Forest Service
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
Census Bureau
Economic Development Administration
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Navy Department
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Citizenship and Immigration Services Bureau
Customs and Border Protection Bureau
Immigration and Customs Enforcement Bureau
Fish and Wildlife Service
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Drug Enforcement Administration
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Maritime Administration
Research and Special Programs Administration
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.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval of an abbreviated new animal drug application (ANADA) filed by Veterinary Laboratories, Inc. The ANADA provides for the use of dexamethasone injectable solution for the treatment of primary bovine ketosis and as an anti-inflammatory agent in cattle and horses.
This rule is effective October 2, 2003.
Lonnie W. Luther, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV 104), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 301-827-8549, e-mail:
Veterinary Laboratories, Inc., 12340 Santa Fe Dr., Lenexa, KS 66215, filed ANADA 200-324 that provides for use of Dexamethasone Injection for the treatment of primary bovine ketosis and as an anti-inflammatory agent in cattle and horses. Veterinary Laboratories' Dexamethasone Injection is approved as a generic copy of Schering-Plough Animal Health's AZIUM (dexamethasone) Solution 2 Mg., approved under NADA 012-559. The ANADA is approved as of August 19, 2003, and the regulations are amended in § 522.540 to reflect the approval. The basis of approval is discussed in the freedom of information summary.
In accordance with the freedom of information provisions of 21 CFR part 20 and 21 CFR 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a summary of safety and effectiveness data and information submitted to support approval of this application may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.33(a)(1) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.
Animal drugs.
21 U.S.C. 360b.
(a)(1)
(2)
(i) Nos. 000061 and 059130 for use as in paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
(ii) No. 000857 for use as in paragraphs (a)(3)(i)(C), (a)(3)(i)(D), (a)(3)(ii)(A), and (a)(3)(iii) of this section.
(3)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(ii)
(A) For the treatment of primary bovine ketosis and as an anti-inflammatory agent in cattle and horses;
(B) As an anti-inflammatory agent in dogs and cats.
(iii)
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), Interior.
Final rule; approval of amendment.
We are approving a proposed amendment to the Pennsylvania regulatory program (the “Pennsylvania program”) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). Pennsylvania proposed revisions to its rules about surface and ground water monitoring and coal refuse disposal to satisfy required program amendments. Additionally, Pennsylvania submitted new rules concerning coal refuse disposal operations. Pennsylvania intended to revise its program to be consistent with the corresponding Federal regulations and SMCRA, clarify ambiguities, and provide additional safeguards. Finally, we are removing a regulatory program amendment where we required Pennsylvania to correct
October 2, 2003.
George Rieger, Acting Field Office Director, Harrisburg Field Office, Telephone: 717-782-4036, Internet address:
Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its State program includes, among other things, “a State law which provides for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the requirements of the Act * * *; and rules and regulations consistent with regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to the Act.”
By two letters, both dated December 20, 2001, Pennsylvania sent us proposed amendments to its program (Administrative Record Nos. PA 837.101 and 881.00) under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201
In PA 881.00, Pennsylvania submitted changes made to its regulations at 25 Pa. Code 89.59(a)(2), (3) and (b) regarding ground water monitoring. These changes were made in response to the required amendment at 30 CFR 938.16(hh) in which we required Pennsylvania to amend its program to be no less effective than 30 CFR 784.14(h)(1) regarding ground water monitoring plans. At a minimum, the plans are to contain the total dissolved solids or specific conductance, pH, total iron, total manganese, and water levels shall be monitored and data submitted to Pennsylvania at least every three months for each monitoring location.
In a third letter dated November 16, 2001 (Administrative Record No. PA 880.00), Pennsylvania sent us an explanation regarding citation of cross-references in PA SMCRA required by the program amendment at 30 CFR 938.16(kk).
We announced receipt of the proposed amendments in the January 25, 2002,
Following are the findings we made concerning the amendment under SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17. We are approving the amendment. Any revisions that we do not specifically discuss below concern nonsubstantive wording or editorial changes.
In the proposed amendment, Pennsylvania submitted regulations that implement provisions of the CRDCA. Many of these regulations are substantively the same, or have the same meaning, as portions of the CRDCA that are already in the approved Pennsylvania program. We announced our approval of these portions of the CRDCA in the April 22, 1998,
The following section contains our evaluation of regulations that do not have substantively identical corresponding sections to those in the CRDCA. Pennsylvania has made changes to its regulations at Chapter 88 covering coal refuse disposal operations in the anthracite region as well as regulations at Chapter 90 covering operations in the bituminous region.
Subsection (k) provides the design and installation requirements of a system designed to prevent precipitation from coming in contact with the coal refuse. These requirements are essentially the same as those that the Director is approving at 25 Pa. Code 90.122(h) (see the discussion under 25 Pa. Code 90.122(h) below for more information). The addition of these requirements to Pennsylvania's anthracite regulations will insure that anthracite coal refuse disposal operations will be carried out with the same safeguards in place as those in the bituminous region. Although this subsection has no direct Federal counterpart, the Director is approving it because it does not render the Pennsylvania program inconsistent with SMCRA or the Federal regulations.
The Federal regulation most comparable to this section is found at 30 CFR 780.22(b)(1). This section requires geologic information in applications to include the deeper of either the stratum immediately below the lowest coal seam to be mined or any aquifer below the
Former subsection (a)(1)(i) was moved in its entirety to (a)(1). Former subsection (a)(1)(ii) is now (a)(2) and was changed from “Depth, lithology and structure of overburden or underlying strata,” to “Depth, lithology and structure of near-surface bedrock.” As noted earlier, coal refuse disposal operations in Pennsylvania generally are fills that do not involve the mining of coal. Therefore, the requirement to provide the depth, lithology and structure of overburden or underlying strata, is not applicable since this requirement is tied to a coal seam to be mined. The Director finds that a description of the lithology and structure of the near-surface bedrock is no less effective than the Federal regulations requiring descriptions of the strata to be affected by refuse operations. Accordingly, the Director is approving this change.
Former subsection (a)(2) has been deleted. This section provided the geologic information to be included in an application for any portion of a permit area in which the strata will be removed. As noted earlier, this provision is not applicable to refuse disposal operations because coal mining (unless otherwise authorized under Pennsylvania's surface mining regulations) does not occur on such operations. The Director is approving this change.
Former subsection (b) has been deleted. This section provided that an applicant may request that the requirements for a statement of the results of the test borings or core samplings required under subsection (a)(2) may be waived in part or in its entirety by the Department. Since former subsection (a)(2) has been deleted there is no reason to get a waiver from its requirements, therefore, the Director is approving deletion of this section.
Pennsylvania added requirements (4) through (9) to subsection (a). These sections provide the application requirements for describing the soils, geologic strata characteristics, aquifers, and mine workings below proposed refuse disposal areas. These additions do not correspond directly to any Federal regulations. However, they require operators to inform Pennsylvania of the conditions beneath and adjacent to the proposed coal refuse disposal area. Because they require additional descriptions of site conditions, they are not inconsistent with the Federal regulations, and the Director is approving them.
Pennsylvania added a new subsection (b) that provides that maps, cross-sections, and geologic descriptions required by this section shall be prepared and certified by a qualified registered professional geologist. The Director finds that this section is no less effective than the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 779/783.25(b), which provides that a professional geologist is among the professionals authorized to submit maps and cross-sections for permit information.
This amendment responds to the required amendment codified at 30 CFR 938.16(www). This required amendment concerns application of the SBZ rule at 30 CFR 816/817.57. The required amendment stated:
By July 1, 1998, Pennsylvania shall amend the Pennsylvania program to authorize stream buffer zone variances for coal refuse disposal activities only where such activities will not cause or contribute to the violation of applicable State or Federal water quality standards, and will not adversely affect water quality and quantity, or other environmental resources of the stream.
Pennsylvania's submission of regulations at 25 Pa. Code 90.49(a), (b) and (c)(1), regarding coal refuse disposal activities within a SBZ, are substantially the same as the Federal regulations regarding surface mining activities within a SBZ found at 30 CFR 816/817.57. Those sections provide assurance that the activities will not cause or contribute to the violation of applicable State or Federal water quality standards, and will not adversely affect the water quantity and quality or other
In 25 Pa. Code 90.49(c)(3), Pennsylvania has indicated that variances to SBZs will be issued as written orders specifying the methods and techniques to be employed to prevent or mitigate adverse impacts. Mitigation can include, but is not limited to, compensatory restoration and enhancements of nearby streams or stream segments. The first sentence of this provision is essentially identical to the statutory language previously approved on April 22, 1998, which states “The variance shall be issued as a written order specifying the methods and techniques that must be employed to prevent or mitigate adverse impacts.” Therefore, there is no issue in approving that language in regulation here. The second sentence merely elaborates on the scope of that mitigation concept we have previously accepted by indicating that it may include off-site restoration or enhancement. Therefore, it is also approved.
We approved Pennsylvania's use of a system to prevent adverse impacts to surface and ground water and to prevent precipitation from contacting the coal refuse, as described in section 30.56a(i) of the CRDCA, in the April 22, 1998,
The new subsection (g) requires refuse disposal areas to be provided with a system to prevent adverse impacts to surface water and groundwater. New subsection (h) specifies how and when the system for preventing precipitation from coming into contact with coal refuse is to be installed. These sections are derived from, and are consistent with, section 30.56a(i) of the CRDCA that we approved in the April 22, 1998,
Pennsylvania has defined the term “search area” to mean the geographic area within a 1-mile radius of an existing coal preparation facility or the
The term “selected site” is defined as a location selected by the applicant and approved by the Department for which the applicant can then apply for a permit to conduct coal refuse disposal activities. This term is not used in the CRDCA and there is no comparable term in the Federal regulations. We are approving the term because we have already approved the concept of coal refuse disposal site selection set forth in the CRDCA at 52 P.S. 30.54a(a) (63 FR 19806), and because the term is not inconsistent with SMCRA or the Federal regulations.
In the February 2, 2000,
Notwithstanding subsection (a), authorization will not be granted under this subchapter for repermitting under § § 86.12 and 86.14 (relating to continued operation under interim permits; and permit application filing deadlines), permit renewals under § 86.55 (relating to permit renewals: general requirements) or permit transfers under § 86.56 (relating to transfer of permit).
There is no direct Federal counterpart to this provision but the Director is approving it because it acts to limit permits where coal refuse disposal activities can occur. This section does not make Pennsylvania's coal refuse disposal regulations less effective than Federal regulations.
Subsection (a)(5) also provides that for those sites not previously reclaimed to the standards of Chapters 87, 88, and 90 the standards of subsection (a)(5)(i)-(iii) apply providing the site is not a bond forfeiture. These standards are the same as those OSM approved for previously affected sites in 25 Pa. 87.205(a)(5)(i)-(iii). Therefore, the Director is approving this section.
The submission of this portion of the amendment satisfies the required amendment codified at 30 CFR 938.16(zzz). This required amendment indicates that Pennsylvania must amend its program to be no less effective than 30 CFR 816.116(b)(5), by limiting the application of the revegetation standards under subsection 6.2(k) of the CRDCA to areas that were previously disturbed by mining and that were not reclaimed to the State reclamation standards.
The submission of this portion of the amendment also allows us to remove the required amendment codified at 30 CFR 938.16(aaaa). This section required Pennsylvania to amend its program to clarify that under Subsection 6.2(l) of its Coal Refuse Disposal Act, a special authorization for coal refuse disposal operations will not be granted, when such an authorization would result in the site being reclaimed to lesser standards than could be achieved if the moneys paid into the Fund, as a result of a prior forfeiture on the area, were used to reclaim the site to the standards approved in the original permit under which the bond moneys were forfeited. Pennsylvania responded to this required amendment by including language in 25 Pa. Code 90.305(a)(5) that provides an exception to the revegetation standards for special authorization projects. The revegetation standards of that section are not applicable when such projects are conducted on bond forfeiture sites not previously reclaimed to the standards of Chapters 87, 88 and 90, where the money paid into the fund is sufficient to reclaim the forfeited site to the applicable standards. Additionally, we find that the Pennsylvania program prohibits the issuance of a special authorization where preexisting pollutional discharges would not be adequately treated where proceeds paid into the Surface Mining Conservation and Reclamation Fund as a result of a bond forfeiture on the proposed special authorization site are sufficient to pay for such treatment. In other words, treatment of pollutional discharges will not be compromised by special authorizations. Our finding is based upon two premises. First, according to PADEP, there are no currently existing sites for which the forfeited bond would be sufficient to pay for adequate discharge treatment. Second, discharge treatment costs for any future sites will be covered either by conventional bonds, or by treatment trust funds. In the event of operator default on such sites, proceeds from the conventional bonds or treatment trust funds must be expended to accomplish discharge treatment on the sites to which they are dedicated. Thus, where those proceeds are adequate to pay for discharge treatment, they must be used to that end. For these reasons, the remaining concerns that led to the imposition of 30 CFR 938.16(aaaa) have been satisfied, and we are hereby removing this required amendment.
30 CFR 816.116(b)(5) requires that vegetative cover, for areas previously disturbed by mining that were not reclaimed to the standards of Subchapter K, shall not be less than the ground cover existing before redisturbance and shall be adequate to control erosion. In Pennsylvania's amendment, 25 Pa. Code 90.305(a)(5)(ii) and (iii) contains these requirements. As a result, Pennsylvania has satisfied the conditions of the required amendment and we are removing it.
Subsection (d) provides that the authorization allowed under this subsection is only for the pollution abatement area and does not apply to other areas of the permit. The Director is approving this portion of the regulations because it limits the areas of the permit on which coal refuse disposal activities can occur. While there is no direct Federal counterpart to this provision, it does not make this portion of the regulations less effective than the Federal regulations regarding coal refuse disposal.
This section is the same as 25 Pa. Code 87.207. OSM approved 25 Pa. Code 87.207 in the February 19, 1986,
If the baseline pollution load when expressed as a concentration for a specific parameter satisfies the effluent limitations at § 87.102 (relating to hydrologic balance: Effluent standards) for that parameter, the operator shall treat the preexisting discharge for that parameter to comply with either effluent limitations established by best professional judgment or the effluent limitations at § 87.102.
In our evaluation of this revision, as published in the May 31, 1991,
While we did not receive specific concurrence from EPA on revised 25 Pa. Code 87.207(b), EPA did publish a final rule on January 23, 2002 (67 FR 3370), that addresses our questions concerning the revision. Appendix B, part I d, indicates that:
In the event that a pollutant concentration in the data used to determine baseline is lower than the daily maximum limitation established in subpart C of this part for active mine wastewater, the statistical procedures should not establish a baseline more stringent than the BPT and BAT effluent standards established in subpart C of this part.
This language, plus EPA's concurrence received for this amendment, makes 25 Pa. Code 90.307 no less effective than the Federal regulation at 30 CFR 816.42 which provides that discharges of water from areas disturbed by surface mining activities must be made in compliance with effluent limitations for coal mining promulgated by EPA.
The submission of this section also satisfies required amendments codified at 30 CFR 938.16(xxx) and (yyy) that we put into place as a result of our review of the CRDCA (63 FR 19802). The required amendment at 30 CFR 938.16(xxx) indicates that Pennsylvania shall amend its program to clarify, in regulations developed to implement the provisions of section 6.2 of the CRDCA, that preexisting discharges that are encountered must be treated to the effluent standards at 25 Pa. Code 90.102.
In the February 2, 2000,
The required amendment at 30 CFR 938.16(yyy) indicates that Pennsylvania shall amend its program to clarify that subsection 6.2(h) of the CRDCA pertains to preexisting discharges that are not encountered. In the
In this amendment, Pennsylvania submitted 25 Pa. Code 90.307(b) which provides that preexisting discharges that are not encountered must comply with effluent limitations established by best professional judgment. The best professional judgment limitations cannot be less than the baseline pollution load. Subsection (d) in describing when an operator may discontinue treating the discharges under subsection (b), indicates that treatment may be discontinued when the preexisting discharges are meeting the effluent limits established in subsection (b). Taken together, subsections (b) and (d) satisfy the conditions of the required amendment at 30 CFR 938.16(yyy) and as a result, we are removing it.
The second area of difference is at 25 Pa. Code 90.309(b)(3)(ii)(A)(I). This section deals with one of the standards the operator must achieve to receive a bond release of up to 35%. The section provides that this portion of the bond can be released if the operator, among other things, has not caused degradation of the baseline pollution load for a period of twelve months from the date of the initial bond release under subsection (a), if backfilling, final grading, drainage control, placement of impermeable cover, topsoiling and establishment of revegetation to achieve the standard of success for revegetation in 25 Pa. Code 90.305(a)(5) have been completed. The similar section approved by OSM on February 19, 1986, for surface mines at 25 Pa. Code 87.209(b)(3)(ii)(A)(I) indicated that up to 35% of bonds could be released if the operator, among other things, had not caused degradation of the baseline pollution load for the twelve months prior to the date of application for bond release and until the bond release is approved under subsection (b), if final grading, drainage control, topsoiling and establishment of revegetation to achieve the standard of success for revegetation in 25 Pa. Code 87.205(a)(5) have been completed. The difference in the two sections amounts to the period of time for demonstrating that the site did not degrade the baseline pollution load. The proposed rules at 25 Pa. Code 90.309(b)(3)(ii)(A)(I) provide for a demonstration period of twelve months from the date of the initial bond release, while in the previously approved regulation at 87.209(b)(3)(ii)(A)(I) the demonstration period is for twelve months prior to the date of application for bond release and until the bond release is approved. Pennsylvania indicated that the demonstration period for the bond release on coal refuse disposal sites was set by the CRDCA which is why it is different than the surface mining regulations in Chapter 87. There is no comparable Federal regulation for this provision. However, the demonstration period is not inconsistent with the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 800.40(c)(2) regarding the release of Phase II bonds. As a result, the Director is approving it.
The remaining sections of 25 Pa. Code 90.309 are the same as the sections of 25 Pa. Code 87.209 that OSM previously approved on February 19, 1986. Therefore the Director is approving them.
Submission of this portion of the amendment also satisfies the required amendment codified at 30 CFR 938.16(bbbb). This required amendment indicates that Pennsylvania must amend its program by adding implementation rules no less effective than 30 CFR 785.13 and no less stringent than SMCRA section 711. Further, Pennsylvania must clarify that experimental practices are only approved as part of the normal permit approval process and only for departures from the environmental protection performance standards, and that each experimental practice receive the approval of the Secretary. This required amendment is satisfied by subsection 90.401(a), which is substantively identical to most of section 711 of SMCRA, and by subsection (b), which requires compliance with 30 CFR 785.13, which contains the remaining applicable requirements of section 711 of SMCRA not covered by 90.401(a). Those remaining requirements are that experimental practices be approved only as departures from the performance standards in individual cases, and that such practices must also receive the approval of the Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior, as delegated to the OSM Director. Therefore, we are removing 30 CFR 938.16(bbbb).
In the required amendment codified at 938.16(hh), we required Pennsylvania to amend 25 Pa. Code 89.59(a)(1) and (2) or otherwise amend its program to be no less effective than 30 CFR 784.14(h)(1) to require the monitoring plan to specify that, at a minimum, the total dissolved solids or specific conductance, pH, total iron, total manganese, and water levels shall be monitored and data submitted to Pennsylvania at least every 3 months for each monitoring location.
In response to this required amendment, Pennsylvania submitted changes to 25 Pa. Code 89.59(a)(3). The changes include deleting the last sentence from the section that reads, “The Department will approve the nature of data, frequency of collection, reporting requirements and the duration of the monitoring programs,” and adding the following two sentences to the end of the section:
Surface water shall be monitored for parameters that relate to the suitability of the surface water for current and approved postmining land uses and to the objectives for protection of the hydrologic balance as set forth in § 89.36 (relating to protection of hydrologic balance). At a minimum, total dissolved solids or specific conductance corrected to 250C, total suspended solids, total iron, total manganese, acidity, alkalinity, pH, sulfates and flow shall be monitored and reported to the Department at least every 3 months for each monitoring location.
Pennsylvania is also proposing to change 25 Pa. Code 89.59(b) by adding a sentence to the end of the section that reads, “The Department may also require the operator to conduct monitoring and reporting more frequently than every 3 months and to monitor additional parameters beyond the minimum specified in this section.”
We find that Pennsylvania's regulatory language regarding surface and groundwater monitoring is substantively identical to the corresponding portions of the Federal requirements at 30 CFR 784.14(h)(1) and therefore satisfies the required amendment at 30 CFR 938.16(hh). We are removing the required amendment at 30 CFR 938.16(hh).
The required amendment codified at 30 CFR 938.16(kk) requires Pennsylvania to correct cross-references in two sections of PA SMCRA. In section 3.1(c), the cross-reference to section 4.2(f) was to be changed to 4(b)(f). In section 3.1(d), the cross-reference to 18.6 was to be replaced with Section 24.
In response to the required amendment, Pennsylvania submitted a letter dated November 16, 2001 (Administrative Record No. PA 880.00). Pennsylvania explained that sections 3.1(c) and 3.1(d) of PA SMCRA are part of a numbering system used by the Pennsylvania Legislative Reference Bureau. Likewise the cross-referenced Sections 4.2(f) and 18.6 are also Legislative Reference Bureau numbering. Section 4b(f) is part of a numbering system used in Purdon's Pennsylvania Statutes Annotated (Purdon's). The complete number for Section 4(b)(f) in Purdon's is 52 P.S. 1396.4b(f). Purdon's 52 P.S. 1396.4b(f) is the Legislative Reference Bureau's Section 4.2(f). Section 24 was formerly a Purdon's number. The complete number for Section 24 in Purdon's was 52 P.S. 1396.24. Section 1396.24 was renumbered to 1396.18f in 1993 as a result of amendments to PA SMCRA. Purdon's section 1396.18f is the Legislative Reference Bureau's Section 18.6. Pennsylvania believes that since the cross-references in Sections 3.1(c) and 3.1(d) of SMCRA are the appropriate Legislative Reference Bureau Numbers that should be referenced, 30 CFR 938.16(kk) should be removed.
We agree with Pennsylvania's explanation regarding the cross-references and therefore, we are removing the required amendment codified at 30 CFR 938.16(kk).
No public comments were received.
Four responses were received from Federal agencies in response to Pennsylvania's submission under Administrative Record No. PA 837.101. One response was received from the United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), two responses were received from the U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration's (MSHA), and one response was from the United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
FWS submitted comments dated February 25, 2002 (Administrative Record No. PA 837.108). FWS indicated that 25 Pa. Code 90.49, Stream Buffer Zone Variance is inconsistent with Federal regulations. FWS indicated that the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.57 would prevent disturbance of a stream channel in the ephemeral portion of streams, 100 feet upstream of the intermittent zone and is therefore more protective of water quality and the stream's other environmental resources than PADEP's language. Our review of this section finds that it is similar to the stream buffer zone requirements of 25 Pa. Code 86.102(12) regarding areas not suitable for mining that we previously approved. Additionally, it appears that Pennsylvania's stream buffer zone may protect more area around streams, including the ephemeral zone upstream from an intermittent portion of a stream, because it includes areas 100 feet from an intermittent or perennial stream bank, and not just the stream itself. As a result, we have found that Pennsylvania's regulations regarding buffer zones are no less effective than the Federal regulations.
FWS further indicated that language at 25 Pa. Code 90.49(c)(1) that states that a stream buffer zone variance will only be granted if the operator demonstrates to the satisfaction of PADEP that coal refuse disposal will not adversely affect water quality or other environmental resources of the stream and will not cause or contribute to the violation of water quality standards is not as effective as the requirement of 30 CFR 816.57. FWS indicated that the Federal regulation requires that the regulatory authority must make a finding that the stream will be protected. We find that Pennsylvania's regulation does require it to make a finding that the stream will be protected because it requires that any demonstration by the operator be made to the Department's satisfaction. The Department will not be satisfied with substandard demonstrations and therefore will not allow a variance in those circumstances. We have found Pennsylvania's regulation to be no less effective than the Federal regulation.
Finally, regarding the stream buffer zone regulation at 25 Pa. Code 90.49(c)(1), FWS indicated that the words, “as a result of the variance” are also inconsistent with 30 CFR 816.57(a)(1) which states “[s]urface mining activities will not cause or contribute to * * *” We find that because both 30 CFR 816.57(a)(1) and 90.49(c)(1) are specifically written for stream buffer zones, there is no significant difference between the language of these two sections. In other words, implicit in the language of the Federal regulation is the required finding that, as a result of the variance, there will be no adverse effects on water quality or quantity or other environmental resources of the stream nor violations of the State or Federal water quality standards. Both 25 Pa. Code 90.49(c)(1) and 30 CFR 816.57(a)(1) indicate the conditions under which a buffer zone variance will be issued and Pennsylvania's language is no less effective than the Federal regulation in communicating those conditions.
FWS's other concern was with threatened and endangered species. FWS indicated that language to ensure the protection of Federally listed threatened or endangered species was removed from the on-line version of PADEP's Technical Guidance Document 563-2113-660 titled, “Coal Refuse Disposal—Site Selection.” PADEP indicated that a footnote containing the referenced language was inadvertently removed from the on-line version of the Technical Guidance Document. The footnote has subsequently been restored to the on-line version of the document. The footnote, as it now appears on page 4, reads:
PADEP's Section 4.1 (b) of CRDCA prohibits coal refuse disposal on non-preferred sites that contain federally listed threatened or endangered species. With respect to preferred sites, the Department will not approve (via the site selection process) or permit (via the permitting process) a site that is known or likely to contain Federally listed threatened or endangered species, unless the Department concludes and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurs that the proposed activity is not likely to adversely affect Federally listed threatened or endangered species or result in the “take” of federally listed threatened or endangered species in violation of Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act.
In our final rule of April 22, 1998 (63 FR 19802), we indicated that the proposed site selection provision at subsection 4.1(b) of the CRDCA was approved to the extent of the provisions contained in the above language. Consequently, we find that FWS's concern has been answered.
MSHA's Wilkes-Barre Office replied on January 14, 2002, (Administrative Record No. PA 837.104) that the amendment did not conflict with existing MSHA regulations. On January 23, 2002, MSHA's New Stanton Office (Administrative Record No. PA 837.105) replied that the amendment did not conflict with its refuse pile regulations.
NRCS replied on January 29, 2002, (Administrative Record No. PA 837.106) that it found no inadequacies with the proposed amendment.
In regard to Pennsylvania's submission under Administrative Record No. PA 881.00, there were three responses from Federal agencies: two from MSHA and one from NRCS. MSHA's New Stanton Office replied on January 11, 2002, (Administrative Record No. PA 881.03) that the amendment did not conflict with any of MSHA's regulations under 30 CFR parts 75 and 77. MSHA's Wilkes-Barre Office replied on January 14, 2002, (Administrative Record No. PA 881.04) that nothing in the amendment conflicted with existing MSHA regulations. NRCS replied on January 29, 2002, (Administrative Record No. PA 881.05) that it found no inadequacies with the proposed change.
In regard to Pennsylvania's submission under Administrative Record No. PA 880.00, we received a response from MSHA's Wilkes-Barre office on September 6, 2002 (Administrative Record No. PA 880.04), indicating that it had no comments on the amendment.
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), we are required to get a written concurrence from EPA for those provisions of the program amendment that relate to air or water quality standards issued under the authority of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251
(1) EPA commended the portion of the amendment requiring the use of previously impacted areas for refuse disposal because of the environmental benefits of reclamation of previously impacted areas and because it would spare non-impacted areas that would otherwise be designated as refuse disposal sites.
OSM accepts the comments and also recognizes the environmental benefits of Pennsylvania's refuse disposal regulations.
(2) EPA indicated that it is apparent that some refuse disposal fills will be in headwater areas and pointed out that filling of waters of the United States requires proper authorization under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
This comment is similar to one EPA made during its review of the changes to the CRDCA that precipitated this amendment. For a detailed discussion of OSM's response to the comment, see the final rule of April 22, 1998 (63 FR 19816-19819).
(3) Discharges from refuse disposal sites into waters of the United States require National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. NPDES permits for refuse disposal discharges must meet the more stringent of effluent guideline regulations under 40 CFR part 434 or those effluent limits necessary to comply with Pennsylvania's water quality standards for the receiving stream.
We note that one of the conditions of EPA's concurrence with the CRDCA involved the relationship between discharges and NPDES permits. For a full discussion of the Director's concurrence with this condition, see the final rule of April 22, 1998 (63 FR 19818-19819).
On September 5, 2002 (Administrative Record No. PA 880.05), EPA also responded to our request for comments on Pennsylvania's submission under Administrative Record No. PA 880.00. After reviewing Pennsylvania's submission, EPA determined that there were no apparent inconsistencies with the Clean Water Act or other statutes and regulations under its jurisdiction.
Based on the above findings, we approve the amendment Pennsylvania sent us on December 20, 2001. In addition, we are removing the required amendments codified at 30 CFR 938.16(hh), (kk), (vvv), (www), (xxx), (yyy), (zzz), (aaaa), and (bbbb).
To implement this decision, we are amending the Federal regulations at 30 CFR Part 938, which codify decisions concerning the Pennsylvania program. We find that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this final rule effective immediately. Section 503(a) of SMCRA requires that the State's program demonstrate that the State has the capability of carrying out the provisions of the Act and meeting its purposes. Making this regulation effective immediately will expedite that process. SMCRA requires consistency of State and Federal standards.
This rule does not have takings implications. This determination is based on the analysis performed for the counterpart Federal regulation.
This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.
The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and has determined that this rule meets the applicable standards of subsections (a) and (b) of that section. However, these standards are not applicable to the actual language of State regulatory programs and program amendments because each program is drafted and promulgated by a specific State, not by OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed State regulatory programs and program amendments submitted by the States must be based solely on a determination of whether the submittal is consistent with SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations and whether the other requirements of 30 CFR Parts 730, 731, and 732 have been met.
This rule does not have Federalism implications. SMCRA delineates the roles of the Federal and State governments with regard to the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations. One of the purposes of SMCRA is to “establish a nationwide program to protect society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal mining operations.” Section 503(a)(1) of SMCRA requires that State laws regulating surface coal mining and reclamation operations be “in accordance with” the requirements of SMCRA, and section 503(a)(7) requires that State programs contain rules and regulations “consistent with” regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA.
In accordance with Executive Order 13175, we have evaluated the potential effects of this rule on Federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that the rule does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 which requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rule that is (1) considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and (2) likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Because this rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 and is not expected to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
This rule does not require an environmental impact statement because section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).
This rule does not contain information collection requirements that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507
The Department of the Interior certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule: (a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million; (b) will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and (c) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This determination is based upon the fact that the State submittal which is the subject of this rule is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the Federal regulation was not considered a major rule.
This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any given year. This determination is based upon the fact that the State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the Federal regulation did not impose an unfunded mandate.
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
30 U.S.C. 1201
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking action to make certain fuel testing requirements more consistent and up-to-date by having refiners and laboratories use the most current version of an American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) analytical test method.
Specifically, we are updating an ASTM designated analytical test method, ASTM D 1319 to the most recent 2002a version which when adopted will supersede earlier versions of this method in EPA's motor vehicle
This direct final rule is effective December 1, 2003, unless we receive adverse comments or a request for public hearing by November 3, 2003. If the Agency receives adverse comment or a request for public hearing, we will withdraw this direct final rule by publishing a timely withdrawal notice in the
The incorporation by reference of certain publications in this rule is approved by the Director of the Office of the Federal Register as of December 1, 2003.
If you wish to submit comments or request a public hearing, you should send any written materials to the docket address listed and to Joe Sopata, Chemist, Transportation & Regional Programs Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. (6406J), Washington, DC 20460 or by e-mail to
If you would like further information about this rule or to request a hearing, contact Joe Sopata, Chemist, Transportation & Regional Programs Division, (202) 564-9034.
The contents of today's preamble are listed in the following outline.
Entities potentially affected by this action include those involved with the production, importation, distribution, sale and storage of gasoline motor fuel and diesel motor fuel.
The table below gives some examples of entities that may have to comply with the regulations. However, since these are only examples, you should carefully examine these and other existing regulations in 40 CFR part 80. If you have any questions, please call the person listed in the
Refiners, importers and oxygenate blenders producing gasoline and diesel motor vehicle fuel are required to test Reformulated Gasoline (RFG), Conventional Gasoline (CG) and diesel fuel for various fuel parameters including olefins, and aromatics. ASTM test method D1319 is currently a designated test method for measuring olefins
On February 26, 2002, the Agency published a final rule entitled “Regulation of Fuel and Fuel Additives: Reformulated Gasoline Transition”.
Recently, David Bradley, the ASTM Director of Committee D02 for Petroleum Products and Lubricants, said in a letter to EPA that ASTM has updated test method D1319 to a 2002 year version.
In addition to updating our regulations to allow for the use of ASTM D 1319-02a for determining olefins in gasoline (discussed above), we are also today taking action to allow use of the newest version of D1319 for determination of aromatics content in RFG and CG (as an alternative method) and in determining aromatics content in diesel motor fuel. Previous versions of ASTM D1319 were allowed for determining aromatic content under previous rulemakings.
Table 1 lists the designated analytical test methods and alternative analytical test methods which are being updated for parameters measured under RFG, CG, and diesel fuels program in today's action. We have reviewed the 2002a version of ASTM test method D 1319 and we are in agreement with its revisions. We believe that the revisions in ASTM D 1319-02a are not significant changes that would cause a user of an older version of the same method to incur significant costs. All of the revisions were deemed necessary by ASTM so that improvements in the test method's procedures would ensure better operation for the user of the test method. By updating ASTM D 1319 to the 2002a version for all three of these applications, the required analytical methodologies will be more consistent, making it easier for manufacturers of gasoline and diesel fuel to utilize the ASTM technique for all fuels and properties being tested.
In the “Proposed Rules” section of today's
Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of 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.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, we have determined that this direct final rule is not a significant regulatory action.
This action does not add any new requirements involving the collection of information as defined by the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's direct final rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that has not more than 1,500 employees (13 CFR 121.201); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's direct final rule on small entities, we believe that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We have determined that no small entities will experience an impact from this direct final rule. ASTM test method D 1319 is currently a designated test method for measuring olefins in gasoline and aromatics in diesel fuel and is also allowed as an alternative test method for measuring aromatics in gasoline (see citations above in Section II.A). Because rules were adopted at different points in time, the regulations currently cite three different versions of ASTM D 1319 (published in three different years) for these applications. Currently, if a small entity produces both gasoline and diesel fuel, and it relies on ASTM D 1319 for determining compliance with the fuel parameters mentioned above, it must maintain three different versions of ASTM D 1319. These updates allow for more consistent use of the same methodology across EPA motor vehicle fuel regulations, thus increasing flexibility for small entities who manufacture gasoline or diesel fuel. Thus this direct final rule is expected to reduce operating costs for all parties, including small entities.
Although this direct final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA has nonetheless tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. If the Agency receives no adverse comment or request for public hearing on the corresponding proposed rule to this direct final rule, these test method changes will be effective sixty (60) days after publication of this direct final rule in the
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
Today's direct final rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. The rule would impose no enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. This rule applies to gasoline refiners, blenders and importers that supply gasoline or diesel fuel.
Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”
This direct final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This direct final rule updates an ASTM test method to its most recent version. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this direct final rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this direct final rule's corresponding proposed rule from State and local officials.
Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on
This direct final rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This direct final rule applies to gasoline refiners, blenders and importers that supply gasoline or diesel fuel. Today's action updates an ASTM test method to its most recent version, and does not impose any enforceable duties on communities of Indian tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this direct final rule.
Executive Order 13045: “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.
This direct final rule is not an economically “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it does not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. EPA is allowing additional flexibility and streamlining the regulations by updating an ASTM test method to its most current version for three applications under its motor vehicle programs.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law No. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This rule will update an ASTM test method which is a designated analytical test method for two applications and an alternative test method for one application to its most recent ASTM version. Today's action does not establish new technical standards or analytical test methods, although it does update an ASTM test method to its most current version. To the extent that this action would allow the use of standards developed by voluntary consensus bodies (such as ASTM) this action would further the objectives of the NTTAA.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Statutory authority for today's direct final rule comes from sections 211(c), 211(i) and 211(k) of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7545(c) and (k)). Section 211(c) and 211(i) allows EPA to regulate fuels that contribute to air pollution which endangers public health or welfare, or which impairs emission control equipment. Section 211(k) prescribes requirements for RFG and conventional gasoline and requires EPA to promulgate regulations establishing these requirements. Additional support for the fuels controls in today's rule comes from sections 114(a) and 301(a) of the CAA.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Diesel, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7414, 7545 and 7601(a).
(z)
(b)
(f) * * *
(3) (i) Prior to September 1, 2004, any refiner or importer may determine aromatics content using ASTM standard method D 1319-02a, entitled “Standard Test Method for Hydrocarbon Types in Liquid Petroleum Products by Flourescent Indicator Adsorption,” for purposes of meeting any testing requirement involving aromatics content; provided that
(h)
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Commission denied the petition for forbearance filed by the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA) and found that forbearance was not warranted.
Cara Voth, Attorney, Wireline Competition Bureau, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, (202) 418-7400, TTY (202) 418-0484.
This is a summary of the Commission's Memorandum Opinion and Order in CC Docket No. 99-200, FCC 03-140 released on June 26, 2003. The full text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 Twelfth Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
In this Order, the Commission denied the petition for forbearance filed by the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA) on June 28, 2002. CTIA sought forbearance from further scheduled increases to the numbering resources utilization threshold. CTIA argued that forbearance should be granted because the projected life of the North American Numbering Plan (NANP) has been extended, and increases to the current utilization threshold will raise the cost of providing service and increase the risk that numbering resources will not be available to carriers when needed. All commenters opposed CTIA's forbearance request. The Commission denied CTIA's Petition and found that forbearance was not warranted.
1. We find that CTIA's forbearance petition does not satisfy the forbearance criteria set forth in section 10(a) of the Act. Specifically, we find that the numbering resources utilization threshold, and the scheduled increases up to the 75% cap, are necessary to ensure that carriers will obtain numbering resources in a just and reasonable manner,
2. The scheduled increases to the threshold ensure that carriers will obtain additional numbering resources only when they are needed and utilize their numbering inventories on an increasingly efficient basis. Such efficiency is necessary to avoid the waste of finite numbering resources that are essential to providing telecommunications service. Conversely, freezing the threshold at its current level could accelerate NANP exhaust and burden customers with premature area code changes, contrary to the public interest.
3. As the Commission first concluded in the
4. We also disagree with CTIA's suggestion that scheduled increases are rendered unnecessary by the Commission's already existing authority under sections 201 and 202 of the Act to address unjust or unreasonable carrier practices. While we agree that we have authority pursuant to these sections to address matters regarding carriers' access to numbering resources, the existence of such authority does not, by itself, negate the necessity of retaining scheduled increases to the utilization threshold. Targeted rules, such as the utilization threshold and its scheduled increases, provide an additional measure to ensure that carriers optimize the use of existing numbering resources on an ongoing basis to prevent premature NANP exhaust. As mentioned above, telephone numbers are a finite resource. Therefore, we must maintain proactive and predictable measures that preserve the NANP in addition to depending on our authority to initiate case-by-case enforcement investigations. We find that because of the concerns described above, we would not be justified in forbearing now, even if we were to “revisit the issue at a later date if necessary to preserve the NANP” as CTIA suggests.
5. We conclude that retaining the scheduled increases to the numbering resource utilization threshold is necessary for the protection of consumers, and we disagree with CTIA that forbearance in this instance would benefit consumers. One of the overarching goals of the Commission's numbering optimization orders is to protect consumers from the expense and inconvenience resulting from frequent area code changes, and to prevent what would be a costly premature expansion of the NANP. We agree with the Pennsylvania, California and Michigan commissions that freezing the utilization threshold could burden customers with premature area code changes as a result of earlier NANP exhaust. We find that by increasing the threshold, we are minimizing the opportunity for carriers to stockpile unused numbers when other carriers are in need of such resources to serve their customers. Higher utilization levels will help to maximize the use of all available numbers which, in turn, will delay the exhaust of individual area codes.
6. Furthermore, we agree with the states that maintain that evolving technologies, as well as expanding services, could cause the demand for numbers to spike past the previous levels. For example, as voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) providers continue to penetrate the telecommunications market, the demand for numbers may increase. Such demand could burden existing numbering resources. Therefore, we find that requiring carriers to manage their numbering inventories at higher thresholds is a preventative measure that is necessary to ensure that consumers will not have to bear the burden of premature area code changes and NANP expansion.
7. We disagree with CTIA's claim that we should forbear from further increases because they will lead to increased carrier and consumer costs. CTIA has not presented any data or detailed cost-benefit analysis to support this assertion. In fact, CTIA readily concedes that it is “impossible to quantify the administrative costs carriers will incur from managing numbers at higher utilization levels.” Moreover, the New York and California commissions have maintained utilization thresholds at 75% without any indication that there have been adverse effects on consumers. We are not convinced that increases to the utilization threshold would result in significantly more costs because the scheduled increases to the threshold are limited to 5% annually and are capped at 75%. We note that previously CTIA proposed and supported 5% annual increases to the utilization threshold. Moreover, in a recent
8. We also disagree with CTIA's claim that forbearance is warranted as a consumer benefit because it will allow carriers more time to “age” telephone numbers. We find that the numbering utilization threshold has little or no affect on the aging process. Because carriers have the flexibility to age numbers up to 90 days regardless of the utilization threshold, carriers will be able to replenish their inventories of unused numbers with numbers that have been aged on an ongoing basis. Carriers, therefore, must make a business decision as to how long to age their numbering resources. In the
9. Moreover, we believe that CTIA's claim regarding the aging process is merely another attempt at arguing that increases to the utilization threshold are burdensome because they require carriers to use numbers more efficiently. Requiring carriers to use numbering resources more efficiently, however, is the goal that increases to the utilization threshold were designed to achieve. We find that freezing the utilization threshold at its current level would have a detrimental effect on numbering resource optimization and, in turn, on consumers because it would provide opportunity for carriers to stockpile unused numbers that could be assigned to other requesting customers.
10. We conclude that it is in the public interest to retain scheduled increases to the utilization threshold because it will continue to result in more efficient use of numbering resources, further extend the life of the NANP, and facilitate impartial numbering administration by encouraging all carriers to use numbers in their existing inventory before requesting new ones. In the
11. We disagree with CTIA's claim that we should forbear because doing so will bring about reduced regulatory costs that will promote competitive market conditions. As stated above, any reductions in regulatory costs that would result from forbearance are speculative, and would relate to relatively few numbers in a carrier's inventory. Thus any cost savings would only be minimal, at best. Even if we granted forbearance from further increases, carriers would still have to continue to bear the costs associated with complying with the current utilization level. We have not been shown, nor are we convinced, that the marginal costs related to compliance with increases to the utilization threshold have any effect on competitive market conditions. In fact, we find that forbearance would result in lost efficiencies in numbering resource optimization. When such costly inefficiencies are balanced against the minimal regulatory costs that may be saved by carriers as a result of freezing the current utilization threshold, it is clear that forbearance is not consistent with the public interest.
12. Finally, we find unsupportable CTIA's alternative claim that increases to the utilization threshold will result in certain carriers not having enough numbers available to them to meet customer demand. Once the utilization threshold reaches 75%, carriers will have 25% of their resources available to assign to new customers. Moreover, sufficient mechanisms, such as the safety valve, are in place to ensure that carriers with a verifiable need for additional numbers can get them even if they do not meet the utilization threshold requirements. For example, if, as CTIA suggests is the case for some carriers, a carrier has to use a large amount of numbers for E911 routing purposes, and as a result does not have a sufficient amount of telephone numbers to meet customer demand, that carrier can apply for relief via the safety valve. In addition, the state commissions note that no carriers have complained that the utilization thresholds are technically or otherwise infeasible, and that no customers have complained about being unable to obtain service because a carrier did not have enough numbers. Therefore, we reject CTIA's contention that forbearance is in the public interest, or will promote or enhance competitive market conditions among providers of telecommunications services.
13. Pursuant to sections 10 and 251(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 160 and 251(e), that the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association's Petition for Forbearance From Further Increases in the Numbering Utilization Threshold, filed on June 28, 2002, is denied.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final initial 2003 quota specifications, General category effort controls, permit revisions, and definition of the management boundary area.
NMFS announces the final initial 2003 fishing year specifications for the Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT) fishery to set BFT quotas for each of the established fishing categories, to set General category effort controls, to allocate 25 metric tons (mt) of BFT to account for incidental catch of BFT by pelagic longline vessels “in the vicinity of the management boundary area,” to define the management boundary area and applicable restrictions, and to revise permit requirements to allow General category vessels to participate in registered recreational Highly Migratory Species (HMS) fishing tournaments and to allow permit applicants a 10-calendar day period to make permit category changes to correct potential errors. The final initial quota specifications, including the quota allocation to account for incidental catch of BFT by pelagic longline vessels in the vicinity of the management boundary area and the General category effort controls, are necessary to implement recommendations of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), pursuant to the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA), and to achieve domestic management objectives under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The definition of the management boundary area is to assist management, monitoring, and enforcement of the 25 mt allocated to the Longline category. The permit revisions to allow General category permitted vessels to participate in registered recreational HMS fishing tournaments and to allow a time period for permit category changes are intended to relieve restrictions and help achieve domestic management objectives.
The final initial quota specifications and General category effort controls are effective November 3, 2003 through May 31, 2004. The definition of the management boundary area and applicable restrictions and the revisions to the permit requirements are effective November 3, 2003.
Copies of the supporting documents including the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/FRFA) and the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (HMS FMP) may be obtained from Brad McHale, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. These documents are also available from the Highly Migratory Species Division website at
Brad McHale at (978) 281-9260.
Atlantic tunas are managed under the dual authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA. ATCA authorizes the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to implement binding recommendations of ICCAT. The authority to issue
Background information about the need for the final initial BFT quota specifications, General category effort controls, and revisions to the HMS permit regulations was provided in the preamble to the proposed rule (68 FR 41103, July 10, 2003), and is not repeated here. By this final rule, NMFS announces the final initial BFT quota specifications, announces the General category effort controls, including time-period subquotas and restricted fishing days (RFDs), allocates 25 mt of BFT to account for incidental catch of BFT by pelagic longline vessels in the vicinity of the management boundary area, defines the management boundary area and applicable restrictions, revises permit requirements to allow General category vessels to participate in registered recreational HMS fishing tournaments, and revises permit requirements to allow permit applicants a 10-calendar day period to make permit category changes to correct potential errors.
The current ICCAT BFT quota recommendation allows, and U.S. regulations require, the addition or subtraction, as appropriate, of any underharvest or overharvest in a fishing year to the following fishing year, provided that such carryover does not result in overharvest of the total annual BFT quota and is consistent with all applicable ICCAT Recommendations, including restrictions on landings of school BFT. At the time of publication of the proposed initial specifications, 2002 fishing year landings had not yet been fully accounted. Therefore, NMFS adjusts these final initial 2003 fishing year quota specifications for the BFT fishery to account for underharvest and/or overharvest in the 2002 fishing year and recently available data on dead discards.
For the 2002 fishing year, NMFS has determined that General category landings were higher than the adjusted General category quota by 15.7 mt. The Reserve category contains 10.3 mt of BFT quota, and will be used to address partially the General category overharvest. Purse Seine category landings were less than the adjusted Purse Seine category quota by 110.0 mt. Regulations at 50 CFR 635.27(a)(9)(i) require that Purse Seine category underharvests or overharvests be subtracted from or added to each individual vessel's quota allocation, as appropriate. Harpoon category landings are less than the adjusted Harpoon category quota by approximately 20.4 mt. Angling category under/over harvests vary by size class for the 2002 fishing year: School BFT — 133.8 mt underharvest, large school/small medium BFT — 76.1 mt underharvest, large medium/giant BFT — 1.5 mt overharvest, and school reserve — 20.5 mt underharvest. Overharvest in the large medium/giant size class is addressed by a transfer from the large school/small medium size category underharvest. Longline category landings are less than the adjusted quota by 5.2 mt. In 2002, no landings were recorded in the Trap category, leaving 2.3 mt.
For all categories with underharvests from the 2002 fishing year, these final initial specifications include provisions to carry forward remaining quota to the same category for the 2003 fishing year. However, the unused school reserve (approximately 20.5 mt) is allocated to the Reserve category.
As part of the BFT rebuilding program, ICCAT recommends an allowance for dead discards. The U.S. dead discard allowance is 68 mt. The 2002 calendar year preliminary estimate of U.S. dead discards, as reported in pelagic longline vessel logbooks, totaled 38.0 mt (U.S. TASK I data submitted to ICCAT in 2003). As estimates of BFT dead discards for the 2002 fishing year are not yet available, the estimate for the 2002 calendar year was used to calculate the amount to be added to, or subtracted from, the U.S. BFT landings quota for 2003 as a result of dead discards. Estimates of dead discards from other gear types and fishing sectors that do not use the pelagic longline vessel logbook are unavailable at this time and thus are not included in this calculation. As U.S. fishing activity is estimated to have resulted in less dead discards than its allowance, the ICCAT Recommendation and U.S. regulations state that the United States may add one half of the difference between the amount of dead discards and the allowance (i.e., 68.0 mt - 38.0 mt = 30.0 mt, 30.0 mt/2 = 15.0 mt) to its total allowed landings for the following fishing year, or to individual fishing categories, or to the Reserve. NMFS allocates the 15.0 mt to the Reserve category quota.
When General category vessels fish in tournaments, it is NMFS' intent that HMS Angling category regulations for sharks, swordfish, and/or billfish, as well as any specific tournament rules, would apply to the General category vessels. However, when fishing for, or landing Atlantic tunas in a tournament, the General category regulations would apply, including RFDs and General category retention limits. Thus, this would not allow General category vessels to fish for or retain BFT less than 73 inches (1.85 m). This is intended to provide some relief from the current restrictions and allow General category vessels the same access to tournaments where they may have participated in the past. It is incumbent upon the General category fishermen to verify that a tournament is registered.
In accordance with the 2002 ICCAT Recommendation, the ICCAT Recommendation regarding the dead discard allowance, the HMS FMP percentage shares for each of the domestic categories, and regulations regarding annual adjustments at § 635.27(a)(9)(ii), NMFS announces final initial quota specifications for the 2003 fishing year as follows: General category — 684.4 mt; Harpoon category — 77.5 mt; Purse Seine category — 382.4 mt; Angling category — 497.0 mt; Longline category — 148.8 mt; and Trap category — 3.8 mt. Additionally, 72.1 mt will be allocated to the Reserve category for inseason allocations, including providing for a late season General category fishery, or to cover scientific research collection and potential overharvest in any category except the Purse Seine category. The overall final initial BFT quota for the 2003 fishing year equals 1,866.0 mt.
Based on the above final initial specifications, the Angling category quota of 497.0 mt will be further subdivided as follows: School BFT — 230.9 mt, with 130 mt to the northern area (north of 39° 18′ N. latitude), 100.9 mt to the southern area (south of 39° 18′ N. latitude), plus 22.1 mt held in reserve; large school/small medium BFT — 237.4 mt, with 127.6 mt to the northern area and 109.8 mt to the southern area; and large medium/giant BFT — 6.6 mt, with 2.2 mt to the northern area and 4.4 mt to the southern area.
The 2002 ICCAT Recommendation includes a 25 mt set-aside quota to account for bycatch of BFT related to directed longline fisheries in the
For the last several years, NMFS has implemented General category time-period subquotas to increase the likelihood that fishing would continue throughout the entire General category season. The subquotas are consistent with the objectives of the HMS FMP and are designed to address concerns regarding allocation of fishing opportunities, to assist with distribution and achievement of optimum yield, to allow for a late season fishery, and to improve market conditions and scientific monitoring.
The HMS FMP divides the annual General category quota into three time-period subquotas as follows: 60 percent for June-August, 30 percent for September, and 10 percent for October-December. These percentages will be applied to the adjusted 2003 coastwide quota for the General category of 684.4 mt, minus 10.0 mt reserved for the New York Bight fishery. Therefore, of the available 674.4 mt coastwide quota, 404.6 mt will be available in the period beginning June 1 and ending August 31; 202.4 mt will be available in the period beginning September 1 and ending September 30; and 67.4 mt will be available in the period beginning October 1 and ending December 31, 2003.
In addition to time-period subquotas, NMFS also implements General category RFDs to extend the General category fishing season. The RFDs are designed to address the same issues addressed by time-period subquotas and provide additional fine-scale inseason flexibility. For the 2003 fishing year, NMFS implements a schedule of RFDs that would assist in extending the General category BFT fishery into the late season to provide southern Atlantic General category participants commercial fishing opportunities on large medium and giant BFT. Therefore, NMFS announces that persons aboard vessels permitted in the General category are prohibited from fishing for BFT of all sizes on the following days: November 15 through November 30 inclusive. These RFDs will improve distribution of fishing opportunities without increasing BFT mortality.
Recent rulemaking established a new recreational permit category for all HMS which, among other matters, means General category permit holders must choose whether to retain their commercial General category permit and forgo recreational HMS fishing opportunities or, switch permit categories to the new Atlantic HMS Angling permit and forgo their ability to sell tunas. The HMS Angling category permit completes a process that NMFS initiated several years ago to separate commercial and recreational HMS fishing activities to enhance both monitoring and management of all domestic HMS fishing categories.
These final initial BFT quota specifications, General category effort controls, and revisions to the HMS regulations are published under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries (AA) has determined that the regulations contained in this final rule are necessary to implement the recommendations of ICCAT and to manage the domestic Atlantic HMS fisheries.
NMFS prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) for the proposed rule and submitted it to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. No comments were received on the IRFA concerning the economic impact of this final rule. A summary of the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) is provided below.
The analysis for the FRFA assesses the impacts of the various alternatives on the vessels that participate in the BFT fisheries, all of which are considered small entities. In order to do this, NMFS has estimated the average impact that the alternative to establish the 2003 BFT quota for all domestic fishing categories would have on individual categories and the vessels within those categories. As mentioned above, the 2002 ICCAT Recommendation increased the BFT quota allocation to 1,489.6 mt. This increase includes 77.6 mt to be redistributed to the domestic fishing categories based on the allocation percentages established in the HMS FMP, as well as a set-aside quota of 25 mt to account for incidental catch of BFT related to directed longline swordfish and BAYS (bigeye, albacore, yellowfin, skipjack) fisheries in the vicinity of the management area boundary. In 2002, the annual gross revenues from the commercial BFT fishery were approximately $18 million. There are approximately 11,091 vessels that are permitted to land and sell BFT under four BFT quota categories. The four quota categories and their 2002 gross revenues are General ($13,948,190), Harpoon ($588,884), Purse Seine ($3,066,034), and Incidental Longline ($588,352). The analysis for the FRFA assumes that all category vessels have similar catch and gross revenues. While this may not be true, the analyses are sufficient to show the relative impact of the various final actions on vessels.
For the allocation of BFT quota among domestic fishing categories, two alternatives were considered: The final action that will allocate the ICCAT-recommended quota to domestic categories in accordance with the 2002 ICCAT Recommendation and HMS FMP and the No Action alternative. Under ATCA, the United States is authorized to promulgate regulations as necessary and appropriate to implement ICCAT-approved recommendations, except that no regulations may have the effect of increasing or decreasing any allocation or quota agreed to pursuant to an ICCAT Recommendation. The final action will increase the quota by 77.6 mt and will have positive impacts for fishermen. The No Action alternative was rejected because it was not consistent with the purpose and need for this action and the HMS FMP. The No Action alternative would maintain economic impacts to the United States and to local economies at a distribution and scale similar to 2002, but would deny fishermen additional fishing opportunities as recommended by the 2002 ICCAT Recommendation, inconsistent with ATCA. No other alternatives would meet the purpose and need for this action.
For the General category effort controls, three alternatives were considered: The final action to establish RFDs late in the season to provide a late Fall, southern Atlantic fishery, designate RFDs according to a published schedule, and the No Action (no initial RFDs and publish a schedule during the season). The final action would have positive economic impacts to those south Atlantic fishermen, but could have potentially negative economic impacts to those northern area fishermen who would have otherwise caught and sold fish earlier in the season. These negative impacts will be slightly mitigated if northern area fishermen are willing to travel south late in the season. NMFS has selected this final action because extending the season as late as possible enhances the likelihood of increasing participation by southern area fishermen and increasing overall access to the fishery over a greater range of the fish migration. The impacts of designating RFDs according to a published schedule may vary according to the pace of the fishery. If catch rates are slow as in recent years, as is expected, scheduled RFDs may need to be waived which causes confusion and disrupts fishermen's activities, thus having negative economic impacts. Therefore, this alternative is rejected. The No Action alternative could have positive economic consequences if another season of low catch rates occurs. However, even with low catch rates and no RFDs, it is unlikely that there will be enough quota in the General category to sustain a late season commercial handgear fishery off south Atlantic states, thus negatively impacting south Atlantic fishermen. Therefore, this alternative is rejected.
For the permit revision issue, four alternatives were considered: The final action which allows General category vessels to participate in registered recreational HMS fishing tournaments, a final action which allows 10 calendar days from the date of issuance of the permit to change categories, No Action (General category vessels cannot participate in recreational HMS fisheries and no permit changes are allowed once a permit has been issued), and allow dual permits and require declarations by General category vessels prior to every trip regarding which permit is to be used. The final action, which allows General category vessels to participate in registered recreational HMS tournaments, will have positive economic and social impacts by relieving a restriction on General category vessels. The final action also provides a 10-calendar day time period for permit changes due to errors which would have positive social and economic impacts. The No Action
For the definition of the management boundary area, four alternatives were considered: the final action which defines the area as the Northeast Distant (NED) area and will allow retention of the 25 mt quota of BFT with no target catch requirements, the No Action (no definition of the area and operational procedures would account for quota allocated to the area), defining the area as 5 degrees on both sides of the management boundary line, and defining the area as east of the management boundary line. All but the No Action alternative would restrict the quota to vessels participating in the NED experimental fishery. The final action will provide slight positive economic impacts by allowing more retention of incidentally caught BFT relative to the other alternatives because no target requirements will apply. Under the No Action alternative and the other two rejected alternatives, more BFT would likely be discarded than under the final action and negative economic impacts may occur due to lost revenues from discarded BFT.
None of the final actions in this document will result in additional reporting, record keeping, compliance, or monitoring requirements for the public.
NMFS prepared an EA for this final rule, and the AA has concluded that there would be no significant impact on the human environment. The EA presents analyses of the anticipated impacts of these final actions and the alternatives considered. A copy of the EA and other analytical documents prepared for this rule, are available from NMFS (see
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
A Biological Opinion (BiOp) issued June 14, 2001, concluded that continued operation of the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered and threatened sea turtle species under NMFS jurisdiction. On July 9, 2002 (67 FR 45393), NMFS implemented the reasonable and prudent alternative required by the BiOp. None of the actions in this final rule would have any additional impact on sea turtles as these actions would not likely increase or decrease pelagic longline effort, nor are they expected to shift effort into other fishing areas. A memo concluding that no adverse effect would result from this action if implemented was submitted to the Office of Protected Resources on July 18, 2003. No comments were received that would alter that conclusion. No impacts are expected from this final action that would adversely affect the implementation of the requirements of the BiOp.
NMFS has determined that the final regulations would be implemented in a manner consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of those Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean coastal states that have approved coastal zone management programs. On July 15, 2003, the proposed regulations were submitted to the responsible state agencies for their review under Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act. As of September 25, 2003, NOAA Fisheries has received six responses, all concurring with NOAA Fisheries' consistency determination. Because no responses were received from other states, their concurrence is presumed.
The area in which this final action is planned has been identified as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for species managed by the New England Fishery Management Council, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, the Caribbean Fishery Management Council, and the HMS Management Division of the Office of Sustainable Fisheries at NMFS. It is not anticipated that this action will have any adverse impacts to EFH and, therefore, no consultation is required.
Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign relations, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Statistics, Treaties.
16 U.S.C. 971
(c)
(2) A vessel issued an Atlantic Tunas General category permit under paragraph (d) of this section may fish in a recreational HMS fishing tournament if the vessel has registered for, paid an entry fee to, and is fishing under the rules of a tournament that has notified NMFS as required under § 635.5(d). When a vessel issued an Atlantic Tunas General category permit is fishing in such a tournament, such vessel must comply with HMS Angling category regulations, except as provided in 635.4(c)(3).
(3) A vessel issued an Atlantic Tunas General category permit fishing in a tournament, as authorized under § 635.4(c)(2), shall comply with Atlantic Tunas General category regulations when fishing for, retaining, possessing, or landing Atlantic tunas.
(j) * * *
(3) Except for Atlantic Tunas Longline and Purse Seine category permits, a vessel owner issued a permit under paragraphs (b), (c), or (d) of this section may change the category of the vessel's permit within 10-calendar days of the date of issuance of the permit. Beyond 10 calendar days after the date of issuance of the permit, no permit category changes may be made.
(f) * * *
(3) For pelagic longline vessels participating in an experimental fishery in the Northeast distant area, as defined under § 635.2 of this part, under exempted fishing permits issued under § 635.32 of this part, all BFT taken incidental to fishing for other species while in the Northeast distant area may be retained up to a maximum of 25 mt for all vessels so authorized, notwithstanding the retention limits and target catch requirements specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this section. Once the 25 mt limit is attained, the retention limits and target catch requirements specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this section or as adjusted pursuant to paragraph (f)(2) of this section will apply to such vessels.
(a) * * *
(3)
(b) * * *
(29) Participate in any HMS recreational fishing activity aboard a vessel issued an Atlantic Tunas General category permit unless, as specified at § 635.4(c)(2) and (3), the vessel has registered and paid an entry fee to, and is fishing under the rules of, a recreational HMS fishing tournament registered as required under § 635.5(d).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National
Closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for groundfish by vessels using hook-and-line gear in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA), except for demersal shelf rockfish in the Southeast Outside District or sablefish. This action is necessary because the 2003 bycatch mortality allowance of Pacific halibut apportioned to hook-and-line gear targeting groundfish other than demersal shelf rockfish in the Southeast Outside District or sablefish has been reached.
Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), September 28, 2003, until 2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2003.
Mary Furuness, 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 Pacific halibut bycatch mortality allowance for groundfish included in the other hook-and-line fishery, defined at § 679.21(d)(4)(iii)(C), was established by the final 2003 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (68 FR 9924, March 3, 2003) as 290 metric tons. The other hook-and-line fishery includes all groundfish except for demersal shelf rockfish in the Southeast Outside District or sablefish.
In accordance with § 679.21(d)(7)(ii), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined that the 2003 Pacific halibut bycatch mortality allowance specified for the other hook-and-line fishery has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for groundfish other than demersal shelf rockfish in the Southeast Outside District or sablefish by vessels using hook-and-line gear.
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 2003 bycatch mortality allowance of Pacific halibut apportioned to hook-and-line gear, 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 § 679.21 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.
Final rule.
NMFS issues this final rule to increase the incidental catch allowance for weakfish caught in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) from 150 lb (67 kg) to no more than 300 lb (135 kg) per day or trip, whichever is longer in duration; to remove Connecticut from the list of states where commercially caught weakfish from the EEZ can be landed; and to add to NMFS' regulations the Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, as an official who can grant Exempted Fishing Permits. The intent of this final rule is to modify regulations for the Atlantic coast stock of weakfish to promote the effectiveness of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's (Commission) Interstate Fishery Management Plan (ISFMP) for weakfish.
Effective November 3, 2003. Copies of supporting documents, including an Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/FRFA),
are available from Anne Lange, Chief, State-Federal Fisheries Division (SF8), Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Suite 13317, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
Tom Meyer, 301-713-2334.
The background and rationale for this final rule were contained in the preamble to the proposed rule, published in the
This final rule allows vessels using a mesh size less than 3 1/4-inch (8.3 cm) square stretch mesh or 3 3/4-inch (9.5 cm) diamond stretch mesh for trawls and 2 7/8-inch (7.3 cm) stretch mesh for gillnets to possess no more than 300 lb (135 kg) of weakfish during any one day or trip, whichever is longer in duration (an increase of 150 lb (67 kg)) per day or trip over the current Federal EEZ regulation)(§ 697.7(a)(4)); removes the State of Connecticut from the list of states where weakfish caught in the EEZ for commercial purposes can be landed (§ 697.7(a)(7)); adds to NMFS' regulations the Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, as an official who can grant Exempted Fishing Permits (§ 697.22); and adds Atlantic Coastal Act and Director to the definition section (§ 697.2).
There was one comment submitted by a state agency during the comment period.
1. Comment: One state agency that is currently a de minimis state under Amendment 4 to the weakfish plan commented that the regulation (§ 697.7(a)(7)) that does not allow landings of weakfish from the EEZ in a de minimis state is not enforceable and should be re-considered, because it is impossible to determine where the fish were harvested when a vessel comes to port. As an alternative to this unnecessary rule, the state suggested that it could easily adopt trip limits (300 lb) to ensure that the state does not become a destination for unlawful catches of weakfish.
In its comment letter dated July 9, 2003, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts indicated its intention to withdraw itself from
In the proposed rule, the term Director was added as an official who can grant Exempted Fishing Permits, but the term Director was not defined. This final rule adds the term Director to the definition section (§ 697.2), and defines it as the Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
This final rule is published under the authority of the Atlantic Coastal Act. Paragraphs (A) and (B) of section 804(b)(1) authorizes the Secretary to implement regulations in the EEZ in the absence of a Magnuson-Stevens Act FMP. Such regulations must be compatible with the effective implementation of a Commission's
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA) has determined that these actions are compatible with the effective implementation of the Commission's ISFMP for Weakfish and consistent with the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
NMFS did not receive any comments on the economic impacts of the rule. NMFS prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) that describes the impact of this final rule on small entities. A summary of the FRFA follows:
This final rule is published under the authority of section 803 of the Atlantic Coastal Act. The purpose of the rule is to improve cooperative management of the Atlantic coast weakfish fishery by supporting the Commission's Amendment 4 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Weakfish, as required under the Atlantic Coastal Act. This rule will increase the permitted non-directed incidental catch of the species from 150 lb (67 kg) to no more than 300 lb (135 kg) per day or trip. Analysis of the best available data in the EA/RIR/FRFA suggests that the increase would not alter current fishing practices or effort, or increase the number of weakfish caught. The 150-lb (67 kg) increase would simply convert 150 lb (67 kg) of weakfish, which would be caught and discarded at sea as dead bycatch, into 150 lb (67 kg) of weakfish caught as incidental catch and landed. The need for the action was explained in the preamble to the proposed rule and is not repeated here.
Two alternatives were considered for this action. They were: Alternative 1: No Action; and Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative): Allow vessels in non-directed fisheries, using mesh sizes less than 3 1/4-inch (8.3 cm) square stretch mesh or 3 3/4-inch (9.5 cm) diamond stretch mesh for trawls and 2 7/8-inch (7.3 cm) stretch mesh for gillnets to possess no more than 300 lb (135 kg) of weakfish during any one day or trip, whichever is longer in duration. Although a third alternative was identified in the environmental assessment, it would not meet the goals and objectives of the Commission's recommendation. Because the Secretary is required to develop and implement a program to support the Commission's action, analysis of this additional alternative would not meet the purpose and need for this action, or objectives of the Atlantic Coastal Act.
The preferred alternative would allow vessels in non-directed fisheries, using a mesh size less than 3 1/4-inch (8.3 cm) square stretch mesh or 3 3/4-inch (9.5 cm) diamond stretch mesh for trawls and 2 7/8-inch (7.3 cm) stretch mesh for gillnets, to possess no more than 300 lb (135 kg) of weakfish during any one day or trip, whichever is longer in duration (an increase of 150 lb (67 kg)).
NMFS is not able to estimate the number of small entities to which the action would apply because vessels most likely to be impacted are not required to hold a permit to fish for weakfish in the EEZ. In the proposed rule, NMFS requested specifically that the public comment on the number of small entities likely to be affected. However, NMFS did not receive any information pertaining to the number of small entities and is therefore not able to estimate further the number of entities to which this rule will apply. Although the number of small entities cannot be estimated, NMFS believes the action would only apply to those fishermen who capture weakfish incidentally while fishing for other species using a smaller mesh size than is allowed in the directed weakfish fishery. In addition, under Alternative 1, status quo, no additional small entities would be impacted; while implementation of Alternative 2 would apply to fishermen who use nets with smaller mesh sizes and catch over 150 lb (67 kg) of weakfish on a given day or trip. During 1998 - 2002, vessel trip reports indicated that only 1,116 small mesh otter trawl trips and 4 small mesh gillnet trips landed weakfish caught while fishing in the EEZ. The average price received by fishermen reporting weakfish catch in the EEZ in 2001 was $0.614 per lb. If an affected vessel were to land 150 lb (67 kg) of weakfish, as currently permitted (Alternative 1), $92 in revenue could be realized, per trip. If Alternative 2 were implemented, an additional $92 in revenue, for a weakfish total of $184 per trip (double the current amount) would be possible. For a more accurate picture of the expected economic impacts for the two alternatives, actual catches from individual vessel trip records, from 1998 - 2002, were multiplied by average price-per-pound of weakfish from the EEZ to determine estimated revenues per trip. Since vessels may not catch the full 150 lb (67 kg) or 300 lb (135 kg) allowed in Alternative 1 and 2, revenues for each Alternative were projected as the average for those trips that reported from 1 to 150 lb (67 kg) (Alternative 1) and from 151 to 300 lb (135 kg) (Alternative 2). Catches from trips that reported over 300 lb (135 kg) were capped at the 300 lb (135 kg) proposed limit (Alternative 2) for these calculations. Calculated revenues for sale of allowed weakfish landings under Alternative 1 averaged $22; potential revenues for Alternative 2 were estimated at $160 per trip. Based on 1998 - 2002 vessel trip data, total annual revenues for all non-directed weakfish trips, coastwide are projected to be about $6,200 under Alternative 1, and about $7,800, if Alternative 2 were to be implemented. A copy of the FRFA is available from NMFS (see
There will be no reporting and recordkeeping requirements resulting from this action.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
Fisheries, Fishing.
