “public education programs,” as used in the PSIA, and “public awareness programs,” as used in API RP 1162, are the same. The level of public education and awareness regarding operating pipelines and pipeline safety can only be increased through education and communication programs that are demonstrated to be effective. Therefore, RSPA/OPS is considering incorporating all or portions of API RP 1162 into the pipeline safety regulations. Of particular interest to RSPA/OPS is the operator's evaluation of its program implementation and program effectiveness.
RSPA/OPS has evaluated the PSIA requirements that operators review and modify their public education programs and submit their completed programs to Secretary of Transportation. We have determined that the intent of the requirements can be met and pipeline safety be best served in the short-term by having pipeline operators complete a formal self-assessment of their public education programs against the guidelines provided in API RP 1162.
RSPA/OPS is developing an Internet-based self-assessment that operators can complete electronically. These self-assessments will help operators identify gaps in their public education programs and improvements needed to align their programs with the requirements of API RP 1162. We ask all operators to submit self-assessments of their public education programs to RSPA/OPS no later than December 17, 2003, to meet the deadline established in the PSIA. This will ensure that operators have complied with the PSIA and will be used in targeting technical assistance workshops to ensure development of effective public education programs.
In 2004, operators will be required to submit their public education program plans to the RSPA/OPS for review. Time frames for submission will be determined by RSPA/OPS and operators will be notified. These plans will need to identify how the operators will address gaps and make improvements in their public education programs. RSPA/OPS will inspect these public education programs as an ongoing part of the pipeline operator inspection program.
RSPA/OPS is co-sponsoring with NAPSR and the pipeline industry trade associations (API, INGAA, AOPL, AGA, APGA) two workshops to facilitate these operator self-assessments. The first workshop will be held on September 4-5, 2003, in Houston, TX. The second workshop will be held on September 16-17, 2003, in Baltimore, MD. On August 14, 2003, RSPA/OPS issued a notice providing specific locations and times for the public education workshops (68 FR 48659). Operators of hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines, gas local distribution systems and crude oil and gas gathering systems are urged to attend. Each workshop will provide an industry-facilitated review of API RP 1162 and a panel discussion of successful public education practices. RSPA/OPS will describe the self-assessment process and will facilitate sessions on techniques of effective program evaluation.
RSPA/OPS will conduct breakout sessions during these workshops for the hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipeline operators. The breakout sessions will provide a more in-depth overview of the self-assessment process and attempt to gauge the current status of public education programs for the transmission pipeline operators by completion of informal self-assessments in advance of the formal self-assessment requested by December 17, 2003.
On August 18, 2003, New York Central Lines, LLC and CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) (together petitioners), jointly 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 discontinue service over a 1.64-mile line of railroad in CSXT's Western Region, Great Lakes Division, Indianapolis Line Subdivision, extending from milepost QIN 95.34 to milepost QIN 96.98, in New Castle, Henry County, IN. The line traverses U.S. Postal Service Zip Code 47632, and includes no stations.
The line does not contain Federally granted rights-of-way. Any documentation in the petitioners' 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 December 5, 2003.
Any offer of financial assistance to subsidize continued rail service 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 offer must be accompanied by a $1,100 filing fee.
This proceeding is exempt from environmental reporting requirements under 49 CFR 1105.6(c) and from historic reporting requirements under section 1105.8(b).
All filings in response to this notice must refer to STB Docket Nos. AB-55 (Sub-No. 639X) and AB-565 (Sub-No. 15X) and must be sent to: (1) Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001; and (2) Natalie S. Rosenberg, 500 Water Street, J150, Jacksonville, FL 32202.
Persons seeking further information concerning discontinuance procedures may contact the Board's Office of Public Services at (202) 565-1592 or refer to the full abandonment or discontinuance regulations at 49 CFR part 1152. Questions concerning environmental issues may be directed to the Board's Section of Environmental Analysis (SEA) at (202) 565-1539. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.]
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
Department of the Treasury.
Notice of members of the Departmental Performance Review Board (PRB).
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), this notice announces the appointment of members of the Departmental PRB. The purpose of this PRB is to review and make recommendations concerning proposed performance appraisals, ratings, bonuses and other appropriate personnel actions for incumbents of SES positions for which the Secretary or Deputy Secretary is the appointing authority. These positions include SES bureau heads, deputy bureau heads and certain other positions. The Board will perform PRB functions for other key bureau positions if requested.