16 U.S.C. 5101
(a) * * *
(4) Possess more than 300 lb (135 kg) of weakfish during any one day or trip, whichever is longer, in the EEZ when using a mesh size less than 3 1/4-inch (8.3 cm) square stretch mesh (as measured between the centers of opposite knots when stretched taut) or
(7) Land weakfish for commercial purposes caught in the EEZ in any state other than Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, or North Carolina.
The Regional Administrator or Director may exempt any person or vessel from the requirements of this part for the conduct of exempted fishing beneficial to the management of the American lobster, weakfish, Atlantic striped bass, Atlantic sturgeon, or horseshoe crab resource or fishery, pursuant to the provisions of ' 600.745 of this chapter.
(a) The Regional Administrator or Director may not grant such exemption unless it is determined that the purpose, design, and administration of the exemption is consistent with the objectives of any applicable stock rebuilding program, the provisions of the Atlantic Coastal Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, and that granting the exemption will not:
(1) Have a detrimental effect on the American lobster, Atlantic striped bass, weakfish, Atlantic sturgeon, or horseshoe crab resource or fishery; or
(2) Create significant enforcement problems.
(b) Each vessel participating in any exempted fishing activity is subject to all provisions of this part, except those explicitly relating to the purpose and nature of the exemption. The exemption will be specified in a letter issued by the Regional Administrator or Director to each vessel participating in the exempted activity. This letter must be carried aboard the vessel seeking the benefit of such exemption. Exempted fishing activity shall be authorized pursuant to and consistent with § 600.745 of this chapter.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to all Airbus Model A319-113 and -114; and A320-111, -211, and -212 series airplanes. This proposal would require either a review of airplane maintenance or delivery records, or one-time inspection of the hydraulic actuators located in the pivot doors of both thrust reversers to identify the part number, and eventual replacement of certain actuators with modified or new actuators. This action is necessary to prevent jamming of a thrust reverser door during operation, or inadvertent deployment of a thrust reverser door in-flight, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Comments must be received by November 3, 2003.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2002-NM-61-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227-1232. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address:
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be obtained from Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.
Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-2141; fax (425) 227-1149.
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments, specified above, will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this action may be changed in light of the comments received.
Submit comments using the following format:
• Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a request to change the compliance time and a request to change the service bulletin reference as two separate issues.
• For each issue, state what specific change to the proposed AD is being requested.
• Include justification (
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this action must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2002-NM-61-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2002-NM-61-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
The Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France, notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Airbus Model A319-113 and -114; and A320-111, -211, and -212 series airplanes. The DGAC advises that certain hydraulic actuators of the thrust reverser system failed endurance testing. Some of these actuators are in-service and may be approaching or may have already exceeded the life limits established during qualification. The use of actuators that have exceeded the established life limits, if not corrected, could result in jamming of the thrust reverser door during operation, or inadvertent deployment of a thrust reverser door in-flight, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane.
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-78-1020, including Appendix 01, dated March 28, 2001, which describes procedures for inspecting actuators located in the pivot doors of both thrust reversers to determine the part number, and replacing certain actuators with new or modified actuators. This service bulletin references Rohr CFM56-5A Service Bulletin RA32078-106, dated November 16, 2000, as an additional source of service information for accomplishment of the actuator modification. Accomplishment of the actions specified in the Airbus service bulletin is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition.
The DGAC classified the Airbus service bulletin as mandatory and issued French airworthiness directive 2001-361(B) R1, dated September 3, 2003, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in France.
These airplane models are manufactured in France and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of § 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the DGAC has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of the DGAC, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design registered in the United States, the proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions specified in the Airbus service bulletin described previously, except as discussed below.
Operators should note that the parallel French airworthiness directive requires replacement of certain actuators within either 250 airplane flight cycles or 500 airplane flight cycles after the part number identification, depending on whether the actuator has accumulated more than 20,000 total flight cycles or fewer than 20,000 total flight cycles, respectively. However, after consultation with Airbus and the DGAC, the FAA has determined that these actuators can be safely operated up to 20,000 total flight cycles. Therefore, we find that accomplishment of the actuator replacement prior to the accumulation of 20,000 flight cycles, or within 250 flight cycles after identification of the part number, whichever occurs later, represents an appropriate interval of time allowable for affected airplanes to continue to operate without compromising safety. The DGAC has been notified of this difference.
Also, the French airworthiness directive specifies the replacement times for the actuators in terms of actuator flight cycles. Operators might not track actuator flight cycles; therefore, for the purposes of this proposed AD, if operators do not have a means of obtaining information regarding actuator flight cycles, engine flight cycles must be used.
Because operators can remove and install thrust reversers and engines on various airplanes in their fleet, this proposed AD would require either a review of airplane maintenance or delivery records, or a detailed inspection of the hydraulic actuators located in the pivot doors of the thrust reversers on all Airbus Model A319-113 and 114; and A320-111, -211, and -212 series airplanes, to ensure that all actuators are identified.
The FAA estimates that 108 airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 8 work hours per airplane to accomplish the proposed inspection (1 hour per actuator × 4 actuators per thrust reverser × 2 thrust reversers per airplane), and that the average labor rate is $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $56,160, or $520 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.
The regulations proposed herein would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new airworthiness directive:
To prevent jamming of the thrust reverser door during operation or inadvertent deployment of a thrust reverser door in-flight, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 500 airplane flight cycles after the effective date of this AD: Do a detailed inspection of the eight hydraulic actuators located in the pivot doors of the thrust reversers (one actuator per pivot door, four pivot doors per thrust reverser, two thrust reversers per airplane) to identify the part number (P/N) of each actuator, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A320-78-1020, excluding Appendix 01, dated March 28, 2001. Instead of a detailed inspection of the hydraulic actuators, a review of airplane maintenance and delivery records is acceptable if the P/N of each actuator installed on the airplane can be positively determined from that review.
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
(1) For any actuator having P/Ns D23090000-1, D23090000-2, D23090000-3, or D23090000-4: Prior to the accumulation of 20,000 total actuator flight cycles, or within 250 airplane flight cycles after accomplishment of the detailed inspection or airplane records review required by paragraph (a) of this AD, whichever occurs later, replace the actuator with a modified or new actuator having part number D23090000-5 or D23090000-6, in accordance with the service bulletin.
(2) For any actuator having P/N D23090000-5: Prior to the accumulation of 30,000 total actuator flight cycles, or within 250 airplane flight cycles after the detailed inspection or airplane records review required by paragraph (a) of this AD, whichever occurs later, replace the actuator with a modified or new actuator having P/N D23090000-6, in accordance with the service bulletin.
(3) For any actuator having P/N D23090000-6: No further action is required by this paragraph.
Airbus Service Bulletin A320-78-1020 references Rohr CFM56-5A Service Bulletin RA32078-106, dated November 16, 2000, as an additional source of service information for modification of the actuators.
(b) Once all of the actuators located in the pivot doors of the thrust reversers have P/N D23090000-6, no further action is required by paragraph (a) of this AD.
(c) For operators that do not track actuator flight cycles, or do not have a means of obtaining information regarding actuator flight cycles, engine flight cycles must be used instead of actuator flight cycles.
(d) As of the effective date of this AD, no person shall install an actuator having P/N D23090000-1, D23090000-2, D23090000-3, or D23090000-4 on any airplane.
(e) Although the service bulletin referenced in this AD specifies to submit information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include such a requirement.
(f) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, is authorized to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD.
The subject of this AD is addressed in French airworthiness directive 2001-361(B) R1, dated September 3, 2003.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to a McDonnell Douglas Model DC9-15 airplane. This proposal would require an inspection to detect chafing or overheat damage of the electrical wires located at fuselage station Y=110.000 bulkhead of the lower nose left tunnel; and corrective actions, if necessary. This AD also requires replacing the external power ground stud with a new ground stud using new attaching parts, torquing new attachments, and installing a nameplate. This action is necessary to prevent loose external power ground wires, which could cause arcing and overheated wire insulation and consequent smoke/fire in the cockpit. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Comments must be received by November 17, 2003.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2003-NM-31-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227-1232. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address:
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be obtained from Boeing Commercial Aircraft Group, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024). This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California.
Elvin Wheeler, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone (562) 627-5344; fax (562) 627-5210.
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments, specified above, will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this action may be changed in light of the comments received.
Submit comments using the following format:
• Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a request to change the compliance time and a request to change the service bulletin reference as two separate issues.
• For each issue, state what specific change to the proposed AD is being requested.
• Include justification (
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this action must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2003-NM-31-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the
The FAA has received reports of loose external power ground wires at the ground stud located in the lower nose left tunnel at fuselage station Y=110.00 bulkhead on certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-82 airplanes. The cause of such loose wires has been attributed to ground stud buildup loosening due to normal airplane vibration. This condition, if not corrected, could result in arcing and overheated wire insulation and consequent smoke/fire in the cockpit.
We have previously issued AD 2001-24-19, amendment 39-12536 (66 FR 64125, December 12, 2001), applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas airplane models, as follows:
That AD requires an inspection to detect chafing or overheat damage of the electrical wires located at fuselage station Y=110.000 bulkhead of the lower nose left tunnel; and corrective actions, if necessary. That AD also requires replacing the external power ground stud with a new ground stud using new attaching parts, torquing new attachments, and installing a nameplate. That AD was prompted by reports of loose external power ground wires at the ground stud located in the lower nose left tunnel at fuselage station Y=110.00 bulkhead on McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-82 series airplanes. The actions specified by that AD are intended to prevent loose external power ground wires, which could cause arcing and overheated wire insulation and consequent smoke/fire in the cockpit.
Since issuance of that AD, the FAA was advised that one Model DC9-15 airplane (fuselage number 0097) was omitted inadvertently from the applicability of AD 2001-24-19 because the airplane had been excluded inadvertently from the effectivity of Section I.A. of McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin DC9-24A135, Revision 01, dated May 1, 2000, as cited in AD 2001-24-19. Therefore, the additional airplane is also subject to the same unsafe condition addressed in AD 2001-24-19.
The FAA has reviewed and approved Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9-24A135, Revision 02, dated January 7, 2003, which describes procedures that are essentially the same as those procedures included in McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin DC9-24A135, Revision 01, dated May 1, 2000. This revision also adds an additional airplane fuselage number to the effectivity. No more work is necessary on airplanes changed as shown in Revision 01 of the service bulletin. Accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition.
Accomplishment of the actions specified in AD 2001-24-19 is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of this proposed AD.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin described previously.
Since this proposed AD expands the applicability of AD 2001-24-19, the FAA has considered a number of factors in determining whether to issue a new AD or to supersede the existing AD. The FAA has considered the entire fleet size that would be affected by superseding AD 2001-24-19 and the consequent workload associated with revising maintenance record entries. In light of this, the FAA has determined that a less burdensome approach is to issue a separate AD applicable only to the additional airplane. This proposed AD would not supersede AD 2001-24-19; airplanes listed in the applicability of AD 2001-24-19 are required to continue to comply with the requirements of that AD. This proposed AD is a separate AD action, and is applicable to only one McDonnell Douglas Model DC9-15 airplane (fuselage number 0097), certificated in any category.
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 (AMOCs). Because we have now included this material in part 39, only the office authorized to approve AMOCs is identified in each individual AD.
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 1 Model DC-9-15 airplane, having fuselage number 0097, of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 2 work hours to accomplish the proposed actions, and that the average labor rate is $65 per work hour. Required parts would cost approximately $35. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed AD on the U.S. operator is estimated to be $165.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this proposed AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.
The regulations proposed herein would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative,
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new airworthiness directive:
To prevent loose external power ground wires, which could cause arcing and overheated wire insulation and consequent smoke/fire in the cockpit, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, do a general visual inspection to detect chafing or overheat damage of the electrical wires located at fuselage station Y=110.000 bulkhead of the lower nose left tunnel, per Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9-24A135, Revision 02, dated January 7, 2003.
For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection is defined as “A visual examination of an interior or exterior area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or drop-light, and may require removal or opening of access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain proximity to the area being checked.”
(b) If no chafing or overheat damage is detected during the inspection required by paragraph (a) of this AD, within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of this AD per Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9-24A135, Revision 02, dated January 7, 2003.
(1) Replace the external power ground stud with a new ground stud using new attaching parts.
(2) Torque the new attachments.
(3) Install nameplate (includes applying silicone primer and adhesive/sealant).
(c) If, during the inspection required by paragraph (a) of this AD, any chafing or damage is detected within the limits referenced in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9-24A135, Revision 02, dated January 7, 2003, before further flight, repair damage; perform a continuity test to check the integrity of the wiring, and repair as applicable; and do the actions required by paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of this AD; per the alert service bulletin.
(d) If, during the inspection required by paragraph (a) of this AD, any chafing or damage is detected beyond the limits referenced in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9-24A135, Revision 02, dated January 7, 2003, before further flight, replace any damaged wire with a new wire; perform a continuity test to check the integrity of the wiring, and repair as applicable; and do the actions required by paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of this AD; per the alert service bulletin.
(e) Accomplishment of the actions specified in AD 2001-24-19, amendment 39-12536, is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of this proposed AD.
(f) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, is authorized to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This document proposes the supersedure of an existing airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to McDonnell Douglas transport category airplanes listed above, that currently requires a one-time detailed inspection to determine if wire segments of the wire bundle routed through the feed-through on the aft side of the flight engineer's station are damaged or chafed, and corrective actions if necessary. That AD also requires revising the wire bundle support clamp installation at the flight engineer's station. For certain airplanes, this action would require a new revision of the wire bundle support clamp installation, and modification of a certain wire bundle. This action also would reduce the applicability in the existing AD. The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to prevent chafing of the wire bundle located behind the flight engineer's panel caused by the wire bundle coming in contact with the lower edge of the feed-through, and consequent electrical arcing, which could result in smoke and fire in the cockpit. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Comments must be received by November 17, 2003.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2002-NM-283-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227-1232. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address:
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be obtained from Boeing Commercial Aircraft Group, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024). This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.
Natalie Phan-Tran, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone (562) 627-5343; fax (562) 627-5210.
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments, specified above, will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this action may be changed in light of the comments received.
Submit comments using the following format:
• Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a request to change the compliance time and a request to change the service bulletin reference as two separate issues.
• For each issue, state what specific change to the proposed AD is being requested.
• Include justification (
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this action must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2002-NM-283-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2002-NM-283-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
On November 8, 2001, the FAA issued AD 2001-24-21, amendment 39-12538 (66 FR 64121, December 12, 2001), applicable to all McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10 series airplanes and Model MD-10-10F and -30F series airplanes, to continue to require a one-time detailed inspection to determine if wire segments of the wire bundle routed through the feed-through on the aft side of the flight engineer's station are damaged or chafed, and corrective actions if necessary. That AD also requires revising the wire bundle support clamp installation at the flight engineer's station. The requirements of that AD are intended to prevent chafing of the wire bundle located behind the flight engineer's panel caused by the wire bundle coming in contact with the lower edge of the feed-through and consequent electrical arcing, which could result in smoke and fire in the cockpit.
Since the issuance of AD 2001-24-21, the FAA has reviewed and approved Boeing Alert Service Bulletins DC10-24A149, Revision 03, dated September 19, 2002; and Revision 04, dated March 26, 2003. The inspection and repair procedures described in these revisions are identical to those described in Revisions 01 and 02 of the service bulletin (which were referenced in the existing AD as the appropriate sources of service information for accomplishment of the specified actions). The procedures for revising the wire bundle support clamp installation at the flight engineer's station described in Revision 02 have been changed to add procedures for installation and relocation of a new bracket when revising the wire bundle support clamp installation, and to add the revision of the wire bundle support clamp installation at the first observer's station for Group 3 airplanes, as specified in Revision 03. Revision 04 adds procedures for modification of Groups 1 and 2 airplanes on which wire bundle run (RDZ) is installed and was changed as specified in Revision 03 of the service bulletin.
The effectivity listing of Revisions 03 and 04 of the service bulletin have also been revised to remove inactive airplanes and to identify a new Group 3 (which includes the MD-10-10F and MD-10-30F airplanes), and a new Group 4, respectively.
Accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletins is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition.
The FAA, in conjunction with Boeing and operators of Model DC-10 airplanes, has reviewed all aspects of the service history of those airplanes to identify potential unsafe conditions and to take appropriate corrective actions. This proposed AD is one of a series of corrective actions identified during that process. We have previously issued several other ADs and may consider further rulemaking actions to address the remaining identified unsafe conditions.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the proposed AD would supersede AD 2001-24-21 to continue to require a one-time detailed inspection to determine if wire segments of the wire bundle routed through the feed-through on the aft side of the flight engineer's station are damaged or chafed, and corrective actions if necessary. The proposed AD also would continue to require revising the wire bundle support clamp installation at the flight engineer's station. For certain airplanes, this action would require a new revision of the wire bundle support clamp installation, and modification of a certain wire bundle. This action also would reduce the applicability in the existing AD. The actions would be required to be accomplished in accordance with the service bulletins described previously.
We have revised the applicability of the existing AD to identify model designations as published in the most recent type certificate data sheet for the affected models.
The FAA has changed all references to a “detailed visual inspection” in the
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 (AMOCs). Because we have now included this material in part 39, only the office authorized to approve AMOCs is identified in each individual AD.
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.
There are approximately 412 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 298 airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD.
The inspection that is currently required by AD 2001-24-21, takes approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the currently required actions on U.S. operators is estimated to be $65 per airplane.
The revision of the wire bundle support clamp installation that is currently required by AD 2001-24-21 takes approximately 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the currently required actions on U.S. operators is estimated to be $130 per airplane.
For Groups 1, 2, and 3 airplanes: It would take approximately 2 work hours per airplane to do the new revision of the wire bundle support clamp installation, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required parts cost would be minimal. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed installation is estimated to be $38,740, or $130 per airplane.
For Group 4 airplanes: It would take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to do the new modification of the wire bundle, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required parts cost would be minimal. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed modification is estimated to be $19,370, or $65 per airplane.
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the current or proposed 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.
The regulations proposed herein would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing amendment 39-12538 (66 FR 64121, December 12, 2001), and by adding a new airworthiness directive (AD), to read as follows:
To prevent chafing of the wire bundle located behind the flight engineer's panel caused by the wire bundle coming in contact with the lower edge of the feed-through, and consequent electrical arcing, which could result in smoke and fire in the cockpit, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 1 year after June 21, 2000 (the effective date of AD 2000-10-03, amendment 39-11727), perform a one-time detailed inspection to determine if the wire segments of the wire bundle routed through the feed-through on the aft side of the flight engineer's station are damaged or chafed, in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin DC10-24A149, Revision 01, dated July 28, 1999; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-24A149, Revision 02, dated April 5, 2001; Revision 03, dated September 19, 2002; or Revision 04, dated March 26, 2003. If any damaged or chafed wire is found, prior to further flight, repair in accordance with the alert 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 1 year after January 16, 2002 (the effective date of AD 2001-24-21, amendment 39-12538), revise the wire bundle support clamp installation at the flight engineer's station, per Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-24A149, Revision 02, dated April 5, 2001.
(c) Within 1 year after the effective date of this AD, do the applicable actions specified in paragraph (c)(1), (c)(2), or (c)(3) of this AD, per Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-24A149, Revision 04, dated March 26, 2003.
(1) For Group 1 airplanes, as defined in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-24A149, Revision 04, dated March 26, 2003: Revise the wire bundle support clamp installation at the flight engineer's station.
(2) For Group 2 airplanes, as defined in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-24A149, Revision 04, dated March 26, 2003: Revise the wire bundle support clamp installation at the flight engineer's station.
(3) For Group 3 airplanes, as defined in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-24A149, Revision 04, dated March 26, 2003: Revise the wire bundle support clamp installation at the first observer's station.
(d) For Group 4 airplanes, as defined in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-24A149, Revision 04, dated March 26, 2003: Within 1 year after the effective date of this AD, modify the wire bundle per the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-24A149, Revision 04, dated March 26, 2003.
(e) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, is authorized to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This document proposes the supersedure of an existing airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to all Airbus Model A300 B2-1C, B2-203, B2K-3C, B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 series airplanes, that currently requires a one-time inspection of the space between the fuel quantity indication (FQI) probes and any adjacent structures for minimum clearance, and corrective action if necessary. This action would expand the applicability in the existing AD and would require the subject one-time inspection on the additional airplanes. The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to prevent the possibility of electrical arcing to the fuel tank if the airplane should be struck by lightning. Such arcing could create a potential ignition source within the fuel tank and an increased risk of a fuel tank explosion and fire. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Comments must be received by November 3, 2003.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2002-NM-113-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227-1232. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address:
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be obtained from Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.
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.
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments, specified above, will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this action may be changed in light of the comments received.
Submit comments using the following format:
• Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a request to change the compliance time and a request to change the service bulletin reference as two separate issues.
• For each issue, state what specific change to the proposed AD is being requested.
• Include justification (
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this action must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2002-NM-113-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2002-NM-113-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
On June 19, 2001, the FAA issued AD 2001-13-09, amendment 39-12289 (66 FR 34088, June 27, 2001), applicable to all Airbus Model A300 B2-1C, B2-203, B2K-3C, B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 series airplanes, to require a one-time inspection of the space between the fuel quantity indication (FQI) probes and any adjacent structures for minimum clearance, and corrective action if necessary. That action was prompted by the issuance of mandatory continuing airworthiness information by a foreign civil airworthiness authority. The requirements of that AD are intended to prevent the possibility of electrical
Since the issuance of AD 2001-13-09, the Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France, has mandated the one-time inspection required by the existing AD (which is applicable to Model A300 B2-1C, B2-203, B2K-3C, and A300 B4 series airplanes) for Model A310 and Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R (collectively called A300-600) series airplanes, and expanded the applicability to include those airplanes.
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A300-28-0080, Revision 01, dated September 3, 2001 (the original issue of the service bulletin was referenced in the existing AD for accomplishment of the referenced actions). Revision 01 has no substantial changes from the original issue.
Airbus also has issued Service Bulletins A300-28-6065, dated March 29, 2001; Revision 01, dated August 31, 2001; and Revision 02, dated August 1, 2002 (for Model A300-600 series airplanes); and A310-28-2145, dated August 21, 2001 (for Model A310 series airplanes). The service bulletins describe procedures for inspecting the FQI probes to make sure that there is a minimum clearance of 3.0 mm (0.118 in.) between each FQI probe and any adjacent structure and/or component in the wing fuel tanks, and adjustment of the clearance space if necessary.
The DGAC classified these service bulletins as mandatory and issued French airworthiness directive 2002-170(B), dated April 3, 2002, in order to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in France.
These airplane models are manufactured in France and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the DGAC has kept us informed of the situation described above. We have examined the findings of the DGAC, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design registered in the United States, the proposed AD would supersede AD 2001-13-09 to continue to require a one-time inspection of the space between the fuel quantity indication (FQI) probes and any adjacent structures for minimum clearance, and corrective action if necessary. The proposed AD also would expand the applicability in the existing AD and would require the subject one-time inspection on the additional airplanes. The actions would be required to be accomplished in accordance with the service bulletins described previously.
On July 10, 2002, we 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 (AMOCs). Because we have now included this material in part 39, only the office authorized to approve AMOCs is identified in each individual AD.
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.
There are approximately 115 airplanes of U.S. registry that would be affected by this proposed AD.
The inspection that is currently required by AD 2001-13-09 takes approximately 7 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the currently required inspection is estimated to be $455 per airplane.
It would take approximately 5 work hours per airplane to accomplish the new inspection, specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2145, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this proposed inspection is estimated to be $325 per airplane.
It would take approximately 10 work hours per airplane to accomplish the new inspection of the wing fuel tank, and approximately 5 work hours per airplane to accomplish the new inspection of the trim fuel tank, specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6065, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of these proposed inspections is estimated to be $650 per wing fuel tank, and $325 per trim fuel tank, per airplane.
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.
The regulations proposed herein would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing amendment 39-12289 (66 FR 34088, June 27, 2001), and by adding a new airworthiness directive (AD), to read as follows:
To prevent the possibility of electrical arcing to the fuel tank if the airplane should be struck by lightning, which could create a potential ignition source within the fuel tank and an increased risk of a fuel tank explosion and fire, accomplish the following:
(a) For Model A300 B2-1C, B2-203, B2K-3C, and A300 B4 series airplanes: Within 4,000 flight hours after August 1, 2001 (the effective date of AD 2001-13-09, amendment 39-12289), inspect the clearance space from each fuel quantity indication (FQI) probe to any adjacent structure or metallic component, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-0080, dated September 28, 2000; or Revision 01, dated September 3, 2001.
(b) For Model A300-600 and A310 series airplanes: Within 4,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD; do a detailed inspection of the clearance space from each FQI probe to any adjacent structure or metallic component, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6065, dated March 29, 2001; Revision 01, dated August 31, 2001; or Revision 02, dated August 1, 2002; or Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2145, dated August 21, 2001; as applicable.
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.”
(c) If, during any inspection required by this AD, the clearance between any probe and its adjacent parts is less than 3.0 mm (0.118 in.), as described in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-0080, dated September 28, 2000; or Revision 01, dated September 3, 2001; or A300-28-6065, dated March 29, 2001; Revision 01, dated August 31, 2001; or Revision 02, dated August 1, 2002; or A310-28-2145, dated August 21, 2001: Before further flight, adjust the position of the FQI probe in accordance with paragraph 3.C. of the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin.
(d)(1) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, is authorized to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD.
(2) Alternative methods of compliance, approved previously per AD 2001-13-09, amendment 39-12289, are approved as alternative methods of compliance with paragraph (a) of this AD.
The subject of this AD is addressed in French airworthiness directive 2002-170(B), dated April 3, 2002.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This document proposes the supersedure of an existing airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain EMBRAER Model EMB-120 series airplanes, that currently requires revising the airplane flight manual (AFM), and either installing hydraulic tube assemblies incorporating a check valve, or visually inspecting the check valve if already installed and performing corrective actions if necessary. This action would add airplanes to the applicability of the existing AD. The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to prevent the landing gear doors from becoming blocked from opening during application of emergency procedures in the event of a loss of hydraulics. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Comments must be received by November 3, 2003.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2002-NM-87-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227-1232. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address:
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be obtained from Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), P.O. Box 343—CEP 12.225, Sao Jose dos Campos—SP, Brazil. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.
Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-1175; fax (425) 227-1149.
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments, specified above, will be
Submit comments using the following format:
• Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a request to change the compliance time and a request to change the service bulletin reference as two separate issues.
• For each issue, state what specific change to the proposed AD is being requested.
• Include justification (
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this action must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2002-NM-87-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2002-NM-87-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
On September 26, 2000, the FAA issued AD 2000-20-05, amendment 39-11916 (65 FR 59708, October 6, 2000), applicable to certain EMBRAER Model EMB-120 series airplanes. That AD requires revising the airplane flight manual (AFM), and either installing hydraulic tube assemblies incorporating a check valve, or visually inspecting the check valve if already installed and performing corrective actions if necessary. That action was prompted by a report indicating that, in the event of the loss of pressure in the green hydraulic system, if the present AFM “free-fall” operational procedure was not followed, there was a possibility that the landing gear doors may not open. The requirements of that AD are intended to prevent the landing gear doors from becoming blocked from opening during application of emergency procedures in the event of a loss of hydraulics.
Since the issuance of that AD, the Departmento de Aviacao Civil (DAC), which is the airworthiness authority for Brazil, advised the FAA that additional airplanes are subject to the same unsafe condition.
Since the issuance of AD 2000-20-05, Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) has issued Service Bulletin 120-32-0077, Change 03, dated August 3, 2001, which describes the same inspection and installation procedures as those specified in Service Bulletin 120-32-0077, Change 02, dated December 23, 1997. Change 02 of the service bulletin was cited in AD 2000-20-05 as the appropriate source of service information. The relevant change in Change 03 of the service bulletin is that the effectivity listing has been changed to include new serial numbers. Accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition.
The DAC classified this service bulletin as mandatory and issued Brazilian airworthiness directive 97-05-03R3, effective date October 2, 2001, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Brazil. The Brazilian AD also mandates incorporation of an AFM revision of abnormal landing gear extension procedures.
This airplane model is manufactured in Brazil and is type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the DAC has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of the DAC, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design registered in the United States, the proposed AD would supersede AD 2000-20-05 to continue to require revising the airplane flight manual (AFM), and either installing hydraulic tube assemblies incorporating a check valve, or visually inspecting the check valve if already installed and performing corrective actions if necessary. The actions would be required to be accomplished in accordance with the service bulletin described previously. This action would also add airplanes to the applicability of the existing AD.
This proposed AD would expand the applicability from affected airplanes as listed in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 120-32-0077, Change 02, dated December 23, 1997, to include affected airplanes as listed in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 120-32-0077, Change 03, dated August 3, 2003.
The FAA has changed all references to a “visual inspection” in the existing AD to “general visual inspection” in this action. Also, the definition of a “general visual inspection” has been included in this action.
There are approximately 219 airplanes of U.S. registry that would be affected by this proposed AD. This proposed AD adds no new requirements, but only adds airplanes to the applicability of the existing AD. This proposed AD adds no new economic burden on affected operators, but since issuance of AD 2000-20-05, the estimated labor rate has increased from $60 to $65 per work hour, and the estimated cost for required parts has increased from $2,021 to $2,129. The current costs associated with this proposed AD are otherwise reiterated in their entirety as follows for the convenience of affected operators:
The AFM revision that is currently required by AD 2000-20-05, and retained in this proposed AD, takes approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the currently required AFM revision on U.S. operators is estimated to be $14,235, or $65 per airplane.
The general visual inspection that is currently required by AD 2000-20-05, and retained in this proposed AD, takes approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the currently required general visual inspection on
The installation of hydraulic tube assemblies that include check valves that is currently required by AD 2000-20-05, and retained in this proposed AD, takes approximately 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required parts cost approximately $2,129 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the currently required actions on U.S. operators is estimated to be $494,921, or $2,259 per airplane.
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the current or proposed 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.
The regulations proposed herein would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing amendment 39-11916 (65 FR 59708, October 6, 2000), and by adding a new airworthiness directive (AD), to read as follows:
To prevent the landing gear doors from becoming blocked from opening during application of emergency procedures in the event of a loss of hydraulics, accomplish the following:
(a) For airplanes subject to AD 2000-20-05: Within 10 flight hours after November 13, 2000 (the effective date of AD 2000-20-05, amendment 39-11916), revise the “Emergency Procedures” and “Abnormal Procedures” sections of the airplane flight manual (AFM) by inserting into the AFM a copy of EMB-120 AFM 120/794, Revision 45, dated October 14, 1996.
Airplanes subject to AD 2000-20-05 are those listed in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 120-32-0077, Change 02, dated December 23, 1997.
(b) For airplanes subject to AD 2000-20-05, on which the check valve has been installed in accordance with EMBRAER Service Bulletin 120-32-0077, dated February 7, 1997: Within 100 flight hours after November 13, 2000, conduct a general visual inspection to detect the check valve flow direction in accordance with EMBRAER Service Bulletin 120-32-0077, Change 02, dated December 23, 1997; or Change 03, dated August 3, 2001. If the check valve is installed incorrectly, prior to further flight, reinstall the check valve in the proper position in accordance with Change 02 or Change 03 of the service bulletin.
For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection is defined as: “A visual examination of an interior or exterior area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within touching distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to enhance visual access to all exposed surfaces in the inspection area. This level of inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or droplight and may require removal or opening of access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain proximity to the area being checked.”
(c) For airplanes subject to AD 2000-20-05, that are not equipped with the check valve installed in accordance with EMBRAER Service Bulletin 120-32-0077, dated February 7, 1997; or Change 01, dated September 25, 1997; or Change 02, dated December 23, 1997; or Change 03, dated August 3, 2003: Within 2,000 flight hours after November 13, 2000, install hydraulic tube assemblies incorporating a check valve in accordance with Service Bulletin 120-32-0077, Change 01, dated September 25, 1997; Change 02, dated December 23, 1997; or Change 03, dated August 3, 2001.
Airplanes not subject to AD 2000-20-05 are those airplanes added by Change 03 of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 120-32-0077, dated August 3, 2001.
(d) For airplanes not subject to AD 2000-20-05: Within 10 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, revise the “Emergency Procedures” and “Abnormal Procedures” sections of the airplane flight manual (AFM) by inserting into the AFM a copy of EMB-120 AFM 120/794, Revision 45, dated October 14, 1996.
(e) For airplanes that are not subject to AD 2000-20-05, and on which the check valve has been installed in accordance with EMBRAER Service Bulletin 120-32-0077, dated February 7, 1997: Within 100 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, accomplish all of the applicable actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 120-32-0077, Change 03, dated August 3, 2001.
(f) For airplanes not subject to AD 2000-20-05, on which the check valve has not been installed in accordance with EMBRAER Service Bulletin 120-32-0077, dated February 7, 1997; or Change 01, dated September 25, 1997; or Change 02, dated December 23, 1997: Within 2,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, accomplish all of the applicable actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 120-32-0077, Change 03, dated August 3, 2001.
(g) Accomplishment of the specified actions before the effective date of this AD per EMBRAER Service Bulletin 120-32-0077, Change 01, dated September 25, 1997; or Change 02, dated December 23, 1997; is considered acceptable for compliance with the applicable requirements of paragraphs (e) and (f) of this AD.
(h) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116,
The subject of this AD is addressed in Brazilian airworthiness directive 97-05-03R3, dated October 2, 2001.
Customs and Border Protection, Homeland Security; Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
This document proposes to amend the Customs Regulations to provide that merchandise processing fees are eligible to be claimed, in limited circumstances, as drawback based on substitution of finished petroleum derivatives. The proposed amendments are consistent with a court decision in which merchandise processing fees were found to be eligible to be claimed as unused merchandise drawback. As drawback based on substitution of finished petroleum derivatives is, in limited circumstances, treated in the same manner as unused merchandise drawback, the amendments to the Customs Regulations proposed in this document reflect that merchandise processing fees are also eligible to be claimed as drawback in these circumstances.
Comments must be received on or before December 1, 2003.
Written comments may be submitted to Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, Office of Regulations & Rulings, Attention: Regulations Branch, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20229. Submitted comments may be inspected at Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, 799 9th Street, NW., Washington, DC, during regular business hours. Arrangements to inspect submitted comments should be made in advance by calling Mr. Joseph Clark at (202) 572-8768.
William G. Rosoff, Chief, Duty and Refund Determinations Branch, Office of Regulations and Rulings, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, Tel. (202) 572-8807.
Merchandise processing fees are fees charged and collected for the processing of merchandise that is formally entered or released into the United States. See 19 U.S.C. 58c(a)(9)(A). Merchandise processing fees are assessed as a percentage of the value of the imported merchandise, as determined under 19 U.S.C. 1401a.
Section 313 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (19 U.S.C. 1313), concerns drawback and refunds. Drawback is a refund of certain duties, taxes and fees paid by the importer of record and granted to a drawback claimant under specific conditions.
In
Subsection (p) of 19 U.S.C. 1313 authorizes drawback that is based on “substitution of finished petroleum derivatives.” Subsection (p)(4)(B) of 19 U.S.C. 1313, in pertinent part, limits the amount of drawback payable under this subsection to the amount of drawback that would be attributable to the article “if imported under [subsection 1313(p)(2)(A)(iii) or (iv)]
Subsection 1313(p)(2)(A)(iii) requires that the exporter of the exported article had imported the qualified article in a quantity equal to or greater than the quantity of the exported article. Subsection 1313(p)(2)(A)(iv) requires that the exporter of the exported article had purchased or had exchanged, directly or indirectly, an imported qualified article from an importer in a quantity equal to or greater than the quantity of the exported article.
The language “had the claim qualified for drawback under subsection (j)” reflects that drawback is payable under 1313(p)(2)(A)(iii) or (iv) pursuant to the same formula set forth in subsection 1313(j),
It follows, therefore, that as the CAFC has determined that merchandise processing fees are eligible to be claimed as drawback pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1313(j), such fees are also eligible to be claimed as drawback when drawback is based on substitution of finished petroleum derivatives pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1313(p)(2)(A)(iii) or (iv).
The
In order to reflect that the court's holding is applicable, in limited circumstances, to drawback based on substitution of finished petroleum derivatives, this document proposes to further amend the Customs Regulations.
It is proposed to amend §§ 191.3(a)(4), 191.3(b)(2), 191.51(b)(2) and 191.171 of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR 191.3, 191.51 and 191.171) to provide that merchandise processing fees are eligible to be claimed as drawback when the basis for drawback is the substitution of finished petroleum derivatives pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1313(p)(2)(A)(iii) or (iv). A more detailed explanation of the proposed amendments is set forth below.
Section 191.3(a)(4) of the Customs Regulations provides that merchandise processing fees for unused merchandise drawback pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1313(j) are subject to drawback. As merchandise processing fees are eligible to be claimed as drawback for substitution of finished petroleum derivatives pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1313(p)(2)(A)(iii) or (iv), it is proposed to amend § 191.3(a)(4) accordingly.
Conversely, § 191.3(b)(2) of the Customs Regulations lists the types of duties and fees that are not subject to
For the reasons stated above, it is proposed that this provision be amended to include an exception for merchandise processing fees where drawback is claimed for substitution of finished petroleum derivatives pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1313(p)(2)(A)(iii) or (iv).
Section § 191.51(b)(2) of the Customs Regulations sets forth the apportionment calculation to be used when determining the amount of merchandise processing fee eligible for drawback. It is proposed to amend § 191.51(b)(2) to include reference to drawback for substitution of finished petroleum derivatives pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1313(p)(2)(A)(iii) or (iv).
Finally, it is proposed to amend § 191.171 of the Customs Regulations, which describes the drawback allowance for substitution of finished petroleum derivatives, to add a new subsection (c) which sets forth the conditions when merchandise processing fees will be eligible for drawback pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1313(p)(2)(A)(iii) or (iv).
Before adopting this proposal as a final rule, consideration will be given to any written comments timely submitted to CBP, including comments on the clarity of this proposed rule and how it may be made easier to understand. Comments submitted will be available for public inspection in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and § 103.11(b) of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR § 103.11(b)), on regular business days between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at the Regulations Branch, Office of Regulations and Rulings, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, 799 9th St., NW., Washington, DC. Arrangements to inspect submitted comments should be made in advance by calling Mr. Joseph Clark at (202) 572-8768.
Because these proposed regulatory changes conform the Customs Regulations to reflect the full scope of a recent decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, pursuant to the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
The principal author of this document was Ms. Suzanne Kingsbury, Office of Regulations and Rulings, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection. However, personnel from other offices participated in its development.
Claims, Commerce, Customs duties and inspection, Drawback.
For the reasons stated above, it is proposed to amend part 191 of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR part 191) as follows:
1. The general authority citation for part 191 continues to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 23, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1313, 1624.
2. Section 191.3(a)(4) and (b)(2) are revised, and the introductory texts of paragraphs (a) and (b) are republished to read as follows:
(a) Duties and fees subject to drawback include:
(4) Merchandise processing fees (see § 24.23 of this chapter) for merchandise subject to unused merchandise drawback pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1313(j), or merchandise subject to drawback for substitution of finished petroleum derivatives pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1313(p)(2)(A)(iii) or (iv).
(b) Duties and fees not subject to drawback include:
(2) Merchandise processing fees (see § 24.23 of this chapter), except where unused merchandise drawback pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1313(j) or drawback for substitution of finished petroleum derivatives pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1313(p)(2)(A)(iii) or (iv) is claimed; and
3. In § 191.51, paragraph (b)(2) is revised to read as follows:
(b)
(2)
4. In § 191.171, a new paragraph (c) is added to read as follows:
(c)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to take action to make certain fuel testing requirements more consistent and up-to-date by having refiners and laboratories use the most current version of an American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) analytical test method.
Specifically, we are proposing to update an ASTM designated analytical test method, ASTM D 1319 to the most recent 2002a version which if adopted will supersede earlier versions of this method in EPA's motor vehicle fuel
The Agency must receive comments or a request for public hearing by November 3, 2003.
If you wish to submit comments or request a public hearing, you should send any written materials to the docket address listed and to Joe Sopata, Chemist, Transportation & Regional Programs Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. (6406J), Washington, DC 20460; or by e-mail to
If you would like further information about this rule or to request a hearing, contact Joe Sopata, Chemist, Transportation & Regional Programs Division, (202) 564-9034.
The contents of today's preamble are listed in the following outline.
Entities potentially affected by this action include those involved with the production, importation, distribution, sale and storage of gasoline motor fuel and diesel motor fuel.
The table below gives some examples of entities that may have to comply with the regulations. However, since these are only examples, you should carefully examine these and other existing regulations in 40 CFR part 80. If you have any questions, please call the person listed in the
Refiners, importers and oxygenate blenders producing gasoline and diesel motor vehicle fuel are required to test Reformulated Gasoline (RFG), Conventional Gasoline (CG) and diesel fuel for various fuel parameters including olefins, and aromatics. ASTM test method D1319 is currently a designated test method for measuring olefins
On February 26, 2002, the Agency published a final rule entitled “Regulation of Fuel and Fuel Additives: Reformulated Gasoline Transition.”
Recently, David Bradley, the ASTM Director of Committee D02 for Petroleum Products and Lubricants, said in a letter to EPA that ASTM has updated test method D1319 to a 2002 year version.
In addition to updating our regulations to allow for the use of ASTM D 1319-02a for determining olefins in gasoline (discussed above), we are also today proposing to allow use of the newest version of D1319 for determination of aromatics content in RFG and CG (as an alternative method) and in determining aromatics content in diesel motor fuel. Previous versions of ASTM D1319 were allowed for determining aromatic content under previous rulemakings.
Table 1 lists the designated analytical test methods and alternative analytical test methods which are being updated for parameters measured under RFG, CG, and diesel fuels program in today's action. We have reviewed the 2002a version of ASTM test method D 1319 and we are in agreement with its revisions. We believe that the revisions in ASTM D 1319-02a are not significant changes that would cause a user of an older version of the same method to incur significant costs. All of the revisions were deemed necessary by ASTM so that improvements in the test method's procedures would ensure better operation for the user of the test method. By updating ASTM D 1319 to the 2002a version for all three of these applications, the required analytical methodologies will be more consistent, making it easier for manufacturers of gasoline and diesel fuel to utilize the ASTM technique for all fuels and properties being tested.
In the “Final Rules” section of today's
Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of 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.”
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, we have determined that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action.
This action does not add any new requirements involving the collection of information as defined by the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that has not more than 1,500 employees (13 CFR 121.201); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, we believe that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We have determined that no small entities will experience an impact from this proposal. ASTM test method D 1319 is currently a designated test method for measuring olefins in gasoline and aromatics in diesel fuel and is also allowed as an alternative test method for measuring aromatics in gasoline (see citations above in Section II.A). Because rules were adopted at different points in time, the regulations currently cite three different versions of ASTM D 1319 (published in three different years) for these applications. Currently, if a small entity produces both gasoline and diesel fuel, and it relies on ASTM D 1319 for determining compliance with the fuel parameters mentioned above, it must maintain three different versions of ASTM D 1319. These proposed updates allow for more consistent use of the same methodology across EPA motor vehicle fuel regulations, thus increasing flexibility for small entities who manufacture gasoline or diesel fuel. Thus this proposed rule is expected to reduce operating costs for all parties, including small entities.
Although this proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA has nonetheless tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. If the Agency receives no adverse comment or request for public hearing on this proposed rule, these test method changes will be effective sixty (60) days after publication of this proposed rules corresponding direct final rule in the
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
Today's proposed rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. The rule would impose no enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. This rule applies to gasoline refiners, blenders and importers that supply gasoline or diesel fuel.
Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”
This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This proposed rule updates an ASTM test method to its most recent version. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from State and local officials.
Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.”
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and
Executive Order 13045: “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.
This proposed rule is not an economically “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it does not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. EPA is allowing additional flexibility and streamlining the regulations by updating an ASTM test method to its most current version for three applications under its motor vehicle programs.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
This rule will update an ASTM test method which is a designated analytical test method for two applications and an alternative test method for one application to its most recent ASTM version. Today's action does not establish new technical standards or analytical test methods, although it does update an ASTM test method to its most current version. To the extent that this action would allow the use of standards developed by voluntary consensus bodies (such as ASTM) this action would further the objectives of the NTTAA.
Statutory authority for today's proposed rule comes from sections 211(c), 211(i) and 211(k) of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7545(c) and (k)). Sections 211(c) and 211(i) allow EPA to regulate fuels that contribute to air pollution which endangers public health or welfare, or which impairs emission control equipment. Section 211(k) prescribes requirements for RFG and conventional gasoline and requires EPA to promulgate regulations establishing these requirements. Additional support for the fuels controls in today's rule comes from sections 114(a) and 301(a) of the CAA.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Diesel, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; correction.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published in the
Margaret Sheppard. Before October 16, 2003, contact Ms. Sheppard by telephone at (202) 564-9163, by fax at (202) 565-2141, by e-mail at
The Environmental Protection Agency published in the
In the proposed rule, FR Doc. 03-75043, published on June 3, 2003, in the “Supplementary Information” section make the following corrections:
1. On page 33286 at the top of the third column, the chemical name for HCFC-141b is corrected to read “1,1-dichloro-1-fluoroethane.”
2. On page 33286 on the 8th line down from the top of the third column, the chemical name for HCFC-225cb is corrected to read “1,3-dichloro-1,1,2,2,3-pentafluoropropane.”
3. On page 33286, on the 21st line down from the top of the third column, the chemical name for HFC-365mfc is corrected to read “1,1,1,3,3-pentafluorobutane.”
4. On page 33304, at the bottom of the third column, footnote 15 is corrected to read as follows:
“The recommended AEL for nPB is lower than that for many acceptable solvents (HFEs, ketones, HFCs, HCFC-225ca/cb, hydrocarbons), but is higher or comparable to the AEL for some acceptable solvents (d-limonene, VMSs, dichlorobenzotrifluoride, HCFC-123, methylene chloride, PCBTF). However, a direct comparison between two compounds with different AELs does not necessarily mean that using a compound with a lower AEL is more risky. Actual exposure levels will vary based upon factors other than the AEL, such as emission controls in place, work practices, ventilation, rate of spraying, and vapor pressure of the solvent.”
5. On page 33311, in the first column under the first bullet point, the following sentence appears beginning in the 51st line: “Recent regulations for hazardous air pollutants disallow use of methylene chloride in foam fabrication facilities.” This sentence is corrected to read as follows: “Recent regulations for flexible polyurethane foam fabrication facilities that are major sources of hazardous air pollutants disallow use of methylene chloride-based adhesives at loop slitters and associated equipment used to apply adhesives to bond foam.”
The National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for new and existing sources at flexible polyurethane foam fabrication facilities, published in the
Users of adhesives containing methylene chloride must comply with applicable requirements of the Methylene Chloride Standard issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (29 CFR 1910.1052).
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
This document requests comments on a petition for rulemaking filed jointly by Crossroads Investments, Inc., licensee of Station WSDM-FM, Channel 249A, Brazil, Indiana, and Mid-America Radio of Indiana, Inc., licensee of Station WSKT(FM), Channel 224A, Spencer, Indiana. Parties request the substitution of Channel 224A for Channel 249A at Brazil and modification of the license for Station WSDM-FM accordingly, and the substitution of Channel 249A for Channel 224A at Spencer and modification of the license of Station WSKT(FM) accordingly. Channel 249A can be allotted to Spencer in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a site restriction of 9.5 kilometers (5.9 miles) west of the community at Station WSKT(FM)'s requested site at coordinates 39-15-18 North Latitude and 86-51-51 West Longitude. Additionally, Channel 224A can be allotted to Brazil with a site restriction of 1.8 kilometers (1.1 miles) southwest of the community at Station WSDM-FM's requested site at coordinates 39-30-43 NL and 87-08-19 WL. In accordance with Section 1.420(g)(3) of the Commission's Rules, any party expressing an interest in the respective channels should demonstrate why these proposals are not “incompatible channel swaps” such that their expressions of interest are foreclosed.
Comments must be filed on or before October 27, 2003, and reply comments on or before November 12, 2003.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner's counsel, as follows: Frank R. Jazzo, Anne Goodwin Crump, Fletcher, Heald and Hildreth, PLC, 1300 North 17th Street, Eleventh Floor, Arlington, Virginia 22209.
Victoria McCauley, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 03-192 adopted September 3, 2003, and released September 5, 2003. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractors, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone (202) 863-2893, or via e-mail
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments,
Radio, Radio broadcasting.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.
2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Indiana, is amended by removing Channel 249A and adding Channel 224A at Brazil and by removing Channel 224A and adding Channel 249A at Spencer.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
This document requests comments on a petition for rulemaking filed by Benjamin Stratemeyer, licensee of Station WIBV(FM), Mount Vernon, Illinois, requesting the reallotment of Channel 271B1 from Mount Vernon to Okawville, Illinois, as the community's first local aural transmission service, and modification of the license of Station WIBV(FM) to reflect the change of community. The proposal also requires the reclassification of Station KEZK-FM, St. Louis, Missouri, Channel 273C to specify operation on Channel 273C0 pursuant to the reclassification procedures adopted by the Commission.
Comments must be filed on or before October 30, 2003, and reply comments on or before November 14, 2003. Any counterproposal filed in this proceeding need only protect Station KEZK(FM), St. Louis, Missouri, as a Class C0 allotment.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner's counsel, and Station KEZK(FM) as follows: Clifford M. Harrington, Esq., Dawn M. Scarrino, Esq., Collette M. Capretz, Esq., Shaw Pittman, LLP, 2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC 20037-1128; Infinity Radio Subsidiary Operations Inc., 2000 K Street NW., Suite 725, Washington, DC 20006.
Victoria McCauley, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 03-196 adopted September 3, 2003, and released September 8, 2003. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 Twelfth Street SW., Washington, DC. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractors, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone (202) 863-2893, or via e-mail
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments,
Radio, Radio broadcasting.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.
2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Illinois is amended by removing Channel 271B1 at Mount Vernon and adding Okawville, Channel 271B1.
3. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Missouri is amended by removing Channel 273C and adding Channel 273C0 at St. Louis.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a special one-day Council meeting on October 21, 2003, to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 21, 2003, and will begin at 9 a.m.
The meeting will be held at the Holiday Inn, One Newbury Street, Peabody, MA 01960; telephone (978) 535-4600. Requests for special accommodations should be addressed to the New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950; telephone (978) 465-0492.
Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, (978) 465-0492.
Following introductions, the Council will review, consider and respond to comments submitted in response to Draft Amendment 13 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan and its Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Final
Although other non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided that the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard (see
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement; correction.
The Forest Service published a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement for the Blackhall-McAnulty Timber Sale, Prescribed Burn and Travel Management Analysis in the
Terry DeLay, Brush Creek/Hayden Ranger District, P.O. Box 249, Saratoga, WY 82331, 307-326-2518.
In the
Scott G. Armentrout, District Ranger, Brush Creek/Hayden Ranger District, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland, South Highway 130, Saratoga, Wyoming 82331, is the official responsible for making the decision on this action. He will document his decision and rationale in a Record of Decision.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.
Notice to solicit nominees.
The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) is announcing that nominations are being sought for persons to serve on GIPSA's Grain Inspection Advisory Committee.
Form AD-755 must be received not later than December 1, 2003.
Completed AD-755 forms should be submitted to GIPSA at 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 3601, Washington, DC 20250-3601. The completed form may also be faxed to GIPSA.
Under authority of section 21 of the United States Grain Standards Act (Act), as amended, the Secretary of Agriculture established the Grain Inspection Advisory Committee (Advisory Committee) on September 29, 1981, to provide advice to the Administrator on implementation of the Act. Section 109 of the Grain Standards and Warehouse Improvement Act of 2000, Pub. L. 106-472, extended the authority for the Advisory Committee through September 30, 2005.
The Advisory Committee presently consists of 15 members, appointed by the Secretary, who represent the interests of grain producers, processors, handlers, merchandisers, consumers, and exporters, and includes scientists with expertise in research related to the policies in section 2 of the Act. Members of the Advisory Committee serve without compensation. They are reimbursed for travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, for travel away from their homes or regular places of business in performance of Advisory Committee service, as authorized under section 5703 of Title 5, United States Code. Alternatively, travel expenses may be paid by Committee members.
Nominations are being sought for persons to serve on the Advisory Committee to replace the five members and the five alternate members whose terms will expire March 2004.
Persons interested in serving on the Advisory Committee, or in nominating individuals to serve, should contact: GIPSA, by telephone (tel: 202-205-8281), fax (fax: 202-205-4714), or electronic mail (e-mail:
Nominations are open to all individuals without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, marital status, or sexual orientation. To ensure that recommendations of the Committee take into account the needs of the diverse groups served by the Department, membership shall include, to the extent practicable, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent minorities, women, and persons with disabilities.
The final selection of Advisory Committee members and alternates will be made by the Secretary.
Proposed collection; comment request.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to
Written comments must be submitted on or before December 1, 2003.
Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Erica Filipek, Census Bureau, Room 2105, FOB 4, Washington, DC 20233-6900, (301) 763-5161 (or via the Internet at
The Census Bureau plans to request a three year extension of a currently approved collection of the Form C-404, Building Permits Survey. The Census Bureau produces statistics used to monitor activity in the large and dynamic construction industry. Given the importance of this industry, several of the statistical series are key economic indicators. Two such series are (a) Housing Units Authorized by Building Permits and (b) Housing Starts. Both are based on data from samples of permit-issuing places. These statistics help state and local governments and the Federal Government, as well as private industry, to analyze this important sector of the economy.
The Census Bureau uses Form C-404 to collect data to provide estimates of the number and valuation of new residential housing units authorized by building permits. We use the data, a component of the index of leading economic indicators, to estimate the number of housing units started, completed, and sold, if single-family, and to select samples for the Census Bureau's demographic surveys. Policymakers, planners, businessmen/women, and others use the detailed geographic data collected from state and local officials on new residential construction authorized by building permits to monitor growth and plan for local services and to develop production and marketing plans. The Building Permits Survey is the only source of statistics on residential construction for states and smaller geographic areas. Building permits are public records so the information is not subject to disclosure restrictions.
The Census Bureau collects this information by mail and electronically through files we download or receive on diskettes or via e-mail.
Monthly, we currently collect this information by mail for about 8,170 permit-issuing jurisdictions and electronically for 550 jurisdictions. Annually, we collect this information by mail for about 10,180 jurisdictions. The universe for the survey will be updated in January 2004 from about 18,900 jurisdictions to 19,600 jurisdictions. A new monthly sample will also be introduced. Monthly data for 2004 will be collected for both the old and the new monthly samples. For 2004, we plan to collect monthly data for about 10,600 permit-issuing jurisdictions (at least 560 electronically), and to collect annual data for about 9,000 jurisdictions. The sample overlap will end in January 2005, thereafter, we will collect monthly data for about 8,600 jurisdictions (at least 560 electronically) and annual data for about 11,000 jurisdictions.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Economic Development Administration (EDA).
To give all interested parties an opportunity to comment.
Petitions have been accepted for filing on the dates indicated from the firms listed below.
The petitions were submitted pursuant to Section 251 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2341). Consequently, the United States Department of Commerce has initiated separate investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each firm contributed importantly to total or partial separation of the firm's workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm. Any party having a substantial interest in the proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A request for a hearing must be received by Trade Adjustment Assistance, Room 7315, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than the close of business of the tenth calendar day following the publication of this notice.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official program number and title of the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance.
Proposed collection; comment request.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
Written comments must be submitted on or before December 1, 2003.
Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 or via the Internet at
Request for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to: Nicole Bankhead, Import Administration, Office of Policy, Room 3713, 14th & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; Phone number: (202) 482-8221, and fax number: (202) 501-7952.
The International Trade Administration, Import Administration, AD/CVD Enforcement, implements the U.S. antidumping and countervailing duty law. Import Administration investigates allegations of unfair trade practices by foreign governments and producers and, in conjunction with the U.S. International Trade Commission, can impose duties on the product in question to offset the unfair practices. Form ITA-366P—Format for Petition Requesting Relief Under the U.S. Countervailing Duty Law—is designed for U.S. companies or industries that are unfamiliar with the Countervailing law and the petition process. The Form is designed for potential petitioners that believe a foreign competitor is being subsidized unfairly. Since a variety of detailed information is required under the law before initiation of a countervailing duty investigation, the Form is designed to extract such information in the least burdensome manner possible.
Form ITA-366P is sent by request to potential U.S. petitioners.
Comments are invited on (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A).
Written comments must be submitted on or before December 1, 2003.
Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, Herbert Hoover Building, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instruction should be directed to JoAnne M. Surette, Baldrige National Quality Program, Administration Building, Room 621, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 1020, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1020; telephone (301) 975-5267, fax (301) 948-3716, e-mail
The Department of Commerce is responsible for the Baldrige National Quality Program and the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), an agency of the Department's Technology Administration, manages the Baldrige Program. Applicants for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award are required to perform two steps: (1) The applicant organization certifies that it meets eligibility requirements; (2) the applicant organization prepares and completes an application form and the application process. The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award Program Office will assist with or offer advice on any questions or issues that the applicant may have concerning the eligibility process or in completing the self-certification forms. NIST will use the application package to assess and provide feedback on the applicant's quality and performance practices.
Applicants must comply in writing according to the Baldrige Award Application Forms booklet.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they will also become a matter of public record.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings and hearings.
The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) will meet on Tuesday, October 14, 2003, through Wednesday October 16, 2003; and the Council will hold its 120th meeting from Monday October 20, 2003 through Thursday October 23, 2003, in Honolulu, HI. (see
The SSC meeting will be held at the Council Office Conference Room, 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI; telephone: (808) 522-8220. The Council meeting will be held at Pagoda Hotel, Cest'Si Bon Room, 1525 Rycroft Street, Honolulu, HI 96814; telephone (808) 941-6611.
Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director; telephone: 808-522-8220.
The SSC meeting will be held from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on October 14, 2003, and from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. on October 15-16, 2003.
1. Introductions
2. Approval of draft agenda and assignment of rapporteur
3. Approval of the minutes of the 83rd meeting
4. Bottomfish
A. Stock assessment workshop
B. Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI) catch data project
C. Genetic research proposal
D. Status of MHI area closure review
E. Report on MHI scoping meeting
F. Seamount groundfish moratorium
5. Protected species
A. Status of Sea Turtle Recovery Team and Recovery Plans
B. Observer programs: objectives and design
6. Crustaceans fisheries
A. Report on Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) 2003 lobster research cruise
B. Results of September lobster tagging charter
C. Application of lobster research in stock assessment model
7. Precious Corals
A. Report on MHI black coral meeting
8. Pelagic Fisheries
A. American Samoa and Hawaii Longline Quarterly Reports
B. Tuna and billfish stock assessments
C. Final Report on phase two of chute trials for seabird conservation
D. Turtle conservation and management
a. Update on Judge Kotelly's ruling vacating the June 2002 regulations and 2002 Biological Opinion
b. Movement and survivorship of turtles released from Longline fisheries
c. Status of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
i. Supplemental Pelagic EIS
ii. MHI Turtle EIS
iii. Longline Experimental Permit EIS
1. Preferred alternative
2. Atlantic mitigation experiments
d. Turtle Advisory Committee & Database meetings
e. Council turtle conservation actions
f. Measures to manage Hawaii's Longline fishery
E. Marlin management
a. Report on public scoping meetings
b. Marlin tagging project
F. Private fish aggregation devices
G. Shark management
H. Report on international meetings and issues
a. Standing Committee on Tuna and Billfish
b. Predatory conference
c. People and the Sea Conference
d. Inter-American Convention on Sea Turtles
Ecosystem and Habitat
A. Northwestern Hawaiian Islands/Mariana Islands Archipelagic Ecological Assessments
B. NWHI Sanctuary designation progress report
C. Report on the State of Hawaii papio and ulua tagging project
10. Other business
A. Draft Pacific Islands Region Strategic Plan - Research
B. 85th SSC meeting
11. Summary of SSC Recommendations to the Council
The following Standing Committees of the Council will meet on Monday, October 20, 2003. Enforcement/Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) from 7:30 a.m. to 9 a.m.; Fishery Rights of Indigenous People from 7:30 a.m. to 9 a.m.; International Fisheries/Pelagics from 9 a.m. to 12 noon; Bottomfish from 9 a.m. to 12 noon; Ecosystem and Habitat from 1:30 p.m. to 3 p.m.; Crustaceans and Precious Corals from 3 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.; and Executive/Budget and Program from 4:30 p.m. to 6 p.m.
In addition, the Council will hear recommendations from its scientific and statistical committee, and other ad hoc groups. Public comment periods will be provided throughout the agenda. The order in which agenda items are addressed may change. The Council will meet as late as necessary to complete scheduled business.
Public hearing will be held to solicit comments on long-term management measures for the region's pelagic fishery on October 22, 2003 at 4:30 p.m. at the Pagoda Hotel, Honolulu HI. The agenda during the full Council meeting will include the items listed here.
1. Introductions
2. Approval of agenda
3. Approval of 118th and 119th meeting minutes
4. Island reports
A. American Samoa
B. Guam
C. Hawaii
D. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)
5. Reports from fishery agencies and organizations
A. Department of Commerce
a. NMFS
i. Pacific Islands Regional Office
ii. Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center
b. NOAA General Counsel Southwest Region
c. National Ocean Service
B. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
6. Enforcement/vessel monitoring system (VMS)
A. U.S. Coast Guard activities
B. NMFS activities
C. Enforcement activities of local agencies
D. Status of violations
E. Report on national VMS program and policies
F. Options for using electronic logbooks for Hawaii longline fishery
Guest Speaker: Ueta Fa'asili Strategic plan for fisheries management and sustainable coastal fisheries in Pacific islands
7. Observer programs
A. Objectives and design
B. Monitoring and compliance policy
C. Native observer program
8. Precious coral fisheries
A. Report on precious coral industry meeting black coral minimum size
9. Crustaceans fisheries
A. Status of lobster research
a. Report on the 2003 Annual Lobster Resource Cruise
b. Report on the 2003 Lobster Tagging Charter
B. Progress on NWHI lobster population model
10. Fishery Rights of indigenous peoples
A. Revision of CNMI marine conservation plan
B. Status and prognosis of community demonstration projects program
C. Community Development Program (CDP)
a. Status of Mau Zone CDP regulations
b. Indigenous database
c. Guam community monitoring program options
D. Saltonstall-Kennedy solicitation, June 30, 2003, Omnibus solicitation
11. Pelagic/international fisheries
A. American Samoa & Hawaii longline quarterly reports
B. Standing Committee on Tuna and Billfish stock assessments
C. Report on Hawaii longline observer program
D. Final report on phase two of chute trials for seabird conservation
E. Turtle conservation and management
a. Update on Judge Kollar-Kotelly's ruling vacating the June 2002 regulations and 2002 Biological Opinion
b. Movement and survivorship of turtles released from longline fisheries
c. Status of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs)
i. Supplemental Pelagic EIS
ii. MHI Turtle EIS
iii. Longline experimental permit EIS
1. Preferred alternative
2. Atlantic mitigation experiments
d. Turtle Advisory Committee & Database meetings
e. Council turtle conservation actions
f. Measures to manage Hawaii's longline fishery
F. Marlin management - Report on public scoping meeting
G. Private fish aggregation devices - Report on public scoping meetings
H. Shark management (Action Item)
I. International meetings
a. Standing Committee on Tuna and Billfish
b. Preparatory Conference
c. People and the Sea Conference
d. Inter-American Convention on Sea Turtles
J. Public hearing on measures to manage the Hawaii longline fishery
A public hearing will be held to receive comments on long-term management of the pelagic fishery of the Western Pacific Region, especially the Hawaii-based longline fishery. The Council is developing an amendment to the regulations under the Fishery Management Plan for the Pelagics Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region that would address the fact that an August 31, 2003, Court order vacated NMFS' 2002 Biological Opinion and related regulations, removing any authorization of incidental takes of sea turtles by the fishery that had been provided by the Biological Opinion. At its 119th meeting, the Council took final action to recommend an emergency rule for the short-term management of the longline fishery to conserve sea turtles, and also directed its staff to analyze and document the impacts of a range of alternatives for the long-term management of the fishery. At its 120th meeting, the Council may take final action to recommend a preferred long-term alternative, or it may defer that decision to a later date.
12. Ecosystems and Habitat
A. NWHI/CNMI Archipelago Ecological Assessments
B. Status of NWHI Reserve Operations Plan
C. NWHI Sanctuary designation process report
D. Pacific National Wildlife Refuge expansion
a. Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge expansion
b. Hawaiian Island National Wildlife Refuge expansion proposal
E. Report on the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force meeting
a. Pacific regional/local action strategies
b. Guam/Hawaii coral reef fisheries management workshops
13. Bottomfish fisheries
A. Report on MHI management program review
B. Report on Hawaii public scoping meetings
C. Report on CNMI public scoping meetings
D. Seamount groundfish moratorium (expires 8/04)
1. Status of fishery
2. Management options: continue moratorium, closure, other
14. Program planning
A. Legislation
B. Pacific Islands Region Strategic Plan
C. CNMI fishery development project
D. Report on programmatic grants
15. Administrative matters
A. Financial reports
B. Administrative report
C. Meetings and workshops
D. Advisory Group changes
16. Election of officers
17. Other business
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before the Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal Council action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issue arising after publication of this document that requires emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, 808-522-8220 (voice) or (808)522-8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
1801
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).
Issuing a directive to the Commissioner, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection.
October 2, 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 Web site at
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.
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 May 12, 2003, 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, produced or manufactured in Vietnam and exported during the twelve-month period which began on May 1, 2003 and extends through December 31, 2003.
Effective on October 2, 2003, you are directed to adjust the limits for the following categories, as provided for under the terms of the current bilateral textile agreement between the Governments of the United States and Vietnam:
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,
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).
Issuing a directive to the Commissioner, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection.
October 2, 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.
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 May 12, 2003, 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, produced or manufactured in Vietnam and exported during the twelve-month period which began on May 1, 2003 and extends through December 31, 2003.
Effective on October 2, 2003, you are directed to adjust the limits for the following categories, as provided for under the terms of the current bilateral textile agreement between the Governments of the United States and Vietnam:
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,
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs.
Notice.
In accordance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs announced the proposed extension of a currently approved collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed extension of 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 information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to all comments received on or before December 1, 2003.
Written comments and recommendations on the information collection should be sent to TRICARE Management Activity—Aurora, Office of Program Requirements Division, 16401 E. Centretech Parkway, ATTN: Graham Kolb, Aurora, CO 80011-9043.
To request more information on this proposed information collection, please write to the above address or call TRICARE Management Activity, Office of Program Requirements Division at (303) 676-3580.
This collection instrument is for is for use by health care providers under the TRICARE Program. TRICARE is a health benefits entitlement program for the dependents of active duty Uniformed Services member and deceased sponsors, retirees and their dependents, dependents of Department of Transportation (Coast Guard) sponsors, and certain North Atlantic Treaty Organizations, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Public Health Service eligible beneficiaries. The Form HCFA 1500 is used by individual professional health care or health care related providers to file for reimbursement of civilian health care services or supplies provided to TRICARE beneficiaries. This is the national standard claim from accepted by all major commercial and government payers.
Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA).
Open meeting notice.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Appendix 2 of title 5, United States Code, Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that a meeting of the Advisory Council on Dependents' Education (ACDE) is scheduled to be held on October 3,2003, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. The meeting will be held at the Hotel Oranien Wiesbaden, Platter Strasse 2, Wiesbaden, Germany. The purpose of the ACDE is to recommend to the Director, DoDEA, general policies for the operation of the Department of Defense Dependents Schools (DoDDS); to provide the Director with information about effective educational programs and practices that should be considered by DoDDS; and to perform other tasks as may be required by the Secretary of Defense. The meeting emphases will be on the current operational qualities of 15 schools in DoDDS, the institutionalized school improvement processes in DoDDS and other educational matters. For further information contact Mr. Jim Jarrard, at 703-696-4471, extension 1964.
Department of Defense.
Notice of advisory committee meetings.
The Defense Science Board Task Force on Enabling Joint Force Capabilities will tentatively meet in closed session October 24, 2003, at IDA, 4850 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA; and October 30, 2003, at Joint Forces Command, Norfolk, VA. This Task Force will review the current state of assigned responsibilities and accountability for joint capabilities to quickly bring combat forces together and focus them on joint objectives across a wide spectrum of possible contingencies and will help identify unfilled needs and areas where assigned responsibility and accountability calls for further clarification and/or organizational arrangements.
The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At these meetings, the Defense Science Board Task Force will identify specific characteristics and examples of organizations that could be capable of accepting responsibility and accountability for delivering the capability with needed responsiveness, and will recommend further steps to strengthen the joint structure ability to quickly integrate service-provided force capabilities into effective joint forces.
In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, P.L. No. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II), it has been determined that the Defense Science Board Task Force meetings concern matters listed in 5 U.S.C. § 552b(c)(1) and that, accordingly, the meetings will be closed to the public.
Department of Defense.
Notice of advisory committee meeting.
The Defense Science Board Task Force on Quarantining Guidance for the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) Epidemic will meet in open session October 27, 2003, from 0930-1200 and from 1300-1500. The Task Force will meet at SAIC, 4001 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 500, Arlington, VA. The Task Force will review the impact quarantining may have on DoD planning and operations by preventing the flow of personnel and material to areas of concern, eroding relationships with host countries, and impacting our forces through anxieties about family members.
The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At this meeting, the Defense Science Board Task Force will review and evaluate the Department's ability to provide information to integrate public health needs, on behalf of national security. Specifically, the Task Force will review: Existing doctrine and processes by which quarantine policy is generated; required cooperation with non-DoD
CDR David Waugh, USN, Defense Science Board, 3140 Defense Pentagon, Room 3D865, Washington, DC 20301-3140, via email at
Members of the public who wish to attend the meeting must contact CDR Waugh no later than October 20, 2003, for further information about admission as seating is limited. Additionally, those who wish to make oral comments or deliver written comments should also request to be scheduled, and submit a written text of the comments by October 20, 2003, to allow time for distribution to Task Force members prior to the meeting. Individual oral comments will be limited to five minutes, with the total oral comment period not exceeding 30 minutes.