Membership is effective on the date of this notice.
Roena B. Markley, Department of the
This notice does not meet the Department's criteria for significant regulations.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, 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 a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless the information collection displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OCC is soliciting comment concerning its information collection titled, “Leasing—12 CFR 23.” The OCC also gives notice that it has sent the information collection to OMB for review and approval.
You should submit your comments to the OCC and the OMB Desk Officer by October 6, 2003.
You should direct comments to:
Communications Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Public Information Room, Mailstop 1-5, Attention: 1557-0206-2, 250 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20219. Due to delays in paper mail delivery in the Washington area, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by fax or e-mail. Comments may be sent by fax to (202) 874-4448, or by e-mail to
Joseph F. Lackey, Jr., OMB Desk Officer for the OCC, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503.
You can request additional information or a copy of the collection from Jessie Dunaway, OCC Clearance Officer, or Camille Dixon, (202) 874-5090, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 250 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20219.
The OCC is proposing to extend OMB approval, without change, of the following information collection:
The information collection requirements in 12 CFR part 23 are as follows:
12 CFR 23.4(c)—Reporting requirement: National banks must liquidate or re-lease personal property that is no longer subject to lease (off-lease property) within five years from the lease expiration. A bank wishing to extend that five-year holding period for up to an additional five years must obtain OCC approval. To ensure that a bank is not holding property for speculative reasons, the OCC requires the bank to provide a clearly convincing demonstration as to why an additional holding period is necessary. This requirement confers a benefit on national banks and may result in cost savings. This requirement provides flexibility for a bank when it faces unusual and unforeseen conditions under which it would be imprudent to dispose of the off-lease property.
12 CFR 23.4(c)—Recordkeeping requirement: A bank must value off-lease property at the lower of current fair market value or book value promptly after the property comes off-lease.
12 CFR 23.5—Recordkeeping requirement: If a national bank enters into both CEBA leases (a personal property lease authorized under 12 U.S.C. 24(Tenth)) and Section 24(Seventh) leases (a personal property lease authorized under 12 U.S.C. 24(Seventh)), the bank's records must distinguish between the two types of leases. This information is required to evidence compliance with the statutory limitation on the aggregate amount a national bank may invest in leases pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 24(Tenth).
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 13460, Employer/Payer Information.
Written comments should be received on or before November 4, 2003, to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Glenn P. Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6411, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Carol Savage at Internal Revenue Service, room 6407, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622-3945, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 13469, Electronic Options for Tax Professionals.
Written comments should be received on or before November 4, 2003, to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Glenn P. Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6411, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the brochure should be directed to Carol Savage at Internal Revenue Service, room 6407, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622-3945, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans will be held from Tuesday, September 23, 2003, through Thursday, September 25, 2003, in Seattle, Washington. On September 23, the meeting will be from 10 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. at the VA Puget Sound Health Care System, 1660 S. Columbian Way, Room BB108, Seattle, Washington.
The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary on the administration of VA benefits and services to minority veterans, to assess the needs of minority veterans and to evaluate whether VA compensation, medical and rehabilitation services, outreach, and other programs are meeting those needs. The Committee will make recommendations to the Secretary regarding such activities.
On September 23, the Committee will hold panel discussions with key staff members from VA Northwest Veterans Integrated Services Network (20), VA Puget Sound Health Care System and Portland Regional Office on services and benefits delivery challenges and concerns for the Seattle-Tacoma area veterans.
On September 24, the Committee will receive a briefing on Camp Chaparral and hold a veteran town hall meeting beginning at 6 p.m.
On September 25, the Committee will hold panel discussions with various veteran service organizations, several congressional staff and other stakeholders on their concerns and observations of Seattle-Tacoma veterans' needs. The Committee will hold a veteran town hall meeting beginning at 5 p.m.
These sessions will be open to the public. The Committee will accept written comments from interested parties on issues outlined in the meeting agenda, as well as other issues affecting minority veterans. Such comments should be referred to the Committee at the following address: Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans, Center for Minority Veterans (00M), U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420.
For additional information about the meeting, please contact Ms. Elizabeth Olmo at (202) 273-6708.
By direction of the Secretary.