Department of the Navy, DOD.
Notice of record of decision, correction.
The Department of the Navy published a Notice in the
Mr. Fred Pierson, Atlantic Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command (Code BD32FP), 6506 Hampton Blvd., Norfolk, VA 23508-1278, telephone (757) 322-4935.
In the
On page 53355, in the third column, fourth paragraph, add the following statements for additional clarification to the end of the paragraph:
The Class D airspace will extend approximately five miles laterally from the OLF from the surface up to and including 2,500 feet above ground level. Establishment of Class D airspace is contingent upon results of an FAA Airspace Study. No military Special Use Airspace (SUA) will be established.
The revised version of the Record of Decision will also appear in the administrative record.
Department of Education.
The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before November 3, 2003.
Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Karen Lee, Desk Officer, Department of Education, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or should be electronically mailed to the internet address
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested,
This information collection is being submitted under the Streamlined Clearance Process for Discretionary Grant Information Collections (1890-0001). Therefore, the 30-day public comment period notice will be the only public comment notice published for this information collection.
Requests for copies of the submission for OMB review; comment request may
Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Sheila Carey at her e-mail address
Department of Education.
The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before November 3, 2003.
Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Karen Lee, Desk Officer, Department of Education, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or should be electronically mailed to the Internet address
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested,
Requests for copies of the submission for OMB review; comment request may be accessed from
Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Sheila Carey at her e-mail address
On August 26, 2003, a notice inviting applications for new awards for the Rehabilitation Training: Rehabilitation Long-Term Training program for FY 2004 was published in the
On page 51263, in column two, 2nd line, in the list after CFDA No:, add “84.129P,” after “84.129F,”.
On page 51263 in the chart after 84.129F, add the following: “84.129P”, “Specialized personnel for rehabilitation of individuals who are blind or have vision impairment (4)”, and “$100,000” under the headings CFDA number, Priority area (maximum number of awards in parentheses), and Maximum award, respectively.
On page 51263, in column three, the
On page 51264, in column one, under the heading
On page 51264, in column three, under the heading
You may also contact ED Pubs at its Web site:
Or you may contact ED Pubs at its e-mail address:
If you request an application from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this competition as follows: CFDA number 84.129C, E, F, P, Q, or R.
Marilyn Fountain, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3332, Switzer Building, Washington, DC 20202-2649. Telephone: (202) 205-8294 or via Internet:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format (
Individuals with disabilities may obtain a copy of the application package in an alternative format by contacting the Grants and Contracts Services Team, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3317, Switzer Building, Washington, DC 20202-2550. Telephone: (202) 205-8207. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339. However, the Department is not able to reproduce in an alternative format the standard forms included in the application package.
You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.
The official version of this document is the document published in the
29 U.S.C. 772.
Office of Fossil Energy, DOE.
Notice of application.
Manitoba Hydro has applied for authority to export electric energy from the United States to Canada, pursuant to section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act.
Comments, protests or requests to intervene must be submitted on or before November 3, 2003.
Comments, protests or requests to intervene should be addressed as follows: Office of Coal & Power Import/Export (FE-27), Office of Fossil Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0350 (FAX 202-287-5736).
Rosalind Carter (Program Office) 202-586-7983 or Michael Skinker (Program Attorney) 202-586-2793.
Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated and require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)).
On September 2, 2003, Manitoba Hydro, a Canadian Crown Corporation, applied to the Office of Fossil Energy, of the Department of Energy (DOE) for authority to export electric energy from the Unites States to Canada. Manitoba Hydro engages in the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity primarily in the Province of Manitoba, Canada. Manitoba Hydro does not own, control, or operate any generation, transmission or other facilities in the United States and does not sell power at wholesale within the United States. Manitoba Hydro is not a public utility subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
The type of export transactions that Manitoba Hydro proposes in FE Docket No. EA-281 include: (1) Purchasing electric energy in Canada and wheeling the energy through facilities located in the U.S. and exporting the energy back to Canada to itself or to third parties in Canada and/or (2) purchasing electric energy in the United States, exporting that energy through facilities within the U.S. and then exporting the energy to itself or third parties in Canada. Manitoba Hydro will arrange for the delivery of exports to Canada over the international transmission facilities owned by Basin Electric Power Cooperative, Bonneville Power Administration, Citizens Utilities, Eastern Maine Electric Cooperative, International Transmission Co., Joint Owners of the Highgate Project, Long Sault, Inc., Maine Electric Power Company, Maine Public Service Company, Minnesota Power, Inc., Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc., New York Power Authority, Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., Northern States Power Company and Vermont Electric Transmission.
The construction of each of the international transmission facilities to be utilized by Manitoba Hydro has previously been authorized by a Presidential permit issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended.
Comments on the Manitoba Hydro application to export electric energy to Canada should be clearly marked with Docket EA-281. Additional copies are to be filed directly with K. Jennifer Moroz, Barrister & Solicitor, Legal Department, Manitoba Hydro, 820 Taylor Avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada R3M 3T1
A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impact has been evaluated pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and a determination is made by the DOE that the proposed action will not adversely impact on the reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system.
Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above or by accessing the Fossil Energy Home Page at
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (BESAC). Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
Monday, October 20, 2003, 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., and Tuesday, October 21, 2003, 8:30 a.m. to 12 p.m.
Doubletree Hotel and Executive Meeting Center, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.
Sharon Long; Office of Basic Energy Sciences; U.S. Department of Energy; 19901 Germantown Road; Germantown, MD 20874-1290; Telephone: (301) 903-5565.
Tentative Agenda: Agenda will include discussions of the following:
Monday, October 20, 2003.
• News from the Office of Science.
• News from the Office of Basic Energy Sciences.
• Basic Energy Sciences Hydrogen Workshop Follow-up and Related Activities.
• Summary of the Chemical Sciences, Geosciences, and Biosciences Division.
• Update of the Linac Coherent Light Source.
• Update and Status of the Spallation Neutron Source.
• BESAC Charges and Directions, Tuesday, October 21, 2003.
• Review of Recent DOE and National Studies on High-end Computing.
• BESAC Discussion.
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Fernald. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
Thursday, October 21, 2003, 7 p.m.-9 p.m.
Fernald Closure Project Site, 7400 Willey Road, Trailer 214, Hamilton, OH 45013-9402.
Doug Sarno, The Perspectives Group, Inc., 1055 North Fairfax Street, Suite 204, Alexandria, VA 22314, at (703) 837-1197, or e-mail:
Purpose of the Board: The Board is to make recommendations to DOE in areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No.
Monday, November 3, 2003, 9:15 a.m. to 6 p.m.; Tuesday, November 4, 2003, 9 a.m. to 1 p.m.
Crowne Plaza Hotel, 1489 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202.
Mr. Mark Roth, Designated Federal Officer, Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee, U.S. Department of Energy, NE-20, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington DC 20585, Telephone Number 301-903-5501, E-mail:
Office of Fossil Energy, DOE.
Notice of application.
Sharyland Utilities, L.P. (Sharyland) has applied for a Presidential permit to construct, connect, operate, and maintain a single-circuit, 138,000-volt (138-kV) alternating current electric transmission line across the U.S. border with Mexico.
Comments, protests, or requests to intervene must be submitted on or before November 3, 2003.
Comments, protests, or requests to intervene should be addressed as follows: Office of Coal & Power Import and Export (FE-27), Office of Fossil Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0350.
Ellen Russell (Program Office) 202-586-9624 or Michael T. Skinker (Program Attorney) 202-586-6667.
The construction, operation, maintenance, and connection of facilities at the international border of the United States for the transmission of electric energy between the United States and a foreign country is prohibited in the absence of a Presidential permit issued pursuant to Executive Order (EO) 10485, as amended by EO 12038.
On September 11, 2003, Sharyland filed an application with the Office of Fossil Energy(FE) of the Department of Energy (DOE) for a Presidential permit. Sharyland is a transmission and distribution service provider operating within a 6,000-acre master-planned community called Sharyland Plantation, situated between the cities of McAllen and Mission, Texas, along the border between the United States and Mexico.
Sharyland proposes to develop a single-circuit 138-kV transmission line in two phases. In the first phase Sharyland would tap an existing 138-kV transmission facility also owned by Sharyland, construct a 150-megawatt (MW) back-to-back alternating current/direct current/alternating current converter station in the immediate vicinity of the tap, and construct approximately one mile of 138-kV transmission line to the Mexico-U.S. border near the southern boundary of the City of Mission, Texas. At the border the facilities would interconnect with similar facilities owned by Comision Federal de Electricidad (CFE), the national electric utility of Mexico, and continue an additional five miles to CFE's Cumbres substation located approximately 6 miles from the City of Reynosa, Tamaulipas, Mexico. In the second phase, Sharyland would expand the converter facility to a capacity of 300 MW. Sharyland proposes to operate the transmission line as an “open access” facility available for use by other parties to transfer electric power between the United States and Mexico. Sharyland does not intend to seek an electricity export authorization from DOE.
Since the restructuring of the electric power industry began, resulting in the introduction of different types of competitive entities into the marketplace, DOE has consistently expressed its policy that cross-border trade in electric energy should be subject to the same principles of comparable open access and non-discrimination that apply to transmission in interstate commerce. DOE has stated that policy in export authorization granted to entities requesting authority to export over international transmission facilities. Specifically, DOE expects transmitting utilities owning border facilities constructed pursuant to Presidential permits to provide access across the border in accordance with the principles of comparable open access and non-discrimination contained in the FPA and articulated in Federal Energy Regulation Commission Order No. 888, as amended (Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-Discriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities). In furtherance of this policy, DOE intends to condition any Presidential permit issued in this proceeding on compliance with these open access principles.
Additional copies of such petitions to intervene or protest also should be filed directly with Mark E. Caskey P.E., General Manager, Sharyland Utilities, L.P., 4403 West Military Highway, Suite 700, McAllen, TX 78503 AND Richard P. Noland, James M. Bushee, Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP, 1275 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004-2415.
Before a Presidential permit may be issued or amended, the DOE must determine that the proposed action will not adversely impact on the reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system. In addition, DOE must consider the environmental impacts of the proposed action (
The NEPA compliance process is a cooperative, non-adversarial process involving members of the public, state governments and the Federal government. The process affords all persons interested in or potentially affected by the environmental consequences of a proposed action an opportunity to present their views, which will be considered in the preparation of the environmental documentation for the proposed action. Intervening and becoming a party to this proceeding will not create any special status for the petitioner with regard to the NEPA process. To apply for the NEPA mailing list now, contact Mrs. Ellen Russell at the address above.
Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above. In addition, the application may be viewed or downloaded from the Office of Fossil Energy Web site at
Department of Energy.
Notice of Open Meeting.
This notice announces an open meeting of the Biomass Research and Development Technical Advisory Committee under the Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that agencies publish these notices in the
October 23-24, 2003, 8:30 a.m.
Hilton Crystal City Hotel at National Airport, Crystal Room, 2399 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202.
John Ferrell, Designated Federal Officer for the Committee, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585; (202) 586-7766.
• Finalizing recommendations concerning the federal biomass R&D portfolio, reviewing the process and results of the FY 2003 USDA/DOE joint solicitation and providing input on the FY 2004 solicitation, finalizing recommendations to the Secretaries of Agriculture and Energy, providing recommendations to the Biomass R&D Board on the direction of the Biomass Initiative, and developing a committee work plan for FY 2004.
Take notice that on September 15, 2003 subject ANR Pipeline Company (ANR), tendered for filing a service agreement (Agreement) between ANR and Interstate Gas Supply, Inc. pursuant to ANR's Rate Schedule FTS-1.
ANR requests the Commission find that the Agreement contains acceptable material deviations from ANR's Form of Service Agreement and accept the attached tariff sheet which references the Agreement as a non-conforming agreement.
Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with § 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on or before the protest date as shown below. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Take notice that on September 22, 2003, CenterPoint Energy-Mississippi River Transmission Corporation (MRT) tendered for filing has part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, Fiftieth Revised Sheet No. 5; Fiftieth Revised Sheet No. 6; Forty-Eighth Revised Sheet No. 7; and Twentieth Revised Sheet No. 8, effective November 1, 2003.
MRT states that the purpose of this filing is to adjust the Fuel Use and Loss Percentages under its Rate Schedules FTS, SCT, ITS, FSS and ISS.
MRT further states that a copy of this filing is being mailed to each of MRT's customers and to the state Commissions of Arkansas, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri and Texas.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with § 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Take notice that on September 12, 2003, Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation (Columbia), 12801 Fair Lakes Parkway, Fairfax, Virginia 22030-0146, filed in Docket No. CP03-351-000, a request pursuant to Sections 157.205 and 157.208 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR Sections 157.205 and 157.208) for authorization to increase the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of portions of its existing transmission pipeline designated as Line 1655 and Line 136 located in Adams and York Counties, Pennsylvania, under Columbia's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP83-76-000 pursuant to Section 7(C) of the Natural Gas Act, all as more fully set forth in the request.
Copies of this request are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. The application may also be viewed on the Web at
Columbia states that the increased MAOPs are necessary in order to meet its existing contractual obligations. Columbia states further, that to the extent uncommitted capacity becomes available as a result of the uprate, Columbia would post such available capacity in accordance with the applicable provisions of its tariff.
Any questions regarding the application should be directed to Fredric J. George, Senior Attorney, Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation, P.O. Box 1273, Charleston, West Virginia 22030-0146 at (304) 357-2359, fax (304) 357-3206.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper.
If no protest is filed within the time allowed, therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
On September 16, 2003, Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation (Columbia), Energy Corporation of America (ECA), and Eastern American Energy Corporation (EAEC), filed a joint application pursuant to Section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), as amended, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules and Regulations. Columbia requests authorization to abandon by sale to ECA certain facilities located in West Virginia as well as the services currently provided by the facilities. Columbia requests that the facilities be determined to be non-jurisdictional gathering facilities and exempt from the Commission's jurisdiction pursuant to NGA § 7(b). EAEC, a wholly owned subsidiary of ECA and an explorer, developer and producer of oil and natural gas would own and operated the facilities to provide current services, as more fully set forth in the application. This filing is available for review at the Commission or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
The facilities proposed for abandonment by sale are Columbia's 8000 system which consists of some 87.8 miles of jurisdictional pipeline and appurtenances. The proposed sale would also include about 10 miles of non-jurisdictional pipeline. The facilities were constructed by Columbia's predecessor in the early 1900's as part of a low-pressure transmission system to support Columbia's merchant role. However the facilities currently transmit local production from various points along the facilities, providing service to local markets along the facilities. Columbia states that the facilities are no longer pertinent to its transporter role. EAEC
Questions regarding the application may be directed to V. J. Hamilton, Senior Certificate Coordinator, or Frederic J. George, Senior Attorney, both at Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation, P.O. Box 1273, Charleston, West Virginia 25325-1273 or by calling respectively, 304-357-2297 (304-357-2926 Fax) or 304-357-2359 (304-357-3206 Fax).
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the nonparty commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.
Take notice that on September 12, 2003, LSP—Cottage Grove, L.P. (Cottage Grove) and LSP—Whitewater, Limited Partnership (Whitewater) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) a Compliant Requesting Fast-Track Processing pursuant to Rule
Any person desiring to be heard 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. The answer to the complaint and all comments, interventions or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Take notice that on September 12, 2003, Old Dominion Electric Cooperative made a compliance filing pursuant to the accounting and reporting requirements set forth by the Commission in Order 631, Accounting, Financial reporting, and Rate Filing Requirements for Asset Retirement Obligations. The Commission directed jurisdictional entities to file journal entries and supporting information for any adjustments made that affect net income as a result of implementing the accounting rules contained in Order 631.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. All such motions or protests should be filed on or before the comment date, and, to the extent applicable, must be served on the applicant and on any other person designated on the official service list. This filing is available for review at the Commission or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Take notice that on September 22, 2003, Questar Pipeline Company (Questar) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, Substitute Second Revised Sheet No. 86, to be effective May 12, 2003.
Questar states that this filing is being made to make a minor administrative correction relating to Questar's two tariff filings dated April 14, 2003, and April 29, 2003, filed in Docket Nos. RP03-342-000 and -001, respectively, that modified Questar's measurement section of its tariff. This filing deletes language that was intended to be deleted in Docket No. RP03-342-001 upon discovery that the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) Standard 2.3.9 was inadvertently deleted in Docket No. RP03-342-000 and replaced by a new paragraph.
Questar states that it filed an amendment to reverse this replacement, but only half of the incorrect paragraph was deleted. Questar states that this filing continues that correction by deleting the remaining part of the paragraph that is redundant in purpose to NAESB Standard 2.3.9.
Questar states that a copy of this filing has been served upon its customers, the Public Service Commission of Utah and the Public Service Commission of Wyoming.
Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with § 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with § 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Take notice that on September 22, 2003, SCG Pipeline, Inc. (SCG) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets attached to Appendix A, with an effective date of November 1, 2003.
SCG states that the filing is being made in compliance with ordering paragraph A of the Commission's July 29, 2003 “Order on Pro Forma Tariff” (Tariff Order) 104 FERC ¶ 61,159.
SCG states that these actual tariff sheets reflect modifications to SCG's originally filed Pro Forma FERC Gas Tariff to bring it into compliance with the Tariff Order, current NAESB standards, all the requirements in Order Nos. 637, 637-A, and 637-B and subsequent orders, and any other tariff regulations currently in effect. Additional tariff modifications have been made as indicated in SCG's filing.
SCG states that a copy of this filing has been served upon the official service list in this proceeding and upon its customers.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with § 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office of Energy Projects' staff has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for Wisconsin Public Service Company's application requesting Commission approval to amend the application regarding project boundaries of five of its projects to remove 9,738 acres of land, of which it proposes to convey approximately 9,349 acres to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and to use 389 acres for development. The five projects are the Caldron Falls Project No. 2525, the Sandstone Rapids Project No. 2546, the Potato Rapids Project No. 2560, the Johnson Falls Project No. 2522, and the High Falls Project No. 2595 all located on the Peshtigo River in the counties of Marinette and Oconto, Wisconsin. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management owns and manages approximately 10 acres of federal lands (consisting of islands in the Peshtigo River) within the boundaries of the High Falls, Sandstone Rapids, and Potato Rapids projects.
The EA contains the staff's analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the proposal and concludes that approval of the proposal would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
A copy of the EA is attached to a Commission Order titled “Order Granting Motions To Intervene, Reinstating Request for Rehearing, Granting Rehearing In Part, And Granting With Conditions Application To Amend Project Boundaries” issued on September 15, 2003 (
For further information, contact Jean Potvin at 202-502-8928.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
i.
j.
k.
l.
m.
Anyone may submit responses in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any responses must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
n.
Take notice that the following application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Ms. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington DC 20426. Please include the project number (P-516-379) on any comments or motions filed. Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper.
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene—Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents—Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”,
p.
Take notice that the following application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Ms. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please include the project number (P-1953-069) on any comments or motions filed. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper.
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene—Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents—Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS”, “PROTEST”, OR “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
p.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
Motions to intervene and protests may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.
k. This application has been accepted for filing, but is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
l.
m. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
You may also register online at
n. Any qualified applicant desiring to file a competing application must submit to the Commission, on or before the specified deadline date for the particular application, a competing development application, or a notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to file the competing development application no later than 120 days after the specified deadline date for the particular application. Applications for preliminary permits will not be accepted in response to this notice.
A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary permit application or a development application (specify which type of application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this public notice.
Anyone may submit a protest or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, 385.211, and 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any protests or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular application.
When the application is ready for environmental analysis, the Commission will issue a public notice requesting comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, or prescriptions.
All filings must (1) Bear in all capital letters the title “PROTEST” or “MOTION TO INTERVENE,” “NOTICEOF INTENT TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION,'or “COMPETING APPLICATION;” (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application.
o.
Unless substantial comments are received in response to the EA, staff intends to prepare a single EA in this case. If substantial comments are received in response to the EA, a final EA will be prepared with the following modifications to the schedule.
On July 5, 2002, the Commission's Dispute Resolution Service (DRS) issued a notice to convene interested parties on unresolved issues related to fish entrainment and mortality resulting from the outcome of a two-year feasibility study on fish protection required by a Commission order issued in June 24, 1997. The Menominee-Park Mill Project is located on the Menominee River in Marinette County, Wisconsin and Menominee County, Michigan. At the convening session on July 25, 2002, the DRS explored whether the parties would agree to an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process to resolve the fishery-related issues through assisted negotiations. North American Hydro, Inc. (licensee), federal and state agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) who attended the July meeting agreed to an ADR process to try to resolve the fishery-related issues. Between July 25, 2002 and the present, the parties have been working toward a settlement on the fishery-related issues in mediated discussions under the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act (Pub. L. 104-320, as amended).
The existing license expires in 2015. The parties in the ADR process are exploring the option of accelerating the relicensing of the Park Mill project. An application for an accelerated license has not been filed at this time. The purpose of the up-coming meeting is to explore the concerns and interests of the stakeholders not involved in the ADR process. Formal scoping meetings would be held should the licensee file an application to relicense the project and the Commission issues a formal notice to accelerate the license.
FERC staff will conduct one daytime meeting and one evening meeting. The daytime meeting will focus on resource agency and NGO's concerns and interests. The evening meeting will be held primarily for input from the public on its concerns and interests. All interested individuals, organizations, and agencies are invited to attend one or both of the meetings to assist the staff in addressing the option noted above. The time and locations of these meetings are as follows:
If you have further questions, please contact Deborah Osborne at 202-502-8831.
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 November 3, 2003.
Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number OAR-2003-0087, to (1) EPA online using EDOCKET (our preferred method), by e-mail to
Mr. Bruce Moore, Emission Standards Division, Mail Code C504-03, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5460; fax number: (919) 541-0072; 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 June 5, 2003 (68 FR 33688), 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-2003-0087, 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
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.
Notice; request for public comment.
In accordance with section 122(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), Region II, of a proposed administrative agreement pursuant to section 122(h) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9622(h), with the settling parties, Mercury Refining Company, Inc. (“Mereco”), and Leo Cohen, for recovery of past and future response costs concerning the Mercury Refining Superfund Site (“Site”) located in the Towns of Guilderland and Colonie, Albany County, New York. The settlement requires that EPA be paid a total of approximately $524,000: the total remaining funds in an escrow account established by Mereco (estimated to be approximately $494,000) and $30,000 from Leo Cohen, Mereco's founder, sole shareholder and former president. The settlement includes a covenant not to sue the settling parties pursuant to sections 106 and 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606 and 9607(a), and section 7003 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), 42 U.S.C. 6973, in exchange for their payment of monies.
For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, EPA will receive written comments relating to the settlement. EPA will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations that indicate that the proposed settlement is inappropriate, improper or inadequate.EPA's response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at EPA Region II, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866. Commenters may request an opportunity for a public meeting in the affected area in accordance with section 7003(d) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6973(d).
Comments must be submitted on or before November 3, 2003.
The proposed settlement is available for public inspection at EPA Region II offices at 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866. Comments should reference the Mercury Refining Superfund Site, Towns of Guilderland and Colonie, Albany County, New York, Index No. CERCLA-02-2003-2009. To request a copy of the proposed settlement agreement, please contact the individual identified below.
Sharon E. Kivowitz, Assistant Regional Counsel, New York/Caribbean Superfund Branch, Office of Regional Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway—17th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. Telephone: 212-637-3183.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has received Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the following public information collection pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13.
Written comments should be submitted on or before November 3, 2003. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts listed below as soon as possible.
Kim A. Johnson, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10236 NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, (202) 395-7232 or
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
The Enforcement Bureau (“Bureau”) gives notice of Mr. Oscar Alvarez's suspension from the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism. In addition, the Bureau gives notice that debarment proceedings are commencing against him. Mr. Alvarez, or any person who has an existing contract with or intends to contract with him to provide or receive services in matters arising out of activities associated with or related to the schools and libraries support, may respond by filing an opposition request, supported by documentation.
Opposition requests must be received by November 3, 2003. However, an opposition request by the party to be suspended must be received 30 days from the receipt of the suspension letter or November 3, 2003, whichever comes first. The Bureau will decide any opposition request for reversal or modification of suspension or debarment within 90 days of its receipt of such requests.
Diana Lee, Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, Investigations and Hearings Division, Room 6-C326, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. Diana Lee may be contacted by phone at (202) 418-1420 or e-mail at
The Bureau has suspension and debarment authority under 47 CFR 54.521 and 47 CFR 0.111(a)(14). Suspension will help to ensure that the party to be suspended cannot continue to benefit from the schools and libraries mechanism pending resolution of the debarment process. Attached is the suspension letter,
The suspension letter follows:
Dear Mr. Alvarez: The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or “Commission”) has received notice of your May 20, 2003 conviction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1512 for misleading conduct toward another person: (1) to influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding; and (2) with the intent to cause and induce another person to alter, destroy, mutilate and conceal objects with the intent to impair the objects' integrity and availability for use in an official proceeding.
Pursuant to section 54.521(a)(4) of the Commission's rules,
Suspension is immediate pending the Bureau's final debarment determination. You may contest this suspension or the scope of this suspension by filing arguments in opposition to the suspension, with any relevant documentation. Your request must be received within 30 days after you receive this letter or after notice is published in the
The Commission's rules establish procedures to prevent persons who have “defrauded the government or engaged in similar acts through activities associated with or related to the schools and libraries support mechanism” from receiving the benefits associated with that program.
You may contest debarment or the scope of the proposed debarment by filing arguments and any relevant documentation within 30 calendar days of the earlier of the receipt of this letter or of publication in the
If and when your debarment becomes effective, you will be prohibited from participating in activities associated with or related to the schools and libraries support mechanism for at least three years from the date of debarment.
Please direct any responses to the following address:
If you submit your response via hand-delivery or non-United States Postal Service delivery (
If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Lee via mail, by telephone at (202) 418-1420 or by e-mail at
Sincerely yours,
Kristy Carroll, USAC
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
The Enforcement Bureau (“Bureau”) gives notice of Mr. John Angelides” suspension from the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism. In addition, the Bureau gives notice that debarment proceedings are commencing against him. Mr. Angelides, or any person who has an existing contract with or intends to contract with him to provide or receive services in matters arising out of activities associated with or related to the schools and libraries support, may respond by filing an opposition request, supported by documentation.
Opposition requests must be received by November 3, 2003. However, an opposition request by the party to be suspended must be received 30 days from the receipt of the
Diana Lee, Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, Investigations and Hearings Division, Room 6-C326, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. Diana Lee may be contacted by phone at (202) 418-1420 or e-mail at
The Bureau has suspension and debarment authority under 47 CFR 54.521 and 47 CFR 0.111(a)(14). Suspension will help to ensure that the party to be suspended cannot continue to benefit from the schools and libraries mechanism pending resolution of the debarment process. Attached is the suspension letter,
The suspension letter follows:
Dear Mr. Angelides: The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or “Commission”) has received notice of your May 22, 2003 conviction under 18 U.S.C. 371 for conspiracy to commit an offense against or to defraud the United States. Specifically, you were convicted of conspiracy to violate the following laws of the United States: (1) 18 U.S.C. 287 (false, fictitious, and fraudulent claims); (2) 18 U.S.C. 1001 (false statements and entries generally); and (3) 18 U.S.C. 1343 (fraud by wire, radio, or television).
Pursuant to section 54.521(a)(4) of the Commission's rules,
Suspension is immediate pending the Bureau's final debarment determination. You may contest this suspension or the scope of this suspension by filing arguments in opposition to the suspension, with any relevant documentation. Your request must be received within 30 days after you receive this letter or after notice is published in the
The Commission's rules establish procedures to prevent persons who have “defrauded the government or engaged in similar acts through activities associated with or related to the schools and libraries support mechanism” from receiving the benefits associated with that program.
Moreover, your conviction on the basis of these acts falls within the categories of causes for debarment defined in section 54.521(c) of the Commission's rules.
You may contest debarment or the scope of the proposed debarment by filing arguments and any relevant documentation within 30 calendar days of the earlier of the receipt of this letter or of publication in the
If and when your debarment becomes effective, you will be prohibited from participating in activities associated with or related to the schools and libraries support mechanism for at least three years from the date of debarment.
Please direct any responses to the following address: Diana Lee, Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, Investigations and Hearings Division, Room 6-C326, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
If you submit your response via hand-delivery or non-United States Postal Service delivery (
If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Lee via mail, by telephone at (202) 418-1420 or by e-mail at
Sincerely yours,
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
The Enforcement Bureau (“Bureau”) gives notice of Mr. Duane Maynard's suspension from the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism. In addition, the Bureau gives notice that debarment proceedings are commencing against him. Mr. Maynard, or any person who has an existing contract with or intends to contract with him to provide or receive services in matters arising out of activities associated with or related to the schools and libraries support, may respond by filing an opposition request, supported by documentation.
Opposition requests must be received by November 3, 2003. However, an opposition request by the party to be suspended must be received 30 days from the receipt of the suspension letter or November 3, 2003, whichever comes first. The Bureau will decide any opposition request for reversal or modification of suspension or debarment within 90 days of its receipt of such requests.
Diana Lee, Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, Investigations and Hearings Division, Room 6-C326, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. Diana Lee may be contacted by phone at (202) 418-1420 or e-mail at
The Bureau has suspension and debarment authority under 47 CFR 54.521 and 47 CFR 0.111(a)(14). Suspension will help to ensure that the party to be suspended cannot continue to benefit from the schools and libraries mechanism pending resolution of the debarment process. Attached is the suspension letter,
Federal Communications Commission.
The suspension letter follows:
Dear Mr. Maynard: The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or “Commission”) has received notice of your August 26, 2003 conviction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1 for bid rigging.
Pursuant to section 54.521(a)(4) of the Commission's rules,
Suspension is immediate pending the Bureau's final debarment determination. You
The Commission's rules establish procedures to prevent persons who have “defrauded the government or engaged in similar acts through activities associated with or related to the schools and libraries support mechanism” from receiving the benefits associated with that program.
These actions constitute the conduct or transactions upon which this debarment proceeding is based.
You may contest debarment or the scope of the proposed debarment by filing arguments and any relevant documentation within 30 calendar days of the earlier of the receipt of this letter or of publication in the
If and when your debarment becomes effective, you will be prohibited from participating in activities associated with or related to the schools and libraries support mechanism for at least three years from the date of debarment.
Please direct any responses to the following address: Diana Lee, Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, Investigations and Hearings Division, Room 6-C326, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
If you submit your response via hand-delivery or non-United States Postal Service delivery (
If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Lee via mail, by telephone at (202) 418-1420 or by e-mail at
cc: Kenneth Alan Reed, Law Office of Kenneth Alan Reed Kristy Carroll, USAC.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, this notice advises interested persons of the first of the Technological Advisory Council (“Council”) under its new charter.
October 20, 2003 beginning at 10 a.m. and concluding at 3 p.m.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th St. SW., Room TW-C305, Washington, DC 20554.
Jeffery Goldthorp, (202) 418-1096.
Continuously accelerating technological changes in telecommunications design, manufacturing, and deployment require that the Commission be promptly informed of those changes to fulfill its statutory mandate effectively. The Council was established by the Federal Communications Commission to provide a means by which a diverse array of recognized technical experts from different areas such as manufacturing, academia, communications services providers, the research community, etc., can provide advice to the FCC on innovation in the communications industry. At this third meeting under the Council's new charter, the Council will focus on Voice services over IP. Members of the public may attend the meeting. The Federal Communications Commission will attempt to accommodate as many persons as possible. Admittance, however, will be limited to the seating available. Unless so requested by the Council's Chair, there will be no public oral participation, but the public may submit written comments to Jeffery Goldthorp, the Federal Communications Commission's Designated Federal Officer for the Technological Advisory Council, before the meeting. Mr. Goldthorp's e-mail address is
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 October 27, 2003.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 26, 2003.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
68, FR 56294, September 30, 2003.
11:30 a.m., Monday, October 6, 2003.
Change in the time and date of the
Michelle A. Smith, Director, Office of Board Members; (202) 452-2955.
You may call (202) 452-3206 beginning at approximately 5 p.m., two business days before the meeting for a recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at
In accordance with section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act as amended (5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), announcement is made of an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Technical Review Committee (TRC) meeting. This TRC's charge is to review contract proposals and provide recommendations to the Director, AHRQ, with respect to the technical merit of proposals submitted in response to a Request for Proposals (RFP) regarding “Knowledge Transfer and Application Support.” The RFP was published in the Federal Business Opportunities on July 17, 2003.
The upcoming TRC meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), section 10(d) of 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2, implementing regulations, and procurement regulations, 41 CFR 101-6.1023 and 48 CFR 315.604(d). The discussions at this meeting of contract proposals submitted in response to the above-referenced RFP are likely to reveal proprietary information and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. Such information is exempt from disclosure under the above-cited FACA provision and procurement rules that protect the free exchange of candid views and facilitate Department and Committee operations.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) seeks to conduct an evaluation of the effectiveness of the asthma intervention program, Power Breathing, in two school districts in Kansas City, KS and Fredericksburg, VA. The overall aim of this program, developed by the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, is to provide adolescents with a basic understanding of asthma and its management in a peer-friendly environment and to empower them to take control of their asthma on a personal level.
The proposed data collection for the evaluation will provide feedback to CDC about the usefulness and cost-effectiveness of this teen asthma intervention program. Sample participants will come from students, parents, program facilitators, and school personnel (school nurses and teachers) in the selected two school districts. Self-administered questionnaires will be given to students at baseline (pre-intervention program), immediately post-program, and at six-months post-program, while parents receive baseline and six-months post-program surveys. The student survey will focus on: knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors regarding their asthma; perception of their health status and quality of life; assessment of the program; and impact of the program on their asthma management skills. Parents will be asked about their child's asthma condition, assessment of the program, and cost-related issues for their child's asthma.
Individual, one-time interviews will be conducted with program facilitators and school personnel regarding their perceptions of the intervention program and its impact on the students. Two focus groups will be conducted with students post-program to obtain additional, in-depth information about their perceptions of the program. The annualized burden is estimated to be 1029 hours.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call the CDC Reports Clearance Officer at (404) 498-1210. Send written comments to CDC, Desk Officer, Human Resources and Housing Branch, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-6974. Written comments should be received within 30 days of this notice.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) maintains a database of injuries treated in a nationally-representative sample of U.S. hospital emergency departments (ED) called the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS). Data routinely collected through NEISS include a brief narrative description of the injury event as well as basic demographic information, intent and mechanism of injury, work-relatedness, principal diagnosis, part of body affected, location where the injury occurred, involvement of consumer products, and disposition at ED discharge. For assaults, summary data are also being collected on the relationship of the perpetrator to the injured person and the context (
In December 2001, Congress directed NIOSH to develop an intramural and extramural prevention research program that will target all aspects of workplace violence. For the last ten years, NIOSH has been collaborating with CPSC to collect surveillance data on work-related injuries treated in the NEISS EDs. In addition, NIOSH has utilized the capacity of NEISS to incorporate follow-back surveys. Follow-back surveys allow collection of first-hand, detailed knowledge that does not exist in administrative or other records. CPSC routinely uses this mechanism to collect information on various types of injuries (
The current proposed study will consist of a telephone interview survey of workers treated in NEISS hospital emergency departments for injuries sustained during a work-related assault over a one-year period. CPSC will hire a contractor to conduct the actual telephone interviews. NIOSH will review potential cases to identify those cases that should be forwarded to the contractor for interview. The survey includes an extended narrative description of the injury incident as well as items regarding general workplace organization; personal characteristics of the worker; work tasks at the time of the assault; training on workplace violence risk factors and prevention strategies; security measures in place and how they impacted the outcome of the incident; medical care received for injuries; time away from work; and return to work after the assault. This study will provide critical information for understanding the nature and impact of nonfatal assault among U.S. workers. In combination with data collected from other sources, this information will ultimately contribute to the prevention of violence in the workplace. The annualized burden for this data collection is 227 hours.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call the CDC Reports Clearance Officer at (404) 498-1210. Send written comments to NCHS/CDC, Desk Officer, Human Resources and Housing Branch, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-7245. Written comments should be received within 30 days of this notice.
The NAMCS provides a range of baseline data on the characteristics of the users and providers of ambulatory medical care. Data collected include the patients' demographic characteristics and reason(s) for visit, and the physicians' diagnosis(es) and diagnostic services, medications and disposition. These data, together with trend data, may be used to monitor the effects of change in the health care system, provide new insights into ambulatory medical care, and stimulate further research on the use, organization, and delivery of ambulatory care.
Users of NAMCS data include, but are not limited to, congressional and other federal government agencies such as NIH and FDA, state and local governments, medical schools, schools of public health, colleges and universities, private businesses, nonprofit foundations and corporations, professional associations, as well as individual practitioners, researchers, administrators and health planners. Uses vary from the inclusion of a few selected statistics in a large research effort, to an in-depth analysis of the entire NAMCS data set covering several years. The annual burden for this data collection is 6,175 burden hours.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that the proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by November 3, 2003.
OMB is still experiencing significant delays in the regular mail, including first class and express mail, and messenger deliveries are not being accepted. To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: Fumie Yokota, Desk Officer for FDA, FAX: 202-395-6974.
Denver Presley, Office of Management Programs (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1472.
In compliance (44 U.S.C. 3507), FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
FDA has developed its model Food Code to assist and promote consistent implementation of national food safety regulatory policy among the local, State, and tribal jurisdictions that have primary responsibility for the regulation or oversight of retail level food operations. The FDA Food Code provides a scientifically sound technical and legal basis for regulating the retail segment of the food industry. Authority for providing such assistance is derived from section 311(a) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 243(a)) and delegation of authority from the Public Health Service to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs relative to food protection is contained in 21 CFR 5.10(a)(2) and (a)(4). Under 31 U.S.C. 1535, FDA provides assistance to other Federal agencies such as the Indian Health Service (IHS).
Nationwide adoption of the model FDA Food Code is an important step towards the agency's goal for consistent, scientifically sound, and risk-based food safety standards and practices. A current, comprehensive and accurate inventory of Food Code adoptions by States and U.S. Territories, local, and tribal governments is necessary to determine the status of up-to-date protection of the U.S. population and to identify areas where assistance to these governments may promote the adoption of regulations based on the FDA Food Code.
This collection effort, which began in 2001, has had remarkable success with 97-percent participation from State and Territorial agencies. FDA contracted with the Association of Food and Drug Officials (AFDO) to conduct the initial survey using the OMB approved survey form. Contacts were made by telephone and e-mail to determine the Food Code status in their jurisdiction(s). Follow up contacts by telephone and e-mail to minimize the burden on respondents were made to clarify responses.
The rulemaking process that local, State, Territorial, and tribal governments must follow to adopt the Food Code often is a long and complicated process that can extend 2 or more years. For this reason, many agencies reported in the initial survey that they were still in the rulemaking process to adopt or update their food codes for the years 2004, 2005, or beyond. Thus, FDA believes that further implementation of the initial survey is needed to cover this additional rulemaking in order to keep the current database accurate and up-to-date. Based on experience gained in the past 3 years from the initial survey, FDA has developed a more condensed followup survey, to further minimize the burden requirements on respondent agencies. For example, FDA now knows if responding agencies have adopted a new code since 1993, the types of establishments regulated by those codes, the populations of the jurisdiction covered, and the status of local health agencies in the states. This information
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Experience in the initial survey has more clearly identified the respondents for updating the information in the database. For example, FDA will obtain information from the IHS, relative to the tribal nations' adoption of the Food Code that IHS maintains, using the information categories in the revised followup survey form for which this extension is requested. Seventy-three State and Territorial agencies were identified as respondents for Food Code adoption, and it appears that initially, only 30 local agencies in cities of 500,000 or more will need to be contacted because most local jurisdictions are under State requirements. This further reduces the total burden on respondents. Quarterly updates from respondents under active rulemaking, will be requested by AFDO to keep the database current and accurate. Respondents that have concluded rulemaking will likely need only annual contact. Estimated response time is about 1 hour or less because most reporting will be done telephonically or electronically.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). At least one portion of the meeting will be closed 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 Tara Turner 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 postponing the meeting of the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee scheduled for September 18, 2003, due to Hurricane Isabel. This meeting was announced in the
Shalini Jain, 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, FAX: 301-827-6776, e-mail:
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 Hilda Scharen 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).
National Institutes of Health, Public Health Service, DHHS
Notice.
The inventions listed below are owned by agencies of the U.S. Government and are available for licensing in the U.S. in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 207 to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally-funded research and development. Foreign patent applications are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for companies and may also be available for licensing.
Licensing information and copies of the U.S. patent applications listed below may be obtained by writing to the indicated licensing contact at the Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 325, Rockville, Maryland 20852-3804; telephone: 301/496-7057; fax: 301/402-0220. A signed Confidential Disclosure Agreement will be required to receive copies of the patent applications.
This cell line contains stably integrated copies of the HIV-1 LTR promoter linked to a synthetic one-exon tat gene. HLtat was generated by cotransfection of HeLa cells with pSV2neo and with pL3tat, which contains the HIV-1 LTR promoter, synthetic first tat exon, and the SV40 polyadenylation signal. Clone HLtat was selected in G418 on the basis of high-level production of the one-exon Tat. The cell line is stable and does not need to be routinely maintained under G418 selection. When transfected with HIV DNA or with any plasmid expressing the gene of interest driven by the HIV LTR promoter, high-level of gene expression is achieved. This cell line is further described in J. Virol 64:3734, 1990; AIDS Res. Ref. Reagent Program Courier 91-01:8, 1991; and J. Virol 64:2519, 1990. This cell line is available for licensing through a Biological Materials License Agreement.
The invention describes separate and combined extracts from two plants of the genus Aniba, and a specific compound possessing and indolizinium
The process of apoptosis, or programmed cell death, can be utilized to eliminate unwanted cells, and it can occur during embryogenesis, turnover of senescent cells or metamorphosis. It can also be part of a defense mechanism against pathogens,
60-Day notice of information collection under review; The Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS); OMB-30.
The Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS), has submitted the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Commenters are encouraged and will be accepted for sixty days until December 1, 2003.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Overview of this information collection:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If you have additional comments, suggestions, or need a coy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information, please contact Richard A. Sloan 202-514-3291, Director, Regulations and Forms Services Division, Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 425 I Street, NW., Room 4034, Washington, DC 20536. Additionally, comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time may also be directed to Mr. Richard A. Sloan.
If additional information is required contact: Mr. Theresa O'Malley, Chief Information Officer, Department of Homeland Security, Regional Office Building 3, 7th and D Streets, SW., Suite 4636-26, Washington, DC 20202.
30-Day notice of information collection under review: Application for Authorization to Issue Health Care Certificates; Form I-905.
The Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until November 3, 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 regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 725-17th Street, NW., Suite 10102, Washington, DC 20530; Attention: Department of Justice Desk Officer, Room 10235.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information 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)
If you have additional comments, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information, please contact Richard A. Sloan 202-514-3291, Director, Regulations and Forms Services Division Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, Room 4034, 425 I Street, NW., Washington, DC 20536. Additionally, comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time may also be directed to Mr. Richard A. Sloan.
If additional information is required contact: Ms. Theresa O'Malley, Chief Information Officer, Department of Homeland Security, Regional Office Building 3, 7th and D Streets, SW., Suite 4636-26, Washington, DC 20202.
60-Day notice of information collection under review; Application—Alternative Inspection Services and FAST Commercial Driver Application; Forms I-823 and 823F.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, has submitted the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for sixty days until December 1, 2003.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
Overview of this information collection:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If you have additional comments, suggestions, or need a coy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information, please contact Richard A. Sloan 202-514-3291, Director, Regulations and Forms Services Division, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, Room 4304, 425 I Street, NW., Washington, DC 20536. Additionally, comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time may also be directed to Mr. Richard A. Sloan.
If additional information is required contact: Ms. Theresa O'Malley, Chief Information Officer, Department of Homeland Security, Regional Office Building 3, 7th and D Streets, SW., Suite 4636-26, Washington, DC 20202.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Wayne Eddins, Reports Management Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., L'Enfant Building, Room 8003, Washington, DC 20410 or
Beverly J. Miller, Director, Office of Multifamily Asset Management, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-3730 (this is not a toll free number) for copies of the proposed forms and other available information.
The Department is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended).
This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evlauate whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
This Notice also lists the following information:
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C., chapter 35, as amended.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of issuance of incidental take permit for endangered species.
On November 29, 2002, a notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that on February 24, 2003, after a 60-day public comment period as authorized by the provisions of the Act, the Service issued a permit (PRT-065121-0) to the above-named party subject to certain conditions set forth therein. The permit was granted only after the Service determined that it was applied for in good faith, that granting the permit will not be to the disadvantage of the threatened species, and that it will be consistent with the purpose and policy set forth in the Act, as amended.
Additional information on this permit action may be requested by contacting the West Virginia Field Office, 694 Beverly Pike, Elkins, West Virginia 26241, telephone number 304-636-6586, during normal business hours of 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
No other Incidental Take Permits were issued in the Northeast Region in Fiscal Year 2003.
On the basis of the record
(1) PVA in fiber form;
(2) PVA with hydrolysis less than 83 mole percent and certified not for use in the production of textiles;
(3) PVA with hydrolysis greater than 85 percent and viscosity greater than or equal to 90 cps;
(4) PVA with a hydrolysis greater than 85 percent, viscosity greater than or equal to 80 cps but less than 90 cps, certified for use in an ink jet application;
(5) PVA for use in the manufacture of an excipient or as an excipient in the manufacture of film coating systems which are components of a drug or dietary supplement, and accompanied by an end-use certification;
(6) PVA covalently bonded with cationic monomer uniformly present on all polymer chains in a concentration equal to or greater than one mole percent;
(7) PVA covalently bonded with carboxylic acid uniformly present on all polymer chains in a concentration equal to or greater than two mole percent, certified for use in a paper application;
(8) PVA covalently bonded with thiol uniformly present on all polymer chains, certified for use in emulsion polymerization of non-vinyl acetic material;
(9) PVA covalently bonded with paraffin uniformly present on all polymer chains in a concentration equal to or greater than one mole percent;
(10) PVA covalently bonded with silan uniformly present on all polymer chains certified for use in paper coating applications;
(11) PVA covalently bonded with sulfonic acid uniformly present on all polymer chains in a concentration level equal to or greater than one mole percent;
(12) PVA covalently bonded with acetoacetylate uniformly present on all polymer chains in a concentration level equal to or greater than one mole percent;
(13) PVA covalently bonded with polyethylene oxide uniformly present on all polymer chains in a concentration level equal to or greater than one mole percent;
(14) PVA covalently bonded with quaternary amine uniformly present on all polymer chains in a concentration level equal to or greater than one mole percent; and
(15) PVA covalently bonded with diacetoneacrylamide uniformly present on all polymer chains in a concentration level greater than three mole percent certified for use in a paper application.
The Commission instituted these investigations effective September 5, 2002, following receipt of a petition filed with the Commission and Commerce by Celanese, Ltd. of Dallas, TX and E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. of Wilmington, DE. The final phases of the investigations were scheduled by the Commission following notification of preliminary determinations by Commerce that imports of polyvinyl alcohol from China and Korea were being sold at LTFV within the meaning of section 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(b)). Notices of the scheduling of the final phases of the Commission's investigations and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith were given by posting copies of the notices in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notices in the
The Commission transmitted its determinations in these investigations to the Secretary of Commerce on September 24, 2003. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 3634 (September 2003), entitled
By order of the Commission.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 50.7 and section 122 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9622, notice is hereby given that on September 18, 2003, a proposed Consent Decree in
In this action the United States, on behalf of the United States Department
The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to
The Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, 970 Broad Street, Room 400, Newark, New Jersey 07102, and at U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240. During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site:
Consistent with Departmental policy, 28 CFR 50.7, 38 FR 19029, and 42 U.S.C. 9622(d), notice is hereby given that on September 15, 2003, a proposed consent decree in
In this action the United States sought recovery of response costs pursuant to Section 107(a) of CERCLA, for costs incurred related to the Davis Liquid Waste Site in Smithfield, Rhode Island. The consent decree requires three generator defendants to pay $1,400,00, of which the United States will receive $660,000. The remaining portion will go to the State of Rhode Island and National Starch and Chemical Co. (“National Starch”), a contribution plaintiff.
The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to
The consent decree may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney, Fleet Center, 50 Kennedy Plaza, 8th Floor, Providence, Rhode Island 02903 (contact AUSA Michael Iannotti), and at U.S. EPA Region I, One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Mail Code SES, Boston, MA 02114 (contact Ruthann Sherman). During the public comment period the consent decree may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site,
Notice is hereby given that on September 16, 2003, a proposed Consent Decree in
In this action the United States sought injunctive relief and civil penalties for violations of section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311(a), at the United Verde mine near Jerome, Arizona. The defendant is Phelps Dodge Corporation, the owner of the United Verde mine.
Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Phelps Dodge will pay a civil penalty of $220,142. In addition, Phelps Dodge will carry out three projects at the United Verde mine designed to address the violations alleged in the complaint.
The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to
The Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney, Sue A. Klein, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Two Renaissance Square, 40 North Central Ave., Suite 1200, Phoenix, AZ 8500. During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site,
By Notice dated May 7, 2003, and published in the
The firm plans to manufacture small quantities of a cocaine derivative for distribution for research purposes.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in Title 21, United States Code, Section 823(a) and determined that the registration of Organix, Inc. to manufacture the listed controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Organix, Inc. to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. This investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823 and 28 CFR 0.100 and 0.104, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, hereby orders that the application submitted by the above firm for registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic class of controlled substance listed is granted.
National Science Foundation
Notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation of 1978, Pub. L. 95-541.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish notice of permits under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. This is the required notice.
Nadene G. Kennedy, Permit Office, Office of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.
On August 13, 2003 and August 19, 2003, the National Science Foundation published notices in the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of availability; environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact.
Rick Weller, Fuel Cycle Facilities Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop T8-A33, Washington DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-7287 and e-mail
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received, by letter dated October 24, 2002, a request from Plateau Resources Limited (PRL) to (1) amend Source Materials License SUA-1371 for the Shootaring Canyon Uranium Project to change its status from “operational” to “reclamation;” and (2) review and approve PRL's proposed reclamation plan for this facility.
Pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR part 51 (Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions), the NRC has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) to evaluate the environmental impacts associated with decommissioning and reclamation of the Shootaring Canyon facility. Based on this evaluation, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate for the proposed licensing action.
The EA was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts associated with PRL's decommissioning and reclamation plan. In the conduct of its evaluation, the NRC considered the following: (1) PRL's reclamation plan, as supplemented and revised, (2) information contained in prior environmental evaluations of the Shootaring Canyon facility, (3) information in Shootaring Canyon environmental monitoring reports, and (4) information derived from NRC site visits and inspections of the Shootaring Canyon site and from communications with PRL, the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, the Utah State Historic Preservation Office, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (Henry Mountains Field Station), and the U.S. National Park Service (Glen Canyon National Recreational Area). In preparing the EA, the NRC evaluated the potential impacts to cultural resources, threatened and endangered species, surface waters, and groundwater at the Shootaring Canyon site. Additionally, the NRC evaluated the potential impacts to members of the public from construction activities associated with decommissioning and reclamation. Lastly, the NRC evaluated the potential radiological impacts to members of the public from the cleanup and disposal of the radioactive wastes generated during uranium recovery operations. The results of the staff's evaluation are documented in an EA which is available for public inspection and/or copying in the NRC's Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's document
Pursuant to 10 CFR part 51, the NRC has prepared the EA, summarized above, concerning the decommissioning and reclamation of the Shootaring Canyon Uranium Project located in Garfield County, Utah. On the basis of the EA, the NRC has concluded that this licensing action would not have any significant effect on the quality of the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. The NRC has concluded that the approval of PRL's decommissioning and reclamation plan will not cause any significant impacts on the environment and is protective of human health. The NRC has concluded that decommissioning and reclamation of the Shootaring Canyon facility will not result in any adverse impacts to regional surface and groundwater. A groundwater monitoring program will be maintained throughout site reclamation and following site closure to ensure that groundwater is adequately protected during long-term custody of the site. The NRC has also concluded that the waste impoundment at the site will be designed in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR part 40, appendix A, to provide reasonable assurance of effective control of radiological hazards for 1,000 years, to the extent reasonably achievable, and, in any case, for at least 200 years.
The EA for this proposed action, as well as the licensee's request, as supplemented and revised, are available electronically for public inspection in the NRC's Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at
ML023050449, ML023050465, ML023080393, ML023090051, ML023090054, ML023090059, ML023090062, ML023090067, ML023090070, (October 24, 2002); ML030640211 (February 24, 2003); ML031200325 (April 24, 2003); and ML032541114, ML032541131 (September 5, 2003). The ADAMS Accession Number for the EA is: ML032530553. Documents can also be examined and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) has submitted the following proposal(s) for the collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
Comments regarding the information collection should be addressed to Ronald J. Hodapp, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60611-2092 and to the OMB Desk Officer for the RRB, at the Office of Management and Budget, Room 10230, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
The following is a notice of applications for deregistration under section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 for the month of September, 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 October 21, 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.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”),
CBOE proposes to amend certain non-option listing rules of the Exchange in response to the adoption of Rule 10A-3 of the Exchange Act.
(1) No change.
(2) The Exchange will consider the law, and commercial and business practice of the applicant's domicile in evaluating (A) the election and composition of its Board of Directors
(3)-(5) No change.
The Exchange requires an issuer to have at least two independent directors. For purposes of this section, “independent director” shall mean a person other than an officer or employee of the company or its subsidiaries or any other individual having a relationship which, in the opinion of the board of directors, would interfere with the exercise of independent judgment in carrying out the responsibilities of a director. The issuer shall maintain an audit committee
(A)-(I) No change.
(A) No change.
(B) Changes in Officers or Directors.
A listed company is required to notify the Exchange promptly (and confirm in writing)
(C)-(G) No change.
_____ (the “Company”), in consideration of the listing of its securities, hereby agrees with the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (the “Exchange”), that it will:
1. Promptly notify the Exchange of the following:
(a) changes in the general character or nature of its business, its principal executive officers, directors, its independent public accountants, its transfer agent or registrar
(b)-(k) No change.
(2)-(27) No change.
(28) Comply with Exchange rules, policies and procedures as in effect and as they may be amended from time to time
In its filing with the Commission, 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. CBOE has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Exchange Act Rule 10A-3(a)(1) provides that the “rules of each national securities exchange registered pursuant to section 6 of the [Exchange] Act (15 U.S.C. 78f) must, in accordance with the provisions of [Exchange Act Rule 10A-3], prohibit the initial or continued listing of any security of an issuer that
CBOE Rules 31.5—31.16 contain the criteria for the original listing of an applicant's non-option securities on CBOE. In particular, CBOE Rule 31.7 provides that with respect to foreign issuers, CBOE will consider the law, and commercial and business practice of the foreign issuer's domicile in evaluating the election and composition of the foreign issuer's Board of Directors. CBOE proposes to add a proviso that makes clear CBOE's intention to consider the law, and commercial and business practice of the foreign issuer's domicile only if such law and practices are consistent with federal securities laws, including Exchange Act Rule 10A-3. CBOE also proposes to amend another original listing criterion, CBOE Rule 31.10, which currently provides in part that “the issuer shall maintain an audit committee composed of * * * independent directors.” To comply with Exchange Act Rule 10A-3, CBOE proposes to amend the quoted language above in CBOE Rule 31.10 by incorporating by reference the listing standards set forth in Exchange Act Rule 10A-3. Specifically, the proposed language in CBOE Rule 31.10 provides in part that “the issuer shall maintain an audit committee (i) composed of such independent directors and (ii) that complies with the listing standards set forth in Rule 10A-3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.” CBOE proposes to amend the listing agreement on CBOE Form 1 so that it conforms to the proposed language set forth above in CBOE Rule 31.10. Proposed CBOE Rule 31.10 also incorporates the language set forth in Exchange Act Rule 10A-3(a)(3) to satisfy the requirement that CBOE provides appropriate procedures for an issuer to have an opportunity to cure any defects that would be the basis for the prohibition of listing the securities of such issuer under Exchange Act Rule 10A-3(a).
CBOE proposes to add an interpretation to CBOE Rule 31.94 that revises one of CBOE's delisting policies in order to comply with Exchange Act Rule 10A-3. The revision is required because CBOE Rule 31.94(B)(d) currently permits CBOE's Board of Directors to use its discretion in deciding whether to delist an issuer's non-option securities from trading when, in the opinion of CBOE, “the issuer has failed to comply with its listing agreements” with CBOE. Exchange Act Rule 10A-3(a)(1) makes clear that an exchange may not use discretion in deciding whether to delist a non-option security of an issuer that does not comply with Exchange Act Rule 10A-3.
Exchange Act Rule 10A-3(a)(4) provides that the rules required by Exchange Act Rule 10A-3(a)(1) and (2) must include a requirement that a listed issuer must notify CBOE promptly after an executive officer of the listed issuer becomes aware of any material noncompliance by the listed issuer with the requirements of Exchange Act Rule 10A-3. Proposed Rule 31.96(B) and the listing agreement on CBOE Form 1 are amended to reflect this requirement.
The proposed rule change reserves a new rule, proposed CBOE Rule 31.97, to incorporate additional and enhanced original listing standards for the listing of non-option securities on the Exchange. CBOE understands that the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”) and the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (“NYSE”) have filed rule proposals with the Commission that strengthen their listing standards by enhancing corporate governance requirements for listed entities.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act,
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act.
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 rule change, or
(B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
On January 3, 2002, the Pacific Exchange, Inc. (“PCX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Commission has reviewed carefully the proposed rule change and finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission considers that in most circumstances trades that are executed between parties should be honored. On rare occasions, the price of the executed trade indicates an “obvious error” may exist, suggesting that it is unrealistic to expect that the parties to the trade had come to a meeting of the minds regarding the terms of the transaction. In the Commission's view, the determination of whether such an “obvious error” has occurred should be based on specific and objective criteria and subject to specific and objective procedures. The Commission believes that the PCX's proposed obvious error rule establishes specific and objective criteria for determining when a trade is an “obvious error.” The Commission also believes that the proposal establishes specific and objective procedures governing the adjustment or nullification of such trade. In addition, the Commission notes that several provisions of the PCX obvious error rule proposal, as amended, are substantially similar to proposed rule changes submitted by the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. and International Securities Exchange, Inc., which the Commission has approved.
The Commission finds good cause for approving Amendment No. 3 to the proposed rule change prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of notice thereof in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning Amendment No. 3, including whether Amendment No. 3 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 proposal that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposal between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying at the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All submissions should refer to File No.
For the reasons discussed above, the Commission finds that the proposal, as amended, is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
As a result of the President's major disaster declaration on September 23, 2003, I find that New Castle County in the State of Delaware constitutes a disaster area due to damages caused by Tropical Storm Henri occurring on September 15, 2003. Applications for loans for physical damage as a result of this disaster may be filed until the close of business on November 24, 2003 and for economic injury until the close of business on June 23, 2004 at the address listed below or other locally announced locations: U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster Area 1 Office, 360 Rainbow Blvd., South 3rd Fl., Niagara Falls, NY 14303-1192.
In addition, applications for economic injury loans from small businesses located in the following contiguous counties may be filed until the specified date at the above location: Kent County in the State of Delaware; Cecil and Kent Counties in the State of Maryland; Gloucester and Salem Counties in the State of New Jersey; and Chester and Delaware Counties in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
The interest rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 355108. For economic injury the number is 9X1300 for Delaware; 9X1400 for Maryland; 9X1500 for New Jersey; and 9X1600 for Pennsylvania.
Deschutes and Jefferson Counties and the contiguous counties of Crook, Harney, Klamath, Lake, Lane, Linn, Marion, Wasco and Wheeler in the State of Oregon constitute an economic injury disaster area as a result of a wildfire known as the B & B Complex wildfire that began on August 19, 2003 and continues to burn. The wildfire caused the closure of Highway 20/126 for approximately two weeks and has caused several businesses to suffer substantial economic losses. Eligible small businesses and small agricultural cooperatives without credit available elsewhere may file applications for economic injury assistance for this disaster until the close of business on June 28, 2004 at the address listed below or other locally announced locations: U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster Area 4 Office, P.O. Box 13795, Sacramento, CA 95853-4795.
The interest rate for eligible small businesses and small agricultural cooperatives is 3.100 percent.
The number assigned for economic injury for this disaster is 9X0600.
In accordance with a notice received from the Department of Homeland Security—Federal Emergency Management Agency, effective September 22, 2003, the above numbered declaration is hereby amended to include the Independent Cities of Bedford, Buena Vista, Charlottesville, Fredericksburg, Harrisonburg, Lynchburg, Manassas, Manassas Park, and Winchester, and the counties of Albemarle, Amelia, Amherst, Appomattox, Bedford, Buckingham, Campbell, Charlotte, Clarke, Culpeper, Cumberland, Dinwiddie, Fauquier, Frederick, Greene, Halifax, Hanover, King George, King William, King and Queen, Louisa, Loudoun, Lunenburg, Madison, Nelson, New Kent, Nottoway, Pittsylvania, Powhatan, Prince Edward, Rappahannock, Rockingham, Shenandoah, and Warren in the Commonwealth of Virginia as disaster areas due to damages caused by Hurricane Isabel occurring on September 18, 2003 and continuing.
In addition, applications for economic injury loans from small businesses located in the contiguous counties of Franklin, Henry, and Roanoke in the Commonwealth of Virginia; Berkeley, Hampshire, Hardy, Jefferson, and Morgan Counties in the State of West Virginia; Frederick and Washington Counties in the State of Maryland; and Caswell, Person, and Rockingham Counties in the State of North Carolina may be filed until the specified date at the previously designated location. All other counties contiguous to the above named independent cities and primary counties have been previously declared.
All other information remains the same,
As a result of the President's major disaster declaration for Public Assistance on September 23, 2003 the U.S. Small Business Administration is activating its disaster loan program only for private non-profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature. I find that Berkeley, Grant, Hampshire, Hardy, Jefferson, Mineral, Morgan, Pendleton, Randolph and Tucker Counties in the State of West Virginia constitute a disaster area due to damages caused by Hurricane Isabel occurring on September 18, 2003 and continuing. Applications for loans for physical damage as a result of this disaster may be filed until the close of business on November 24, 2003 at the address listed below or other locally announced locations: U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster Area 1 Office, 360 Rainbow Blvd., South, 3rd Floor, Niagara Falls, NY 14303.
The interest rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is P01708.
Department of State.
Notice.
The Department of State has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Comments should be submitted to OMB within 30 days of the publication of this notice.
The following summarizes the information collection proposal submitted to OMB:
Public comments are being solicited to permit the agency to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of technology.
Copies of the proposed information collection and supporting documents may be obtained from Michael T. Dixon, Director, Office of Defense Trade Controls Management, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, SA-1, Room H1200, 2401 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20522-0112; (202) 663-2700. Public comments and questions should be directed to State Department Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Washington, DC 20530, who may be reached on (202) 395-3897.
Pursuant to section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, 8 U.S.C. 1189, the Secretary of State or the Deputy Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General, hereby redesignates, effective October 2, 2003, the following organizations as foreign terrorist organizations:
By the authority vested in me as Deputy Secretary of State, including the authority delegated to me by the Secretary of State in Delegation of Authority No. 245 of April 23, 2001, and by Section 1 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act (22 U.S.C. 2651A), I hereby delegate to the Administrator of the U.S Agency for International Development, to the extent authorized by law, the functions conferred upon the Secretary of State by the President relating to loan guarantees to Israel under chapter 5 of title I of the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003 (Public Law 108-11).
Notwithstanding this delegation of authority, the Secretary of State or Deputy Secretary of State may exercise any function delegated hereby. The Administrator may, to the extent consistent with law, redelegate such functions and authorize their successive redelegation.
This memorandum shall be published in the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of intent.
The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that an environmental impact statement will be prepared for a proposed transportation project in Montgomery and Grimes Counties, Texas.
Mr. John Mack, P.E., Federal Highway Administration, Texas Division, 826 Federal Building, 300 East 8th Street, Austin, Texas 78701, Telephone (512) 536-5960.
The FHWA, in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for improvements in the SH 249 corridor within Montgomery and Grimes Counties, Texas. The project study area is approximately 15 miles in length from FM 149 in Montgomery County to FM 1774 in Grimes County. Cities within the study area include Pinehurst, Magnolia, and Todd Mission.
A Major Investment Study (MIS) for the project was completed in 2002. The MIS evaluated modal, configuration, and route corridor alternatives within the overall study area and recommended an alternative which was the most feasible modal, configuration, and route corridor that met the regions transportation needs, while minimizing impacts to the surrounding environment. The most feasible corridor alternative studied in the MIS was selected based on the detailed evaluation of the viable alternatives, as well as public input. This alternative encompasses two (2) general-purpose lanes in each direction, including auxiliary lanes between on-ramps and off-ramps where appropriate. The EIS will study in detail the preferred route corridor that was selected in the MIS and recommend a preferred alternative alignment within this corridor. The EIS is authorized pursuant to the Texas Transportation Commission Minute
A public scoping meeting will be held in the fall of 2003. The purpose of the public scoping meeting is to request comments and identify issues that will be considered during the evaluation of alignment alternatives and preparation of the EIS. All interested citizens are encouraged to attend these meetings. Large-scale maps of the project area will be displayed at the meeting. This will be the first in a series of meetings to solicit public comments on the proposed action. In addition, a public hearing will be held.
The EIS will evaluate potential impacts from construction and operation of the proposed roadway including, but not limited to, the following: transportation impacts (construction detours, construction traffic, mobility improvement and evacuation improvement), air, and noise impacts from construction equipment and operation of the facilities, water quality impacts from construction area and roadway storm water runoff, impacts to water of the United States including wetlands from right-of-way encroachment, impacts to historic and archaeological resources, impacts to floodplains, and impacts and/or potential displacements to residents and businesses.
Letters describing the proposed action and soliciting comments will be sent to appropriate Federal, State and Local agencies, and private organizations and citizens who have previously expressed or are known to have interest in this proposal. 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 FHWA at the address above.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) announces the availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Certification of Safety Auditors, Safety Investigators, and Safety Inspectors interim final rule (67 FR 12776, Mar. 19, 2002) (commonly referred to as the “Certification” rule). This announcement is pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended; the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508); and U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Order 5610.1C,
Submit comments on or before November 3, 2003.
You may submit comments identified by DOT DMS Docket Number FMCSA-2001-11060 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
Mary Pat Woodman, Chief of the Enforcement and Compliance Division (MC-ECE), (202) 366-9699, FMCSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
Sec. 210 of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act (MCSIA) of 1999 (Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748) directs that all motor carriers (both foreign and domestic) granted new operating authority must undergo a safety audit within 18 months of commencing operations in interstate commerce in the United States [49 U.S.C. 31144(b)]. Sec. 211 of the MCSIA requires that any safety audit conducted after December 31, 2002, be performed by a certified motor carrier safety auditor [49 U.S.C. 31148(b)]. The legislation also gives the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) authority to decertify a safety auditor and extend the December 31, 2002, compliance deadline [49 U.S.C. 31148 (e) and (c)]. On July 17, 2003, the Secretary notified the Senate Committee
As required by Sec. 211, the agency published an interim final rule,
The 2002 DOT Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 107-87) stipulated that FMCSA could not begin processing applications to allow Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to operate in the United States beyond the border commercial zones in accordance with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) until FMCSA published, among other things, a number of regulations including the Certification rule (a condition again imposed in the 2003 Appropriations Act). Another precondition for processing such applications was publication of a rule implementing Sec. 210 of the MCSIA. An interim final rule,
On January 16, 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit set aside the Certification rule and two other FMCSA rules that established application and safety monitoring procedures for Mexico-domiciled motor carriers seeking authority to operate in the United States. The court concluded that FMCSA failed to comply with statutory environmental impact analysis requirements in developing these regulations.
On August 26, 2003, FMCSA issued a notice to advise the public that a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) will be prepared pursuant to NEPA and a General Conformity Evaluation will be made pursuant to the Clean Air Act before promulgating the regulations establishing the application and safety monitoring procedures for Mexico-domiciled carriers (68 FR 51322). The Notice stated that FMCSA was preparing an EA for the Certification rule and that a supplemental Notice of Intent would be issued if, based on the EA, FMCSA determined that preparation of a PEIS is required.
FMCSA limited its analysis to those environmental resources—land use, traffic and congestion, air quality, noise, and public safety and health—that could be affected by implementation of the safety auditor certification procedures. The certification process preserves and formalizes training requirements and practices that have been in effect within the DOT system for more than 20 years. Implementing the proposed procedures would not require FMCSA to engage in any new activities. Although the New Entrant rule created a new kind of review—the “safety audit” of new entrant carriers—the training required for safety auditor certification is merely a simplified, less comprehensive version of that required to conduct compliance reviews and roadside vehicle and driver inspections.
For each type of certification, initial and refresher training would take place at existing classroom facilities. Audits, inspections and compliance reviews necessary to obtain and maintain certification would be conducted at carrier facilities, weigh stations and other inspection facilities, or by use of existing mobile equipment. No additional facilities or roadways would need to be built. Further, as the certification program would not, in and of itself, increase the number of inspections performed, commercial vehicular traffic congestion and associated air emissions would not increase. Because the Certification rule would not affect construction activity or commercial vehicular traffic, it would not have an adverse impact on air quality and noise levels or increase existing land use.
Generally, an action that involves operational changes or construction of facilities would have potential impacts on a range of environmental characteristics, including visual, cultural, and aesthetic resources, geology and soils, water resources and hydrology, biological and ecological resources, energy consumption, socioeconomics, and environmental justice. However, because the employee certification process would not increase commercial vehicular traffic, alter established safety oversight activities, or require construction of new facilities, it would have no measurable impact in these conventional analysis areas.
As required by DOT Order 5610.1C and the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations implementing NEPA, FMCSA also analyzed the potential environmental impact of failure to implement the proposed certification procedures (the No Action Alternative). Under this scenario, the agency would withdraw the Certification rule and make no changes to the safety fitness regulations at 49 CFR part 385. In addition, we considered two alternative actions: (1) restricting the grandfather period for the certification program to those safety employees who were fully trained before December 9, 1999, and (2) codifying the training requirements. We judged all three alternatives to be inadequate.
Under the No Action Alternative, the inability to hire certified safety employees could diminish the government's ability to identify unsafe motor carriers, vehicles, and drivers. This would adversely impact public safety and be likely to hinder FMCSA's achievement of continued reductions in commercial vehicle-related accidents and fatalities. Limiting the grandfather period would impose significant costs and burdens on FMCSA as well as on State and local governments, while producing little if any safety benefit. Codification of the training requirements would make the certification program less flexible by hampering the agency's ability to quickly modify course content in response to regulatory or circumstantial changes.
The certification alternative is intended to promote more accurate compliance reviews, safety audits, and inspections by ensuring that these
As noted in the Background section of this document, the 2002 and 2003 DOT Appropriations Acts made issuance of the Certification rule a precondition to FMCSA's expenditure of funds on the processing of Mexico-domiciled motor carrier applications for authority to operate beyond the border commercial zones. Nevertheless, the EA does not attempt to analyze the prospective environmental impacts of Mexico-domiciled carriers operating in the United States. This is because the environmental analysis of such operations, in the form of a PEIS and General Conformity Evaluation required by the Ninth Circuit decision, is already being undertaken with respect to two other rules discussed above (establishing application and safety monitoring procedures for Mexico-domiciled carriers) that are preconditions to the processing of applications of Mexican carriers for beyond-the-border-commercial-zones operating authority. Unless the Ninth Circuit decision is reversed or the relevant terms of the DOT Appropriations Acts are not extended, FMCSA cannot process applications of Mexico-domiciled motor carriers seeking authority to operate beyond the border commercial zones until the PEIS and General Conformity Evaluation have been completed and considered by FMCSA. Thus, no operations of Mexican-domiciled carriers could take place beyond the border commercial zones as a result of issuance of the Certification rule.
Additionally, given the nature of the Certification rule, the rule standing alone would have no impact on Mexican truck and bus operations beyond the border commercial zones. For example, implementation of the rule would not affect either the number of Mexico-domiciled vehicles entering the United States or the number and duration of safety inspections of these vehicles. Indeed, unlike the application and safety monitoring rules, which apply solely to Mexico-domiciled motor carriers, the only connection between the Certification rule and the operation of Mexican carriers beyond the border commercial zones is the contingency Congress created when it made issuance of the rule one of the preconditions to the processing of these carriers' applications for operating authority. For these reasons, FMCSA believes that the scope of the Environmental Assessment for the Certification rule is appropriate.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Invitation for public comments on a requested administrative waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel BON ALIZE.
As authorized by Public Law 105-383 and Public Law 107-295, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below. The complete application is given in DOT docket 2003-16229 at
Submit comments on or before November 3, 2003.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2003 16229. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, Department of Transportation, 400 7th St., SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Michael Hokana, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, MAR-830 Room 7201, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-0760.
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel BON ALIZE is:
By order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Invitation for public comments on a requested administrative waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel GATO VERDE.
As authorized by Pub. L. 105-383 and Pub. L. 107-295, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is
Submit comments on or before November 3, 2003.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2003 16230. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, Department of Transportation, 400 7th St., SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Michael Hokana, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, MAR-830 Room 7201, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-0760.
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel GATO VERDE is:
By order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Invitation for public comments on a requested administrative waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel LADYHAWKE.
As authorized by Pub. L. 105-383 and Pub. L. 107-295, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below. The complete application is given in DOT docket 2003-16232 at
Submit comments on or before November 3, 2003.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2003 16232. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, Department of Transportation, 400 7th St., SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Michael Hokana, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, MAR-830 Room 7201, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-0760.
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel SOWELU is:
By order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Invitation for public comments on a requested administrative waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel PRINCESS MARIA.
As authorized by Pub. L. 105-383 and Pub. L. 107-295, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below. The complete application is given in DOT docket 2003-16228 at
Submit comments on or before November 3, 2003.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2003 16228. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, Department of Transportation, 400 7th St., SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Michael Hokana, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, MAR-830 Room 7201, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-0760.
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel PRINCESS MARIA is:
By order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Invitation for public comments on a requested administrative waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel SEASONS.
As authorized by Pub. L. 105-383 and Pub. L. 107-295, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below. The complete application is given in DOT docket 2003-16231 at
Submit comments on or before November 3, 2003.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2003 16321. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, Department of Transportation, 400 7th St., SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Michael Hokana, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, MAR-830 Room 7201, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-0760.
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel SEASONS is:
By order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Invitation for public comments on a requested administrative waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel SILVER SEA.
As authorized by Public Law 105-383 and Public Law 107-295, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below. The complete application is given in DOT docket 2003-16233 at
Submit comments on or before November 3, 2003.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2003 16233. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, Department of Transportation, 400 7th St., SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Michael Hokana, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, MAR-830 Room 7201, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-0760.
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel SILVER SEA is:
By order of the Maritime Administrator.
Research and Special Programs Administration, DOT.
List of Applicants for Exemptions.
In accordance with the procedures governing the applications for, and the processing of, exemptions from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR part 107, subpart B), notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the applications described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a particular exemption is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—Rail freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Comments must be received on or before November 3, 2003.
Records Center, Research and Special Programs Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the exemption application number.
Copies of the applications (
This notice of receipt of application for new exemptions is published in accordance with Part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Research and Special Programs Administration, DOT.
List of applications for modification of exemptions.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, exemptions from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR Part 107, Subpart B), notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the applications described herein. This notice is abbreviated to expedite docketing and public notice. Because the sections affected, modes of transportation, and the nature of application have been shown in earlier
Comments must be received on or before (15 days after publication).
Records Center, Research and Special Programs Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the exemption number.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, Nassif Building, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC or at
This notice of receipt of applications for modification of exemptions is published in accordance with Part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), Department of Transportation.
Notice of public meeting.
This notice is to advise interested persons that RSPA will conduct a public meeting in preparation for the nineteenth meeting of the International Civil Aviation Organization's Dangerous Goods Panel (ICAO DGP) to be held October 27-November 7, 2003 in Montreal, Canada.
October 15, 10 a.m.-12:30 p.m., Room 8440.
The meeting will be held at DOT Headquarters, Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590.
Bob Richard, International Standards Coordinator, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590; (202) 366-0656.
The purpose of the meeting will be to prepare and discuss draft positions for the nineteenth meeting of the Dangerous Goods Panel. Topics to be covered during the public meeting will include: (1) Amendments for the 2005-2006 edition of the ICAO Technical Instructions; (2) Harmonization of the ICAO TI with the 13th revised edition of the UN Model Regulations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods; (3) Requirements for infectious substances; (4) Training; (5) Dangerous goods security requirements; (6) revision of the packing instructions; (7) the air eligibility marking requirement; and (8) Dangerous goods carried by passengers and crew members.
The public is invited to attend without prior notification.
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, Department of the Treasury.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces the next meeting of the Community Development Advisory Board, which provides advice to the Director of the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund.
The next meeting of the Community Development Advisory Board will be held on Thursday, October 23, 2003, beginning at 10 a.m.
The Community Development Advisory Board meeting will be held at The American Institute of Architects Boardroom, located at 1735 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
The Office of External Affairs of the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (the “Fund”), U.S. Department of the Treasury, 601 13th Street, NW., Suite 200 South, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 622-9046 (this is not a toll free number). Other information regarding the Fund and its programs may be obtained through the Fund's Web site at
Section 104(d) of the Community Development Banking and Financial Institutions Act of 1994 (12 U.S.C. 4703(d)) established the Community Development Advisory Board (the “Advisory Board”). The charter for the Advisory Board has been filed in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), and with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury.
The function of the Advisory Board is to advise the Director of the Fund (who has been delegated the authority to administer the Fund) on the policies regarding the activities of the Fund. The Fund is a wholly owned corporation within the Department of the Treasury. The Advisory Board shall not advise the Fund on the granting or denial of any particular application for monetary or non-monetary awards. The Advisory Board shall meet at least annually.
It has been determined that this document is not a major rule as defined in Executive Order 12291 and therefore regulatory impact analysis is not required. In addition, this document does not constitute a rule subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. Chapter 6).
The next meeting of the Advisory Board, all of which will be open to the public, will be held at The American Institute of Architects Boardroom, located at 1735 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, on Thursday, October 23, 2003, beginning at 10 a.m. The room will accommodate 50 members of the public. Seats are available on a first-come, first-served basis. Participation in the discussions at the meeting will be limited to Advisory Board members and Department of the Treasury staff. Anyone who would like to have the Advisory Board consider a written statement must submit it to the Fund, at the address of the Fund specified above in the
The meeting will include a report from the Director on the activities of the CDFI Fund since the last Advisory Board meeting, including programmatic, fiscal and legislative initiatives for the years 2003 and 2004.
12 U.S.C. 4703; Chapter X, Pub. L. 104-19, 109 Stat. 237.
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 8816, Special Loss Discount Account and Special Estimated Tax Payments for Insurance Companies.
Written comments should be received on or before December 1, 2003, to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Glenn Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6411, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Larnice Mack at Internal Revenue Service, room 6407, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622-3179, 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 Notice 2003-67, Notice on Information Reporting for Payments in Lieu of Dividends.
Written comments should be received on or before December 1, 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 notice 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 8818, Optional Form To Record Redemption of Series EE and I U.S. Savings Bonds Issued After 1989.
Written comments should be received on or before December 1, 2003, to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Glenn Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6411, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions
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.
Research and Development Office, Veterans Affairs.
Notice of Government owned invention available for licensing.
The invention listed below is owned by the U.S. Government as represented by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and is available for licensing in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 207 and 37 CFR part 404 to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally funded research and development. Foreign patents are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for U.S. companies and may also be available for licensing.
Technical and licensing information on the invention may be obtained by writing to: Robert W. Potts, Department of Veterans Affairs, Director Technology Transfer Program, Research and Development Office, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420; fax: 202-254-0473; e-mail at
The invention available for licensing is:
US Patent Application No. 08/956,518; Australian Patent No. 752331: “Alpha-7 Nicotinic Receptor”
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the Professional Certification and Licensure Advisory Committee has scheduled a meeting on Wednesday, October 15, 2003, at the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits Administration Education Conference Room 601V, 1800 G Street, NW., Washington, DC, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. The meeting is open to the public.
The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on the requirements of organizations or entities offering licensing and certification tests to individuals for which payment for such tests may be made under chapters 30, 32, 34, or 35 of Title 38, United States Code.
The meeting will begin with opening remarks and introduction of new members by Ms. Sandra Winborne, Committee Chair. During the morning session, the Committee will receive a report on outreach activities, and a presentation on licensure and certification usage. The afternoon session will include a progress report on improvements to the Licensing and Certification Approval System (LACAS), and discussion of any old or new business.
Interested persons may file written statements to the committee before the meeting, or within 10 days after the meeting, with Mr. Giles Larrabee, Designated Federal Official, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits Administration (225B), 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420. Oral statements from the public will be heard at 1 p.m. Any member of the public wishing to attend the meeting should contact Mr. Giles Larrabee or Mr. Michael Yunker at (202) 273-7187.
By Direction of the Secretary:
The Department of Veterans Affairs gives notice under Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the Executive Committee to the Department of Veterans Affairs Voluntary Service (VAVS) National Advisory Committee (NAC) will meet October 20-21, 2003, at the Rosen Plaza Hotel, Orlando, Florida. The meetings are scheduled from 8:30 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. on October 20, 2003, and from 8:30 a.m. until 12 noon on October 21, 2003. The meeting is open to the public.
The NAC consists of sixty-two national organizations and advises the Secretary, through the Under Secretary for Health, on the coordination and promotion of volunteer activities within VA health care facilities. The Executive Committee consists of nineteen representatives from the NAC member organizations and acts as the NAC governing body in the interim period between NAC Annual Meetings.
Business topics for the October 20 morning session include: review goals and objectives, VHA update and a VAVS update of the Voluntary Service program's progress since the 2003 NAC Annual Meeting, Parke Board update, review of the 2003 annual meeting evaluations and the VAVS Partner's Treasurer report. The October 20 afternoon business session topics include: the 58th annual meeting plans, workshop and plenary sessions/suggestions. The October 21 morning business session topics include: 2006 NAC annual meeting planning, membership report review, recommendations, subcommittee reports, standard operating procedure revisions, new business and Executive Committee appointments.
No time will be allocated at this meeting for receiving oral presentations from the public. However, interested persons may either attend or file statements with the Committee. Written statements may be filed either before the meeting or within 10 days after the meeting and addressed to: Ms. Laura Balun, Administrative Officer, Voluntary Service Office (10C2), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420. Individuals interested in attending are encouraged to contact Ms. Balun at (202) 273-8952.
By Direction of the Secretary.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Proposed rule.
This document proposes to amend the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical regulations concerning “reasonable charges” for medical care or services provided or furnished by VA to a veteran:
The regulations contain methodologies designed to establish VA charges that replicate, insofar as possible, the 80th percentile of community charges, adjusted to the market areas in which VA facilities are located, and trended forward to the time period during which the charges will be used. This document proposes to amend the regulations regarding VA's reasonable charges methodologies for the following purposes: to establish charges for medical care, procedures, services, durable medical equipment (DME), drugs, injectables, medical items, and supplies for which we currently do not have charges; to replace certain charges currently based on VA costs with charges based on community charges; to establish separate charges for medical care, procedures, services, DME, drugs, injectables, medical items, and supplies whose charges are presently combined with other charges; to bring our charge structures and associated billing practices closer to industry standard charge structures and billing practices; and to provide certain clarifications.
Comments must be received on or before November 3, 2003.
Mail or hand-deliver written comments to: Director, Regulations Management (00REG1), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW, Room 1068, Washington, DC 20420; or fax comments to (202) 273-9026; or e-mail comments to
David Cleaver, Chief Business Office (168), Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 254-0361. (This is not a toll free number.)
This document proposes to amend VA's medical regulations that are set forth in 38 CFR part 17. More specifically, we are proposing to amend the regulations that establish methodologies for determining reasonable charges for medical care or services provided or furnished by VA to a veteran:
(i) For a nonservice-connected disability for which the veteran is entitled to care (or the payment of expenses of care) under a health plan contract;
(ii) For a nonservice-connected disability incurred incident to the veteran's employment and covered under a worker's compensation law or plan that provides reimbursement or indemnification for such care and services; or
(iii) For a nonservice-connected disability incurred as a result of a motor vehicle accident in a State that requires automobile accident reparations insurance.
Under the provisions of 38 U.S.C. 1729, VA has the right to recover or collect reasonable charges for such medical care and services from a third party to the extent that the veteran or a provider of the care or services would be eligible to receive payment therefor from that third party if the care or services had been furnished by a provider other than a department or agency of the United States. However, consistent with that statutory authority, a third-party payer liable for such medical care and services under a health plan contract has the option of paying, to the extent of its coverage, either the billed charges or the amount the third-party payer demonstrates it would pay for care or services furnished by providers other than entities of the United States for the same care or services in the same geographic area.
The methodologies for establishing reasonable charges are designed to replicate, insofar as possible, the 80th percentile of community charges, adjusted to the market areas in which VA facilities are located, and trended forward to the time period during which the charges will be used. An exception is that charges for prescription drugs are based on VA costs in accordance with the methodology set forth in § 17.102.
This document proposes to amend VA's reasonable charges regulations to make significant changes to our charge development methodologies and charge structures, to provide charges for 2003 Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes, and to provide certain clarifications. These proposed changes are described in more detail in the following paragraphs.
As we have done in the past, we are publishing data for calculating actual charge amounts based on the methodologies set forth in this proposed rule in an accompanying notice in this same edition of the
Presently, the regulations identify data sources used to calculate charges by name and edition (for example, 2001 Medicare MedPAR file). In addition, the regulations give specific information on where various databases can be obtained (for example, the Internet site where the Medicare Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Fee Schedule can be found). This document proposes that data sources will hereafter be identified in these regulations only by name, and that the editions used and information on where these data sources may be obtained will be presented along with the data for calculating actual charge amounts, either in notices in the
This document proposes to add definitions for APC (Ambulatory Payment Classification), CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services), DME, HCPCS (Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System) code, ICU (Intensive Care Unit), non-provider-based, provider-based, and RBRVS (Resource-Based Relative Value Scale). We are proposing to amend the definition of the term “CPT procedure code” to indicate that the same definition applies equally to the term “CPT code.”
Presently, geographic area is defined, for acute inpatient facility charges and skilled nursing facility/sub-acute inpatient facility charges, as Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) or the local market, if the VA facility is not located in an MSA; and is defined, for outpatient facility charges and physician charges, as three-digit ZIP Code locality. We are proposing to amend the definition of geographic area to mean simply a three-digit ZIP Code area. This change reflects the fact that we are proposing to use three-digit ZIP Code areas as the geographic areas for all of our charge types. We are proposing this change for acute inpatient facility charges and skilled nursing facility/sub-acute inpatient facility charges because, due to the variability of charges within MSA and non-MSA areas, changing to three-digit ZIP Code areas will produce charges that are more accurate for the location in which the care was provided.
We are proposing to delete the definition for CPI-W (Consumer Price Index—Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers) because we have not used CPI-W information anywhere in the regulations, and have no plans to do so. We are also proposing to delete the separate definition for CPI (Consumer Price Index), because that term appears in the regulations only as part of the defined term CPI-U (Consumer Price Index—All Urban Consumers).
For a specific item of medical care or service provided on an outpatient basis, we may have a professional charge, or an outpatient facility charge, or both. Presently, for all outpatient services for which we have both a professional charge and an outpatient facility charge, these charges are developed so as to be mutually exclusive, with the expectation that both charges will be billed for the same occasion of service. In addition, most of our outpatient facility charges are expected to be billed by all VA facilities that perform the applicable service, regardless of the type of facility. In other words, these charges are equally available to be billed by the outpatient departments of VA medical centers (VAMCs), by VA community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs) operating similar to private-sector ambulatory surgery centers, by VA CBOCs operating like private-sector doctors' offices, etc. Presently, the only outpatient facility charges not available to be billed by all VA facilities are those for office or other outpatient evaluation and management (E&M) services CPT codes 99201 through 99215. Billing of the outpatient facility charges for the ten services covered by these codes is presently restricted to the outpatient departments of 169 VAMCs.
This document proposes to amend the regulations to provide that each VA healthcare entity will be designated as either provider-based (entitled to bill outpatient facility charges) or non-provider-based (not entitled to bill outpatient facility charges), based on CMS criteria for provider-based and non-provider-based entities. Further, application of the proposed methodologies presented in this document will provide two sets of charges for outpatient care, one set for use by provider-based entities and one for use by non-provider-based entities. For those outpatient services that have both a professional charge and an outpatient facility charge, the professional charge for use by provider-based entities will be lower, based on Medicare's lower facility practice expense Relative Value Units (RVUs), in consideration of the fact that both the professional charge and the outpatient facility charge will be billed. For the same services, the professional charge for use by non-provider-based entities will be higher, based on Medicare's higher non-facility practice expense RVUs, in consideration of the fact that only the professional charge will be billed. We are proposing these changes because they will result in VA charge structures and billing practices that more closely approximate industry standard charge structures and billing practices.
Presently, the phrase in the regulations, “medical care or services provided or furnished by VA,” is understood to include medical care or services provided by non-VA providers at VA expense, and the charges billed for such care are those determined according to this section. This document proposes to amend the regulations by adding language to confirm this understanding.
Presently, the regulations do not address the issue of charges for medical care or services for which VA does not have an established charge or does not specifically make other provision for charges. The result has been that VA has not been charging for such care or services. This document proposes to amend the regulations by adding language to provide for charges, under specified circumstances, when we do not have established charges.
Under the proposed change, when VA provides or furnishes medical care or services and VA does not have an established charge for such care or services, then the charges billed for such care or services will be determined according to the provisions of the proposed new paragraph (a)(8) of the regulations, which sets forth four criteria for establishing a charge and provides that, if none apply, then no charge will be made. We believe that these proposed changes provide a fair and reasonable basis for such charges. We are proposing these changes to provide appropriate charges, under these specified circumstances, where presently we have no charges.
Both the American Medical Association and CMS, in compiling CPT and HCPCS Level II, respectively, recognize that there may be procedures, services, or supplies provided by physicians and other healthcare professionals which have not yet been defined. Accordingly, both CPT and HCPCS Level II provide specific codes for reporting unlisted and unspecified procedures, services, and supplies. Presently, the regulations do not provide charges for unlisted CPT codes or for any HCPCS Level II codes. This document proposes methodologies that will enable us to provide charges for unlisted and unspecified procedures,
Presently, the reasonable charges regulations set forth methodologies for four basic types of charges, as follows:
Under the above organization of charge types, facility charges for observation care are included under outpatient facility charges, and charges for pathology/laboratory and anesthesia services are included under physician charges. This document proposes to amend the regulations to describe separate charge types for observation care, pathology/laboratory, and anesthesia.
Presently, we do not have partial hospitalization facility charges. This document proposes to amend the regulations to establish partial hospitalization facility charges.
Presently, we do not have separate charges for HCPCS Level II codes. This document proposes to amend the regulations to establish charges for HCPCS Level II codes.
Presently, our charges for prosthetic devices and DME provided on an outpatient basis are VA's actual cost, and our charges for outpatient dental care are based on VA costs in accordance with the methodology set forth in § 17.102. In place of these cost-related charges, this document proposes to amend the regulations to establish reasonable charges for prosthetic devices, DME, and outpatient dental care by establishing charges for the associated HCPCS Level II codes.
Presently, we do not have charges for ambulance or other emergency transportation services. This document proposes to amend the regulations to establish reasonable charges for ambulance and other emergency transportation services by establishing charges for the associated HCPCS Level II codes.
Associated with these changes, we are proposing to amend the regulations to organize reasonable charges into the following eleven charge types:
The reasons we are proposing these changes are (1) to enable us to bill for medical care, procedures, services, DME, drugs, injectables, medical items, and supplies for which we currently do not have charges; (2) to replace certain charges currently based on VA costs with charges based on community charges; (3) to enable us to bill separately for medical care, procedures, services, DME, drugs, injectables, medical items, and supplies whose charges are presently combined with other charges; and (4) to bring our charge structures and billing practices closer to industry standard charge structures and billing practices.
Additional information regarding each of the above charge types is provided in the following paragraphs.
Presently, the regulations provide methodologies for calculating two per diem charges for each diagnosis related group (DRG), one for room and board and one for ancillary services. These same per diem charges are used for both ICU days and non-ICU days. This document proposes to amend the regulations by providing methodologies for calculating different room and board per diem charges for ICU days and non-ICU days. With these changes, each DRG will have three per diem charges: a room and board per diem charge for ICU days, a different room and board per diem charge for non-ICU days, and an ancillary services per diem charge that applies to both ICU and non-ICU days. We are proposing these changes because they will result in charges for each patient that will be more specific to the care and services the patient received, and will result in VA charge structures and billing practices that more closely approximate industry standard charge structures and billing practices.
As noted earlier, we are proposing to change from MSAs to three-digit ZIP Codes for geographic areas for acute inpatient facility charges. Presently, we calculate 80th percentile factors and geographic area adjustment factors for acute inpatient facility charges by MSA, based on charge data from the Medicare Standard Analytical File 5% Sample. Associated with the change to three-digit ZIP Codes, we are proposing to amend the regulations to base the calculation of these factors on the MedPAR file, which provides a complete record of all Medicare hospital admissions. This change from 5% to 100% of Medicare hospital admissions will produce more accurate 80th percentile factors and geographic area adjustment factors for the smaller three-digit ZIP Code areas.
Presently, we calculate skilled nursing facility/sub-acute inpatient facility all-inclusive per diem charges based on the nationwide average per diem charge presented in annual releases of the Milliman USA, Inc., Health Cost Guidelines. We are proposing to change the regulations to base these charges on the actual average per diem billed charge derived from the MedPAR skilled nursing facility file. This will more directly and accurately measure the nationwide baseline charge, and enable calculation of a more accurate nationwide 80th percentile charge. We are also proposing to change the trending methodology from one based on trends in Medicare reimbursement rates, as presented in the Annual Report of the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds, to trends based on the inpatient hospital services component of the CPI-U. This change will result in trending that more accurately reflects changes in billed charge levels.
Presently, we calculate 80th percentile adjustment factors and geographic area adjustment factors based on the Medicare Standard Analytical File 5% Sample and the Milliman USA, Inc., Health Cost Guidelines, respectively. We are proposing to amend the regulations to base calculation of these factors on the MedPAR skilled nursing facility file. These changes will produce more accurate 80th percentile adjustment factors and geographic area adjustment factors.
Presently, we do not have a per diem facility charge that is specific to partial hospitalization, nor do we have charges for any of the HCPCS Level II codes,
Presently, we calculate outpatient facility charges utilizing a statistical method based on 1998 Medicare practice expense RVUs, which we adopted as a proxy weighting system for the calculation of outpatient facility charges. We are proposing to amend the methodology to base nationwide average outpatient facility charges on Medicare Ambulatory Payment Classification (APC) groups, using data from the Medicare Standard Analytical File 5% Sample. This will provide the basis for a more accurate calculation, because APC payment groups are based on actual outpatient facility charge data, whereas the 1998 Medicare practice expense RVUs were based on physician charge data for overhead expenses.
One consequence of adopting APC groups for this purpose is that the statistical methodology we presently use to bundle CPT codes into CPT code groups will no longer be needed, because APCs provide appropriate groupings of codes. We are also proposing to amend the regulations to adjust APC charges, which represent Medicare average reimbursement levels, to nationwide 80th percentile billed charge levels. This adjustment will result in charges that more accurately reflect market-level charges.
For outpatient facility services which do not have APC assignments, we propose to calculate outpatient facility charges using data from the MDR database, the MedStat claims database, and the Medicare Standard Analytical File 5% Sample.
These changes to the regulations will result in VA charge structures and billing practices that more closely approximate industry standard charge structures and billing practices.
Presently, the regulations incorporate the methodologies for charges for pathology/laboratory and anesthesia services in the methodology for physician charges. We are proposing to restructure the regulations so that pathology/laboratory charges and professional charges for anesthesia services are identified as separate charge types. We are also proposing to specify in the regulations that charges for professional dental services identified by CPT code are determined in accordance with the same methodology as for physician charges, while professional dental services identified by HCPCS Level II code are treated as a separate charge type, with charges determined using a different methodology as discussed below. We are proposing these changes so that different charge types and different charge development methodologies will be separately identified and described in the regulations.
Presently, our charges are not influenced by the presence or absence of CPT code modifiers. This document proposes to amend the regulations to add methodology for developing charge adjustment factors for specified CPT/HCPCS code modifiers, using data from the Medicare Standard Analytical File 5% Sample. Some charge adjustment factors will act to increase the charge (for example, modifier 22, Unusual Procedural Services). Other charge adjustment factors will act to decrease the charge (for example, modifier 52, Reduced Services). This change will result in VA charge structures and billing practices that more closely approximate industry standard charge structures and billing practices.
Presently, language in the regulations is interpreted to mean that we do not have professional charges for categories of providers other than physicians unless the provider category is specifically named in the regulations. This document proposes to amend the regulations to set forth charge methodologies for physicians and other professionals that apply to all professional provider categories. This change will result in VA charge structures and billing practices that more closely approximate industry standard charge structures and billing practices.
Presently, professional charges for anesthesia services are based in part on average time units compiled from a Health Care Financing Administration study. Applying this methodology, the professional charge for a given anesthesia procedure is the same, regardless of the length of time the patient received anesthesia. This document proposes to amend the methodology so that professional charges for anesthesia services will vary according to the length of time the patient received anesthesia. This change will result in VA charge structures and billing practices that more closely approximate industry standard charge structures and billing practices.
Presently, charges for outpatient dental care are based on VA costs in accordance with the methodology set forth in § 17.102. This document proposes to amend the methodology to establish reasonable charges for dental services identified by HCPCS Level II codes, using data from the Prevailing Healthcare Charges System, the National Dental Advisory Service nationwide pricing index, the Dental UCR (Usual, Customary, or Reasonable) Module of the Ingenix Comprehensive Healthcare Payment System, the Milliman USA, Inc., Dental Health Cost Guidelines, and the dental services component of the CPI-U. This change will result in VA charge structures and billing practices that more closely approximate industry standard charge structures and billing practices.
Presently, the regulations provide that for each pathology and laboratory CPT code, the technical component RVUs are added to the professional component RVUs, if any, resulting in only one charge for each pathology and laboratory CPT code. This document proposes to amend the methodology so that those pathology and laboratory procedures which require a professional interpretation will have two separate charges: a professional component charge determined according to the methodology set forth in the Physician and Other Professional Charges paragraph in the regulations, and a technical component charge determined according to the methodology set forth in the Pathology and Laboratory Charges paragraph in the regulations. This change will result in VA charge structures and billing practices that more closely approximate industry standard charge structures and billing practices.
Presently, our facility charges for observation care consist of outpatient facility charges for three observation care CPT codes, 99218, 99219, and 99220. These charges are per occurrence, regardless of the number of hours the patient received observation care. This document proposes to amend the regulations to provide a methodology for establishing observation care facility charges that will vary according to the number of hours the patient receives observation
Ambulance and other emergency transportation services are identified by HCPCS Level II codes. Presently, we do not have charges for any HCPCS Level II codes. This document proposes to amend the regulations to provide a methodology for establishing charges for ambulance and other emergency transportation services by HCPCS Level II code. For this purpose, we propose to use data from the outpatient facility component of the Medicare Standard Analytical File 5% Sample, trend the charges forward using the outpatient hospital services component of the CPI-U, and use the geographic area adjustment factors computed for outpatient facility charges. We are proposing this change so that we will be able to bill and be reimbursed for these services when we provide or furnish them to our patients.
Presently, we do not have charges for any HCPCS Level II codes. This document proposes to amend the regulations to provide a methodology for establishing charges for DME, drugs, injectables, and other medical services, items, and supplies identified by HCPCS Level II code. For this purpose, we propose to use the following data sources: Ingenix/St. Anthony's RBRVS; Medicare DME Fee Schedule; Medicare Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition Fee Schedule; Part B and DME components of the Medicare Standard Analytical File 5% Sample; MDR database; Milliman USA, Inc., Optimized HMO (Health Maintenance Organization) Data Sets; Milliman USA, Inc., Health Cost Guidelines; and a VA nationwide distribution of procedures, services, items, and supplies. We propose to trend these charges forward using the medical care commodities component of the CPI-U. We are proposing this change so that we will be able to bill and be reimbursed for these services, items, and supplies when we provide or furnish them to our patients.
In response to our interim final rule published in the
The commenter stated that we should add charges for codes G0193 through G0201 (HCPCS Level II codes). In this document, we are proposing to add charges for nearly all HCPCS Level II codes, including codes G0193 through G0201.
The same commenter also stated that we have identified audiology services furnished in conjunction with a hearing aid, CPT codes 92590 through 92595, as physician services, when in fact these services are performed solely by audiologists and should not be designated as physician services.
With respect to our charge development methodology, our charge for a given service reflects the actual amounts billed by the providers of that service. Therefore, our charge for a service performed solely by audiologists will reflect the actual amounts billed by audiologists, not by physicians. However, we agree that including these and other services not performed by physicians under the general category of “physician charges” may be confusing. Therefore, in this document, we are proposing to change from the term “physician services” to the term “physician and other professional services” so as to allow for the fact that many professional medical services are performed by audiologists and other healthcare professionals instead of, or in addition to, physicians.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before developing any rule that may result in an expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any given year. This proposed rule would have no such effect on State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector.
This document contains provisions at 38 CFR 17.101(a)(4) constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information collection requirements for § 17.101(a)(4) under OMB control number 2900-0606.
This document has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.
The Secretary hereby certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. This proposed rule would affect mainly large insurance companies, and where small entities are involved, they would not be impacted significantly since most of their business is not with VA. Accordingly, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this proposed rule is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers for the programs affected by this rule are 64.005, 64.007, 64.008, 64.009, 64.010, 64.011, 64.012, 64.013, 64.014, 64.015, 64.016, 64.018, 64.019, 64.022, and 64.025.
Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Alcoholism, Claims, Day care, Dental health, Drug abuse, Foreign relations, Government contracts, Grant programs-health, Grant programs-veterans, Health care, Health facilities, Health professions, Health records, Homeless, Medical and dental schools, Medical devices, Medical research, Mental health programs, Nursing homes, Philippines, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Scholarships and fellowships, Travel and transportation expenses, Veterans.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 38 CFR part 17 is proposed to be amended as set forth below:
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
38 U.S.C. 501, 1721, unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 17.101 is revised to read as follows:
(a)(1)
(i) For a nonservice-connected disability for which the veteran is entitled to care (or the payment of expenses of care) under a health plan contract;
(ii) For a nonservice-connected disability incurred incident to the veteran's employment and covered under a worker's compensation law or plan that provides reimbursement or indemnification for such care and services; or
(iii) For a nonservice-connected disability incurred as a result of a motor vehicle accident in a State that requires automobile accident reparations insurance.
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(i) In the event that a new identifier (DRG, CPT code, or HCPCS code) is assigned to a particular type or item of medical care or service, then until such time as VA establishes a charge for the new identifier, VA's charge for such care or service will be VA's most recent established charge for the identifier previously assigned to that type or item of medical care or service; otherwise,
(ii) In the event that the medical care or service is provided or furnished at VA expense by a non-VA provider, then VA's charge for such care or service will be the amount VA paid to the non-VA provider; otherwise,
(iii) VA's charges for prosthetic devices and durable medical equipment will be VA's actual cost; otherwise,
(iv) If a Medicare allowed charge amount can be determined for the care or service, then VA's charge will be the Medicare participating provider allowed charge amount geographically adjusted using the applicable geographic area adjustment factors determined pursuant to this section; otherwise,
(v) If a charge cannot be established under paragraphs (a)(8)(i) through (iv) of this section, then VA will not charge for the care or service under this section.
(b)
(1)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(3)
(c)
(1)
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(3)
(d)
(1)
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(3)
(e)
(1)
(i) Outpatient departments and clinics at VA medical centers;
(ii) Other VA provider-based entities; and
(iii) VA non-provider-based entities, for procedures and tests for which no corresponding professional charge is established under the provisions of paragraph (f) of this section.
(2)
(3)
(i)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(ii)
(iii)
(4)
(5)
(f)
(1)
(2)(i)
(A)
(B)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(3)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(4)
(5)
(i)
(ii)
(A) Nurse practitioner: 85%.
(B) Clinical nurse specialist: 85%.
(C) Physician assistant: 85%.
(D) Clinical psychologist: 80%.
(E) Clinical social worker: 75%.
(F) Dietitian: 75%.
(G) Clinical pharmacist: 80%.
(g)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(h)
(1)
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(3)
(i)
(1)
(2)(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(3)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(j)
(1)
(2)(i)
(ii)
(3)
(k)
(1)
(2)(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(3)
(l)
(1)
(2)
(i)
(A) Chemotherapy Drugs: Ingenix/St. Anthony's RBRVS Practice Expense RVUs.
(B) Other Drugs: Ingenix/St. Anthony's RBRVS Practice Expense RVUs.
(C) DME—Hospital Beds: Medicare DME Fee Schedule amounts.
(D) DME—Medical/Surgical Supplies: Medicare DME Fee Schedule amounts.
(E) DME—Orthotic Devices: Medicare DME Fee Schedule amounts.
(F) DME—Oxygen and Supplies: Medicare DME Fee Schedule amounts.
(G) DME—Wheelchairs: Medicare DME Fee Schedule amounts.
(H) Other DME: Medicare DME Fee Schedule amounts.
(I) Enteral/Parenteral Supplies: Medicare Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition Fee Schedule amounts.
(J) Surgical Dressings and Supplies: Medicare DME Fee Schedule amounts.
(K) Vision Items—Other Than Lenses: Medicare DME Fee Schedule amounts.
(L) Vision Items—Lenses: Medicare DME Fee Schedule amounts.
(M) Hearing Items: Ingenix/St. Anthony's RBRVS Practice Expense RVUs.
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(3)
(i)
(ii)
(4)
(5)
(i)
(A) Chemotherapy Drugs: Drugs.
(B) Other Drugs: Drugs.
(C) DME—Hospital Beds: DME/supplies.
(D) DME—Medical/Surgical Supplies: DME/supplies.
(E) DME—Orthotic Devices: DME/supplies.
(F) DME—Oxygen and Supplies: DME/supplies.
(G) DME—Wheelchairs: DME/supplies.
(H) Other DME: DME/supplies.
(I) Enteral/Parenteral Supplies: DME/supplies.
(J) Surgical Dressings and Supplies: DME/supplies.
(K) Vision Items—Other Than Lenses: DME/supplies.
(L) Vision Items—Lenses: DME/supplies.
(M) Hearing Items: DME/supplies.
(ii)
(iii)
(m)
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In a companion document published as a proposed rule in this issue of the
—For a nonservice-connected disability for which the veteran is entitled to care (or the payment of expenses of care) under a health plan contract;
—For a nonservice-connected disability incurred incident to the veteran's employment and covered under a worker's compensation law or plan that provides reimbursement or indemnification for such care and services; or
—For a nonservice-connected disability incurred as a result of a motor vehicle accident in a State that requires automobile accident reparations insurance.
If the methodology changes presented in the proposed rule are subsequently adopted as a final rule, then the information set forth in this document for calculating actual charge amounts at individual VA facilities will be used from the effective date of the final rule until changed by a subsequent
This document also identifies the editions of the data sources used to develop the accompanying charge tables, provides information on where the various data sources may be obtained, and provides a list of VA health care facilities.
David Cleaver, Chief Business Office (168), Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 254-0361. (This is not a toll free number.)
A proposed rule published as a companion document in this issue of the
The proposed rule also proposes to amend the existing regulations to provide authority to charge for medical care and services under specified circumstances when VA does not have an established charge.
Previously, information on the editions of the data sources used to establish reasonable charges and where the various data sources could be obtained was included in the regulations. We are now proposing to present this information in the applicable
Previously, the tables of geographic area adjustment factors (GAAFs) listed VA facility locations by city and state. Consistent with the proposal to use three-digit ZIP Code areas as the geographic areas for all charge types, the GAAFs presented in this document are listed by three-digit ZIP Code. Supplementary Table 3 provides a list of VA facilities that links them to their three-digit ZIP Codes.
Federal Transit Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Federal Transit Administration (FTA) announces the selection of projects to be funded under Fiscal Year 2003 appropriations for the Over-the-Road Bus (OTRB) Accessibility Program, authorized by Section 3038 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). The OTRB Accessibility Program makes funds available to private operators of over-the-road buses to help finance the incremental capital and training costs of complying with DOT's over-the-road bus accessibility rule, published in the
The appropriate FTA Regional Administrator for grant-specific issues; or Blenda Younger, Office of Program Management, 202-366-2053, for general information about the OTRB Program.
A total of $6.9 million was made available for the program in FY 2003: $5.2 million for intercity fixed-route providers and $1.7 million for all other providers, such as commuter, charter, and tour operators. A total of 84 applicants requested $17.6 million: $10.5 million was requested by intercity fixed-route providers, and $7.1 million was requested by all other providers. Project selections were made on a discretionary basis, based on each applicant's responsiveness to statutory project selection criteria, fleet size, and level of funding received in previous years. Because of the high demand for the funds available, most applicants received less funding than they requested, but all qualified applicants received some funding. The selected projects will provide funding for the incremental cost of adding lifts to 128 new vehicles, retrofitting 80 vehicles, and $335,546 for training. Each of the following 74 awardees, as well as the 10 applicants who were not selected for funding, will receive a letter that explains how funding decisions were made.
Eligible project costs may be incurred by awardees prior to final grant approval. The incremental capital cost for adding wheelchair lift equipment to any new vehicles delivered on or after June 9, 1998, the effective date of TEA-21, is eligible for funding under the OTRB Accessibility Program.
Applicants selected for funding may be contacted by FTA regional offices if additional information is needed before grants are made. The grant applications will be sent to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) for certification under labor protection requirements pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5333(b). After referring applications to affected employees represented by a labor organization, DOL will issue a certification to FTA. Terms and conditions of the certification will be incorporated in the FTA grant agreement under the new guidelines replacing those in 29 CFR Part 215. Please see
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule.
The Fish and Wildlife Service adds seven additional refuges to the list of areas open for hunting and/or sport fishing activities and increases the activities available at three other refuges for 2003-2004.
This rule is effective October 2, 2003.
Leslie A. Marler, (703) 358-2397; Fax (703) 358-2248.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (Administration Act) closes national wildlife refuges to all uses until opened. The Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) may open refuge areas to any use, including hunting and/or fishing, upon a determination that such uses are compatible with the purposes of the refuge and National Wildlife Refuge System mission. The action also must be in accordance with provisions of all laws applicable to the areas, developed in coordination with the appropriate State fish and wildlife agency(ies), and consistent with the principles of sound fish and wildlife management and administration. These requirements ensure that we maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the National Wildlife Refuge System (System or we) for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.
We annually review refuge hunting and fishing programs to determine whether to include additional refuges.
Provisions governing hunting and fishing on national wildlife refuges are in Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations in part 32 (50 CFR part 32). We regulate hunting and fishing on refuges to:
• Ensure compatibility with refuge purpose(s);
• Properly manage the fish and wildlife resource(s);
• Protect other refuge values;
• Ensure refuge visitor safety; and
• Provide opportunities for quality recreational and educational experiences.
On many refuges where we decide to allow hunting and fishing, our general policy of adopting regulations identical to State hunting and fishing regulations is adequate in meeting these objectives. On other refuges, we must supplement State regulations with more-restrictive Federal regulations to ensure that we meet our management responsibilities, as outlined in the “Statutory Authority” section. We issue refuge-specific hunting and sport fishing regulations when we open wildlife refuges to either migratory game bird hunting, upland game hunting, big game hunting, or sport fishing. These regulations list the wildlife species that you may hunt or those species subject to sport fishing, seasons, bag limits, methods of hunting or fishing, descriptions of areas open to hunting or fishing, and other provisions as appropriate. You may find previously issued refuge-specific regulations for hunting and fishing in 50 CFR part 32.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (Administration Act) of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee, as amended) and the Refuge Recreation Act (Recreation Act) of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4) govern the administration and public use of national wildlife refuges.
Amendments enacted by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) build upon the Administration Act in a manner that provides an “Organic Act” for the System similar to those that exist for other public Federal lands. The Improvement Act serves to ensure that we effectively manage the System as a national network of lands, waters, and interests for the protection and conservation of our Nation's wildlife resources. The Administration Act states first and foremost that we focus the mission of the System on conservation of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats. The Improvement Act requires the Secretary, before allowing a new use of a refuge, or before expanding, renewing, or extending an existing use of a refuge, to determine that the use is compatible. The Improvement Act established as the policy of the United States that wildlife-dependent recreation, when compatible, is a legitimate and appropriate public use of the System, through which the American public can develop an appreciation for fish and wildlife. The Act established six wildlife-dependent recreational uses, when compatible, as the priority general public uses of the System. These uses are: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation.
The Recreation Act authorizes the Secretary to administer areas within the System for public recreation as an appropriate incidental or secondary use only to the extent that doing so is practicable and not inconsistent with the primary purpose(s) for which Congress and the Service established the areas. The Recreation Act requires that any recreational use of refuge lands be compatible with the primary purpose(s) for which we established the refuge and not inconsistent with other previously authorized operations.
The Administration Act and Recreation Act also authorize the Secretary to issue regulations to carry out the purposes of the Acts and regulate uses.
We develop specific management plans for each refuge prior to opening it to hunting or fishing. In many cases, we develop refuge-specific regulations to ensure the compatibility of the programs with the purpose(s) for which we established the refuge and the mission of the System. We ensure initial compliance with the Administration Act and the Recreation Act for hunting and sport fishing on newly acquired refuges through an interim determination of compatibility made at or near the time of acquisition. These regulations ensure that we make the determinations required by these acts prior to adding refuges to the lists of areas open to hunting and fishing in 50 CFR part 32. We ensure continued compliance by the development of comprehensive conservation plans, specific plans, and by annual review of hunting and sport fishing programs and regulations.
In the August 14, 2003,
We received 1,541 comments on the proposed rule: 570 in support and 482 in opposition to the openings and 489 comments that were either considered to be anonymous (did not provide a full mailing address as stipulated in the proposed rule) or were received after the comment close date. Of the 1,052 comments considered, 1,031 came from individuals (558 in support and 473 in opposition), 15 represented nongovernment organizations (7 in support and 8 in opposition), 5 comments from States (all in support)
We also received numerous comments unrelated to the content of the proposed rule (
Commercial hunting and fishing are generally prohibited within the System. This rulemaking does not include commercial hunting and fishing. No changes were made as a result of this comment.
The principal focus of the Improvement Act was to clearly establish a wildlife conservation mission for the System and provide managers clear direction to make determinations regarding wildlife conservation and public uses within the units of the System. The Service manages national wildlife refuges primarily for wildlife conservation, habitat protection, and biological integrity, and allows uses only when compatible with the refuge purpose(s). In passing the Improvement Act, Congress reaffirmed the System was created to conserve fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats and would facilitate opportunities for Americans to participate in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, including hunting and/or fishing on System lands. The Service has adopted policies and regulations implementing the requirements of the Improvement Act with which refuge managers comply when considering hunting and fishing programs.
When lands and waters are under consideration for addition to the System, the refuge manager will make an interim compatibility determination on any existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses. The record of decision establishing the refuge must document the completion of such determinations. The results of these determinations are in effect until the completion of a CCP. During the development of the CCP and implementation of the NEPA process, we accept and incorporate public comments into the hunting and/or fishing decision on the refuge. When considering opening an existing refuge, the refuge manager similarly must make a determination that the proposal is compatible and complies with NEPA before taking any action. Refuge managers plan efforts well in advance of any proposed changes in order to obtain as much involvement from stakeholders as possible. This may include public meetings, workshops, news releases, and mailings to interested groups. The refuge manager consults with affected Service Regional Office, State fish and wildlife agencies, tribes, and the public before opening a refuge to hunting or fishing. This decision must also be consistent with the principles of sound wildlife management, applicable wildlife objectives, and otherwise be in the public interest. The refuge manager must submit a hunting and/or fishing plan that has undergone a public input process to the Regional Office for approval. The Regional Director approves the plan before the rulemaking process begins. These hunting and/or fishing plans contain:
1. Step-down hunting/fishing plans containing compatibility determinations. The plan is usually an appendix to the overall plan for providing visitor services on refuges, providing documentation of the hunting and/or fishing allowed on a refuge, including the relationship of hunting and/or fishing to other priority general public uses, refuge purpose(s), goals, objectives, and the System mission;
2. Appropriate NEPA documentation;
3. Appropriate decision documentation;
4. Section 7 ESA evaluation;
5. Copies of letters requesting State and, where appropriate, tribal involvement and the results of the request;
6. Draft news release; and
7. Outreach plan.
One of the elements of the CCP, specific to the habitat management practices comment, requires that each refuge develop goals for significant wildlife species or groups of species, habitat (including land protection needs), compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, other mandates (such as refuge-specific legislation, Executive orders, special area designations), and fish, wildlife and plant populations, as appropriate.
Other changes from the proposed rule were as follows: We clarified the issue of only allowing specific breeds of dogs on Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge and Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge (§ 32.37), in the State of Louisiana. We also made several administrative changes for clarity under North Platte and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges (§ 32.46) in the State of Nebraska.
This rule is effective upon publication in the
In preparation for opening additional refuges to hunting and fishing, or to initiating new hunting or fishing programs on refuges already open, we document appropriate compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) through an Environmental Assessment with a finding of No Significant Impact, an Environmental Impact Statement with a Record of Decision, or determine and document that the action qualifies for a Categorical Exclusion. We also conduct and document internal consultations under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and coordinate with the State(s), and if appropriate, Tribe(s) in or near the refuge.
Upon review of these documents, we have determined that the opening of these National Wildlife Refuges to hunting and/or fishing is compatible with the purpose of the refuge and the mission of the system, and not inconsistent with applicable State laws. A copy of the compatibility determinations for each respective refuge is available upon request from the Regional Office noted under the heading “Available Information for Specific Refuges.”
We allow the following wildlife-dependent recreational activities:
Lands acquired as “waterfowl production areas,” which we generally manage as part of Wetland Management Districts, are open to the hunting of migratory game birds, upland game, big game, and sport fishing subject to the provisions of State law and regulations (
We are correcting an administrative error in 50 CFR part 32 that occurred with regard to Bandon Marsh National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon. It has come to our attention that the CFR does not indicate that the refuge is open to sport fishing. We opened the refuge to sport fishing in 1986 (55 FR 30655, 30663; August 28, 1986). It appears that a clerical error was made when the rules adopted in 1986 were being published in the subsequent edition of the CFR. We are correcting that error and part 32 will now reflect that the refuge is open to sport fishing. Coldwater National Wildlife Refuge was part of Tallahatchie National Wildlife Refuge (both in Mississippi) and is an area of the System that we opened by reason of its having been included in Tallahatchie's
Upon publication of this document, the 2003-2004 hunting and fishing season will result in a net of three national wildlife refuges added to fishing and four national wildlife refuges added to hunting. This will bring our cumulative total of national wildlife refuges open to hunting to 315 and refuges open to fishing to 274.
We incorporate this regulation into 50 CFR part 32. Part 32 contains general provisions and refuge-specific regulations for hunting and sport fishing on national wildlife refuges.
In accordance with the criteria in Executive Order 12866, the Service asserts that this rule is not a significant regulatory action. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) makes the final determination under Executive Order 12866.
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 the government. A cost-benefit and full economic analysis is not required. The purpose of this rule is to add seven refuges to the list of refuges that have hunting and/or fishing activities and to increase the type of activities at three other refuges. The refuges are located in the States of Arkansas, Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oregon, and Virginia. Fishing and hunting are two of the wildlife-dependent uses of national wildlife refuges that Congress recognized as legitimate and appropriate and directed us to facilitate, subject to such restrictions or regulations as may be necessary to ensure their compatibility with the purpose(s) and mission of each refuge. Many of the 542 existing national wildlife refuges already have programs where we allow fishing and hunting. Not all refuges have the necessary resources and landscape that would make fishing and hunting opportunities available to the public. By opening these refuges to new activities, we have determined that we can make quality experiences available to the public. This rule establishes hunting and/or fishing programs at the following refuges: Wapanocca National Wildlife Refuge in Arkansas, Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge in Louisiana, Northern Tallgrass Prairie National Wildlife Refuge in Minnesota and Iowa, Boyer Chute and North Platte National Wildlife Refuges in Nebraska, DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge in Iowa, Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge in Louisiana, Coldwater National Wildlife Refuge in Mississippi, Bandon Marsh National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon, and Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge in Virginia. We present impacts in 2002 real dollars.
For this analysis, we do not expect changes to recreational visits at the Detroit Lakes Wetland Management District, Bandon Marsh National Wildlife Refuge, or Coldwater National Wildlife Refuge. All Wetland Management Districts are open to hunting and fishing activities until closed, and this rulemaking reflects that Detroit Lakes Wetland Management District is open to hunting of migratory game birds, upland game, big game, and sport fishing. However, we do not expect any change in visitation rates at this management district because recreationists currently have the option to participate in these activities at Detroit Lakes. We expect no visitation changes at Bandon Marsh National Wildlife Refuge. The rule corrects an administrative error, but does not change current activities at the refuge since the refuge has been open to fishing since 1986. Also, we expect no visitation changes at Coldwater National Wildlife Refuge. Coldwater was part of Tallahatchie National Wildlife Refuge (also in the State of Mississippi) and covered by its fishing plan. Therefore, we would expect any previous fishing activity in the Coldwater section of Tallahatchie to continue without change.
Following a best-case scenario, if the refuges establishing new fishing and hunting programs were a pure addition to the current supply of such activities, it would mean a consumer surplus of approximately $200,000 annually and an estimated increase of 1,000 user days of hunting and 2,082 user days of fishing (Table 1). Consequently, this rule will have a small, measurable, beneficial economic impact on the U.S. economy.
b. This rule will not create inconsistencies with other agencies' actions. This action pertains solely to the management of the System. The fishing and hunting activities located on national wildlife refuges account for approximately 1 percent of the available supply in the United States. Any small, incremental change in the supply of fishing and hunting opportunities will not measurably impact any other agency's existing programs.
c. This rule will not materially affect entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients. This rule does not affect entitlement programs. There are no grants or other Federal assistance programs associated with public use of national wildlife refuges.
d. This rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues. This rule opens seven additional refuges for fishing and hunting activities and increases the activities available at three other refuges. This rule continues the practice of allowing recreational public use of national wildlife refuges. Many refuges in the System currently have opportunities for the public to hunt and fish on refuge lands.
We certify that this rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule does not increase the number of recreation types allowed in the System but establishes new or additional hunting and/or fishing programs on 10 refuges. As a result, opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation on national wildlife refuges will increase. The changes in the amount of permitted use are likely to increase visitor activity on these national wildlife refuges.
For purposes of analysis, we will assume that any increase in refuge visitation is a pure addition to the supply of the available activity. This will result in a best-case scenario, and we expect to overstate the benefits to local businesses. The latest information on the distances traveled for fishing and hunting activities indicates that more than 80 percent of the participants travel less than 100 miles from home to engage in the activity. This indicates that participants will spend travel-related expenditures in their local economies. Since participation is scattered across the country, many small businesses benefit. The 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation identifies expenditures for food and lodging, transportation, and other incidental expenses. Using the average expenditures for these categories with the expected maximum additional participation on the System as a result of this rule yields the following estimates (Table 2) compared to total business activity for these sectors.
Using a national impact multiplier for hunting activities (2.73) derived from the report “Economic Importance of Hunting in America” and a national impact multiplier for sportfishing activities (2.79) from the report “Sportfishing in America” for the estimated increase in direct expenditures yields a total economic impact of approximately 257,000 (Southwick Associates, Inc., 2003).
A large percentage of the retail trade establishments in the majority of affected counties qualifies as small businesses. With the small increase in overall spending anticipated from this rule, it is unlikely that a substantial number of small entities will have more than a small benefit from the increased recreationist spending near the affected refuges; none are likely to have any adverse impact.
Many small businesses may benefit from some increased wildlife refuge visitation. We expect that the incremental recreational opportunities will be scattered, and so we do not expect that the rule will have a significant economic effect (benefit) on a substantial number of small entities in any region or nationally.
The rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. We anticipate no significant employment or small business effects. This rule:
a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. The additional fishing and hunting opportunities at the 10 refuges would generate angler and hunter expenditures with an economic impact estimated at $257,000 per year (2002 dollars). Consequently, the maximum benefit of this rule for businesses, both small and large, would not be sufficient to make this a major rule. The impact would be scattered across the country and would most likely not be significant in any local area.
b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. This rule will have only a slight effect on the costs of hunting and fishing opportunities for Americans. Under the assumption that any additional hunting and fishing opportunities would be quality opportunities, we would attract participants to the refuge. If the refuge were closer to the participants' residences, then a reduction in travel costs would occur and benefit the participants. The Service does not have information to quantify this reduction in travel cost but assumes that, since most people travel less than 100 miles to hunt and fish, the reduced travel cost would be small for the additional days of hunting and fishing generated by this rule. We do not expect this rule to affect the supply or demand for fishing and hunting opportunities in the United States and; therefore, it should not affect prices for fishing and hunting equipment and supplies, or the retailers that sell equipment.
c. Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. Refuges that establish hunting and fishing programs may hire additional staff from the local community to assist with the programs, but this would not be a significant increase, because only seven refuges are adding new programs and only three refuges are increasing programs by this rule.
Since this rule applies to public use of federally owned and managed refuges, it does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the rule does not have significant takings implications. This regulation will affect only visitors at national wildlife refuges and describe what they can do while they are on a refuge.
As discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review and Unfunded Mandates Reform Act sections above, this rule does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment under Executive Order 13132. In preparing this rule, we worked with State governments, and our programs are consistent to the State regulations to the degree practicable.
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. The regulation will clarify established regulations and result in better understanding of the regulations by refuge visitors.
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. Because this rule opens seven refuges to hunting and/or sport fishing programs and increases activities at three others, it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, and use. Therefore, this action is a not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
In accordance with Executive Order 13175, we have evaluated possible effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there are no effects. We coordinate recreational use on national wildlife refuges with Tribal governments having adjoining or overlapping jurisdiction before we propose the regulations. This regulation is consistent with and not less restrictive than Tribal reservation rules.
This regulation does not contain any information collection requirements other than those already approved by the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
We reviewed the changes in hunting and fishing regulations herein with regard to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, as amended) (ESA). For the national wildlife refuges opening for hunting and/or fishing we have determined that DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge, Wapanocca National Wildlife Refuge, Northern Tallgrass Prairie National Wildlife Refuge, and Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge (for Louisiana black bear) will not likely adversely affect any endangered or threatened species or designated critical habitat, and Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge (for bald eagle), North Platte National Wildlife Refuge, Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge, Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge, and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuge will not affect any endangered or threatened species or designated critical habitat.
We also comply with section 7 of the ESA when developing CCPs and step-down management plans for public use of refuges, and prior to implementing any new or revised public recreation program on a refuge as identified in 50 CFR 26.32. We also make determinations when required by the ESA before the addition of a refuge to the lists of areas open to hunting or fishing as contained in 50 CFR 32.7.
Prior to submitting these openings for publication in this rule, the Service complied with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(C)) and 516 DM 6, Appendix 1 for each of the openings or program additions during the preparation of individual refuge hunting or fishing decision documents.
We analyzed this rule in accordance with the criteria of the NEPA. A categorical exclusion from NEPA documentation applies to this amendment of refuge-specific hunting and fishing regulations since it is technical and procedural in nature and we otherwise comply with NEPA at the specific refuge units.
Prior to the addition of a refuge to the list of areas open to hunting and fishing in 50 CFR part 32, we develop specific management plans for the affected refuges. We incorporate these refuge hunting and fishing activities in refuge CCPs and/or other step-down management plans, pursuant to our refuge planning guidance in 602 FW 1, 3, and 4. We prepare CCPs and step-down plans in compliance with section 102(2)(C) of NEPA, and the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations for implementing NEPA in 40 CFR parts 1500-1508. We invite the affected public to participate in the review, development, and implementation of these plans.
Individual refuge headquarters retain information regarding public use programs and the conditions that apply to their specific programs and maps of their respective areas. You may also obtain information from the Regional Offices at the addresses listed below:
Region 1—California, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Eastside Federal Complex, 911 N.E. 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-4181; Telephone (503) 231-6214.
Region 2—Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, PO Box 1306, 500 Gold Avenue, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103; Telephone (505) 248-6804.
Region 3—Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1 Federal Drive, Federal Building, Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111; Telephone (612)-713-5400.
Region 4—Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1875 Century Boulevard, Atlanta, Georgia 30345; Telephone (404) 679-7154.
Region 5—Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia. Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 300 Westgate Center Drive, Hadley, Massachusetts 01035-9589; Telephone (413) 253-8302.
Region 6—Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 134 Union Blvd., Lakewood, Colorado 80228; Telephone (303) 236-8145.
Region 7—Alaska. Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 E. Tudor Rd., Anchorage, Alaska 99503; Telephone (907) 786-3354.
Leslie A. Marler, Management Analyst, Division of Conservation Planning and Policy, National Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, Virginia 22203, is the primary author of this rulemaking document.
Fishing, Hunting, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife, Wildlife refuges.
5 U.S.C. 301; 16 U.S.C. 460k, 664, 668dd-668ee, and 715i.
1. We require refuge hunting permits. The permits are nontransferable and anyone on refuge land in possession of hunting equipment must sign and carry them at all times.
2. We provide annual season dates on the hunt brochure/permit.
3. You must sign in prior to the hunt and sign out after the hunt at the Hunter Information Station.
4. You must adhere to all public use special conditions and regulations on the annual hunt brochure/permit.
1. Conditions A1 and A4 apply.
2. We prohibit hunting from or within 50 yards (45 m) of graveled roads and within 150 yards (135 m) of refuge buildings.
3. We allow archery/crossbow hunting for deer. We specify annual season dates and bag limits on the hunting permits.
4. Immediately record the deer zone 640 on the hunter's license and later on official check station records upon harvest of a deer.
5. You must sign in prior to the hunt and sign out after the hunt at the Hunter Information Station. You must check harvested deer at this location.
6. We prohibit dogs.
7. We allow only single-person portable tree stands. You may place tree stands on the refuge 2 days before the hunt but must remove them within 2 days after the hunt. You must permanently affix the owner's name and address on stands left on the refuge.
8. We prohibit possession of or marking trails with materials other than biodegradable paper/flagging or reflective tape/tacks.
9. We prohibit ATVs.
Refer to § 32.42 Minnesota for regulations.
1. We allow hunting during the open State season using only approved nontoxic shot size #4 or smaller.
2. You may use dogs for squirrel and rabbit after the close of the State gun deer season only.
3. You may only use dogs to locate, point, and retrieve when hunting for snipe, woodcock, and quail.
4. You must possess and carry a valid refuge hunt permit.
5. We prohibit air-thrust boats, motorized pirogues, mud boats, and air-cooled propulsion engines on the refuge.
6. Youth hunters 15 years of age and under must successfully complete a State-approved hunter education course. While hunting, each youth must possess and carry a card or certificate of completion. One adult 21 years of age or older must supervise each youth hunter. For upland game hunts, one adult may supervise two youths.
7. You must unload and encase or dismantle firearms carried in vehicles or boats.
8. We open the refuge during daylight hours only.
9. We prohibit possession of buckshot, slugs, rifles, or rifle ammunition.
10. We prohibit hunting within 200 feet (60 m) of any road (including refuge roads), residence, or designated public facilities.
11. We prohibit possession of lead shot during all refuge hunts.
1. We require hunters 16 years of age and older to purchase and carry a signed $12.50 refuge hunt/fish/ATV permit.
2. We allow public access from 5 a.m. to 1 hour after legal sunset.
3. An adult 21 years of age or older must accompany (within sight of and in normal voice contact with) youth hunters 15 years of age and under. We require youth hunters to possess and carry proof of completion of an approved Hunter Safety Course. Each adult can supervise one youth hunter during deer hunts and not more that two youths during all other hunts.
4. We require hunters to enter and exit the refuge from designated parking lots only.
5. We require hunters to check in/out at a designated check station.
6. We prohibit camping or parking overnight on the refuge.
7. We prohibit discharge of firearms except when hunting.
8. We prohibit marking of trails with nonbiodegradable flagging tape.
9. We allow use of ATVs on designated trails from the third Saturday in September to the last day of the State rabbit season. An ATV is an off-road vehicle with factory specifications not to exceed the following: weight—750 lbs. (337.5 kg), length—85 inches (212.5 cm), and width—48 inches (120 cm). We restrict ATV tires to those no larger than 25 x 12 with a maximum 1-inch (2.5 cm) lug height and a maximum allowable tire pressure of 7 psi as indicated on the tire by the manufacturer.
10. We prohibit horses and mules.
11. We prohibit saws, saw blades, and/or machetes while on the refuge.
12. We prohibit hunting within 100 feet (30 m) of any designated road, ATV or hiking trail, or refuge facility.
13. We prohibit transportation of loaded weapons on an ATV.
14. We prohibit blocking of gates or trails with vehicles or ATVs.
15. We prohibit ATVs on trails/roads not specifically designated by signs for ATV use.
16. We allow only nonmotorized boats.
17. You may take raccoon, feral hog, beaver, nutria, and coyote incidental to migratory bird hunting, upland game hunting, and big game hunting with weapons legal for that hunt.
18. We allow waterfowl (ducks, geese, coots) hunting on Wednesdays and Saturdays until 12 a.m. (noon) only during the Statewide duck season.
19. We allow use of shotguns during designated hunts only.
20. We prohibit the construction or use of permanent blinds.
21. You must remove all decoys, portable blinds, and boats daily.
22. We have a youth waterfowl hunt in the Crawfish Pond Unit during the Statewide duck season. This will be a quota-type hunt, and hunters will apply on an index or post card with their name, address, phone number, and dates of the hunt for which they are applying. When the State sets the duck season, we will set the dates of the hunt.
23. We allow hunting of mourning doves incidentally by waterfowl hunters only on days open to waterfowl hunting.
24. We only allow dogs to locate, point, and retrieve when hunting for migratory game birds.
25. We prohibit frogging.
1. Conditions A1 through A17 and A25 apply.
2. We allow rabbit hunting from December 1 until the end of the Statewide season.
3. We allow use of shotguns during designated hunts only.
4. We allow rabbit dogs only after the close of the State deer rifle season.
5. We require you to collar all dogs with owner's name and phone number.
1. Conditions A1 through A17 and A25 apply.
2. We allow archery-only deer hunting on the refuge from October 1 through October 31 in the Gremillion Unit, Island of the Owls Unit, and Concrete Bridge Unit.
3. You must have hunter's name, address, and phone number permanently attached to all deer stands. We allow only portable deer stands that hunters must take down daily.
4. We prohibit hunters to drive deer or use pursuit dogs. We prohibit use of dogs to trail wounded deer.
5. We allow only archery equipment during designated seasons.
6. We require hunters to complete and possess and carry proof of completion of the International Bowhunters' Safety Course.
7. You may kill one deer of either sex per day during the deer season.
1. We prohibit the use of motorized boats.
2. You must remove boats, decoys, blinds, and blind materials brought onto WPAs following each day's hunt.
3. We allow the use of hunting dogs, provided the dog is under the immediate control of the hunter at all times.
1. We prohibit the construction or use of permanent blinds, platforms, or ladders.
2. You must remove all portable hunting stands from the area at the end of each day's hunt.
1. You must remove boats, decoys, portable or temporary blinds, materials brought onto the refuge, and other personal property at the end of each day's hunt.
2. We prohibit the construction or use of permanent blinds, stands, or scaffolds.
3. We prohibit the use of motorized watercraft.
1. Hunters may possess only approved nontoxic shot while in the field.
2. We prohibit the use of dogs for hunting furbearers.
3. Hunters may take weasel, coyote, gopher, crow, and all other species for which there is no closed season only during a State-designated open season for other upland game species.
1. We prohibit the construction or use of permanent blinds, stands, or scaffolds.
2. You must remove all temporary blinds, stands, and scaffolds at the end of each day's hunt.
3. We prohibit the use of motorized watercraft.
1. All persons fishing who are 16 years of age and older must carry a State license on the refuge. You must have a signed refuge fishing permit in your possession when fishing on the refuge. You may obtain permits at North Mississippi Refuges Complex Headquarters, 2776 Sunset Drive, Grenada, Mississippi 38901, or at the Dahomey National Wildlife Refuge Office, Box 381, Highway 446, Boyle, Mississippi 38730, or by mail from the above addresses.
2. We close the refuge to fishing from October 1 through February 28.
3. We allow fishing in bar pits along the Corps of Engineers levee only.
4. We prohibit possession of any weapon while fishing on the refuge. This does not include fishing knives unless they are longer than 3 inches (7.5 cm).
5. We prohibit possession or use of jugs, seines, nets, hand-grab baskets, slat traps/baskets, or any other similar devices and commercial fishing of any kind.
6. We allow trotlines, yo-yos, limb lines, crawfish traps, or any other similar devices for recreational use only, and you must tag or mark them with waterproof ink, legibly inscribed or legibly stamped on the tag with your full name and full residence address, including zip code. You must attend these devices a minimum of once daily. If you are not going to attend these devices, you must remove them from the refuge.
7. We prohibit snagging or attempting to snag fish.
8. We allow crawfishing.
9. We allow taking of frogs by Special Use Permit only.
1. You may access the refuge from 1
2. You must remove all blinds and decoys at the conclusion of each day's hunt.
3. You must adhere to all applicable State hunting regulations.
1. We close the Lake Alice Unit to all public entry from October 15 through January 14.
2. Hunters must be 15 years of age or younger. A licensed hunter 19 years of age or older must accompany youth hunters. We prohibit adults accompanying youth hunters to hunt or carry firearms. The accompanying adult is responsible for ensuring that the hunter does not engage in conduct that would constitute a violation of refuge or State regulations.
3. We close the refuge to public use from legal sunset to legal sunrise. However, youth hunters and their adult guides may enter the designated hunting area 1 hour prior to legal sunrise.
4. We only allow dogs for pheasant-hunting on the refuge.
1. We close the Lake Alice Unit to all public entry from October 15 through January 14.
2. We close the refuge to public use from legal sunset to legal sunrise. However, archery deer hunters may enter the designated hunting area 1 hour prior to legal sunrise and remain until 1 hour after legal sunset.
1. As we implement the new fishing program at Wilna Pond, we intend to be open on a daily basis, legal sunrise to legal sunset. If unexpected law enforcement issues arise, we may restrict hours of access for fishing.
2. From March 15 through June 30, we allow fishing from the Wilna Pond pier only (no boat or bank fishing).
3. During the period when we open the Wilna Tract for deer hunting, we will close it to all other uses, including fishing.
4. We prohibit fishing by any means other than by use of one or more attended poles with hook and line attached.
5. We prohibit the use of lead fishing tackle.
6. We require catch and release fishing only for largemouth bass. Anglers may take other finfish species in accordance with State regulations.
7. We prohibit the take of any reptile, amphibian, or invertebrate species for use as bait or for any other purpose.
8. We prohibit the use of live minnows as bait.
9. We prohibit use of boats propelled by gasoline motors, sail, or mechanically operated paddle wheel. We only permit car-top boats; and we prohibit trailers.
10. Prescheduled environmental education field trips will have priority over other uses, including sport fishing, on the Wilna Pond pier at all times.